[__ Science __ ] All bets are off

[Cygnus]

I had said...They believe there was ONLY two...with Eve being the mother of all.

Which is nicely consistent with evolutionary theory.

Nonsense. According to the Theo-Evo view Adam and Eve had parents.
So rather than simply saying it evoism is "nicely consistent" with Genesis..perhaps you could explain why.

Most Christians who acknowledge the fact of evolution think we started with a single pair of humans. Even creationists agree with that.

Once again, nonsense. Adam and Eve would have had parents..probably brothers and sisters...uncle, aunts and cousins.

If so, they were the first...how did they both evolve to be human at the same time and meet at the same time?

Mankind came from two humans to whom God gave immortal souls and who became aware of good and evil. Whether they were poofed into existence magically or came from an existing population does not matter.

If that were true there would still be a population of people around today who are soulless and not aware of good and evil....if they came from an existing population it does matter because the bible doesn't teach that. You need to change the bible drastically for evo-ism to work.

 

[Barbarian]

I had said...They believe there was ONLY two...with Eve being the mother of all.

Babarian observes:
Which is nicely consistent with evolutionary theory.

According to the Theo-Evo view Adam and Eve had parents.

They were the first to be living souls, directly given by God. Whether they had parents or not is immaterial.

If that were true there would still be a population of people around today who are soulless and not aware of good and evil...

Assuming they survived to reproduce. But that's a huge assumption, since only one species of humans remains today.

.if they came from an existing population it does matter because the bible doesn't teach that.

The Bible doesn't say they had DNA, either. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible. It's just that most of them don't interfere with you new interpretation of Genesis.

You need to change the bible drastically for creationism to work.

 

[Cygnus]

Babarian observes:
Which is nicely consistent with evolutionary theory.

Yes, when you re-write Genesis and other books of the bible.

They were the first to be living souls, directly given by God. Whether they had parents or not is immaterial.

Where does the bible say God choose two people out of the population then gave them souls?
As to the parents the bible is pretty clear Adam was formed directly from the dust the Eve from Adams rib. You can spin it all you want to but this is nothing like evolution.

Assuming they survived to reproduce. But that's a huge assumption, since only one species of humans remains today.

So adding a soul makes a different species?

The Bible doesn't say they had DNA, either. There are lots of things that are true, that aren't in the Bible. It's just that most of them don't interfere with you new interpretation of Genesis.

But the bible does say where Adam and Eve came from. You need to add to the bible to force ii to conform to evolutionism.

You need to change the bible drastically for creationism to work.

How is that?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, when you re-write Genesis and other books of the bible.

When you re-write Genesis, you're probably a YE creationist.

Where does the bible say God choose two people out of the population then gave them souls?

Where does the Bible say they had DNA? There are lots of things that are true, that are not in the Bible. Apparently, God thought those details weren't important to what He had to tell us.

As to the parents the bible is pretty clear Adam was formed directly from the dust the Eve from Adams rib.

If you want to take a figurative verse and claim that it's literal, you can, but it won't really matter You can spin it all you want to but this is nothing like what God said in Genesis.

So adding a soul makes a different species?

What does species have to do with it? Do you think Neandertals and H. erectus were humans? You're trying to make Genesis into a science text again.

Instead of adding your new doctrines, just accept it as it is.

 

[Cygnus]

When you re-write Genesis, you're probably a YE creationist.



Where does the Bible say they had DNA? There are lots of things that are true, that are not in the Bible. Apparently, God thought those details weren't important to what He had to tell us.



If you want to take a figurative verse and claim that it's literal, you can, but it won't really matter You can spin it all you want to but this is nothing like what God said in Genesis.



What does species have to do with it? Do you think Neandertals and H. erectus were humans? You're trying to make Genesis into a science text again.

Instead of adding your new doctrines, just accept it as it is.

Barb, you're not addressing the issue. You're repeating unsupported claims.

 

[Barbarian]

Barb, you're not addressing the issue.

I don't know how to make it any simpler. Your belief in "evolutionism" as opposed to evolution, is causing you endless confusion. And I don't know how to help you get past that.

 

[Jim Parker]

I say ''what do you do with the elephant in the room'' .

