-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I think whatever is decided upon we probably have to acknowledge the hand of God in this event as that's the way the Bible portrays it. But for curiosity's sake, the atmosphere of course can have some strange effects on the appearance of the sun in the sky. When the sun sinks below the horizon, for instance, it still appears to us to be above the horizon for about a half hour. And not long ago in China there were two suns in the sky.
And it's interesting to note that in Joshua 10:13 it wasn't just the sun that stood still but the moon as well. But it's a little hard to explain a delay lasting for a full day. That would be like what we see in daily atmospheric phenomena but multiplied 48x over.
And it's interesting to note that in Joshua 10:13 it wasn't just the sun that stood still but the moon as well. But it's a little hard to explain a delay lasting for a full day. That would be like what we see in daily atmospheric phenomena but multiplied 48x over.
It is not surprising that you do not understand. When one divorces God from reality as the causative agent it is impossible for the Bible to make sense to them. What is generally regarded as reality is confined to those things that are accessible to empirical observation. We have a tendency to confine reality to only those things that can be observed, measured, and studied. Scripture shows us however, that reality extends beyond the simple fragile limitations of the physical dimension. Reality is a union of two parts. There is the temporal part of reality that is available to human empirical observation and the eternal, unobservable part of reality that exists beyond the realm of human accessibility. These two dimensions of reality are only separated from the standpoint of human limitations. While it is impossible for man to look into that part of reality, it is clear from scripture that the visible is always contingent upon the eternal. This veil of inaccessibility separates man from that world, not God from this world.
Our bodies are so order by the Creator that we must depend upon our five senses to tell us certain truths about our world. This is well and good because these things allow us to function within the confines of our natural surroundings. Our senses allow us to protect ourselves from potential harm. For example, I do not stick my hand in the fire because I know that fire is painfully destructive to human tissue. I do not walk off the top of a twenty-story building because I know that the impact at the bottom will undoubtedly be fatal. I do not knowingly step out in front of a speeding vehicle because I know there is a determined relationship between my body and mass in motion that does not work in my favor. These facts are certainly real and cannot simply be ignored. I trust my senses to warn me of potentially dangerous situations in everyday experiences. Our senses also allow us to enjoy the comforts, beauty, and pleasures of the world that God has given us. When any one of our senses becomes impaired or ceases to function, we lose that part of our connection to the world around us. Our senses are instilled within each of us by the Creator and are indeed a necessary component of our material existence. We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us all the truth about reality. My senses do not tell me that the power of God manipulates, overrules, and overturns natural processes. I can only know this from revelation. Scripture shows us that in human history, God has repeatedly contravened and overturned established determined relations, which we generally refer to as “laws” of nature. By its very nature, the idea of law suggests something that cannot be countermanded or violated without consequence. This is how we understand what we regard as “natural laws,” but just what is law?
Law is an abstract and by its very nature requires the presence of a dependent entity upon which to act, something outside of itself that is dependent upon its power to govern. Without something upon which to act, would not law then cease to be law? If such a law existed before and outside of the universe it would, of necessity, exist in a vacuum. I maintain this is not possible. I would have to insist that, apart from the existence of God there can be no law. Law can only exist as a means to establish order and organization for something that is concrete. Law requires the function of an administrator to enforce it. Since law has no power to create something beyond itself, there must be a power beyond law that is causative. Since the universe and universal law cannot exist apart from one another, neither can be causative of the other. This means that natural law must be subordinate to powers beyond itself. Law is neither self-existing nor self-sustaining. What man generally considers as “laws of nature” exist not as laws but rather as a set of determined relations that allow man to function within the confines of the natural world. It is a mistake to think that man can come to an accurate understanding of the universe on his own terms through a rational observation of his experiences within it.
Rationality depends upon the consistency of observable regularities. For example, I know that every time I throw a rock into the air it will inevitably come down because it always has. It has never just stopped in mid-air. Any expectation that these “laws” can be overturned is generally regarded as irrational and not to be given serious consideration. Yet, scripture is replete with examples of the “irrational.” It is not rational to believe that three men can be thrown into a furnace of fire for an extended period and emerge unharmed and with not even so much as the smell of smoke on them, Daniel 3:24-27. It is patently absurd to believe that the earth can suddenly and instantaneously cease its rotational pattern for several hours without dramatically disturbing gravitational forces, Joshua 10:12-14. There is nothing in our experience within the field of human biology to suggest that a virgin can conceive a child or that someone who had been dead and entombed for four days can be raised simply by verbal command to rejoin the living. All of these examples are certainly inconsistent with our experience in observable regularities. These things cannot be rationalized based upon natural processes. What these things serve to demonstrate is that God is not constrained by natural process. Nor is the universe governed by such. We live in a non-linear reality because our world does not exist as a closed system. Reality is made up of the natural world that surrounds us and the world of the unseen that is hidden from us. Our world is governed and controlled by powers that are outside of our normal field of observation. If man is to properly context his world of experience, he must learn to link what he can see to the reality and the power of God whom he cannot see. We can only understand this relationship when we learn to revere scripture as the surface form of absolute intelligence. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. As a linguistic representation, the inspired text reveals a mind that is not accessible to us by any other means. Properly understanding our world is completely contingent upon our first, recognizing the supreme intelligence of God, and secondly honoring scripture as the surface form of that intelligence.
