Christianity: Friend or foe to science?

[rossh]

Matt 5:20, and v21+ Jesus explains it.
"your righteousness " measured by level of your conscience and over all consciousness.
v21: the Book says do not murder but i say do not even get angry... a different level of consciousness , not from the Book but from the heart, your essense.
The Golden Rule stems from it.

19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
21 "You have heard that our fathers were told, `Do not murder,'l and that anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment.

This of course is to Israel... NOT us.

 

[rossh]

No, I am defining what everyone agrees even scientists what modern science is.

If someone disagrees with what physical reality is, that is evidence that they may be mentally ill.

Uhh I had claimed that only Christianity teaches that and then you said that I failed to demonstrate that claim. So I am saying if you can find another religion that makes that claim then I would agree you refuted me, but so far you have failed to demonstrate your claim.

I am.

You do have a weird way of communicating sometimes.



Just because one creationist organization says that doesnt mean all creationists feel that way or agree with that.

No, it could be because the same reason Stephen Jay Gould changed his view, because there are major gaps in the fossil record.

Because the gaps are not just random as you would expect if there is just not enough fossils, they just happen to be at the family and genera levels where there are major changes in morphology.

It is a tacit admission of few if any transitional forms, which is evidence for creation.

No, you dont understand, the fact that there is any order at all is evidence for an intelligent mind.

No, see above about the wedge document. You have not proven that creationism is not science. We use all the same tools science uses evidence, logical reasoning and experiments.

Back in the day when Moses wrote the first 5 books of Scriptures it was not scientific book. In the times of Moses no one knew about Science as we do today.. How could God explain an Atomic bomb to Moses and hope that he actually wrote it all down ? Again, imagine God trying to explain the workings of the/our human heart and or brain or the system of the nerves and the heart and flow of blood and all ?
Why was God so very strict to Israel about heath and food preparation in the desert and our bodily functions and hygiene etc; and so on ?
Also, imagine God telling them about a Harrier Jump Jet and Carriers and Moon Landings ?

 

[Baltic]

19 So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness is far greater than that of the Torah-teachers and P'rushim, you will certainly not enter the Kingdom of Heaven!
21 "You have heard that our fathers were told, `Do not murder,'l and that anyone who commits murder will be subject to judgment.

This of course is to Israel... NOT us

Imo, Is-Ra-El (men -see-God) was on consciousness evolution ladder a bit lower than Christ. Christ appeared in 'due time' for the most of us, before Christ, human respect to each other was written in the Law of Moses, it still needed for some with 'flesh' related consciousness before it will be able accept Christ Within.
Jesus said He was example to follow (not worship) , the is the Law of Moses befote Jesus. Jews were meant to spread the Law universally.

 

[Gary Mac]

I tend to doubt that.
Do you have any stats that would reflect that?

No just seems to be what most quote from.

King James had nothing to do with the actual translation.

He was the one who organized it LOL.

For the time, it was a decent translation.

Still is. As for me I study from the NAS but I Read from the KJV because I like the poetic nature of the writings.

How so?
One could validly argue that his position made him unbiased in the translation.

Translations are not of God they are of man in opinions about it.

God Himself comes Himself and opens up who He is and all of His heaven in man who will obey and receive Him to make the translation Himself by doing what? Is it not by opening up who He really is and all of His heaven in man?

Matt 3:16 is the essence of God Himself doing the talking in anyone who will listen to Him instead of making interpretations based of speculation. The only truth comes by God Himself. Even Jesus learned this fact in Matt 3:16.

 

[Gary Mac]

It has been confirmed historically many times by archaeology and ancient documents.

Yes' that it is a religious document full of mans dealings with God.

While all believers are Gods children,

Believers as in?
Mormons
Catholic
Latter Day Saints
Jehovas witness/

As for me Jesus had it right so I follow him in his ways in the Father of it.

Only Jesus is the beloved unique Son of God and had a dove representing the Holy Spirit descend upon Him at His baptism.

I see -- and that is the exact reason that you are not Gods son as Jesus was. I thank my God I have the same Father as Jesus has and born of God.

Your unorthodox understanding of Gods word has only produced a church congregation of one, YOU.

Na' I am the same church of God that Jesus was by the same mind be in me who was in Christ Jesus. But I do agree that in this forum it is very difficult for anyone here to be called Gods son. You only believe God had one is all and that is exactly why you are not one as you say He only had one.

cannot believe God would only have one true human follower.

God has many who are like our Father God, same One Jesus had.

I have never called your posts antiChrist lies. But they are heretical beliefs.

Otherwise lies! Jesus was accuse of the same heresy want he, and all I do is repeat that what Jesus said you should be and would be IF.

Every stipulation Jesus placed on man comes with an IF. If you will be born of God, born again, if you will obey and receieve from the Father as he did, If you will repent from your ways and adhere to His.

IF seems to be a nasty word in this forum.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

No, I am defining what everyone agrees even scientists what modern science is.

There is no such agreement. Ask ten historians what "modern science" is and you'll get eleven answers. It's a hopelessly vague term and your position on it is way too simplistic.

If someone disagrees with what physical reality is, that is evidence that they may be mentally ill.

