Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Are You Being Brainwashed?
- Thread starter John
- Start date
A
allhart
Guest
Everything Is Spiritual by Rob bell is better. God has enlightened that man for sure and has Blessed me as well for seeing the film www.nooma.com The science he presence to you in accordance with the Bible is mind boggling. :crazyeyes:JohnMuise said:
A
allhart
Guest
My wife bought me the movie (Everything is spiritual) in a Christian book store,but he has also clips of historical video's that are about 10 to 15 min. clips. The video's immediately puzzles you and pulls you into a thought of what is going on. Awesome ,just awesome powerful video clips. God is Awesome for telling his truth thought Rob Bells ministry .JohnMuise said:
francisdesales
Member
stranger said:
Stranger,
Certainly, you will agree that there is a difference between science and religious truths. Religious truths are based upon faith and experiencing what we BELIEVE is happening - that God comes to us and guides us. We have a certainty within us that God dwells, but is that empirically measurable? Cannot other explanations be given? We base our knowledge of the Holy Spirit upon faith. This is why faith is so critical in the theological field.
Science deals with different evidences and standards. Thus, while a truth is a truth, truths are defined differently for each respective field.
Regards
whitecloud
Member
Hi,
No, what made you think so? Oh, dem bones, God has a plan, the whole world is in His hands.
It is a matter of whose character you yield your hands to serve. Each after their own kind.
No, what made you think so? Oh, dem bones, God has a plan, the whole world is in His hands.
It is a matter of whose character you yield your hands to serve. Each after their own kind.
A
allhart
Guest
Spread it around. Try those others, they are all mind boggling. Try the one with the picture of a bite out of a chocolate muffin or the one on noise :crazyeyes: God is good all the time.JohnMuise said:
francisdesales
Member
Free said:
In what ways am I proposing "x" will invariably lead to "y"???
Regards
francisdesales
Member
Free said:
First, you said my argument was on a slippery slope. You were incorrect.
Secondly, what I have "done" has nothing to do with Christian belief, but your personal belief. It is those who are "fundamental" in approaching the Scriptures, those who see everything as literal in Scripture, as the ones who have difficulty with scientific discoveries that appear to contradict what the bible literally says. Simply put, it relies on special pleading.
Those Christians whose understanding of Scriptures depend upon the literary genre of the writer are not fazed in the slightest by what science discovers. We Christians realize the author's intent in Scriptures is not ALWAYS literal or an attempt to scientifically explain things - but rather, depending upon the literary genre selected, such as parable or myth or fables, can be used effectively to teach God's truths. Love is best explained and transmitted through poetry, not science, for example. It should not be surprising that God would speak through MANY different human means. It is the "fundamental" narrowmindedness that does a disservice to the rest of Christianity by not realizing that there are many truths outside of Scriptures and their "infallible" understanding...
The disservice is those who make foolish claims that the earth was created 6000 years ago and point to the Bible as if it was a science book in the face of overwhelming evidence. Those are the ones doing a disservice to Christianity in the public forum. Faith does not need to be separated from rational thought.
Regards
The problem is that many of the scientific findings are false in nature. Franisdesales do you think that humans share a common ancestor with the apes? well guess what the scientific findings on that matter are garbage, here i'll show you, i made these posts in the science forum some time back.
Here are some of the human from ape fossils ripped apart.
The fossil identified as Cro-Magon Man is is indistinguishable from modern man. The sole reason evolutionists suppose the fossil was that of a primitive ape-man was that it was found near a series of cave drawings that were considered primitive. This identification as a ape-man is no longer supported by modern scientists, and Cro-Magon Man in no longer considered as a primitive ancestor of modern man.
Another supposedly important hominid fossil discovery in 1932 from India and Africa is know as ramapithecus, which was presented by evolutionists as the primary missing link between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on a few fossilized teeth. Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, scientists later closely examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan
, not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man. Ramapithecus is now totally rejected by evolutionists.
Neanderthal fossils of the skull of a man were discovered in Neander Valley in Germany. The discovery of these fossils convinced millions that scientists had now proven the ToE of man from ape-like ancestors. However , further research has reveal that Neanderthal Man was actually a modern man. An analysis of the deformed skull revealed that this deformity was caused from a Vitamin D deficiency. This Vitamin D deficiency produced the disease know as rickets, which accounted for the unusual ridges over the eyebrows and his curved leg bones.
