|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 10:45 am
Pff ... scientists are crazy. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:00 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Pff ... scientists are crazy. xd You're telling me. Ever look at a physics theory? O.O eek
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:04 pm
ryuu_chan Fushigi na Butterfly Pff ... scientists are crazy. xd You're telling me. Ever look at a physics theory? O.O eek I know what you mean...I mean, seriously, gravity? Those guys are nuts... wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:32 am
Lethkhar ryuu_chan Fushigi na Butterfly Pff ... scientists are crazy. xd You're telling me. Ever look at a physics theory? O.O eek I know what you mean...I mean, seriously, gravity? Those guys are nuts... wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-functioning Businesswoman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:00 pm
Well, if anyone every says something like "Well, I'll think about believing in the Bible if you can disprove evolution!" How would you respond? We know that anything is possible. I personally, would say something under the lines of, "I'll consider believing in evolution if you can disprove the Bible." We all (should) know well that it has been tried before and no one has been able to disprove the Bible, in fact, the harder they try the more they lead to the fact it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:01 pm
Fushigi na Butterfly Lethkhar ryuu_chan Fushigi na Butterfly Pff ... scientists are crazy. xd You're telling me. Ever look at a physics theory? O.O eek I know what you mean...I mean, seriously, gravity? Those guys are nuts... wink Who was that crazy guy that thought up gravity anyway XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:25 pm
Rainy Xsclsm Well, if anyone every says something like "Well, I'll think about believing in the Bible if you can disprove evolution!" How would you respond? We know that anything is possible. I personally, would say something under the lines of, "I'll consider believing in evolution if you can disprove the Bible." We all (should) know well that it has been tried before and no one has been able to disprove the Bible, in fact, the harder they try the more they lead to the fact it's true. That's not exactly true... As a human creation, the Bible does have flaws. Logical fallacies and inconsistencies and stuff. You could compile a pretty big list of them. I'm not saying the Bible isn't true. I'm just saying that "disproving" its credibility is actually a pretty easy thing to do. Of course, most Christians can't even recognize any form of logic when it comes to the Bible, so all of you continue to believe that the Bible is completely free of errors no matter how blatant they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 4:52 pm
So yeah, here's the deal on proving/disproving evolution. We can neither prove nor disprove evolution in a scientific sense. The reason I say that is because the Big Bang cannot be recreated in a science lab. All we have are fossils, or this and that. However, no one can go back and time to see what really happened, or re-create it. What exactly was in the mass that exploded? No one knows, right? Then any attempt to recreate this event is pretty much a moot point. My personal beliefs are that God created the world and everything in it, actually, I just believe that God created everything. I believe that because it's in the Bible, and as a Christian, I believe it to be the inspired Word of God. I don't take Genesis figuratively, and the reason being is due to a simple word study. When we look at the original Hebrew word used during the beginning of creation, "day" meant literally "day", not figuratively one day equals a million years or whatever. Honestly, it could've totally been done in an instant, since God is omnipotent ( all-powerful ), and it still would have been great. However, I really don't know why God did it the way He did. The problem is, we're arguing with people about this thing, when it really comes down to a simple "if you believe it, you believe it, and if you don't, then you don't" We will not be able to convince someone otherwise unless we have some video footage of how everything started ( and even then I'm positive there'd be skeptics. "Those were only special effects! Like, I can totally see the fish wire right there." ) , and we don't, or, we can just leave it up to God to reveal what He has done to those who don't believe, instead of us trying to do it for Him ( and looking not-so-smart while trying ) Before I became a Christian, and even now, the problem I've always had with evolution is the fact that it doesn't give an answer to the question of, where did it come from? Spontaneous generation ( the now-disproven belief that life can come from non-life, or something can come from nothing, if I'm correct. ) is out the window, so obviously, the mass that supposedly exploded had to come from somewhere. No, wait, what's the theory that energy or matter or something cannot be destroyed, nor created...I dunno. xd Science people, help me out on this one. But anywho, all evolution does is give an explanation of the "after the mass of energy gets here, then explodes" aka the Big Bang. What I want to know is, how did the energy that caused the Big Bang get there? I've always wanted to know of origins, and I've never been given an answer. If there is one in the evolution theory, I'm actually curious as to what that is. But yeah, the whole deal is that we cannot prove nor disprove evolution, much like we cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. ( However, there are things that will influence our beliefs. For example, if we believe the Bible or any other religious book that has some sort of creation story to be a bunch of bologna, then we more than likely will not believe in creation. ) If God does not choose to make Himself known to us, we will not believe in Him, and as such, if God does make Himself known to us, we will believe in Him, because until that invitation to know God has been extended, we are only deluding ourselves to believe with our minds something that has not truly taken place in our hearts. Quote: WordNet Dictionary Definition: 1. [n] the act of deluding; deception by creating illusory ideas 2. [n] a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea; "he has delusions of competence"; "his dreams of vast wealth are a hallucination" 3. [n] (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary If we say we believe in the existence of God, yet have no evidence of His existence in our lives, the only way to describe our current state is simply that of delusional. sweatdrop so yeah, I'm done. Kind of jumped around a bit, but hopefully my point was grasped somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:07 am
I think someone's been at the science juice again. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 3:55 pm