Our bodies are so order by the Creator that we must depend upon our five senses to tell us certain truths about our world. This is well and good because these things allow us to function within the confines of our natural surroundings. Our senses allow us to protect ourselves from potential harm. For example, I do not stick my hand in the fire because I know that fire is painfully destructive to human tissue. I do not walk off the top of a twenty-story building because I know that the impact at the bottom will undoubtedly be fatal. I do not knowingly step out in front of a speeding vehicle because I know there is a determined relationship between my body and mass in motion that does not work in my favor. These facts are certainly real and cannot simply be ignored. I trust my senses to warn me of potentially dangerous situations in everyday experiences. Our senses also allow us to enjoy the comforts, beauty, and pleasures of the world that God has given us. When any one of our senses becomes impaired or ceases to function, we lose that part of our connection to the world around us. Our senses are instilled within each of us by the Creator and are indeed a necessary component of our material existence. We cannot however, trust our five senses to tell us all the truth about reality. My senses do not tell me that the power of God manipulates, overrules, and overturns natural processes. I can only know this from revelation. Scripture shows us that in human history, God has repeatedly contravened and overturned established determined relations, which we generally refer to as “laws” of nature. By its very nature, the idea of law suggests something that cannot be countermanded or violated without consequence. This is how we understand what we regard as “natural laws,” but just what is law?
Law is an abstract and by its very nature requires the presence of a dependent entity upon which to act, something outside of itself that is dependent upon its power to govern. Without something upon which to act, would not law then cease to be law? If such a law existed before and outside of the universe it would, of necessity, exist in a vacuum. I maintain this is not possible. I would have to insist that, apart from the existence of God there can be no law. Law can only exist as a means to establish order and organization for something that is concrete. Law requires the function of an administrator to enforce it. Since law has no power to create something beyond itself, there must be a power beyond law that is causative. Since the universe and universal law cannot exist apart from one another, neither can be causative of the other. This means that natural law must be subordinate to powers beyond itself. Law is neither self-existing nor self-sustaining. What man generally considers as “laws of nature” exist not as laws but rather as a set of determined relations that allow man to function within the confines of the natural world. It is a mistake to think that man can come to an accurate understanding of the universe on his own terms through a rational observation of his experiences within it.
Rationality depends upon the consistency of observable regularities. For example, I know that every time I throw a rock into the air it will inevitably come down because it always has. It has never just stopped in mid-air. Any expectation that these “laws” can be overturned is generally regarded as irrational and not to be given serious consideration. Yet, scripture is replete with examples of the “irrational.” It is not rational to believe that three men can be thrown into a furnace of fire for an extended period and emerge unharmed and with not even so much as the smell of smoke on them, Daniel 3:24-27. It is patently absurd to believe that the earth can suddenly and instantaneously cease its rotational pattern for several hours without dramatically disturbing gravitational forces, Joshua 10:12-14. There is nothing in our experience within the field of human biology to suggest that a virgin can conceive a child or that someone who had been dead and entombed for four days can be raised simply by verbal command to rejoin the living. All of these examples are certainly inconsistent with our experience in observable regularities. These things cannot be rationalized based upon natural processes. What these things serve to demonstrate is that God is not constrained by natural process. Nor is the universe governed by such. We live in a non-linear reality because our world does not exist as a closed system. Reality is made up of the natural world that surrounds us and the world of the unseen that is hidden from us. Our world is governed and controlled by powers that are outside of our normal field of observation. If man is to properly context his world of experience, he must learn to link what he can see to the reality and the power of God whom he cannot see. We can only understand this relationship when we learn to revere scripture as the surface form of absolute intelligence. Scripture exists as a bridge or index that links us to the absolute intelligence of God. As a linguistic representation, the inspired text reveals a mind that is not accessible to us by any other means. Properly understanding our world is completely contingent upon our first, recognizing the supreme intelligence of God, and secondly honoring scripture as the surface form of that intelligence.
If a story is ancient, it can still be true.
Genetic coding sends a message that very often doesn't mutate from generation to generation. Digital computing makes file copies that are reliable and don't lose a bit during the copy process.
In other news...
It is not a "god helmet" or Spock goggles but virtual reality headsets have been attracting buyers and journalists.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/technology/creator-of-a-virtual-reality-sensation.html
Genetic coding sends a message that very often doesn't mutate from generation to generation. Digital computing makes file copies that are reliable and don't lose a bit during the copy process.
In other news...
It is not a "god helmet" or Spock goggles but virtual reality headsets have been attracting buyers and journalists.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/27/technology/creator-of-a-virtual-reality-sensation.html
Yes it can, if it's reasonable. Is the story of the Milvian Bridge reasonable? I would say yes. Is the story of Pandora's box reasonable or the story of the Sun and Moon remaining motionless in the sky for hours? One must decide based upon reason. I simply ask myself if a story is farfetched or plausible. It is not hard to distinguish the difference.