Hmmm. So if I disagree with you about reality, then I'm mentally ill? The way I see it (pun intended), we are all "subjects" having subjective views of the world. So there is no objective reality that we can grasp.

I am.

So you're a scientist. Do you teach at the same university that Theo teaches at? Or maybe he's your mentor. He's told me he teaches both biology and physics.

You do have a weird way of communicating sometimes.

I must have forgotten what I learned in those communication and English-comp courses I took in college. I received A's in all of them.

Just because one creationist organization says that doesnt mean all creationists feel that way or agree with that.

"Just one creationist organization"? We're talking about the Discovery Institute here. It's the Holy See of intelligent design/creationism. Now that it's been exposed as a sham falsely claiming to be scientific while actually religious, you hope to find a creationist organization that's a legitimate scientific group? Good luck on that one!

But it is great that I'm making progress with you.

No, it could be because the same reason Stephen Jay Gould changed his view, because there are major gaps in the fossil record.

I don't know which view Gould changed his mind on, but his "punctuated equilibrium" theory makes perfect sense to me. Transitions between species occur relatively quickly geologically speaking, and once a species adapts, then stasis sets in. So again, apparent gaps in the fossil record do not indicate a lack of evolution but a lack of fossils that perfectly record that evolution.

Because the gaps are not just random as you would expect if there is just not enough fossils, they just happen to be at the family and genera levels where there are major changes in morphology.

See Gould above. Gaps in the fossil record can result from relatively speedy evolution over species transitions. Since transitional species exist over shorter periods of time, then obviously there will be fewer fossils they will leave behind for us to discover.

But hey--in any case there's plenty of transitional fossils known to paleontologists. Examples include archaeopteryx and the fossils of horse ancestors.

It is a tacit admission of few if any transitional forms...

So if there are gaps in the fossil record, then the explanation is that when fossils do show up in the record, they had just been magically created. Is that what you're saying? Can you think of other reasons why there may be gaps in the record? Hint: Keep in mind that fossilization is rare and that there are no doubt many more fossils yet to be discovered.

...which is evidence for creation.

How are gaps in the fossil record evidence that those species were magically created? Miracles don't fossilize as far as I know.

No, you dont understand, the fact that there is any order at all is evidence for an intelligent mind.

Why is a mind necessary to create order?

No, see above about the wedge document. You have not proven that creationism is not science. We use all the same tools science uses evidence, logical reasoning and experiments.

If you're doing legitimate science, then you should submit your work for peer review just like everybody else does. It appears that creationists want to skip that peer review part of science.

What experiments have you performed that demonstrate that God creates life?

 

[El Cid]

Yes' that it is a religious document full of mans dealings with God.

Yes, but it is also a historical document of recorded dealings of God with man.

Believers as in?
Mormons
Catholic
Latter Day Saints
Jehovas witness/

All Christian believers. Mormons and JWs are not Christians.

As for me Jesus had it right so I follow him in his ways in the Father of it.

I follow Jesus as well.

I see -- and that is the exact reason that you are not Gods son as Jesus was.

I am Gods son but not His begotten.

I thank my God I have the same Father as Jesus has and born of God.

But you are not the begotten of God like Jesus and neither am I.

Na' I am the same church of God that Jesus was by the same mind be in me who was in Christ Jesus. But I do agree that in this forum it is very difficult for anyone here to be called Gods son. You only believe God had one is all and that is exactly why you are not one as you say He only had one.

All Christian believers are Gods sons and daughters. Name some other members of your church.

God has many who are like our Father God, same One Jesus had.

Who are they and where do they gather in assembly as a church?

Otherwise lies! Jesus was accuse of the same heresy want he, and all I do is repeat that what Jesus said you should be and would be IF.

Every stipulation Jesus placed on man comes with an IF. If you will be born of God, born again, if you will obey and receieve from the Father as he did, If you will repent from your ways and adhere to His.

IF seems to be a nasty word in this forum.

Yes, but Jesus was not heretical, His accusers were wrong, unlike yours. You are just a man, Jesus was the God-Man. I do repent and try to obey the Father and the Son.

 

[Gary Mac]

Yes, but it is also a historical document of recorded dealings of God with man.

Just as we have here in this very forum this day.

All Christian believers. Mormons and JWs are not Christians. I have come any denomination that was Christian. A Christian is exactly as Jesus was from the Father of it.

I follow Jesus as well.

Just as with Jesus I need no man teach me, God Himself gave the increase.

I am Gods son but not His begotten.

Then you are not His son for begotten simply means to be born of -- a duplicate of the original.

But you are not the begotten of God like Jesus and neither am I.

That is where you are mistaken. We who are born of God it is impossible to be in sin, cannot sin because I am born of God. 1 John 3:9. and in 1 John 3 when you see Him as He is ye shall be like Him. Jesus referred to this new birth to be in Gods same image as born again.

All Christian believers are Gods sons and daughters. Name some other members of your church.

Gods church does not have members, His church has children that is born of God and are exactly like our Father and has His same mind and walk in it exactly as He walks in it with the same signs following us.

Who are they and where do they gather in assembly as a church?

