ElishaElijah
Return
If evolution is saying that they don’t know the origin of life and the theory has nothing to do with that then fine. I misunderstood what you were saying.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arkansas inflicts child abuse on its school children
- Thread starter Altfish
- Start date
ElishaElijah
Return
Real life testimonies aren’t theory, I wouldn’t care at all hearing stories of deliverance, victory, and such, it’s uplifting.
There is a difference between being corrected about a belief and being corrected about what someone else says.
In Ham's case, he repeatedly misrepresents evolutionary theory in spite of being told his representation is incorrect. Simply disagreeing with the science is different than misrepresenting the science. Ham (and others) do the latter. Once or twice could be understandable. But this is repeated misrepresentation over the course of decades.
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It has to do with how living species change over time.
The question about the origin of life is that of abiogenesis. And, at this point, nobody knows how life got started, We have some educated guesses, but that is all they are.
No, real life testimonies are 'anecdotes'. So what you have is known as anecdotal evidence.
The problem is that it is impossible to tests such evidence with other anecdotal evidence which conflicts with it. Without controls on the observations, it is *at best* interesting testimony that needs to be supported by more solid evidence.
ElishaElijah
Return
Thanks for clearing that up for me
How do we know that Ham believes what evolutionists
tell him? I wonder cuz I know many many people who
cannot accept reality that hits them in the snoot.
If he considers them/us all liars, then it would make
sense that he wouldn't believe claims offered.
To make the problem being about creationists lying
looks like it's about hostility towards them, & takes
away from the fact that it's illegal...& also unscientific.
It's against the rules of RF to accuse someone of lying
for good reason. Why not extend that useful approach
generally?
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
How does science deal with the spiritual and emotional side of life. Seems like science is more the physical, what we can see, smell, touch. How would science explain for example a lame man walking or blind man receiving their sight?
We Never Know
No Slack
Science doesn't deal with the spiritual and emotional side of life, that's religion.
Same as religion doesn't deal with the scientific side of life, that's science.
Last edited:
ElishaElijah
Return
An anecdote is a lot different than a testimony, especially the power it has over Satan. A silly story wouldn’t do much in the spiritual realm.
“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Messiah. For the accuser of our brothers and sisters, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down. They triumphed over him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; they did not love their lives so much as to shrink from death.”
Revelation 12:10-11 NIV
ElishaElijah
Return
Maybe the two should get married
ElishaElijah
Return
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13 NIV
Science is always evidence based. Your examples would have to be investigated to see what happened in detail.
ElishaElijah
Return
Point is that bias on both sides hinders the truth from coming out. Only see what you want to see, I’m not going to do that. That’s what a truthful witness and testimony is. God doesn’t need my help proving His Word, I’ve looked at both sides of what scientist say for example about the worldwide flood. One camp has their evidence for the worldwide flood and another camp theirs and they contradict each other according to their beliefs. I know what happened in my life and what God has shown me and I’m going to testify to that and you will share what you found and then we can eat, have dinner and will find out in the end. God has called me to be His ambassador and witness to what He has done and I’m going to do that.
I would say that letting emotions get in the way is *far* more likely to lead a person into falsehood than paying attention to the evidence without emotions getting in the way.
In fact, we know that from common experience: people regularly refuse to look at evidence that goes against their intuitions or ego and 'explain away' information that is inconvenient. That is what happens with emotions. They are ultimately a very poor indicator of truth.
There is no evidence for a worldwide flood. In fact, the evidence is *against* such a thing. Have there been large regional floods? yes. But nothing global.
ElishaElijah
Return
True about emotions, real but not reliable. Need something more concrete than that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is why I tried to go over the basics of science with you. The definition of scientific evidence takes into account that people are emotional. To have scientific evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis. That means one must be sure of one's idea strongly enough that one is willing to test it based upon its own merits. Once one has a proper testable hypothesis then the observations one makes can support the idea, which would be scientific evidence for one's hypothesis or oppose it, which is scientific evidence against one's hypothesis. There is no evidence that supports a global flood, but all sorts of evidence against it.
That is why early Christian geologists were the first to refute the Flood myth. They did not believe that God would lie by planting false evidence. The evidence against the flood and the Garden of Eden story are so strong that one is claiming that God is a liar if one insists that they are true. I often ask creationists if God lies. They pretty much agree that he does not. If that is the case one cannot read Genesis literally.
ecco
Veteran Member
Did you read and understand the entire article?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
One of the big problems with literalism is that it cannot be even remotely confirmed. For examples:
-We do not have any of the original manuscripts.
-Translations can and do vary, especially when going from one language to another.
-We cannot interrogate the early "witnesses".
-Scriptures are not objective sources but are considered subjective sources.
-We cannot with any assurance of being correct link God as being the causal factor to any of the events portrayed in the scriptural narratives.
According to the Gospels, Jesus said there were only Two Commandments for us as Christians to follow, namely love of God and also love of neighbor {"neighbor" is considered to be all people]. That's a pretty simple message but with lotsa ramifications. Nowhere does it say one must take every word in scripture at the literal level and, as a matter of fact, many words are or may be more symbolic than literal, plus opinions even amongst theologians can often vary widely at times when it comes to interpretation.
IOW, literalism is doesn't make one iota of sense with the possible except of those who drift towards treating the Bible as an idol.
-We do not have any of the original manuscripts.
-Translations can and do vary, especially when going from one language to another.
-We cannot interrogate the early "witnesses".
-Scriptures are not objective sources but are considered subjective sources.
-We cannot with any assurance of being correct link God as being the causal factor to any of the events portrayed in the scriptural narratives.
According to the Gospels, Jesus said there were only Two Commandments for us as Christians to follow, namely love of God and also love of neighbor {"neighbor" is considered to be all people]. That's a pretty simple message but with lotsa ramifications. Nowhere does it say one must take every word in scripture at the literal level and, as a matter of fact, many words are or may be more symbolic than literal, plus opinions even amongst theologians can often vary widely at times when it comes to interpretation.
IOW, literalism is doesn't make one iota of sense with the possible except of those who drift towards treating the Bible as an idol.
ElishaElijah
Return
I don’t happen to agree with you on this, on the other hand how does your belief or findings affect you in how you live your daily life and view the world we live in?