Most people who were taught the ToE in high school still believe that modern humans are descended from cave man ancestors with heavy ridges on their eyebrows. However, not one of the other fossilized skeletons in the supposed evolutionary series has demonstrated these heavy brow ridges.
Scientists have concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases.
Neanderthal skeletons are now officially classified scientifically as homo sapiens neanderthalenis. , in other words, as normal humans. Interestingly , these Neanderthal men possessed skulls with a brian that is actually larger then the brains of most humans alive today.
A new missing-link, known as Lucy, was found in northern Ethiopia in 1974 and supposedly provided powerful evidence of another link in the evolution of man. The scientists , led by Prof Richard leakly, announced that lucy was 3 and a half feet tall, walked erect as a hominid, and lived over 3 million years ago. Lucy was described as an early ancestor of modern humans.
They cataloged Lucy as Australopithecus afarnisis, and claimed she was an early human because the knee-joint proved that this individual walked upright.
Further digging at the Lucy site found fossilized bones of extremely ape-like creatures with chimpanzee-sized forearms that made it very probable that these creatures walked on 4 feet as opposed to the erect posture that characterizes humans. One of the most famous paleontologists is Richard Leaky the son of the eminent evolutionary scientists Lious & Mary Leakey. Richard identified Lucy as a hominid, a definite ancestor of mankind. However, Richard admitted that the paleontologists are often working from their imagination more than from the actual fossil evidence, which is usually so meager. Dr. Leakey admitted,
Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in witch most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!
Some scientists have candidly admitted that their preconceived opinions in favor of evolution govern to a great degree the conclusion they reach about the nature of the fossil evidence. Dr Gareth Nelson, of the American museum of natural history, admitted this in the following statement. "We've got to have some ancestors. we'll pick those. Why? becuase we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating" In other words, the theory of evolution required a series of missing-link ape-men, and the scientists interpreted the fossil evidence to support their theory.
Plus many many more but you get the point. This is just one small area were evolution theory fails yet is still taught as factual.
Here are some of the human from ape fossils ripped apart.
The fossil identified as Cro-Magon Man is is indistinguishable from modern man. The sole reason evolutionists suppose the fossil was that of a primitive ape-man was that it was found near a series of cave drawings that were considered primitive. This identification as a ape-man is no longer supported by modern scientists, and Cro-Magon Man in no longer considered as a primitive ancestor of modern man.
Another supposedly important hominid fossil discovery in 1932 from India and Africa is know as ramapithecus, which was presented by evolutionists as the primary missing link between apes and humans for nearly fifty years. However, few people understood that the whole imaginary skeleton of Ramapithecus was based solely on a few fossilized teeth. Unfortunately for the evolutionary theory, scientists later closely examined the teeth and discovered that they were actually the teeth of a modern orangutan
, not the teeth of an evolutionary ape-man. Ramapithecus is now totally rejected by evolutionists.
Neanderthal fossils of the skull of a man were discovered in Neander Valley in Germany. The discovery of these fossils convinced millions that scientists had now proven the ToE of man from ape-like ancestors. However , further research has reveal that Neanderthal Man was actually a modern man. An analysis of the deformed skull revealed that this deformity was caused from a Vitamin D deficiency. This Vitamin D deficiency produced the disease know as rickets, which accounted for the unusual ridges over the eyebrows and his curved leg bones.
Most people who were taught the ToE in high school still believe that modern humans are descended from cave man ancestors with heavy ridges on their eyebrows. However, not one of the other fossilized skeletons in the supposed evolutionary series has demonstrated these heavy brow ridges.
Scientists have concluded that all of the so-called primitive features of the Neanderthal people were due to pathological conditions, or diseases.
Neanderthal skeletons are now officially classified scientifically as homo sapiens neanderthalenis. , in other words, as normal humans. Interestingly , these Neanderthal men possessed skulls with a brian that is actually larger then the brains of most humans alive today.
A new missing-link, known as Lucy, was found in northern Ethiopia in 1974 and supposedly provided powerful evidence of another link in the evolution of man. The scientists , led by Prof Richard leakly, announced that lucy was 3 and a half feet tall, walked erect as a hominid, and lived over 3 million years ago. Lucy was described as an early ancestor of modern humans.