House to house daily. God is not about people gathering to share beliefs about Him -- God is about making me exactly like Himself.

Yes, but Jesus was not heretical, His accusers were wrong, unlike yours.

Exactly like mine no different at all. I am heretical to the very same mentality as those who saw Jesus heretical for the very same reason.

You are just a man, Jesus was the God-Man.

God man? Jesus was made of a woman born under the law just as you and I are born of flesh.

If a man is your god no wonder you cant relate to who Jesus was in his Father who was his God. The One he obeyed and prayed to and said he could do noting at all without His God who sent him to show you the way to the very same place he receieved from God in Matt 3:16 where he was born of Gods mind by opening up in Jesus who He is and all of His heaven in that man. He does the very same in us all who will do the same and obey to recieve God, drop those belief systems for law, and open the door to the One at your door knocking this day and any man who will let Him in He will come to you and sup with you and be in you just as He came into Jesus in Matt 3L:16 and reveals Himself in that man.

As long as a man as a god is your idol there is no way you can reap from God that what Jesus did in Matt 3:16. Adam receieved the same see Gen 3;22, Abraham received the same Moses receieved the same 120 receieved the same and all today who will obey and recieve will receive the vey same manifestation of God in you as all of these did.

Jesus referred to this new mind as born again.

I do repent and try to obey the Father and the Son.

The problem in most who only try and obey the Father, they are not thorough in repentance, they hang onto religious beliefs that is based on opinions instead of the reality of giving up that right to yourself in these beliefs and let God Himself come to you and open up who He is and all of His heaven in you as the very example He sent in Matt 3:16.

Not many actually follow the ways of His example do they? They do not believe Matt 3:16 was necessary because they worship man as a god instead. They dont believe they can be perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect as Jesus commands of us. They do not believe Jesus in Luke 17:20-21 where the kingdom of God doesnt come with observation such as a man as a god coming to save them someday, and do not believe that the kingdom of God is within you.

Nothing much has changed even from Jesus day as far as peoples beliefs. I have been called heretic, liar, blasphemer for the very same reason Jesus was by these belief systems.

Ironic is when Jesus taught the laws of this Jewish belief system in their Temple,ple even from a young age and was reverend for his knowledge of their laws, after Matt 3:16 where God kicked him out from that denomination, these are the very ones who had him crucified for blaspheme, crime against their belief systems that is totally ignorant for who God really is as Jesus discovered in Matt 3:16 and all today discover when the very same happens in us and we become born of God instead of born of some belief system who regulate their gods by the laws they have formed to control their gods, much as you did here by a belief as a man is a god.

Denominations are out for one thing -- Enterprise and use Jesus as a tool for advertisement to further their agendas.

Isn't to you to have from God as Jesus did and be exactly like Jesus was in the Father and walk as He walks in His same perfections, holy, pure, and without sin, an impossibility?

God actually takes away the sin 1 John 3, and in Him there is no sin to be had for He has taken care of that through redemption. It is outside of Him that people are sinners and of the laws for sin. The law is sin and is death spirtually.

God creates His own life in souls. Most do not agree with God that you are His temple, the place He lives. Waiting for God is incarnate unbelief when you wait for Him to do something, for all the great blessings of God are finished and complete, Jesus was very clear on his statement that it is finished: but they are not yours until you step into that same relationship with God as Jesus had. When Jesus said it is finished it is! Not many know that finished line however because they are of a belief about a god that is supposed to come someday as a man and save you. In that the One who does come is set aside. People wait for God to do something instead of entering into His covenant.

A life in Christ is the very One Jesus lived in. We are in His same image as Jesus was in His same image. Jesus was God incarnate, coming into that man from the outward inward, that is what incarnate means, so are we all incarnate who God has come to from the outward inward as He did in Jesus in Matt 3:16.

If God had only one son, then Im wasting my time calling Him Father.

 

[El Cid]

I dont, it has proven itself to be inerrant.

You speak of the Bible as if it has a will of its own. Some people refer to that view as "Bibliolatry." Anyway, the Bible in so many ways is so confusing that it "isn't even errant." We can't say for sure if it's right or wrong.

I dont worship the Bible, but Christians do love the BIble. It is like a letter from your parents giving you life advice after you move away from home before they had telephones. So it is very precious to believers. Yes, you can. If the universe was discovered to be eternal then the Bible would be wrong. Also, if Jesus' body was found, it would be wrong.

There have been many things that have never been proven by science. Science has not proven that your wife loves you but you think she does.

True, so let me say that there is no evidence for demonic possession yet there is abundant evidence for mental illness. It then seems wise to me to conclude that alleged cases of possession are actually cases of mental illness.

Except mental illness cannot cause you to break iron chains and shackles. So it is obviously something supernatural.

In some legal cases the judge or lawmakers have to suspend a law, but that doesnt prove that the judge or lawmakers dont exist.

True, but it does prove that those intelligent judges and lawmakers can be disorderly. And being disorderly, appealing to order doesn't prove they exist. So your "order in the cosmos" argument for God is fallacious.

No, the fact that there is ANY order is evidence for mind. Say when you were a kid you left your window of your bedroom open and all your stuff got blown around into a mess while you were at school. When you get home from school you go in your room and everything is back in order. What do you think happened?