Yes, mutations in certain regions of the body result in death which is why those elements go unchanged through generations of species. This may also explain the high mortality rate that occurs in the first weeks of fertilization. If random changes occur in these regions it is often fatal. I believe the figure is half of all human conceptions do not survive through the first week or two of life. A smaller number fail later in the first trimester.
The evidence for evolution is all around us. The biblical evidence of it is clear. Many of Noah’s descendants look nothing like Noah. Certainly his son’s wives did not give birth to African pygmies, Australian Bushmen, nor Chinese. These changes took place over perhaps 800 - 1,000 generations (based upon biblical dating), or over a much longer span of time based upon scientific evidence.
In your own words, “Like spawns like.” So how did African pygmies arise from the loins of Noah if not by evolution? If in only 800 to a 1000 generations this change occurred, what change might 40,000 or 100,000 generations bring?
Yes, mutations in certain regions of the body result in death which is why those elements go unchanged through generations of species. This may also explain the high mortality rate that occurs in the first weeks of fertilization. If random changes occur in these regions it is often fatal. I believe the figure is half of all human conceptions do not survive through the first week or two of life. A smaller number fail later in the first trimester.
The evidence for evolution is all around us. The biblical evidence of it is clear. Many of Noah’s descendants look nothing like Noah. Certainly his son’s wives did not give birth to African pygmies, Australian Bushmen, nor Chinese. These changes took place over perhaps 800 - 1,000 generations (based upon biblical dating), or over a much longer span of time based upon scientific evidence.
In your own words, “Like spawns like.” So how did African pygmies arise from the loins of Noah if not by evolution? If in only 800 to a 1000 generations this change occurred, what change might 40,000 or 100,000 generations bring?
Milvain Bridge...I found a Wikipedia article about "love padlocks" here: Ponte Milvio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. That alone was interesting but may not be the story that you intended for consideration.
Sun and moon remaining motionless...We do know WHAT happened and it helped Joshua to prevail in battle. We do not know HOW it happened.
Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Josh 10:12–13 NKJV)
With man, this would be impossible for sun and moon to remain motionless relative to the earth. With God, all things are possible.
Via microevolution, dogs breeds in recent centuries include small poodles and large Great Pyrenees but the offspring of a dog has always been a dog.
If I visit an airport or a dense urban area, I can watch a variety of people walk by with different heights and facial features. I may observe some variety of general ethnic attributes but it is all one human species. My wife is shorter and I am taller. Our daughters are taller than my wife and our sons are shorter than I am. This happened in one generation.
To use the vernacular of a recent micro-culture from a few decades back, FARM (the idea of evolution from Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal) is too "far-out" to be reasonable.
Sun and moon remaining motionless...We do know WHAT happened and it helped Joshua to prevail in battle. We do not know HOW it happened.
Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon; And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. (Josh 10:12–13 NKJV)
With man, this would be impossible for sun and moon to remain motionless relative to the earth. With God, all things are possible.
Via microevolution, dogs breeds in recent centuries include small poodles and large Great Pyrenees but the offspring of a dog has always been a dog.
If I visit an airport or a dense urban area, I can watch a variety of people walk by with different heights and facial features. I may observe some variety of general ethnic attributes but it is all one human species. My wife is shorter and I am taller. Our daughters are taller than my wife and our sons are shorter than I am. This happened in one generation.
To use the vernacular of a recent micro-culture from a few decades back, FARM (the idea of evolution from Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal) is too "far-out" to be reasonable.
Sorry, wrong story. What I actually had in mind was the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. Battle of the Milvian Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you suggesting current evolutionists somehow stopped holding this view?
If the sun stood still, it would mean the Earth stopped revolving around the sun. If the Earth suddenly stopped dead in its tracks, every living being on one side of the Earth would be flung into outer space. Those on the far side would be smashed against the Earth like flat cakes.
Even if you argue the Earth continued to revolve around the sun, it merely stopped rotating, the same principles would apply except in a different direction.
If the Earth stopped rotating or revolving around the sun, we would all be dead.
Micro and macro-evolution are the same exact process, except one takes place on a larger time scale.
Of course dogs always give birth to dogs! What you don't understand is that evolution is a gradual process. There isn't a clear divide between dogs and non-dog ancestors. Hopefully, you can spot the flaw with the following argument...
According to your logic: Micro-evolution isn't real! Wolves only give birth to wolves. Have you ever seen two wolves mate and give birth to a poodle or a dalmatian?
You're probably sitting back, thinking, "Of course wolves give birth to wolf pups, but the process is gradual. There's no clear point in which a wolf gave birth to a dalmatian. Instead, wolves gave birth to dogs that shares ever-so-slightly characteristics until it no longer resembled a wolf!" If this is the thought process that went through your head, congratulations, there's absolutely zero reason you should ever use your original argument ever again - because you now understand how one species can evolve into another - gradually.
If the sun stood still, it would mean the Earth stopped revolving around the sun. If the Earth suddenly stopped dead in its tracks, every living being on one side of the Earth would be flung into outer space. Those on the far side would be smashed against the Earth like flat cakes.