Lady of Serenity Before I became a Christian, and even now, the problem I've always had with evolution is the fact that it doesn't give an answer to the question of, where did it come from? Spontaneous generation ( the now-disproven belief that life can come from non-life, or something can come from nothing, if I'm correct. ) is out the window, so obviously, the mass that supposedly exploded had to come from somewhere. No, wait, what's the theory that energy or matter or something cannot be destroyed, nor created...I dunno. xd Science people, help me out on this one. Conservation of energy, I believe. Abiogenesis (Life came from non-life) has not been disproven. On the contrary, there is evidence to support it. But matter coming from non-matter? Hypothesis. Quote: But anywho, all evolution does is give an explanation of the "after the mass of energy gets here, then explodes" aka the Big Bang. What I want to know is, how did the energy that caused the Big Bang get there? I've always wanted to know of origins, and I've never been given an answer. If there is one in the evolution theory, I'm actually curious as to what that is. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang... If you want to know the answer to that (Which, as of yet , is unanswered. Maybe the energy was always there), maybe you should become a scientist yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 6:40 pm
Cool, thanks for clearing all of that up for me. Okay, so is Abiogenesis the scientific term for Spontaneous Generation, or is it an entirely different thing altogether? I learned...back in about my 9th or 10th grade year that Spontaneous Generation had actually been uh...for a lack of better words "thrown out" But yeah, I kind of, well...I did lump Evolution and the Big Bang together out of habit. They've pretty much always been taught side by side, so I guess most people ( including myself ) have a tendency to think they have something to do with each other. However, I can definitely see how they have nothing to do with each other. Big Bang deals with the before, and Evolution deals with the after...if the way I said it makes sense. sweatdrop Though, in all honesty I'm not really trying to find the answer to how the energy got there. Like I said earlier, I already have my beliefs about where everything came from, which is simply that God made it all. And...the age old question "Well if God made everything, then what made God?" The answer is simply that He's always been there, He is the uncreated One. Here's my reference material for that claim... Quote: Genesis 1:11In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. John 1:1-51In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it. Footnotes: 1. John 1:5 Or darkness, and the darkness has not overcome Okay, so I'm going to bring a few things to attention in these two verses...first off, the word "beginning" in both. Now, as a reference, the Bible was written in two languages...Hebrew for Old Testament, and Greek for the New. Because of this the words for beginning are different, and I'll post both of them up now. Quote: 7225 re'shiyth ray-sheeth' from the same as 7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit):--beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing. That's the Hebrew word for beginning. Quote: 746. arche ar-khay' from 756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concretely) chief (in various applications of order, time, place, or rank):--beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule. And there's the Greek. Oh, and also, to get these definitions, I'm using this book that gives all of the orginal Hebrew and Greek words in the Bible. The one I'm using is called a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. The numbers are just references as to where they are found in the book. Okay, so now I can explain everything... As seen in the definitions the word "beginning" pretty much means first in regards to rank, time, place, and order. The "beginning of beginnings" as it were. What's interesting is that it said that God was there. Nowhere does it say He was created. Actually, in the 2nd verse I put up, the part I will now bring to attention is this " 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." It's pretty straightforward, and it proves a vital point. That all things were made by Him. Not some, or most. This supports my claim that God is not created, thus meaning that He has always been there. So yeah, I didn't want to just say something without backing myself up. There's actually a lot more to this that I found, and now have questions about due to this short study I conducted, and I'm definitely going to look more into it to find answers. But yeah, hopefully someone learned something. And if anyone sees anything wrong with what I've said, feel free to correct me. xd I'd appreciate it, really. cool And on a slightly random note...isn't it interesting how the english word arc, in terms of story lines and whatnot, and the Greek word I put up are really similar? I'm thinking that word might actually be where we got the word arc to begin with... @ Priestly: sweatdrop I'm a little slow sometimes, so what...and who were you referring to in regards to the whole "science juice" thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 7:55 pm
Oh it was a pretty abstract joke. 'Jesus juice' is another name for wine, in reference to the miracle done with wine and the communion. Wine, like any other alcoholic beverage causes stupor if consumed in large quantities, which can lead to rambling. I replaced 'Jesus' in 'Jesus juice' with 'science' to come up with 'science juice', as you posted a long post about scientific theories.
Okay, so I found it funny at the time. confused
Sorry if I've offended you. I didn't mean it! gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 8:07 pm
Personally, I believe God is the one RESPONSIBLE for evolution. There is a lot of VERY compelling evidence in evolution's favor, and personally I do not see why God could not have made creatures evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 2:54 pm
Just a quick thought. How many Christians are trying to disprove scientific theories for the sake of pride and satisfaction of "I'm right, you're wrong"? If a Christian has faith in God, shouldn't the righteousness that comes with such faith outshine the 'need' (read: desire) to be right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:09 pm
Lady of Serenity Cool, thanks for clearing all of that up for me. Okay, so is Abiogenesis the scientific term for Spontaneous Generation, or is it an entirely different thing altogether? I learned...back in about my 9th or 10th grade year that Spontaneous Generation had actually been uh...for a lack of better words "thrown out" Honestly, I've never heard of "Spontaneous Generation", so I'm assuming it's a discarded hypothesis or something. Abiogenesis is the theory that life came from a series of biochemical reactions among organic molecules. Quote: sweatdrop Though, in all honesty I'm not really trying to find the answer to how the energy got there. Like I said earlier, I already have my beliefs about where everything came from, which is simply that God made it all. And...the age old question "Well if God made everything, then what made God?" The answer is simply that He's always been there, He is the uncreated One. My question would be why that can't also be true of the universe, without the unnecessary step of a God. But if adding the extra step of God makes you happy, there's really not much of a reason for me to stop you. I've always liked people who choose to reconcile their religion with science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