No, the freedom to do evil is necessary to destroy evil.

So for instance murder is necessary to destroy murder. Brilliant logic!

Not exactly, but the potential for murder is necessary to destroy murder.

Evil can only be destroyed by love, and in order to truly love God you have to freely choose to do so.

Actually, I really can't choose to love anybody. And love can actually create evil. For instance, the Stalinists loved Stalin, and we all know how that ended up. Anyway, here we have the reason evil exists.

Exactly, your love must be freely given and desired by you. True love cannot be coerced. I am referring to love for God your creator. Only by loving and obeying God can evil be destroyed forever.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Remember, your Bible cannot err. Now you know why evil exists. God created it.

Yes, He does but not directly. He allows it to happen as seen in the book of Job. He did not directly create evil. All verses must be understood in context.

God has said that the only way to destroy evil forever is to love and obey Him. That has to be done freely.

So when did you sell all you have, gave to the poor, and then followed Jesus? (Luke 18:22)

That command was specific to the rich young ruler, obviously not all Christians because then it would violate His other commands.

No, auto accidents dont violate the laws of physics.

Those laws allow for disorder.

Cars are driven by free will minds so they can consciously choose to act in a disorderly manner and disobey the orderly traffic laws created by minds.

They didnt invent the first modern scientific organization to systematically study nature. Protestants did, the Royal Society of London.

Hooray for the Protestants! You keep shaping the evidence to fit your position. Why not shape your position to fit the evidence?

No, it is based on the evidence look it up.

Yes, but that separated the wheat from the chaff. And all churches that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials.

No doubt you define "essential" as what most Christian sects agree on. So you're arguing in a circle.

Most sects agree on the essentials.
The essentials are what most sects agree on.

Yes the essentials are what orthodox Christians have believed were the essentials for 2000 years. Just like any organization that has beliefs that identify who they are.

And if the Reformation had not occurred, all the good things about Western civilization would not have occurred including the formation of the greatest nation on earth the USA.

I prefer Italy. That's where the Vatican is, and it was the seat of the Roman Empire. Italy is arguably the most culturally influential nation on earth.

I think most people would disagree. Why does the whole world prefer American movies and other aspects of US culture? Including Italy. They copy almost everything American both good and bad.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I dont worship the Bible, but Christians do love the BIble.

Then it's odd that so few Christians bother to read the Bible. One source says that a mere 11 percent of Americans read it daily.

It is like a letter from your parents giving you life advice after you move away from home before they had telephones.

Most parents don't write letters to their children commanding them to execute homosexuals.

So it is very precious to believers. Yes, you can. If the universe was discovered to be eternal then the Bible would be wrong. Also, if Jesus' body was found, it would be wrong.

I have no doubt that any such evidence would be targeted by apologists for denial.

Except mental illness cannot cause you to break iron chains and shackles. So it is obviously something supernatural.

You'll need to substantiate that anybody has ever broken iron chains and shackles with their bare hands. Stories do not count as substantiation.

No, the fact that there is ANY order is evidence for mind. Say when you were a kid you left your window of your bedroom open and all your stuff got blown around into a mess while you were at school. When you get home from school you go in your room and everything is back in order. What do you think happened?

I would conclude that the disorder inherent in nature messed up my room. It took a decision on my mother's part to reestablish order while she obviously could have increased the disorder if she so chose.

Not exactly, but the potential for murder is necessary to destroy murder.

That's strange logic. Wouldn't an absence of potential for murder destroy murder?

Exactly, your love must be freely given and desired by you. True love cannot be coerced. I am referring to love for God your creator. Only by loving and obeying God can evil be destroyed forever.

But what if those who love and obey God hate people as a result? We both know it happens.

Yes, He does but not directly. He allows it to happen as seen in the book of Job. He did not directly create evil. All verses must be understood in context.

Shouldn't all verses be understood in what they actually say rather than changing them to fit an inerrancy position? The context says not a word about "indirect" creation.

That command was specific to the rich young ruler, obviously not all Christians because then it would violate His other commands.

It's interesting how tough Jesus can be on other people while so easy on Christians. Could it be that Christians twist the Bible whenever it mandates what they don't want to do?

Yes the essentials are what orthodox Christians have believed were the essentials for 2000 years. Just like any organization that has beliefs that identify who they are.

So any Christians who disagree with you are "unorthodox" not believing the "essentials." Again, your logic is circular.

I think most people would disagree. Why does the whole world prefer American movies and other aspects of US culture? Including Italy. They copy almost everything American both good and bad.

Uh-- where do you think American culture has its roots? Hint: There are more than 70 million Roman Catholics in the US.

 

[El Cid]

Not the essential teachings, they are obvious.

So did Jesus appoint Peter the first pope? That is an "essential" for Roman Catholics.

Most Catholics do not believe that not believing that Peter is the first pope would prevent you from being saved.

It doesnt. But Darwin never found evidence for macroevolution, only microevolution. His finches never turned into anything but finches with different beaks...No, macroevolution has never been empirically observed, it is just an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution.