Even if you argue the Earth continued to revolve around the sun, it merely stopped rotating, the same principles would apply except in a different direction.
If the Earth stopped rotating or revolving around the sun, we would all be dead.
Micro and macro-evolution are the same exact process, except one takes place on a larger time scale.
Of course dogs always give birth to dogs! What you don't understand is that evolution is a gradual process. There isn't a clear divide between dogs and non-dog ancestors. Hopefully, you can spot the flaw with the following argument...
According to your logic: Micro-evolution isn't real! Wolves only give birth to wolves. Have you ever seen two wolves mate and give birth to a poodle or a dalmatian?
You're probably sitting back, thinking, "Of course wolves give birth to wolf pups, but the process is gradual. There's no clear point in which a wolf gave birth to a dalmatian. Instead, wolves gave birth to dogs that shares ever-so-slightly characteristics until it no longer resembled a wolf!" If this is the thought process that went through your head, congratulations, there's absolutely zero reason you should ever use your original argument ever again - because you now understand how one species can evolve into another - gradually.
What's plausible to the atheist is something other than what is plausible to the theist. The atheist may look at the balls of ice on the coast of Lake Michigan in winter as being formed by unguided processes and a complete lack of intelligence. An atheist may look at particles randomly popping in and out of existence and defying traditional physical laws and say, "No intelligence here either." So in spite of what atheism claims to be (simply a lack of belief in any god rather than a complete rejection of the possibility), atheists do indeed lean one way or another while interpreting physical phenomena. They are not merely the philosophically conservatist crowd that refuses to leap to conclusions on the divine. As you imply, they tend to have an inclination toward a godless universe and therefore view any naturalist explanation as plausible and the interventionist explanation as implausible from the get-go.
So any attempt to win the atheist over forces the theist to explain his interventionist frame of mind in naturalistic terms. And in so doing the atheist has won the theist over. I once had a debate with an atheist regarding the regulation of slavery in the Old Testament as differing from other civilizations'. At first the gist of my argument was, "Slavery in Israelite society was different." His argument was, "No, it's not." I continued saying, "Look at the protection afforded both Israelite and foreign slaves, the release of slaves, the dignity afforded captives to mourn for their loved ones a whole month, even the treatment of slaves as one's own children in marriages." His argument was, "It's no different." Finally I just said, "It's different because those laws were made at a time when Israel had come out of slavery. They knew what it felt like to be slaves and so wanted to protect slaves, themselves, since they could sympathize with them." He had no further arguments after that, because I had explained everything in terms that someone with the preconceptions of a lack of the divine could understand. He was not willing to accept that a theistic society such as ancient Israel held a greater respect for slaves than any other society on earth and that these laws were given to them by God. But once I said, "God had nothing to do with it," he seemed content to let it slide.
I could say that the account of the sun stopping in the sky for about a whole day has a naturalist explanation, and I could attempt to explain it as such in order to win you over. But that would defeat my argument. I do think that there is a remote possibility of a naturalist explanation of the sun stopping in the sky for about a day, since there have been similar events but on a much much much smaller scale. But it's doubtful.
So in debating with atheists I no longer try to explain things on their own terms but rather point to those things that cannot yet be explained through non-interventionist means. And the usual response I see in such debates is: "I'm sure we'll explain it later." So right now there is an irreparable gulf of philosophy separating the theist from the atheist.
So any attempt to win the atheist over forces the theist to explain his interventionist frame of mind in naturalistic terms. And in so doing the atheist has won the theist over. I once had a debate with an atheist regarding the regulation of slavery in the Old Testament as differing from other civilizations'. At first the gist of my argument was, "Slavery in Israelite society was different." His argument was, "No, it's not." I continued saying, "Look at the protection afforded both Israelite and foreign slaves, the release of slaves, the dignity afforded captives to mourn for their loved ones a whole month, even the treatment of slaves as one's own children in marriages." His argument was, "It's no different." Finally I just said, "It's different because those laws were made at a time when Israel had come out of slavery. They knew what it felt like to be slaves and so wanted to protect slaves, themselves, since they could sympathize with them." He had no further arguments after that, because I had explained everything in terms that someone with the preconceptions of a lack of the divine could understand. He was not willing to accept that a theistic society such as ancient Israel held a greater respect for slaves than any other society on earth and that these laws were given to them by God. But once I said, "God had nothing to do with it," he seemed content to let it slide.
I could say that the account of the sun stopping in the sky for about a whole day has a naturalist explanation, and I could attempt to explain it as such in order to win you over. But that would defeat my argument. I do think that there is a remote possibility of a naturalist explanation of the sun stopping in the sky for about a day, since there have been similar events but on a much much much smaller scale. But it's doubtful.
So in debating with atheists I no longer try to explain things on their own terms but rather point to those things that cannot yet be explained through non-interventionist means. And the usual response I see in such debates is: "I'm sure we'll explain it later." So right now there is an irreparable gulf of philosophy separating the theist from the atheist.
