Jump to content

Is the world polluting the minds of young people with a false narrative of the origin and meaning of life?


blackbird

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If evidence for a god is off the table, then how would we know which god is the right one?  By having such a standard, haven’t you relegated all gods to be equally as likely?

The Bible is the answer as to which God.  The creation demonstrates that God exists.  The Bible is inspired by God and describes who this God is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

The Bible is the answer as to which God.  The creation demonstrates that God exists.  The Bible is inspired by God and describes who this God is.

I asked about all the different gods.  If evidence is off the table, which one should we pick, and why?  A Muslim could look at the Koran and say the exact same thing that you just did, with the same level of confidence and the same justifications, couldn’t they?

Granting that your god is the best one (although, we still have no reasons why we should choose your god), can you and I look at the same passage in the bible and come to a completely different understanding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I asked about all the different gods.  If evidence is off the table, which one should we pick, and why?  A Muslim could look at the Koran and say the exact same thing that you just did, with the same level of confidence and the same justifications, couldn’t they?

Granting that your god is the best one (although, we still have no reasons why we should choose your god), can you and I look at the same passage in the bible and come to a completely different understanding?

What you're asking is a little more involved subject.  You would have to do a bit of studying of the Bible and learn the difference between the teachings of the false religions and the God of the Bible.  Islam and the Koran are easily debunked with a little reading.  Try using a search engine and enter the words "   Islam and the Bible but be careful you don't just read some Islamic website.  There are lots of those.  If you study the Bible a bit you will learn a lot of reason why the Bible is far superior to other religions..  The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years by about 40 different authors (66 books)  in the King James Bible.  They were inspired by God to write the Bible.  I can't really go into all the difference on here as the volume of information involved.  You have to look at the founder of Islam,  Mohammed, and see what kind of character he was and the claims he made when he wrote the Koran.    There is no comparison with the Bible and the men who wrote the Bible.   The Bible is centred around Jesus Christ, who the Bible says is the image of God or Son of God.  He was raised from the dead and seen by many eye witnesses as recorded in the New Testament.  In the Bible God is actually three persons in one.  He is not three Gods, but one God in three persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).  He is separate from his creation.  The Bible says he is a spirit.  He is different than the false gods in other religions in a number of ways.  The God of the Bible is also a Spirit who is present everywhere. He is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and eternal (always existed).  So God send his Son, Jesus, to earth to take on a human nature and body for the purpose of atoning for man's sin.  The Bible teaches we are all fallen, corrupt sinners.  Other religions do not have this and they do not have an atonement for sin.  The God of the Bible is personally knowable and any individual can have a personal relationship with him.  The Bible teaches this.  God wants all to come into a personal relationship with him and thereby receive eternal life.  Other religions don't have this.  Yes, we can look at the same verse and come to different understandings.  That is common in the world.  That is why there are thousands of different denominations.  But most denominations do agree on certain basic fundamental teachings about God.  The Bible often has to be used to interpret itself, that is, scripture interprets scripture.  Sometimes it involves understanding the context.  Sometimes it requires understanding the Bible is divided into dispensations or ages of time.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Try using a search engine and enter the words "   Islam and the Bible but be careful you don't just read some Islamic website.  There are lots of those.

So as long as you only read why Islam isn’t real, you will realize why Islam isn’t real.  
I don’t  find that a good way to get to the truth.  As I said, if evidence is off the table, then everything is possible everything is equally as likely.  

 

4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Bible teaches this.

The bible teaches that the bible is true.  This is all circular reasoning.  
I want to know why your interpretation is the correct one. How do we tell, if everything is just based on how you feel about it?

A lot of anti vaxxers use the bible as the foundation for why they won’t get a vaccine.  How can you tell that they’re wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So as long as you only read why Islam isn’t real, you will realize why Islam isn’t real.  
I don’t  find that a good way to get to the truth.  As I said, if evidence is off the table, then everything is possible everything is equally as likely.  

 

The bible teaches that the bible is true.  This is all circular reasoning.  
I want to know why your interpretation is the correct one. How do we tell, if everything is just based on how you feel about it?