I never could understand how small change can occur over short periods of time yet large change cannot occur over a long period of time. Maybe you can explain it.

Genetic entropy. DNA loses information over time.

He didnt know about genetic entropy, we now know that over time genes lose information so that major body structure changes are not unlimited.

Evolution works just fine within limits. Your fallacy is to conclude that constrained change cannot exist.

See above about genetic entropy.

The great botanist Asa Gray was a devout Presbyterian who eventually accepted evolution as Gods method to create living things. And he was a friend of Darwin and there were others.

Asa sounds like a sensible guy.

Yes and disproves your point.

Huh? That is the best way to understand ancient documents you have to read them in the original language. Not english translations.

Then maybe you can explain why those who read the "original language" disagree as much as those who can't read those languages.

Not on the essentials.

It can also mean open space like the atmosphere. So that means the Bible is not wrong. Try again.

How can the atmosphere hold up that mythological ocean that the Bible speaks of?

By it being contained in water vapor called clouds. You think clouds are mythological?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Most Catholics do not believe that not believing that Peter is the first pope would prevent you from being saved.

That's not what I asked. Did Jesus appoint Peter the first pope? Yes or no? The Pope being the Vicar of Christ is a fundamental dogma of the Catholic Church that Protestants don't share.

Genetic entropy. DNA loses information over time.

This is the the first time I've heard that term. You are evidently claiming that biological change cannot maintain its rate of change over an extended period of time and eventually screeches to a halt. I don't think there's any evidence for that.

Yes and disproves your point.

What point?

Not on the essentials.

Some Jehovah's Witnesses as I've already pointed out read New Testament Greek, yet they conclude that Jesus was not divine. So you're wrong to claim that reading Greek results in scriptural-interpretive harmony.

By it being contained in water vapor called clouds. You think clouds are mythological?

LOL--Clouds float, so they don't need a dome to hold them up in the sky. That's a basic scientific fact that the Bible writers were completely ignorant of. Besides, that ocean they believed was above the firmament they mistakenly thought is liquid water.

 

[El Cid]

Why would God want us to use large brains to struggle to figure out a confusing book written by people we can't trust or study a mysterious, disorderly creation? I don't see the point in that. I think our time would be better served listening to His knowledge and wisdom as He communes with us directly.

Because He wants us to grow spiritually and intellectually, by growing spiritually and intellectually we help God fight and ultimately destroy evil.

What is an example of an "essential"? Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible is infallible, and they deny the deity of Christ. So if you're right that all denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible agree on the essentials, then Christ's divinity is not an essential.

JWs use an edited Bible. Not the actual texts that Christians have used for 2000 years. The Watchtower Bible edited out all mention of Christs deity.

True, but nevertheless millions of people around the world believe that The Book of Mormon is authored by God. They arrive at that conclusion through prayer and faith and no doubt many of them will claim science, history and philosophy as inspirations for their faith.

Yes, but their claims about science, history and philosophy are weak and can be easily refuted. For example, Mormons believe that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, but DNA evidence has shown that they have no semitic DNA.

Isn't it interesting how the closer in time and space we are able to judge a religion, the more we can easily see difficulties with that religion? As we both know Joseph Smith was a conman who duped people into believing what he made up. We have the advantage of seeing Smith and his work "up close." The Bible, by contrast, is much older and "farther away" in that it originated in the Middle East, and we know much less about the circumstances under which it came about. I think that that is an advantage to faith in the Bible because its problems have been largely washed away in the waves of time.

Animism is older than Christianity and its problems are much more obvious. So your theory fails.

Evidence for what?

That Hellenistic Greeks created a computer. That was your claim.

Any good book should never contain scientific errors or confuse people making them think it has scientific errors. It should be able to clearly explain what it's trying to say. God can handle that; people may not be so adept.

See above about using our brains, also He doesnt want it to be so obvious that we lose our free will to choose. Remember true love can only come from a free will.

God realizes that speaking to people in their native tongues is the best way to communicate with them. People, by contrast, may not have that power and end up writing books that need to be subjected to messy translations.

Again we dont know for sure but maybe he wanted later generations to use their brains. Remember if not for wanting to print the Bible Gutenberg may not have ever invented the printing press.

The Greeks obviously were more scientifically advanced than the Hebrews, but I never said that I know everything that the Greeks knew.

How is that possible?

We dont know but it happens everyday in your brain. Your mind which is nonphysical causes your neurons to fire in your brain everyday.

Right. So let's not jump to conclusions asserting that the cause of the universe was not physical.

No, if the laws of physics breakdown, that is evidence that it was a supernatural event and nonphysical.

Unfortunately, I don't have that article, but like every article in Scientific American, all the evidence for the hypothesis that the universe originated from a four-dimensional star is presented. In any case, the lesson to learn is to use science to study the origin of the cosmos rather than just use pure "armchair" reasoning.

Many cosmologists admit that there is evidence for an intelligent cause for the universe, and not all of them are Christians. Especially if the BB theory is correct.

If we did the answer would no doubt be zero.

According to the Bible and millions of Christians, there were alot more than zero.

Zero is "pretty small," is it not?

See above.

And when they meant something literally, they omitted metaphors only to have Biblical apologists insert metaphors to save the day.