Last edited:
Aye I admit I was confused by your video it gave me the impression that modern worshippers of Evolutionism had given up on Origin of Species due to the evidence of Heredity the good Christian monk and Creationist Gregor Mendel put forth for the modern scientific community which begat Eugenics which begat Modern DNA Study which with modern technology has proven the Bible quite literal.
Thus it seemed to me ironic to me because that disproves Darwin's 2nd Theory Descent of Man to be incorrect, thus why its still a Theory.
Meh you forgot that you don't know if the Earth is flat or is a sphere or if it is even revolving around the sun or the sun around the earth.
Meh you forgot that you don't know if the Earth is flat or is a sphere or if it is even revolving around the sun or the sun around the earth and Heliocentricism and Shape of the Earth are still Theories.
Yup absolutely except Darwinist religion overlooks Genetics by mendel proves Darwins Origin of Species is wrong. There's not one common ancestor Amoebanation Tree of Death. There's whole Forest of Life Many Kinds Created and today's study of genetics proves indeed there's much genetic variance which Darwin guesed at as an idealistic young man on Galapagos, but he inadvertently proved with his only true science (observation) that genetic variance is big in the Finch Kind and traits can be bred in and out due to his correct fact of Natural Selection. Darwin erred obviously like his modern neophytes in thinking he was an animal and forgot mankind was created in the image of God whom created all the Kinds and their ancestors before Death enterred the world.
There's no flaw, look at the flaw in yours, this isn't an argument we agree on this point. Genetics proves Dog Kind has much genetic variance. History proves Dog Kind through natural selection after the Flood had its family tree branch out and genetic traits isolated due to various factors of the current Earth. Dogs are a good example for proving Intelligent Manipulation (one could pun Intelligent Designer Dog Breeding lol.) A practice that mankind has partaken for millenia. Furthermore knowing the ancients and even the scientists today you got mad scientists basically or just crazy factrs. Dog Kind's family tree don't go outside of Dog Kind unless one creates a Kind Hybrid thus would evolve in Darwin's Theory from One Kind to another. However this can only be taken so far given the fact that the Kind Hybid is not sterile (most are) whereupon the offspring will revert back to parent Kind or the same Hybrid Kind with the next attempt. The dawinists in a feeble attempt to hold onto their religion subtley took the science but cling to the theory by being inadvertently racist. They say Hybrids are also mixing between two of the same Kind, but that's absurd because Kind Hybrids outside of the Clean Kinds and outside of plants have a lot of severe health issues and are uncleaner. If Origin of Species and Origin of Man by Darwin are true and Earth is several billion or million years old Man Kind evolved from many different organisms going back to an Amoebanation. But in Truth Man Kind is unique above all animal and plant Kinds and all these were Created and the Creator is Man in appearance and good provably in all ways. There's curiously one religion on Earth alone that teaches this concept scientifically.
Aye according to my logic wolves mate with wolves. Wolf Kind. Humans have even figured out you can intellgiently manipulate Wolf Kind with Dog kind years ago creating a Hybrid WolfDog Kind.
Lmao my thoughts exactly, how can one believe in Darwin's Two Theories. Bible Theory of a forest of Kinds Created is proven true! And for some reason, Man Kind is saved apart and special because of his Creator. No more proof is necessary from a scrutinous point of view, yes?
Thus it seemed to me ironic to me because that disproves Darwin's 2nd Theory Descent of Man to be incorrect, thus why its still a Theory.
Meh you forgot that you don't know if the Earth is flat or is a sphere or if it is even revolving around the sun or the sun around the earth.
Meh you forgot that you don't know if the Earth is flat or is a sphere or if it is even revolving around the sun or the sun around the earth and Heliocentricism and Shape of the Earth are still Theories.
Yup absolutely except Darwinist religion overlooks Genetics by mendel proves Darwins Origin of Species is wrong. There's not one common ancestor Amoebanation Tree of Death. There's whole Forest of Life Many Kinds Created and today's study of genetics proves indeed there's much genetic variance which Darwin guesed at as an idealistic young man on Galapagos, but he inadvertently proved with his only true science (observation) that genetic variance is big in the Finch Kind and traits can be bred in and out due to his correct fact of Natural Selection. Darwin erred obviously like his modern neophytes in thinking he was an animal and forgot mankind was created in the image of God whom created all the Kinds and their ancestors before Death enterred the world.
There's no flaw, look at the flaw in yours, this isn't an argument we agree on this point. Genetics proves Dog Kind has much genetic variance. History proves Dog Kind through natural selection after the Flood had its family tree branch out and genetic traits isolated due to various factors of the current Earth. Dogs are a good example for proving Intelligent Manipulation (one could pun Intelligent Designer Dog Breeding lol.) A practice that mankind has partaken for millenia. Furthermore knowing the ancients and even the scientists today you got mad scientists basically or just crazy factrs. Dog Kind's family tree don't go outside of Dog Kind unless one creates a Kind Hybrid thus would evolve in Darwin's Theory from One Kind to another. However this can only be taken so far given the fact that the Kind Hybid is not sterile (most are) whereupon the offspring will revert back to parent Kind or the same Hybrid Kind with the next attempt. The dawinists in a feeble attempt to hold onto their religion subtley took the science but cling to the theory by being inadvertently racist. They say Hybrids are also mixing between two of the same Kind, but that's absurd because Kind Hybrids outside of the Clean Kinds and outside of plants have a lot of severe health issues and are uncleaner. If Origin of Species and Origin of Man by Darwin are true and Earth is several billion or million years old Man Kind evolved from many different organisms going back to an Amoebanation. But in Truth Man Kind is unique above all animal and plant Kinds and all these were Created and the Creator is Man in appearance and good provably in all ways. There's curiously one religion on Earth alone that teaches this concept scientifically.