A lot of anti vaxxers use the bible as the foundation for why they won’t get a vaccine.  How can you tell that they’re wrong?

       The nature of the Koran and it's author (Mohammed) essentially eliminate any credibility in it. 

       The Bible on the other hand gives a complete credible accounting of God's dealing with Israel and mankind that makes complete sense.  I believe the King James Version is the inspired Bible in English.  It is based on the Received Text.   Many of the writers and people recorded in the Bible had personal encounters with God that are very credible.  Moses for example, who led the people of Israel out of bondage in Egypt.  Other men who wrote parts or books of the Bible give very credible accounts of their encounters with God.    Many fulfilled prophecies recorded in the Old Testament were fulfilled in some cases centuries later.  These are a few reasons it is believable.  Not just because the Bible itself teaches it is true.  There is far more to it than that.

Nothing is based on how I feel about it.  Each person has to have their own faith.  Your faith in the Bible and God has to be based on your own belief about it.  You don't have to believe me on anything.  You are free to research it, study it, and come to your own conclusions.  

I realize a lot of anti-vaxxers are Christians / Bible believers.  I believe they are in serious error.  They do not accept the science.  That is a whole different topic which I won't delve into there.  I trust the authorities on vaccination.  The Bible says in Romans ch13 God ordained authorities and we are to obey them.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So as long as you only read why Islam isn’t real, you will realize why Islam isn’t real.  
I don’t  find that a good way to get to the truth.  As I said, if evidence is off the table, then everything is possible everything is equally as likely.  

Bible Vs Quran (Koran): 12 Big Differences (Which Is Right?) (biblereasons.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

  I believe they are in serious error. 

If it’s based on faith, then how can we tell that they’re in error?

 

24 minutes ago, blackbird said:

They do not accept the science. 

And you do not accept the science of evolution.  

So why do you accept the science on vaccines and not the science when it comes to evolution?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If it’s based on faith, then how can we tell that they’re in error?

 

And you do not accept the science of evolution.  

So why do you accept the science on vaccines and not the science when it comes to evolution?  

It takes study and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to tell truth from error.

Evolution is not science.  It is called the theory of evolution. You used the wrong word.   The theory has been debunked by many including scientists.

The science on the success of vaccines has been well-established over the decades.  It has saved millions of lives.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

guidance of the Holy Spirit

How do I tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Devil, if the Devil has the ability to fool us?

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Evolution is not science.  It is called the theory of evolution. You used the wrong word.   The theory has been debunked by many including scientists.

Is there a thing called Germ Theory of Disease?

Theory of Gravity? 

Do you know what a theory is when the term is used within science?

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

The science on the success of vaccines has been well-established over the decades.  It has saved millions of lives.

Do you think the biochemists, pathologists, biologists, etc involved in creating vaccines believe in the Theory of Evolution?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

How do I tell the difference between the Holy Spirit and the Devil, if the Devil has the ability to fool us?

Is there a thing called Germ Theory of Disease?

Theory of Gravity? 

Do you know what a theory is when the term is used within science?

Do you think the biochemists, pathologists, biologists, etc involved in creating vaccines believe in the Theory of Evolution?

 

There are several basic principles to interpreting Scripture.

1. “INTERPRET LITERALLY (i.e. NORMALLY or NATURALLY).” In other words, take the words at "face value." Take the words & verses to mean just what they normally mean, unless there is clear evidence in the text itself that they should be taken symbolically.

2. The "Golden Principle of Bible Interpretation": "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic (self-evident) and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise." David L. Cooper.

   Principles-of-Bible-Interpretation-full-paper.pdf (bbc-madison.org)

If you follow these principles you should be following the leading of the Holy Spirit, not the Devil.

I am not familiar with the germ theory of disease.

I am not a scientist so can't comment on the theory of gravity, but if there a theory on it, it is probably reasonable.  We all experience gravity so we know it exists.

I believe theory in the scientific realm is speculation about something where it has not been proven by the scientific method.