By studying the original language and the context, we can determine which parts are meant to be literal and which parts are metaphors.

What do you mean by "endorse"?

Saying there is nothing wrong with it.

Verses 1 - 4 from Judges 21 tells us:

It looks to me like they had God's approval to get those virgins as the spoils of war.

Again, nowhere in that passage does it say God approved of it. It just describes what the Hebrews did.

And those "brides" had no say regarding whether or not they were to become the wives of the men who had slaughtered their families. There is no need to mention rape. Rape is obvious from the circumstances described.

No, there was a process that used a trial nonsexual cohabitation period of one month that was utlized to determine if they were compatible and if they were not then no marriage took place and she was set free. See Deuteronomy 21:10-14. But most likely they did not follow this process and were disobeying God as shown above.

Anything is possible.

The married women among those the Hebrews conquered did not need to worry about death resulting from their becoming widows; their attackers killed them.

I was referring to the single never married women. Marriage was much more important for women in ancient times and after learning more about Hebrew society during the month trial period, they may have decided that it was superior to their former society and converted and consensually married the men.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Because He wants us to grow spiritually and intellectually, by growing spiritually and intellectually we help God fight and ultimately destroy evil.

That's illogical for at least two reasons. One, if God needed help from us to fight and destroy evil, then He wouldn't create us spiritually and intellectually deficient. And if God is all-powerful, then He wouldn't need our help at all.

I've noticed that when apologists wrangle with the logical quandaries that result from their beliefs, they need to lessen God a bit. Most often they imply that God is not all powerful.

JWs use an edited Bible. Not the actual texts that Christians have used for 2000 years. The Watchtower Bible edited out all mention of Christs deity.

The same can be said for all Bible versions. It's very naive to conclude that the Jehovah's Witnesses are somehow uniquely tricky regarding their Bible while other Christian sects are above such deception.

Yes, but their claims about science, history and philosophy are weak and can be easily refuted. For example, Mormons believe that Native Americans are the lost tribe of Israel, but DNA evidence has shown that they have no semitic DNA.

Let's go after the Mormons this time appealing to DNA evidence that their Book of Mormon is wrong while ignoring the DNA evidence that demonstrates that Eve and Adam are not the ancestors of all people.

You are special pleading.

Animism is older than Christianity and its problems are much more obvious. So your theory fails.

Which religion's flaws are more obvious is a matter of opinion. That's why some people are animists and others might be Christians.

That Hellenistic Greeks created a computer. That was your claim.

It took me less than a minute to find it on Google.

Darn that Google! It makes factchecking so quick and easy. It is the bane of apologists everywhere.

See above about using our brains...

Are you really sure that you want people to do that?

...also He doesnt want it to be so obvious that we lose our free will to choose.

But what if people freely will to read a Bible they can easily understand? You neglected to consider that they have no free will in that regard.

Remember true love can only come from a free will.

I can live without "true love" whatever that might mean. I think love is a myth or at least it's a word that is used very loosely and deceptively. I can't live with terminal illness for long, of course. If we do love, then I don't see it as a choice. Can you choose to love the odor of excrement, for example?

Again we dont know for sure but maybe he wanted later generations to use their brains. Remember if not for wanting to print the Bible Gutenberg may not have ever invented the printing press.

And why is a printing press so important if we can speak to God directly?

We dont know but it happens everyday in your brain. Your mind which is nonphysical causes your neurons to fire in your brain everyday.

I'd say that the Hellenistic Greeks knew much more than the Hebrews of their era because the Greeks made much use of science while the Hebrews looked to Yahweh for knowledge. Science is more informative.

No, if the laws of physics breakdown, that is evidence that it was a supernatural event and nonphysical.

Either that or we're just wrong about the laws of physics.

Many cosmologists admit that there is evidence for an intelligent cause for the universe, and not all of them are Christians. Especially if the BB theory is correct.

Can you name one?

According to the Bible and millions of Christians, there were alot more than zero.

I've yet to see one genuine miracle. Are you aware that the late James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge? The prize remains unclaimed. For some reason God just won't budge whenever His work can be scrutinized under controlled conditions. His miracles only ever happen in remote places at times long ago to people who want to believe in miracles.

By studying the original language and the context, we can determine which parts are meant to be literal and which parts are metaphors.

What criteria do you go by the sift the literal from the metaphorical?

Again, nowhere in that passage does it say God approved of it. It just describes what the Hebrews did.

Here's a passage from Numbers 31:

15 Moses said to them, “Have you allowed all the women to live? 16 These women here, on Balaam’s advice, made the Israelites act treacherously against the Lord in the affair of Peor, so that the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Moses is telling his men here to kill all the males including little boys. So even if Moses didn't mean to have his men rape the little virgin girls, what he did command was even worse.

And Moses spoke for God, did he not?

No, there was a process that used a trial nonsexual cohabitation period of one month that was utlized to determine if they were compatible and if they were not then no marriage took place and she was set free. See Deuteronomy 21:10-14. But most likely they did not follow this process and were disobeying God as shown above.