Aye according to my logic wolves mate with wolves. Wolf Kind. Humans have even figured out you can intellgiently manipulate Wolf Kind with Dog kind years ago creating a Hybrid WolfDog Kind.
Lmao my thoughts exactly, how can one believe in Darwin's Two Theories. Bible Theory of a forest of Kinds Created is proven true! And for some reason, Man Kind is saved apart and special because of his Creator. No more proof is necessary from a scrutinous point of view, yes?
I understand and agree with this statement.
What balls of ice? Are you talking about snowmen? You are not being clear.
Like yourself I have never seen particles randomly popping in and out of existence, but physicists assure us the math predicts this and the models account for it. So I will go along with this for now. I should mention, also, that scientifically minded theists accept this as well.
Does this model of particle physics defy Newtonian physics? No it does not. Newton's laws are all still in effect and account for gravitational effects between bodies. What you describe above is another type of physics not addressed by Newton, so there is no defying going on.
What you are calling a “naturalist explanation” are all those things that can be explained naturally without recourse to supernatural explanations. Indeed if something can be explained by natural means then why impose a supernatural explanation at all?
There are numerous theists who, with atheists, adopt a natural explanation of the universe. As a former archbishop of Canterbury stated at the beginning of the 20th century, “God did something much more wonderful than make the world, he made the world make itself.”
My observation is that conservative Christians always attempt to downplay the immorality of slavery as it existed in Israelite society.
I’d have to refresh my memory on this but I think Israelite slaves were freed after a period of time, but pagan slaves were slaves indefinitely. Children born to Israelite slaves were born free, but children born to pagan slaves continued in bondage. Also, slaves under Israelite law received no protection from severe beatings. Slaves also could be used at the whim of the slave owner for sexual purposes. Are there biblical laws to prevent this? If you think there are I’d like to see them.
I am not content. Why didn’t God simply ban slavery? I will tell you why. All societies in that era kept slaves and it never occurred to the Israelites that slavery was immoral, and whatever the leaders of that society believed their scripture was made to reflect the same belief.
No you can’t because there is no naturalistic explanation that works.
What events occurred on a smaller scale? Are you sure about this?
You are speaking of the God of the Gaps argument. If something is not yet understood scientifically then conservative Christians immediately slip God into the explanation.
You’ve seen the explanation in the Book of Job for snow and hail have you not? God asks Job if he has seen the storehouses of snow and hail that He keeps in heaven for the day of battle. In other words the human author of the text does not understand the cause of snow and hail and so he slips God into the explanation and in his own ignorance probably thought there would never be a natural explanation. For the author of Job snow and hail required a supernatural explanation, a God of the Gaps explanation. The problem for the theist is that in time all the gaps become filled with scientific explanations. Where then does that leave belief in God?
What balls of ice? Are you talking about snowmen? You are not being clear.
Like yourself I have never seen particles randomly popping in and out of existence, but physicists assure us the math predicts this and the models account for it. So I will go along with this for now. I should mention, also, that scientifically minded theists accept this as well.
Does this model of particle physics defy Newtonian physics? No it does not. Newton's laws are all still in effect and account for gravitational effects between bodies. What you describe above is another type of physics not addressed by Newton, so there is no defying going on.
What you are calling a “naturalist explanation” are all those things that can be explained naturally without recourse to supernatural explanations. Indeed if something can be explained by natural means then why impose a supernatural explanation at all?
There are numerous theists who, with atheists, adopt a natural explanation of the universe. As a former archbishop of Canterbury stated at the beginning of the 20th century, “God did something much more wonderful than make the world, he made the world make itself.”
My observation is that conservative Christians always attempt to downplay the immorality of slavery as it existed in Israelite society.
I’d have to refresh my memory on this but I think Israelite slaves were freed after a period of time, but pagan slaves were slaves indefinitely. Children born to Israelite slaves were born free, but children born to pagan slaves continued in bondage. Also, slaves under Israelite law received no protection from severe beatings. Slaves also could be used at the whim of the slave owner for sexual purposes. Are there biblical laws to prevent this? If you think there are I’d like to see them.
I am not content. Why didn’t God simply ban slavery? I will tell you why. All societies in that era kept slaves and it never occurred to the Israelites that slavery was immoral, and whatever the leaders of that society believed their scripture was made to reflect the same belief.
No you can’t because there is no naturalistic explanation that works.
