15 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd all the dating techniques also which contradict your view that man has only been on the Earth for 6,000yrs?
we do not hold that science is the problem noobster, only that evolution is unscientific. please note we are not the only ones, irreducible complexity is a barrier, regardless of what has been portrayed in the media and in court cases like the Dover trial, that is not easily refuted. for even if the components existed, as in the case of the flagellu ...[text shortened]... them must also somehow have been in place, making even the assembly process irreducibly complex.
15 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobdating techniques are one thing noobster, what constitutes a human quite another. if you will go back as far as you like, you will find that many of what were called humans, or the so called transitional 'beings', were in fact nothing of the sort. they were simian, not human, therefore something is not quite right here, for you are stating that humans have lived on earth for 150,000 years. where are the remains of these humans, you would think that given the duration and lack of birth control methods, there would be a profusion, but there is not! in the case of ramapithecus an entire skeletal structure was composed of a fraction of lower jawbone and two teeth! why the postulation? why is it hailed in 'scientific', textbooks as being a link, its ludicrous, it really is! you have also still failed to answer why, only in the last five thousand years, these humans took to establishing a written record, if the were human as you are suggesting, why only up until now have we started to write things down?
And all the dating techniques also which contradict your view that man has only been on the Earth for 6,000yrs?
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can postulate all you like, but it just backs up my claim i made.
dating techniques are one thing noobster, what constitutes a human quite another. if you will go back as far as you like, you will find that many of what were called humans, or the so called transitional 'beings', were in fact nothing of the sort. they were simian, not human, therefore something is not quite right here, for you are stating that hum ...[text shortened]... ere human as you are suggesting, why only up until now have we started to write things down?
What makes you think YOU know better than the countless scientists who have devoted their lives to these issues?
As i said before, you're happy to accept science as long as it enriches your life, but not the sciences that contradict your Christian faith?
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobsimply because my dear friend, human wisdom is fallible, Godly wisdom is not!
You can postulate all you like, but it just backs up my claim i made.
What makes you think YOU know better than the countless scientists who have devoted their lives to these issues?
As i said before, you're happy to accept science as long as it enriches your life, but not the sciences that contradict your Christian faith?
15 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA phrase i've read many times.
simply because my dear friend, human wisdom is fallible, Godly wisdom is not!
Which can be interpreted to mean 'i believe the Bible over mans ideas', a phrase which Galveston has used. But here's the problem.
The Bible is mans idea, written by men!!!
God didn't write the Bible, so how can the Bible be called 'Godly wisdom'? Inspired by God maybe, but definitely not written by him. But i guess the phrase -
simply because my dear friend, human wisdom is fallible, inspired Godly wisdom is not!
Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobahh how refreshing to note that you do not deny the limitations of human knowledge!
A phrase i've read many times.
Which can be interpreted to mean 'i believe the Bible over mans ideas', a phrase which Galveston has used. But here's the problem.
The Bible is mans idea, written by men!!!
God didn't write the Bible, so how can the Bible be called 'Godly wisdom'? Inspired by God maybe, but definitely not written by him. But i gue ...[text shortened]... s fallible, inspired Godly wisdom is not![/i]
Doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
this phrase dear Noob, 'inspired of God', whence does it come from and what does it mean?
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by PinkFloydSo even if we learn some new scientific information or some truth to counter your beliefs you would not change them? I'm not saying dismiss your faith but maybe we learn that the earth is a lot younger that we once thought or vise versa. I think of Galileo or people who think the earth is flat. We now know better. Remember the Church of Galileo's day told him to recant his views but Galileo's model of the solar system was correct.
Perhaps you don't/can't dismiss these questions; I have no problem doing so.
Manny
15 Sep 09
1 edit
The thing about evolutionist it seems to me that they want answers like most of us do. I want answers to alot of things and if in the future God wants to enlighten us he will. I really hope he does.
But we have to wait and let him do that in his own time. We can do all the exploring we want and that's great because he gave us this earth to do that with. And who knows about the universe. We may some day explore it on a much grander scale then we do today, the bible doesn't say but it does say the earth is given to earthly man.
But in my observation it seems that those who believe in evolution seem to want it to be true so much that they promote it as fact as much as they can. It would seem that a prudent man would make sure with all the facts and truths before it would ever be said it is a fact.
I notice even on TV shows that the narrators constantly say "this is the way it happened" when in fact it is only a guess.
15 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Yet another one beliving that a scientific theory isn't worth more than a mere guess. (*sigh*)
Evolution is still just a theory right?
Manny
There are theories, there are hypothesis - and there are guessings. Is this clear to you now?
Creationism is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - and it's religion.
15 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71no its less than a theory, its a hypothesis and a religious belief! and yes, like any data, it is open to interpretation.
Evolution is still just a theory right? Best guess on latest scientific data. However like with anything if there is a hidden or not so hidden agenda this can affect how data is interpreted just like with the bible.
Manny
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieChrist on a cracker Robbie, I like you better when you've got a glass of good scotch in front of you.
no its less than a theory, its a hypothesis and a religious belief! and yes, like any data, it is open to interpretation.
Don't you understand the difference of a hypothesis and a theory? Hypothesis is what comes before research. Clearly much research has been done regarding the theory of evolution.
And now thanks to you my wife is yelling at me for arguing with the Jesus jumpers again!!
Good night, have some more Scotch please.
16 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knob...oops, wrong post. see next post.
[b]Well of course God wants us to use our brains and learn, explore and make or lifes better by science if we can. I'm all for that as most people would.
As the old saying goes 'you can't have your cake and eat it'!!! You and Robbie both have the same stance on this issue, which isn't really surprising since you are both JW's.
You both also adopt the same 'lets-poke-fun-at-it' attitude
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasDo you have scientific proof that the universe was not created ?
Yet another one beliving that a scientific theory isn't worth more than a mere guess. (*sigh*)
There are theories, there are hypothesis - and there are guessings. Is this clear to you now?
Creationism is not a theory, it is a hypothesis - and it's religion.