Sure--if you want to believe that an invading, brutal army was above raping the virgin girls they took captive after murdering their families, then go ahead and believe they didn't rape those girls. I must wonder why they spared the virgins. Men tend to prefer virgin girls for sex.

I was referring to the single never married women. Marriage was much more important for women in ancient times and after learning more about Hebrew society during the month trial period, they may have decided that it was superior to their former society and converted and consensually married the men.

Those women no doubt just loved the culture of the men who had slaughtered their families.

You Christian apologists--I never cease to be amazed at what you can come up with.

 

[El Cid]

There is no such agreement. Ask ten historians what "modern science" is and you'll get eleven answers. It's a hopelessly vague term and your position on it is way too simplistic.

Fraid so, look it up.

Hmmm. So if I disagree with you about reality, then I'm mentally ill? The way I see it (pun intended), we are all "subjects" having subjective views of the world. So there is no objective reality that we can grasp.

If that is true, then science is impossible.

So you're a scientist. Do you teach at the same university that Theo teaches at? Or maybe he's your mentor. He's told me he teaches both biology and physics.

No, I am a biologist and environmental scientist for the department of transportation.

I must have forgotten what I learned in those communication and English-comp courses I took in college. I received A's in all of them.

Book knowledge about communication doesnt always translate well into the real world of communication.

"Just one creationist organization"? We're talking about the Discovery Institute here. It's the Holy See of intelligent design/creationism. Now that it's been exposed as a sham falsely claiming to be scientific while actually religious, you hope to find a creationist organization that's a legitimate scientific group? Good luck on that one!

But it is great that I'm making progress with you.

The Discovery Institute has never claimed to be ONLY a scientific organization so there was no false claim. And it has real scientists working for it though that are just as well educated and intelligent as non-religious scientists, so you are committing the genetic fallacy. And since you dont believe in objective reality, nobody can do real science anyway so you are contradicting yourself.

I don't know which view Gould changed his mind on, but his "punctuated equilibrium" theory makes perfect sense to me. Transitions between species occur relatively quickly geologically speaking, and once a species adapts, then stasis sets in. So again, apparent gaps in the fossil record do not indicate a lack of evolution but a lack of fossils that perfectly record that evolution.

He and you are only assuming that, there is no evidence to support that.

See Gould above. Gaps in the fossil record can result from relatively speedy evolution over species transitions. Since transitional species exist over shorter periods of time, then obviously there will be fewer fossils they will leave behind for us to discover.

Who says transitional forms exist over shorter period of time? If they are the most fit for a particular environment then they will exist in that environment just as long as any other "nontransitional" species.

 

[El Cid]

ecause the gaps are not just random as you would expect if there is just not enough fossils, they just happen to be at the family and genera levels where there are major changes in morphology.

See Gould above. Gaps in the fossil record can result from relatively speedy evolution over species transitions. Since transitional species exist over shorter periods of time, then obviously there will be fewer fossils they will leave behind for us to discover.

But hey--in any case there's plenty of transitional fossils known to paleontologists. Examples include archaeopteryx and the fossils of horse ancestors.

Actually birds that are older than Archaeopteryx have been found so it cannot be a transitional fossil. And the so-called horse series has been shown to be creatures or horses that in the geological record show up in the wrong order so they are not transitional either. Sorry try again.

It is a tacit admission of few if any transitional forms...

So if there are gaps in the fossil record, then the explanation is that when fossils do show up in the record, they had just been magically created. Is that what you're saying? Can you think of other reasons why there may be gaps in the record? Hint: Keep in mind that fossilization is rare and that there are no doubt many more fossils yet to be discovered.

But that is not what Gould said.

...which is evidence for creation.

How are gaps in the fossil record evidence that those species were magically created? Miracles don't fossilize as far as I know.

Well they dont prove it, but that is what would be expected if macroevolution did not occur.

No, you dont understand, the fact that there is any order at all is evidence for an intelligent mind.

Why is a mind necessary to create order?

Because minds desire order and so far when order has been empirically observed forming, it occurs because of a mind.

No, see above about the wedge document. You have not proven that creationism is not science. We use all the same tools science uses evidence, logical reasoning and experiments.

If you're doing legitimate science, then you should submit your work for peer review just like everybody else does. It appears that creationists want to skip that peer review part of science.

There have been many creationists that have had their work published in peer reviewed journals. But of course, they cannot explicitly mention creation or they will be rejected due to modern academia's bias against the supernatural.

What experiments have you performed that demonstrate that God creates life?

No need for experiments, all of human experience has shown that complex linguistic codes can only be produced by an intelligent mind. And Life is based on a complex linguistic code called DNA.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Fraid so, look it up.

I did look up "modern science." About all I can find is some vague references to science in the last few centuries.

If that is true, then science is impossible.

But science works just fine for us "subjects" although scientists do generally make an effort to be objective as far as doing so may be possible.

No, I am a biologist and environmental scientist for the department of transportation.

Why would a department of transportation need a biologist?

Book knowledge about communication doesnt always translate well into the real world of communication.

But books are very helpful. I recommend them to you.

The Discovery Institute has never claimed to be ONLY a scientific organization so there was no false claim.