What events occurred on a smaller scale? Are you sure about this?
You are speaking of the God of the Gaps argument. If something is not yet understood scientifically then conservative Christians immediately slip God into the explanation.
You’ve seen the explanation in the Book of Job for snow and hail have you not? God asks Job if he has seen the storehouses of snow and hail that He keeps in heaven for the day of battle. In other words the human author of the text does not understand the cause of snow and hail and so he slips God into the explanation and in his own ignorance probably thought there would never be a natural explanation. For the author of Job snow and hail required a supernatural explanation, a God of the Gaps explanation. The problem for the theist is that in time all the gaps become filled with scientific explanations. Where then does that leave belief in God?
Nobody worships evolution.
Gregor Mendel's studies support the theory of evolution and helped verify Darwin's theories. Mendel played an incredibly important role in verifying the evolutionary model.
More importantly, eugenics was NEVER a part of the evolutionary model. Anyone who believes evolution supports eugenics clearly doesn't understand the theory of evolution is. Those who claim they support the theory of evolution and use it to argue eugenics is a complete moron.
Lastly, the Bible doesn't discuss evolution of any kind - micro or macro. So, no, Mendel's theories didn't prove the Bible correct.
I thought you said you watched the video I linked. One of the first things it explains is that a theory isn't just a "hunch" or "educated guess".
I'm sorry, but we've established centuries ago that the Earth is spherical. We've also established that the Earth revolves around the sun.
This statement is complete nonsense. Mendel's theories support Darwin's predictions - not disproves them. Genetic variety was never a problem for evolutionists - because evolution explains perfectly well how diversity emerges.
Your entire response avoided my question. You never explained how two wolves could give birth to a dalmatian.
If you can understand how a wolf can eventually breed into a dalmatian, then you also have the ability to understand how a non-dog ancestor can slowly evolve into an animal that resembles a wolf or wolf-like animal.
Now, answer my question. If it's so hard to imagine one species slowly evolving into a different species, why is it so easy to accept wolves evolving into dalmatians or poodles? If you can accept the latter, then you understand evolution is a gradual process.
Lastly, what is a "kind"? Because there's a difference between dog kind and cat kind, in that dog kind is more closely related than cat kind. Wolves and poodles are more closely related than house cats and Tigers. How do you define a kind? Does a kind refer to species that can mate? If so, I can find plenty of animals that would appear to be of the same kind, but can't mate (and are not infertile hybrids).
Now you're arguing against micro-evolution. But you just said micro-evolution was an acceptable, proven, model. Which is it?
You need to study the theory of evolution from the perspective of evolutionists. This way, you can actually learn what the theory of evolution actually is, what evolutionists claims, and the explanations used against your own arguments.
Gregor Mendel's studies support the theory of evolution and helped verify Darwin's theories. Mendel played an incredibly important role in verifying the evolutionary model.
More importantly, eugenics was NEVER a part of the evolutionary model. Anyone who believes evolution supports eugenics clearly doesn't understand the theory of evolution is. Those who claim they support the theory of evolution and use it to argue eugenics is a complete moron.
Lastly, the Bible doesn't discuss evolution of any kind - micro or macro. So, no, Mendel's theories didn't prove the Bible correct.
I thought you said you watched the video I linked. One of the first things it explains is that a theory isn't just a "hunch" or "educated guess".
I'm sorry, but we've established centuries ago that the Earth is spherical. We've also established that the Earth revolves around the sun.
This statement is complete nonsense. Mendel's theories support Darwin's predictions - not disproves them. Genetic variety was never a problem for evolutionists - because evolution explains perfectly well how diversity emerges.
Your entire response avoided my question. You never explained how two wolves could give birth to a dalmatian.
If you can understand how a wolf can eventually breed into a dalmatian, then you also have the ability to understand how a non-dog ancestor can slowly evolve into an animal that resembles a wolf or wolf-like animal.
Now, answer my question. If it's so hard to imagine one species slowly evolving into a different species, why is it so easy to accept wolves evolving into dalmatians or poodles? If you can accept the latter, then you understand evolution is a gradual process.
Lastly, what is a "kind"? Because there's a difference between dog kind and cat kind, in that dog kind is more closely related than cat kind. Wolves and poodles are more closely related than house cats and Tigers. How do you define a kind? Does a kind refer to species that can mate? If so, I can find plenty of animals that would appear to be of the same kind, but can't mate (and are not infertile hybrids).
Now you're arguing against micro-evolution. But you just said micro-evolution was an acceptable, proven, model. Which is it?
You need to study the theory of evolution from the perspective of evolutionists. This way, you can actually learn what the theory of evolution actually is, what evolutionists claims, and the explanations used against your own arguments.
If in time all the gaps become filled with scientific explanations (which would, if they were true, prove God's existence). Where then does that leave faith?
Romans 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
I know this won't matter to you, Cycel, but here it is anyway.
Romans 8:24 For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
I know this won't matter to you, Cycel, but here it is anyway.