How about the elephant called "the Big Band Theory"?
IF we give up that one miracle then scientists can give us a story for everything that came after it.

 

[Free]

How about the elephant called "the Big Band Theory"?
IF we give up that one miracle then scientists can give us a story for everything that came after it.

 

[brujaq]

This guy is hiding evidence

 

[Jim Parker]

That should read Big banG theory.

 

[Free]

That should read Big banG theory.

Thought so. Ha ha! ;)

 

[Milk-Drops]

That should read Big banG theory.

I'll shove The Big Bopper back into the crawlspace. :p

 

[Truthfrees]

So I've been told that science must be free of the supernatural existence . I say ''what do you do with the elephant in the room'' . I've seen a lot of miracles, prophecy is coming true, and Jesus remains the same .
There are science and natural law created by God that he routinely intercedes and overrides at our request or according to his will . I love science and God together . I don't get how Atheists can throw God out of the science equation and look down their nose at believers .

Like I've mentioned , I was an Atheist and a whole lot nastier than you could imagine . My beef is that much of the science community discounts supernatural events and imo that is dishonest . But I understand they have to protect their personal investment . I have a couple examples but I could write a book . I was asked by an Atheist ''non believer'' to come pray for his mother in law . She was blind for two years and scheduled for experimental surgery . I had met him random and prayed for his sick son who was in the emergency room healed by the time he made it back to the hospital, anyway I said sure . I went , prayed and anointed her with oil and the next day he was at the house again to tell me the Dr.s dropped their instruments as they were ready to begin and said ''she's healed, there's nothing wrong'' . These thing happen all the time but folks can't stand God or give Jesus credit . My Grandmother was lost in Alzheimers and she made an annoying sound with every breath she took the attendants at the nursing home had little regard for her . I fasted and prayed then anointed her with oil asking Jesus to give her something, anything, then I sang a couple hymms when she began to sing . From that moment til the day she died she sang with every breath she took, even began to play the piano and sing when local ministers would come to hold service . The Dr , staff, preachers , everyone was amazed and she became the darling of the nursing home instead of abuse .. So here's my point, If the supernatural exists and there's ever even been one instance of a supernatural event happening then it must be factored in imo ..God bless you ..

Not quite. Science, depending on observation of the physical universe, is unable to say anything about the supernatural. It can't confirm or deny it.

While science can't approach the supernatural, scientists can. And if that puzzles you, think about it a bit.

No. Science is limited to the natural universe. So it can't comment on the supernatural. But scientists can. And most of us aren't puzzled.

Nope. Science doesn't rule out the supernatural. It just can't say anything about it.

The naturalistic paradigm, which is essentially a religion with its own fundamentalist true believers, regards the non-existence of the supernatural as one of its axioms. The paradigm is inextricably tied to atheism. One might as well ask, "Why won't mathematicians consider the possibility that triangles have four sides?"

This is why the evidence for Intelligent Design is such a threat. The evidence on which the proponents of ID focus is precisely the sort of stuff that science has always investigated and analyzed. If the best inference from that evidence - again, what scientists do all the time - were "Intelligent Design," this would threaten the entire naturalistic, atheistic paradigm. A new paradigm would be required - which, again, has occurred throughout the history of science.

As the proponents of ID point out, the new paradigm would not have to posit the Christian God, or any god, as the Intelligent Designer. Perhaps our reality is a cosmic software program, and the Intelligent Designer is some cosmic version of a 15-year-old whiz kid working on his cosmic science project. Or perhaps beings in another dimension created our reality.

The new paradigm would simply be, "We may never know exactly who or what designed our reality, but the best inference from the evidence is that it was intelligently designed." But even this modest new paradigm would overthrow the old one and open the door to a theistic or even Christian explanation, which is why the proponents of the current atheistic paradigm attempt to ridicule and shout down the evidence for ID rather than confronting it directly. Again, this is what the true believers of a ruling paradigm have always done - read Thomas Kuhn's classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, https://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083.

The point is not that the evidence for ID has reached the stage that the naturalistic paradigm should be overthrown. It is that the evidence put forth by the proponents of ID is precisely the sort of evidence with which science has always dealt and should be given a fair hearing rather than being ridiculed and shouted down in order to preserve the current paradigm.