I don't follow you here. What "false claim" are you referring to? I suppose that might be anything the Discovery Institute claimed.

And it has real scientists working for it though that are just as well educated and intelligent as non-religious scientists...

Those creationists can be real smarties, all right!

...so you are committing the genetic fallacy.

How so?

And since you dont believe in objective reality...

Actually, I don't see how we can know an objective reality if there is one.

...nobody can do real science anyway so you are contradicting yourself.

I'm contradicting you.

He and you are only assuming that, there is no evidence to support that.

You evidently did not bother to see if there is evidence for Punctuated equilibrium. From Wikipedia we read:

The fossil record includes well documented examples of both phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution.[17] As such, much debate persists over the prominence of stasis in the fossil record.[18][19] Before punctuated equilibrium, most evolutionists considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.[8][20][21] The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, for example, believed that phyletic gradual evolution (called horotely in his terminology) comprised 90% of evolution.[22] More modern studies,[23][24][25] including a meta-analysis examining 58 published studies on speciation patterns in the fossil record showed that 71% of species exhibited stasis,[26] and 63% were associated with punctuated patterns of evolutionary change.[27] According to Michael Benton, "it seems clear then that stasis is common, and that had not been predicted from modern genetic studies."[17] A paramount example of evolutionary stasis is the fern Osmunda claytoniana. Based on paleontological evidence it has remained unchanged, even at the level of fossilized nuclei and chromosomes, for at least 180 million years.

I fact-check, so be careful what you claim.

Who says transitional forms exist over shorter period of time? If they are the most fit for a particular environment then they will exist in that environment just as long as any other "nontransitional" species.

I think it's reasonable that due to catastrophic event like asteroid impacts the environment changes radically, and over those relatively brief periods of time species must adapt or perish. Such events would result in an increased rate of evolution.

It's perfectly reasonable. Why fight it?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually birds that are older than Archaeopteryx have been found so it cannot be a transitional fossil.

You omitted the fact that those "earlier" birds were not modern birds. Like archaeopteryx they were transitional between reptile and bird.

And the so-called horse series has been shown to be creatures or horses that in the geological record show up in the wrong order so they are not transitional either. Sorry try again.

You should cite your source. Wikipedia has an article Evolution of the horse devoted to horse evolution. I see no such difficulties mentioned in that article.

Again, I fact-check.

Well they dont prove it, but that is what would be expected if macroevolution did not occur.

So you're targeting macroevolution to replace it with miracles. Can you be more specific than that? Good luck on passing peer review on that one.

Because minds desire order and so far when order has been empirically observed forming, it occurs because of a mind.

I already rebutted this claim. It's false.

There have been many creationists that have had their work published in peer reviewed journals. But of course, they cannot explicitly mention creation or they will be rejected due to modern academia's bias against the supernatural.

So it's a conspiracy. Yes, people do conspire so it's not out of the question, I suppose. I don't know what's wrong with a bias against the supernatural, though. You creationists evidently cannot overcome it.

No need for experiments,

And here I thought that experimentation is the hallmark of modern science! I suppose it is until it becomes impossible.

all of human experience has shown that complex linguistic codes can only be produced by an intelligent mind. And Life is based on a complex linguistic code called DNA.

But isn't simplicity the hallmark of intelligence? No God would need complex code to create life. You keep forgetting that God doesn't need to do anything complex.

 

[El Cid]

That depends on what you call "evidence". There is vastly more supporting evidence for macroevolution than against it. In science, theories are proposed. These theories lead to predictions of things to come, or discoveries yet to be made. Then evidence is sought to confirm these predictions or deny them. In that sense, more evidence has been found to confirm the predictions of the theory of macroevolution, I am not aware of any evidence that directly contradicts and necessary consequence of macroevolution.

Macrovolution has never been empirically observed and is an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution. The fossil record shows that there are few if any undisputed transition forms, that is why Stephen Jay Gould and others came up with their punctuated equlibrium theory. In addition, the recent discovery of genetic entropy that shows that over time DNA loses information limits the amount of morphological changes that can take place.

The gaps in the fossil record suggest a hypothesis of special creation, but other than that suggestion of a hypothesis, no confirming evidence has been found to raise that status of that hypothesis to anything other than an unsupported guess, scientifically speaking.

See above about genetic entropy. Also, so called junk DNA was disproven just a few years ago.

 

[LifeIn]

Macrovolution has never been empirically observed

Neither have many other prehistoric events that are widely accepted by science. That it has not been observed in the span of modern history is not a deal-breaker.

and is an unwarranted historical extrapolation of microevolution.

That is opinion and not fact.

The fossil record shows that there are few if any undisputed transition forms,

It would be more accurate to say that the fossil record does not show very many undisputed transitional forms. The significant difference is that your way implies the fossil record discovered so far would have to be complete, whereas the more accurate way of saying it acknowledges there may be transition forms that we have not yet discovered, or that never became fossils. Very few dead animals become fossils, you know!

In addition, the recent discovery of genetic entropy that shows that over time DNA loses information limits the amount of morphological changes that can take place.

If DNA loses some information over time, it can also gain information over time through the process of evolution. There is no limit to how much information can be gained over millions and millions of years.