They cataloged Lucy as Australopithecus afarnisis, and claimed she was an early human because the knee-joint proved that this individual walked upright.
Further digging at the Lucy site found fossilized bones of extremely ape-like creatures with chimpanzee-sized forearms that made it very probable that these creatures walked on 4 feet as opposed to the erect posture that characterizes humans. One of the most famous paleontologists is Richard Leaky the son of the eminent evolutionary scientists Lious & Mary Leakey. Richard identified Lucy as a hominid, a definite ancestor of mankind. However, Richard admitted that the paleontologists are often working from their imagination more than from the actual fossil evidence, which is usually so meager. Dr. Leakey admitted,
Our task is not unlike attempting to assemble a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle in witch most of the pieces are missing, and those few bits which are at hand are broken!
Some scientists have candidly admitted that their preconceived opinions in favor of evolution govern to a great degree the conclusion they reach about the nature of the fossil evidence. Dr Gareth Nelson, of the American museum of natural history, admitted this in the following statement. "We've got to have some ancestors. we'll pick those. Why? becuase we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating" In other words, the theory of evolution required a series of missing-link ape-men, and the scientists interpreted the fossil evidence to support their theory.
Plus many many more but you get the point. This is just one small area were evolution theory fails yet is still taught as factual.
francisdesales
Member
JohnMuise said:
While I agree that some science has proven to be in error, it is not necessarily true that some of the studies you mention definitively prove that men do not have an evolutionary tie to apes. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence for your point. It is exceedingly difficult to find a chain of evolving creatures (transitory) that line up perfectly, given we are talking about creatures thousands of years old... Secondly, you only present part of the argument between scientists on these issues. Does the "vitamin D deficiency" answer all questions on the subject? On that subject, I would say you have inaccurately represented BOTH arguments.
Here is the answer to your "vitamin D deficiency":
In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.
Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause severe rickets.
This explanation fails for many reasons:
..Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
..Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
..Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).
..Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).
..The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
..Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?
..Lubenow claims that modern scientists do not consider rickets as a cause of Neandertalism because it is a virtually unknown disease nowadays. This is not true. Although not as common as it used to be, rickets has other causes besides vitamin D deficiency and still occurs. Information on it is common in medical textbooks (and even on the web), and the symptoms bear no apparent similarity to the Neandertal skeleton or skull.
Ironically enough, one of the best refutations of the idea that Neandertalism is caused by diseases such as rickets, syphilis or arthritis, is by a creationist author, Jack Cuozzo (1998, pp.275-279). As Cuozzo documents, the symptoms of these diseases bear very little resemblance to the features of Neandertals. (See also a review of Cuozzo's book Buried Alive by Colin Groves.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html
Here is an additional comment on this subject. The main topic is against supplemental pills (take these supplemental pills or you'll become like the Neanderthal and develop rickets...). However, you'll soon see that CREATIONISTS are not exactly without bias by focusing on disproven science as fact and tossing it around the internet to those without scientific backgrounds...
These sorts of arguments about Neanderthals (having rickets) are quite common on the web. However, you will not find them on science web sites but on web sites displaying the rantings of creationists and so-called Intelligent Design advocates. These arguments are important to the creationists. The existence of Neanderthal bones, along with fossils from other homo species, are excellent evidence that archaic forms of humans existed, quite distinct from ourselves, and that evolution can explain their development from earlier, more ape-like ancestors. This is bad news for creationists who like to pretend that no such 'missing links' exist. And so the dissemblers on such sites paint these bones as those of diseased normal humans. A good example of the type of argument can be found on the All About Creation web site. The phrasing and style of argument displayed here is remarkably similar to Dr Walker's site.
The idea that Neanderthals were deformed and diseased ordinary humans has a long heritage, going as far back as the 19th Century German Anatomist Rudolf Virchow, who examined the skeleton of a Neanderthal and pronounced it a victim of rickets and a good bludgeoning around the head. By the beginning of the 20th Century, such ideas had been proved to be nonsense and now they are only to be found on christian literalist web sites (and the odd vitamin sales site).