Yes, many scientists likely believe in the theory of evolution, but many of them may not have given any serious examination of it from the point of view of those who have debunked it.  Most people who do not believe the Bible likely do not even know the creationist point of view.  You can read articles on the subject of creation at creation.com

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I am not a scientist so can't comment on the theory of gravity

Why don’t you have this same humility regarding the Theory of Evolution? 

 

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I believe theory in the scientific realm is speculation about something where it has not been proven by the scientific method.

You are 100% incorrect about that. 

A scientific theory is the opposite of speculation.  Germs are a fact, and yet it’s called a theory.  Gravity is a fact, yet it’s called a theory.  The same is true of evolution.

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If you follow these principles you should be following the leading of the Holy Spirit, not the Devil.

But other Christians say the exact same thing, and yet you believe they are following the devil.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Why don’t you have this same humility regarding the Theory of Evolution? 

 

You are 100% incorrect about that. 

A scientific theory is the opposite of speculation.  Germs are a fact, and yet it’s called a theory.  Gravity is a fact, yet it’s called a theory.  The same is true of evolution.

But other Christians say the exact same thing, and yet you believe they are following the devil.  

 

The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible and has been shown to be false.

I don't see the point of debating gravity or the definition of a theory. 

Not sure what your point is.  Satan is the prince of this world and millions are deceived by him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

The theory of evolution contradicts the Bible and has been shown to be false.

Scientifically, it has shown to be a fact.  If your definition of false is that it contradicts the bible, then I guess it would be false.  But that’s not how science works. 
 

Do you believe that bats are mammals?

 

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't see the point of debating gravity or the definition of a theory

There is no debate over the definition of theory in terms of how it is used in science.  The reason I mentioned it is because you were 100% wrong about the definition. 
 

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

Not sure what your point is.  Satan is the prince of this world and millions are deceived by him.

If you believe that Satan can fool humans, then how do you know that Satan isn’t deceiving you?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Scientifically, it has shown to be a fact.  If your definition of false is that it contradicts the bible, then I guess it would be false.  But that’s not how science works. 

Quote

How Persuasive is Evolution from a scientific perspective ?

Science deals with measurements and observations. Mendleev made the famous remark “science begins with measurement”. Einstein made the even more famous remark “What can be measured is science, everything else is speculation”. What measurements support the theory of evolution?

None.

None, that is, as long as one is thinking in terms of evolution as it is sold to the public. The idea that life progresses from simple to complex, from molecules to man. The idea that new organs and structures appear because “good” mutations generate new information in the DNA. The idea embodied in Julian Huxley’s definition of evolution:

“…a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organisation in its products”.

Has any scientist ever observed any such increase of variety or increase in organisation happening?

No.

On the contrary, observation shows that if structural changes occur they are changes for the worse - loss of function, damage - never advance or improvement. Many thousands of mutations have been observed. Not one has ever led to the kind of progress that evolution demands. The evolutionary texts in desperation point to one mutation which they claim to be “good” - a mutation which damages the blood and causes a disease called sickle cell anaemia. This is a serious, debilitating disease, so how can it be held up as a “good” mutation. The fact is that the blood cells are so damaged that a parasite called Plasmodium cannot live and multiply in them. Plasmodium causes malaria, so if you have sickle cell anaemia you are unlikely to die of malaria (though more likely to die of almost any other disease!). A better description would be a harmful mutation with one good side effect if you happen to live in a malarial region.

In order to get over this difficulty evolution has to be redefined (though the public is not told about this!). The definitions used today by evolutionists have to be very carefully phrased and utterly lame. Take for example that of Chris Colby in “An Introduction to Evolutionary Biology”:   Unquote

Part of an article by Professor Philip Stott.  For the whole article go to:

Creation, Evolution, Christian / Philip Stott | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Scientifically, it has shown to be a fact.  If your definition of false is that it contradicts the bible, then I guess it would be false.  But that’s not how science works. 

Con'd   quote  

“Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population”.

