YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Nooo it doesn't.
-
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!
Evolution, maybe someone can explain?
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Nope. You should.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, just re-reading this and wondering if "unthinking" processes mean chance or accidental? If I recall, some object to the term accidental when it comes to changes or shifts in the process of evolution.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Accident implies intent.
There is no evidence of intent in evolution.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Gonna need be more specific
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'll work on it...
firedragon
Veteran Member
It's not me who said "nothing can". So your tu quoque attempt is an utter failure.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Your posts are so long. TLDR, and you reply to four words calling it "verbiage"? Weird.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it does not. There is no evidence there for that belief. I need to remind you that you are too afraid to even discuss what is and what is not evidence. I was honest in what is known and what is not known. That scientists have made significant advances tells us that if anything the opposite is true. Meanwhile, even though creationists have been aware of the Miller Urey work they still have not produced one iota of evidence for their belief in magical poofing.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, to late. It has already done so many many times.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
Yes i agree and i stand for that 'yet' ,and i strongly belive that science should seek more and more answers.
Are miracles in that category?
There is a history of claims in that category that have never been refuted and you just ended somehow not knowing about them.
Five Miracles in History
From Lourdes to our Our Lady of Guadalupe, are these modern miracles proof of the divine?
www.history.co.uk
Do you know how many are there like this as a matter of study? Just say a number , please , so i can also answer propertly..
I am not going to engage on proving something while i am being not respected on my questions.
The thing that all these people that studied miracles can say about it is that nobody says otherwise then they really happend the way they are being told.
All people , it does not matter if they are Christian or not.
How many people is enough , tell me?
10,20,50,10,1000.... ?
I mean people who studied them , not miracles.It would take much more then one life to talk about them and who says 'what' about it in history.
Check what people who studied this things say about it.
Check who studied the miracles , not who studied the New Testament.
We have many who claim to be scholars , but some of them have not proven that is indeed what they are.
Do you know that the Shroud of Turin has been dated by latest DNA analysis to 1st century?
You don't know i suppose.
Many things are being cleared up in the last 10 years , and more will be since we now have the tools to work propertly.
Something that those before didn't.
Bart Ehrman is not a merit , nor any similar to him.I take him because he is the most refered one to say otherwise.
They have been all refuted , all just like all pseudo science is being refuted.
You are expecting me to put the study of max 50 people(which is too much , but let's just say that's the max people )that have written some different ideas when i look up to hunders and hunders in the last 20 years only that say the exact say thing with the same facts being of face value.
(And there are much less then that , but let's just leave 50 there for the sake of the argument)
And number is not the measure of importance but it seems that in this case it is,because none of the the people who say otherwise have any clue what they are talking about.
Just google it, simple as that.
Bart Ehrman while studying the Synoptic Gospels forget to do the first thing that Historians do when they start studying something and that is what does that word mean and where does it come from and why is it called like that.
So they were called Synoptic because they all looked the same.
So we have what , where and why in one answer.
All of the earliest manuscripts agree with the long ending of Mark , just one is not clear about it.But many have answered that one , just nobody cares to read this staff.
We don't have to have the original Gospels to know when they were writen.
We should check that with how we study evolution maybe?
The line of questioning and the line of reasoning is what matters and how consistent they are.
Everything else is just b******.
We establish these things by kontext if the story is well backed.We know many ways how to detect forgeries and fake ones , and never , apsolutely never has such thing put to any risk the reliability of the New Testament as a matter of History.
Never ever!
Where are the other 2000 years and who spoke in them? How many are there , do you know ? Probably not..
Facts and only facts.
You have mistaken Historians with story tellers , which is oposite of what Historians are.They are mostly people with knowledge in many fields of science and philosophy.
The first thing from my perspective when i said let's see how many people studied it , and i was like wooooo , this is gonna take much time to study.And then i realized that it will take more then a life time to go for it.
But there are certain books of importance that many notable Historians say that they need to be read.
Have you read maybe The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire I-6?
There is a history of certain claims being acknowledged and to date there is no evidence that say otherwise.
Many Atheists have confirmed that.
Well i haven't checked but i think that many are former now , but i know of some that said that while they were,so it matters.
It all ends up with reading Books and not with endless discussions about this issue.
Many have talked about many things and you somehow happen to not know these things.
No Big Deal, it happens - Life goes on.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have your burden of proof backwards. The Lourdes claims are pretty much unsubstantiated. And one thing that one has to remember, sometimes people get better. In the Lourdes examples they only count the hits. To be valid you have to count both the hits and the misses. Pointing to a few people that got better does not really prove anything.Yes i agree and i stand for that 'yet' ,and i strongly belive that science should seek more and more answers.
