'First human' discovered in Ethiopia
- Thread starter royalscot
- Start date
-
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.
It makes sense to me. I'm a collection of stuff that has always existed, the energy transformations of which have been eternal through stars and planets, who is made of particles of mass and energy that have culminated in the expanse of infinite possibility to create a product of complex energetic interactions capable of staring into the universe it is part of.
If that isn't enough to give you some sense of purpose or meaning, to give you a reason to make your life worth something, to hold dear the other people who are just as extraordinary and rare in this cosmos as you are, then I suppose you need the Abrahamic God, or else it's all just worthless to you.
If that isn't enough to give you some sense of purpose or meaning, to give you a reason to make your life worth something, to hold dear the other people who are just as extraordinary and rare in this cosmos as you are, then I suppose you need the Abrahamic God, or else it's all just worthless to you.
A
That's because scientific journals are periodical publications which report new research obtained from papers written by scientists about specific new research findings.
In your ignorance, you're projecting a requirement upon them they were never designed to and do not accommodate. Periodic journals do not publish entire worldview origin models like book publishers do.
The truth is that most scientific journals are highly specialized, highly technical, and represent new research findings and experimental results in the field defined by the journal (although a few of the oldest journals are more general and report new research findings across a wide range of scientific fields). Though almost all leverage the evolutionary viewpoint for consistency, they are not and never were intended to be publications of whole origin models as you've wrongly suggested in your ignorance.
Christians are very much involved in the modern scientific enterprise and always have been. An enormous number of journal articles have been written from scientific papers authored by Christians adhering to one of the various creation models (e.g. TE, OEC, and even YEC) for every major scientific journal over the years.
Furthermore, it's important to note that before the rise of Darwinism in the 19th century and totalitarian state atheistic Marxist regimes such as the Soviet Union in the 20th century that drove non-atheists from the domain of science over much of the world (and persecuting them with imprisonment and even murder); almost all of the journal articles were.
Fortunately, with the collapse of the totalitarian atheist Soviet state and the decline of state atheism in the Chinese communist state, Christianity has soared once again in those areas of the world and Christians have reentered the scientific domain and begun once again began publishing their findings in journals.
And interestingly, and though still in their infancy, a few recent peer-reviewed scientific creation journals themselves have been created though they are still in their infancy.
Because of the level of ignorance you display, with respect to most everything you comment on, I'd like to ask you what are your credentials?
Please be authentic with your response.
In your ignorance, you're projecting a requirement upon them they were never designed to and do not accommodate. Periodic journals do not publish entire worldview origin models like book publishers do.
The truth is that most scientific journals are highly specialized, highly technical, and represent new research findings and experimental results in the field defined by the journal (although a few of the oldest journals are more general and report new research findings across a wide range of scientific fields). Though almost all leverage the evolutionary viewpoint for consistency, they are not and never were intended to be publications of whole origin models as you've wrongly suggested in your ignorance.
Christians are very much involved in the modern scientific enterprise and always have been. An enormous number of journal articles have been written from scientific papers authored by Christians adhering to one of the various creation models (e.g. TE, OEC, and even YEC) for every major scientific journal over the years.
Furthermore, it's important to note that before the rise of Darwinism in the 19th century and totalitarian state atheistic Marxist regimes such as the Soviet Union in the 20th century that drove non-atheists from the domain of science over much of the world (and persecuting them with imprisonment and even murder); almost all of the journal articles were.
Fortunately, with the collapse of the totalitarian atheist Soviet state and the decline of state atheism in the Chinese communist state, Christianity has soared once again in those areas of the world and Christians have reentered the scientific domain and begun once again began publishing their findings in journals.
And interestingly, and though still in their infancy, a few recent peer-reviewed scientific creation journals themselves have been created though they are still in their infancy.
Because of the level of ignorance you display, with respect to most everything you comment on, I'd like to ask you what are your credentials?
Please be authentic with your response.