Note that it says nothing about progress or development, just change. So damage to a gene is now evolution (it gives a change in a gene pool) so it is possible to claim that this lame kind of “evolution” has been observed because both degeneration and change without increase of complexity have been observed. Also, note that this definition does not allow for the origin of life, since there is no gene pool without a living population to start with. The lame definitions of today’s professional evolutionists cause confusion and enable them to hide behind a smoke-screen whenever it suits them. In what follows the term “evolution” is used, not in this weak, emasculated, lame form, but with the normal meaning as used in the media, all school text-books and most university text-books.

Not all professional biologists are up to the sleight of hand that the leaders of the theory have come to adopt. Colbe notes:

“very few people - the majority of biologists included - have a satisfactory grasp of it … People who have a general interest in science are likely to dismiss evolution as a soft science after absorbing the pop science nonsense that abounds. The impression of it being a soft science is reinforced when biologists in unrelated fields speculate publicly about evolution.”

So here we have one evolutionary biologist calling the statements of other evolutionary biologists “nonsense” and dismissing their pronouncements as mere speculation. I certainly agree with him on that, but wonder on what grounds he exempts himself from the same criticism! A point that needs to be noted is that professional biologists know perfectly well that the evolution stories being told to the public - and found in most college textbooks - are totally untenable. I challenged one such scientist, Dr. Joel Duff, on this after a meeting in Chicago. His response was that they could not tell the public the truth (i.e. the current theory believed by the majority of “experts” at the present moment) about evolution - the public would not understand and would be confused.

Now it is certainly true that variation is observed in species. In practically any population there are different variants of some genes (called alleles), and different combinations of them occur at each mating. Also changing the arrangement of genes on the chromosome causes differences in such features as colour of hair and eyes, length of feathers and size of ears. Considerable rearrangement occurs at each mating. But such variation is not the kind needed for evolution, evolution does not call for a range of possible size of feathers, length of ears or colour of eyes, it requires the appearance of feathers, ears and eyes in the first place by chance mutations. It does not call for the rearrangement of existing information, it calls for the accidental generation of information - extremely complex information! No such event has ever been observed. Even observed resistance to poisons, often cited as evidence for evolution, seems to be produced by duplicating existing genes, not producing new ones by random chance events.

On the first requirement of science for a theory or hypothesis - measurement - any meaningful formulation of evolution fails.

To be taken seriously any theory of science must make serious predictions, and those predictions must be borne out in practice. Darwin made serious predictions about his theory. One of the most important was this:

“ … the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth.”

He predicted that they would be found in the fossil record.

No such intermediate and transitional links have been found.  Unquote

Creation, Evolution, Christian / Philip Stott | Evolution | Scripture & Science | Reformation International College

As you can see, the whole theory of evolution which is based on random chance processes is bunk.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you believe that bats are mammals?

Quote

If you believe that Satan can fool humans, then how do you know that Satan isn’t deceiving you?  

If we’re going to have a discussion, let’s not avoid questions and just copy/paste from websites.

Edited by TreeBeard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 2/15/2022 at 7:16 PM, blackbird said:

Evolution is not science.  It is called the theory of evolution. You used the wrong word.   The theory has been debunked by many including scientists.

The science on the success of vaccines has been well-established over the decades.  It has saved millions of lives.

With some basic research you will quickly realize that vaccines and evolution are ostensibly based on the exact same scientific principles, so by not accepting both you're expressing what is called. Cognitive dissonance, another thing i would suggest you research

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/15/2022 at 9:51 PM, blackbird said:

believe theory in the scientific realm is speculation about something where it has not been proven by the scientific method.

Theory in the "scientific realm" is synonymous with and can be replaced by Law.

Scientists, unlike theists possess the humility to admit we don't (and may never) know everything

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

With some basic research you will quickly realize that vaccines and evolution are ostensibly based on the exact same scientific principles, so by not accepting both you're expressing what is called. Cognitive dissonance, another thing i would suggest you research

No, the theory of evolution has not been based on the same research as vaccines.   Evolution is only a theory and has never been proven to be true.  Because of the vast time scales involved, it is impossible to replicate evolution in a laboratory. 