We now have a much better view of what the Neanderthals were. Far from being backward, diseased and brutish, our cousins were in fact highly successful colonisers of Europe and the Near East. They thrived for hundreds of thousands of years and their remains have been associated with complex hunting and tool making, control of fire and cultural artifcats. Whereas the later arriving sapiens adapted to the harsher environments of Europe though technology, Neanderthals survived through physical adaptions. Their bodies were not diseased but strong and stocky in order to conserve heat and hunt effectively. Their bodies show no signs of rickets. Rather than having the grossly weakened and twisted bones of a rickets victim, their bones are 50% stronger than ours and show none of the usual symptoms of the disease. Why they finally died out, and our own ancestors survived, is still being hotly debated as more evidence comes to light. However, it might be worth noting that the natural assumption that modern humans were far superior in their adaptions for the modern world may yet turn out to be hubris. Neandethals may yet turn out to have a longer dominion over their world than we do.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/06 ... rthal.html
As can be seen, evolutionary scientists thoroughly dismiss the creationist claim that you present.
Have evolutionary scientists given up on Neanderthal man? Do they all unequivocally agree with the idea of Vitamin "D" deficiency or is it one POSSIBLE interpretation that has been subsequently disproven? In other words, do some creationist scientists have an already pre-conceived agenda, just as some evolutionary scientists?
You make it sound as if the creationist scientists have answered all claims of evolutionary scientists as crack-pot and have all been answered and explained away... You are incorrect.
My point? You have not presented ALL of the arguments from both sides where we can make a true determination without relying on pre-concieved explanations of evidence.
You present the evolutionists as making a claim, and the "creationists" completely shutting them down without realizing that many such examples were not the "end of the story". Evolutionist scientists made corresponding replies! In this field, it is difficult to obtain the definitive answer you seem to put forward in all evolutionary cases. It simply is not the way things have gone. In reality, there are a lot of unanswered questions and obscurity, a lot of unanswered questions from BOTH sides of the table.
JohnMuise said:
The same can be said about creationist scientists... They believe in a literal interpretion of Genesis 1,2 and thus, all data is crammed to fit into that preconceived notion, rather than taking the data available and forming an hypothesis without allowing their religious belief to interfere. This, also, is dishonest science, to twist conclusions of data to fit the pre-conceived notion that God created in one earth week 6000 years ago.
JohnMuise said:
No doubt some truth to that statement. Science today is based on empirical data. It is a metaphysical judgment to call upon God as the creator. Science rules out inferential evidence. However, this does not mean that man's knowledge ALSO must rule out inferential knowledge. That is a fallacy pushed upon us by the scientific community of the Enlightenment Era - "that man's knowledge is limited to empirical data". Philosphically, what we can know was limited to what we can observe. However, there really is no reason to take such a philosophical tact. We can know by inference that God exists, by cause and effect. But this is not scientific knowledge. Science deals with observation, providing causes from effects that are observable. Speculating an unobserved cause for an effect will not hold up in the scientific community.
However, human knowledge, as a whole, CAN accept such statements, because man can know through inference. I infer that a house was built by people when I come upon a deserted island and see a building. I have no scientific evidence that humans built it, but my knowledge is valid when I infer it was built. I use this same means of knowing that GOD created the universe. I don't need to cross the scientific boundaries and "force" science to enable me to know or prove that. Science CANNOT prove it. And thus, again, I tell you that theologians can know God's existence - while science (using its own defined areas of knowing) cannot. This was not always so. Before the Reformation, science and theology were welded together. However, free thinkers have limited man to what he can know to what he can observe. This idea has escalated and taken on dogmatic appeal to scientists who do not believe in God. They have narrowed our knowledge to THEIR fields of knowledge.
And so my axiom remains in effect. Scientists should stick to their field of knowledge, knowing that it is not the sum of all human ways of knowing, and theologians should not be so desperate to ignore scientific data based upon their INTERPRETATIONS of sacred writings... It has never been successfully proven that Genesis 1 and 2 were MEANT to be literal. Thus, belief in the "science" of creation based upon Genesis 1 and 2 is fraught with peril, especially in the face of conclusive evidence that the age of the earth is well over 6000 years and the earth is not flat.
Our faith rests in Jesus Christ, not on our INTERPRETATION of whether Genesis 1 is literal or not. NOWHERE does inspired word of God tell us that the literary genre of Genesis 1 is "science", rather than a mythical narrative - another means of defining truth that God wants us to know. Even the ancients recognized that Genesis one was probably not literal. St. Augustine writes a whole book on it...
Regards