I don't need to prove myself to anybody who believes that evolutionary theory is discredited by YEC'ers who publish nonsense books that have been debunked time and again by real scientists and who infers a link (though he doesn't know me) between I and atheism and between atheism and totalitarianism to try to insinuate an inherent character flaw in his opponent. This is called subtle inference and it's intellectually dishonest. Your tirade and digression into irrelevance is irrelevant. Scientific papers back up evolution because they contain factual relevant nonspeculative evidence for evolution.
Creationists' ''findings'' don't get published in genuine papers because they cannot represent or deduce from those findings in a creationist paradigm without relying on God of the gaps or interpreting evidence in biblical light, which is not at all scientific practice.
Please read real science.
Creationists' ''findings'' don't get published in genuine papers because they cannot represent or deduce from those findings in a creationist paradigm without relying on God of the gaps or interpreting evidence in biblical light, which is not at all scientific practice.
Please read real science.
A
I understand astrophysics. But this tangled mess you wrote is difficult to sort out. When you say "state of universal energy equilibrium called mathematical zero," are you referencing Einstein's cosmological constant?
If you are, recent supernova data and other data results suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. In fact, if you bothered to read those journals you referenced earlier, instead of merely foisting your ignorant false expectations upon them, you would have learned about something called a cosmological constant problem which presently is the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics.
If you are, recent supernova data and other data results suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. In fact, if you bothered to read those journals you referenced earlier, instead of merely foisting your ignorant false expectations upon them, you would have learned about something called a cosmological constant problem which presently is the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics.
I understand astrophysics. But this tangled mess you wrote is difficult to sort out. When you say "state of universal energy equilibrium called mathematical zero," are you referencing Einstein's cosmological constant?
If you are, recent supernova data and other data results suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. In fact, if you bothered to read those journals you referenced earlier, instead of merely foisting your ignorant false expectations upon them, you would have learned about something called a cosmological constant problem which presently is the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics.
If you are, recent supernova data and other data results suggests that the vacuum energy density is greater than zero. In fact, if you bothered to read those journals you referenced earlier, instead of merely foisting your ignorant false expectations upon them, you would have learned about something called a cosmological constant problem which presently is the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics.
Einstein's cosmological constant (as originally written) was debunked by Hubble's findings years ago, and regardless its not to do with (relative, not rest) gravitational potentiality against kinetic energy, its to do with the second law of thermodynamics in regards to total energy conservation in an unexpanding universe. Einstein's equation didn't account for the expansion.
What are YOUR credentials?? lol
Um... who told you that? Where did you get this idea and how in the world do you make this assertion? I know a lot of Christians and from my experience this statement of yours is... um... never mind what it is, but it's not true.
never mind what it is, but it's not true.
All the largest mainline Protestant denominations, and the Catholic Church (both the Roman and American persuasion) support evolutionary theory and an allegorical rendering of the creation story.
A
No Champa, you do need to prove yourself. And you need to do so in a mature manner. Because right now you're pushing the trolling barrier by posting a series of false assertions attacking the Christian worldview and then simply refusing to mount anything even resembling a coherent defense of those false assertions afterwards. A member was banned last night for engaging in exactly the behavior you are presently engaging in as it's against this forum's rules.
Now I've already explained to you more than once that the Christian worldview can be interpreted in various ways. The most well known are theistic evolution that scientists such as Francis Collins adhere to in organizations brimming with scientists, researchers, academicians, etc... like biologos.org; old earth/progressive creationism that scientists such as Hugh Ross adhere to in organizations brimming with scientists, researchers, academicians, etc... like reasons.org; and, of course, the skeptics favorite whipping boy young earth creationism that scientists like Jason Lisle adhere to in organizations like icr.org and answersingenesis.org which are not brimming with scientists, researchers, and academicians though some belong and these organizations enjoy material public support.
So, here again, we find Champa making blatant false assertions about creationism and Christianity.
Now also I see a paranoid-delusional issue arising. I've not accused you of being a state atheist or a totalitarian. I've merely referenced those as they deserved reference within the context of the discussion with respect to the topic I was addressing. For some reason, you're fabricating another false assertion that I'm doing something to you that I'm not actually doing. But then, we'll just add that false assertion to the list of your many other false assertions.