Vaccines have been developed, tried and tested, and proven to work.  So they are two totally different subjects.  Trying to equate or link the two subjects and claim they are both based on science or more correctly the scientific method is indeed cognitive dissonance on your part.  Ask any scientist.  Evolution is purely a theory or speculation and has never been proven by the scientific method, which is the gold standard for science.  Yet it is taught in schools and around the world as if it is fact, only proving truth is difficult to find in the world.  It is taken as fact by many people but in reality it is pure dogma with no solid evidence or proof. 

The theory of evolution has been found wanting in a number of ways.

There are many articles that debunk the theory of evolution.  This website has many and this is just one article:

Appendix 1: Common arguments for evolution that have been rejected - creation.com

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Theory in the "scientific realm" is synonymous with and can be replaced by Law.

Scientists, unlike theists possess the humility to admit we don't (and may never) know everything

One interesting fact is that Darwin predicted that transitional evidence (fossils for example) would be found showing the gradual transition between species.  The truth is no such transitional evidence has been found.

Quote

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils

Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’

by Gary Bates

Published: 18 February 2008 (GMT+10)

Anyone reading creationist literature for a few years soon becomes aware that we often use quotes by evolutionists which discredit their own belief system. This raises the ire of many in the evolutionary establishment, and often they will accuse creationists of ‘taking their remarks out of context’. This is rarely the case. However, one can imagine that the spectre of condemnation from fellow evolutionists would these days tend to limit any careless remarks from the pro-evolutionary camp.

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3   Unquote

That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils - creation.com

There are countless articles on this subject refuting the theory of evolution.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, blackbird said:

Evolution is only a theory and has never been proven to be true.  Because of the vast time scales involved, it is impossible to replicate evolution in a laboratory.

Electromagnetism is only a theory yet look at what we can do with it.

Mayflies with 24 hour lifespans have been shown to evolve traits that confer better survival when successive generations are exposed to colder than normal temperatures. Flies become heavier with thicker bodies that better insulate the creature from the cold.

Selecting the tamest foxes from litters and breeding them leads to foxes with tails that wag and ears that droop...dogs in other words.

Like the evidence for the theory of electromagnetism the evidence for evolution is very strong. Strong enough to make predictions and replicate results. The true mark of a good scientific theory.

Theoretically you should be able to take the rib of a man and make a woman. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Electromagnetism is only a theory yet look at what we can do with it.

Mayflies with 24 hour lifespans have been shown to evolve traits that confer better survival when successive generations are exposed to colder than normal temperatures. Flies become heavier with thicker bodies that better insulate the creature from the cold.

Selecting the tamest foxes from litters and breeding them leads to foxes with tails that wag and ears that droop...dogs in other words.

Like the evidence for the theory of electromagnetism the evidence for evolution is very strong. Strong enough to make predictions and replicate results. The true mark of a good scientific theory.

Theoretically you should be able to take the rib of a man and make a woman. What do you think?

Adaptation or minor changes within a species is well known and accepted, but it is not evolution.  There is no evidence that one species evolved from another species.  There are many different kinds of dogs for instance, but dogs or monkeys did not evolve from some lower form of creature such as a fish.  Evolution claims species evolved from totally different species, but there is no evidence for that.  Creationists believe in changes within a species, but that is not evolution.  Evolution has never been proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Adaptation or minor changes within a species is well known and accepted, but it is not evolution.  There is no evidence that one species evolved from another species.  There are many different kinds of dogs for instance, but dogs or monkeys did not evolve from some lower form of creature such as a fish.  Evolution claims species evolved from totally different species, but there is no evidence for that.  Creationists believe in changes within a species, but that is not evolution.  Evolution has never been proven.

Maybe not to within the degree of accuracy expected by quantum scientists but evolution as a theory provides the strongest explanation that counters the alternative facts Creationists subscribe to. They can't seem to prove even the most rudimentary aspects of their theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...