There is a form of slavery that originates with kidnapping and that is an evil. There can be a type of slavery in some societies that originates with unpaid debt. (As in the borrower is servant to the lender).
in modern business, there are many corporations where employees are servants to their masters or supervisors but it is a voluntary form of servanthood.
in modern business, there are many corporations where employees are servants to their masters or supervisors but it is a voluntary form of servanthood.
Lol what you think a Theory is? Thy video said it. It's a Hunch. Lol that video was nice it was a hunch supported by a few facts but still just considerred a hunch in science. I'm not sure how we'll define educated but the maker was fairly educated despite some discrepencies in his presentation in my own theory of his theory. So I will assume his Theory is an educated guess by his own words (not even sure who this guy is I just enjoyed his video thanks for sharing it yourself too I enjoyed that always like a lil theory browsing and debating hence this thread I think being so popular with everyone.)
I watched your video and I enjoyed it and gave you my opinion where I believe the evolutionist religion is blind to the fact Darwin's theories of both Origin of Species from the Amoebanation and Descent of Man from Monkey Kind are today verifiably laid to rest and done with. Darwin's Theory is a religion, and Theory, a theology. I don't think Darwin himself intended Darwinism religion to arise lol since there is a strong posibility Darwin did write his theories when he was young and may have quietly been a Christian and confessed near death history say. Despite people takign Darwin a prophet I think Darwin himself just putting out theories some proven wrong and some today have been proven right thanks to advances in technology, experiments, and other theories by people like Mendel a Chrisitan Monk.
Ye merely like how the word evolution sounds instead of genetics, eugenics, race I judge (heh it is more kosher in today's speak and sounding I guess.) Race isn't the Kinds, the Kinds are Kinds. Race is family descent within the Kinds that's eugenics/genetics/heredity. In Darwinian Theology (religion) evolution would only be possible if one Kind evolved into another Kind and another Kind progresively over a presumed long or short period of time. However this is where Darwin's Origin of Species and thus Origin of Man theories is wrong.
It is true Darwinist Evolution is possible Eugenically. But it proves its not the origin of species, its the dead end of genetics. Horse Kind is Horse Kind and Donkey Kind is Donkey Kind. Cross em, Mule Kind. Kind Hybrid.
Human Kind is a Kind set apart from other Kinds as all Kinds are. Shemite, Japhethite, and Hamite are the three root races of this current world descended from Noah and Naamah descended paternally (not given maternal line) from Cain and Seth and Adam and Eve made by God. Their families that spawn out of them are the genetically proven Races of Human Kind that have both intermixed and also been isolated due to natural selection and cultural selection in the Second Diaspora after pre-flood earth was well, flooded to put it lightly, and throughout History to today is the origin of Human Kind. None of them are hybrids, all Human Kind. Just from all different Races which are families part of a bigger family which is the Kind lol. Human Kind gets the fine distinction of being made in the image of the Creator unlike the other created Creature Kinds and the Creator even became a Human Kind and enterred this world provably as Jesus and overcame it and will re-Create Creation.
I watched your video and I enjoyed it and gave you my opinion where I believe the evolutionist religion is blind to the fact Darwin's theories of both Origin of Species from the Amoebanation and Descent of Man from Monkey Kind are today verifiably laid to rest and done with. Darwin's Theory is a religion, and Theory, a theology. I don't think Darwin himself intended Darwinism religion to arise lol since there is a strong posibility Darwin did write his theories when he was young and may have quietly been a Christian and confessed near death history say. Despite people takign Darwin a prophet I think Darwin himself just putting out theories some proven wrong and some today have been proven right thanks to advances in technology, experiments, and other theories by people like Mendel a Chrisitan Monk.
Ye merely like how the word evolution sounds instead of genetics, eugenics, race I judge (heh it is more kosher in today's speak and sounding I guess.) Race isn't the Kinds, the Kinds are Kinds. Race is family descent within the Kinds that's eugenics/genetics/heredity. In Darwinian Theology (religion) evolution would only be possible if one Kind evolved into another Kind and another Kind progresively over a presumed long or short period of time. However this is where Darwin's Origin of Species and thus Origin of Man theories is wrong.
It is true Darwinist Evolution is possible Eugenically. But it proves its not the origin of species, its the dead end of genetics. Horse Kind is Horse Kind and Donkey Kind is Donkey Kind. Cross em, Mule Kind. Kind Hybrid.
Human Kind is a Kind set apart from other Kinds as all Kinds are. Shemite, Japhethite, and Hamite are the three root races of this current world descended from Noah and Naamah descended paternally (not given maternal line) from Cain and Seth and Adam and Eve made by God. Their families that spawn out of them are the genetically proven Races of Human Kind that have both intermixed and also been isolated due to natural selection and cultural selection in the Second Diaspora after pre-flood earth was well, flooded to put it lightly, and throughout History to today is the origin of Human Kind. None of them are hybrids, all Human Kind. Just from all different Races which are families part of a bigger family which is the Kind lol. Human Kind gets the fine distinction of being made in the image of the Creator unlike the other created Creature Kinds and the Creator even became a Human Kind and enterred this world provably as Jesus and overcame it and will re-Create Creation.