Max Planck famously stated, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I'm not sure exactly how this will play out since the current atheistic paradigm is so entrenched within the educational system and the scientific community, but it will be interesting to see what the landscape looks like in 100 years.

i haven't read through the entire thread but i liked these posts from the 1st page

just wanted to say there is a new science that scientists can't ignore and are trying to figure out - quantum physics

finally the supernatural / spiritual is being observed - and the scientists are amazed and scrambling to figure it out

annette capps wrote a mini-book about it called "quantum faith"

the quantum scientists are calling it meta-physical because they don't know what to call it

but if you want a really exciting study on a science that backs up what Jesus meant when he said Mark 11:22-24 check out the experiments quantum scientists are doing and the observations they are making

i will try to find more material on it - but quantum scientists are the closest we will find so far who can prove there is a supernatural / meta-physical / spiritual world - that actually CONTROLS the physical world

Genesis 1:1-26 doesn't look so weird now

 

[Cygnus]

i haven't read through the entire thread but i liked these posts from the 1st page

just wanted to say there is a new science that scientists can't ignore and are trying to figure out - quantum physics

finally the supernatural / spiritual is being observed - and the scientists are amazed and scrambling to figure it out

annette capps wrote a mini-book about it called "quantum faith"

the quantum scientists are calling it meta-physical because they don't know what to call it

but if you want a really exciting study on a science that backs up what Jesus meant when he said Mark 11:22-24 check out the experiments quantum scientists are doing and the observations they are making

i will try to find more material on it - but quantum scientists are the closest we will find so far who can prove there is a supernatural / meta-physical / spiritual world - that actually CONTROLS the physical world

Genesis 1:1-26 doesn't look so weird now

If you want something interesting check out some of these Russ Humphresy videos

 

[brujaq]

i haven't read through the entire thread but i liked these posts from the 1st page

just wanted to say there is a new science that scientists can't ignore and are trying to figure out - quantum physics

finally the supernatural / spiritual is being observed - and the scientists are amazed and scrambling to figure it out

annette capps wrote a mini-book about it called "quantum faith"

the quantum scientists are calling it meta-physical because they don't know what to call it

but if you want a really exciting study on a science that backs up what Jesus meant when he said Mark 11:22-24 check out the experiments quantum scientists are doing and the observations they are making

i will try to find more material on it - but quantum scientists are the closest we will find so far who can prove there is a supernatural / meta-physical / spiritual world - that actually CONTROLS the physical world

Genesis 1:1-26 doesn't look so weird now

Highly sophisticated scientists and biblical scholars too can bluff you with fancy talk, not me .. They know just enough to get themselves in trouble and those who are impressed by it if they don't remain humble .. Time is relative to physical creation .. Time is not relative to God and from his ''Everlasting to the everlasting existence'' no beginning and no end .. God doesn't need time, he is outside of it , he created it and it is subject to him and his speed of thought can not be timed any direction .. Lay down your foolishness and enjoy the wonders of creation and science and don't put limits on God or you will be left spinning wheels instead of moving forward ..

 

[Jim Parker]

My beef is that much of the science community discounts supernatural events and imo that is dishonest .

Science deals with nature; things that can be observed and measured.
They formulate theories which can be tested to determine if they are accurate representations of nature or not.
The word "supernatural" is used to describe events which are "super" (above, outside of) nature.
They are events which cannot be observed and measured or tested.
Scientists are not being dishonest any more than a plumber who will not attempt brain surgery is being dishonest. The subject is simply outside of his field of expertise.

 

[brujaq]

Science deals with nature; things that can be observed and measured.
They formulate theories which can be tested to determine if they are accurate representations of nature or not.
The word "supernatural" is used to describe events which are "super" (above, outside of) nature.
They are events which cannot be observed and measured or tested.
Scientists are not being dishonest any more than a plumber who will not attempt brain surgery is being dishonest. The subject is simply outside of his field of expertise.

God did it ..

 

[Jim Parker]

God did it ..

???
How is that relevant to what I posted?

 

[brujaq]

???
How is that relevant to what I posted?

And like he told us he did it in the time he told us ''6 days''

 

[Jim Parker]

And like he told us he did it in the time he told us ''6 days''

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.
Did you read it?