But if you keep engaging in the behavior of fabricating ad hominem and directing it at me, I'm going to start reporting you for it. That's also against the forum rules.
The ice is getting thinner Champa. It's time to grow up and start engaging in a mature discussion or I'm afraid your time here may be limited.
Now I've already explained to you more than once that the Christian worldview can be interpreted in various ways. The most well known are theistic evolution that scientists such as Francis Collins adhere to in organizations brimming with scientists, researchers, academicians, etc... like biologos.org; old earth/progressive creationism that scientists such as Hugh Ross adhere to in organizations brimming with scientists, researchers, academicians, etc... like reasons.org; and, of course, the skeptics favorite whipping boy young earth creationism that scientists like Jason Lisle adhere to in organizations like icr.org and answersingenesis.org which are not brimming with scientists, researchers, and academicians though some belong and these organizations enjoy material public support.
So, here again, we find Champa making blatant false assertions about creationism and Christianity.
Now also I see a paranoid-delusional issue arising. I've not accused you of being a state atheist or a totalitarian. I've merely referenced those as they deserved reference within the context of the discussion with respect to the topic I was addressing. For some reason, you're fabricating another false assertion that I'm doing something to you that I'm not actually doing. But then, we'll just add that false assertion to the list of your many other false assertions.
But if you keep engaging in the behavior of fabricating ad hominem and directing it at me, I'm going to start reporting you for it. That's also against the forum rules.
The ice is getting thinner Champa. It's time to grow up and start engaging in a mature discussion or I'm afraid your time here may be limited.
No, because (even in the absence of time) something can't just be, with no source. What it boils down to is basically nobody knows where everything came from. Evolutionists don't know where the big bang came from and creationists don't know where God came from.
But we sure do waste a lot of words trying to explain it anyway...
But we sure do waste a lot of words trying to explain it anyway...
AgeofKnowledge, you are aware that evolution and atheism aren't the same thing, right?
Atheism is not a fundamental tenant of evolution and evolution isn't required for one to lack belief in God. More importantly, the Soviet Union may have disdained religion but that doesn't mean atheism was the cause, which is something you keep alluding to. That's like saying "Mustached Hitler and blue eyed, white skinned, Nazis are the reason for WWII". Oh, by the way, Hitler professed belief in God and was incredibly anti-secularism. So should I go around pretending Christianity is the core tenant of Nazism? Of course not!
Grand! Because the theory of evolution is about speciation, not the origins of life.
There aren't any recent peer reviewed articles supporting YEC that isn't wrapped in fraud. And none of the peer reviewed articles currently support OEC, though that's not to say OEC haven't contributed anything to science.
I would love a source for this information.
Atheism is not a fundamental tenant of evolution and evolution isn't required for one to lack belief in God. More importantly, the Soviet Union may have disdained religion but that doesn't mean atheism was the cause, which is something you keep alluding to. That's like saying "Mustached Hitler and blue eyed, white skinned, Nazis are the reason for WWII". Oh, by the way, Hitler professed belief in God and was incredibly anti-secularism. So should I go around pretending Christianity is the core tenant of Nazism? Of course not!
Grand! Because the theory of evolution is about speciation, not the origins of life.
There aren't any recent peer reviewed articles supporting YEC that isn't wrapped in fraud. And none of the peer reviewed articles currently support OEC, though that's not to say OEC haven't contributed anything to science.
I would love a source for this information.
Scary biscuits. Look, most Christians don't even believe in interpreting the creation story in Genesis literally. Theistic evolution is much less frowned upon in the scientific community than Young Earth Creationism but its no less irrelevant to scientific discussion on the mechanics of naturalistic evolution; t's at its core naturalistic evolution with the assertion that God's responsible for sparking it off, and relies more heavily on theological arguments than on scientific ones, on false probabilistic speculations on whether the complexity of organisms can arise through spontaneous means or whether there need be a cosmological guiding hand.
It's irrelevant to the science. Anthropic principle 101.
It's irrelevant to the science. Anthropic principle 101.