Are miracles in that category?
There is a history of claims in that category that have never been refuted and you just ended somehow not knowing about them.
Five Miracles in History
From Lourdes to our Our Lady of Guadalupe, are these modern miracles proof of the divine?
Do you know how many are there like this as a matter of study? Just say a number , please , so i can also answer propertly..
I am not going to engage on proving something while i am being not respected on my questions.
The thing that all these people that studied miracles can say about it is that nobody says otherwise then they really happend the way they are being told.
All people , it does not matter if they are Christian or not.
How many people is enough , tell me?
10,20,50,10,1000.... ?
I mean people who studied them , not miracles.It would much more then one life time to talk about them and who says what about them in history.
Check what people who studied this things say about it.
Check who studied the miracles , not who studied the New Testament.
We have many who claim to be scholars , but some of them have not proven that is indeed what they are.
Do you know that the Shroud of Turin has been dated by latest DNA analysis to 1st century?
You don't know i suppose.
Many things are being cleared up in the last 10 years , and more will be since we now have the tools to work propertly.
Something that those before didn't.
Bart Ehrman is not a merit , nor any similar to him.I take him because he is the most refered one to say otherwise.
They have been all refuted , all just like all pseudo science is being refuted.
These new titles 'New Testament Schollars' have put too much emphasis on statements which are proven to be false.
You are expecting me to put the study of max 50 people(which is too much , but let's just say that's the max people )that have written some different ideas when i look up to hunders and hunders in the last 20 years only.
(And there are much less then that , but let's just leave 50 there for the sake of the argument)
And number is not the measure of importance but it seems that in this case it is,because none of the the people who say otherwise have any clue what they are talking about.
Just google it, simple as that.
Bart Ehrman while studying the Synoptic Gospels forget to do the first thing that Historians do when they start studying something and that is what does that word mean and where does it come from and why is it called like that.
So they were called Synoptic because they all looked the same.
So we have what , where and why in one answer.
All of the earliest manuscripts agree with the long ending of Mark , just one is not clear about it.But many have answered that one , just nobody cares to read this staff.
We don't have to have the original Gospels to know when they were writen.
We should check that with how we study evolution maybe?
The line of questioning and the line of reasoning is what matters and how consistent they are.
Everything else is just b******.
We establish these things by kontext if the story is well backed.We know many ways how to detect forgeries and fake ones , and never , apsolutely never has such thing put to any risk the reliability of the New Testament as a matter of History.
Never ever!
Where are the other 2000 years and who spoke in them? How many are there , do you know ? Probably not..
Facts and only facts.
You have mistaken Historians with story tellers , which is oposite of what Historians are.They are mostly people with knowledge in many fields of science and philosophy.
The first thing from my perspective when i said let's see how many people studied it , and i was like wooooo , this is gonna take much time to study.And then i realized that it will take more then a life time to go for it.
But there are certain books of importance that many notable Historians say that they need to be read.
Have you read maybe The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire I-6?
There is a history of certain claims being acknowledged and to date there is no evidence that say otherwise.
Many Atheists have confirmed that.
Well i haven't checked but i think that many are former now , but i know of some that said that while they were,so it matters.
It all ends up with reading Books and not with endless discussions about this issue.
Many have talked about many things and you somehow happen to not know these things.
No Big Deal, it happens - Life goes on.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
I count everything , but you are being unfair with this statement.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How so? Have you compared the numbers going to Lourdes to the population as a whole? I do not know of anyone that has done that.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
It's not a big deal anyway , nobody is hunting you.
I just wanted to know what you think , nothing more.
Dimi95
Χριστός ἀνέστη
But these things we know them , and they are challenge to us,and you should know that,in History is not like in natural Science , we don't start the same and the rules change.
gnostic
The Lost One
I have never claimed any language to be perfect.
And you’re confusing “scientific theories” with definitions and word usages.
Scientists are not disagreeing with definitions or meanings of the some words, nor how words are used, YoursTrue.
What they disagree with, are the theories. Scientists are supposed to be looking at different alternatives (eg different hypotheses), they are supposed to be skeptics. They are supposed to be challenging the data, so they would as much test current accepted theories as they would test new hypotheses.
The strength of any accepted theory, is how well they face rigorous testing, with evidence, experiments & data still verifying the evidence.
For example. As this topic, is about Evolution, is that began almost 200 years ago, in his voyage onboard HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, Charles Darwin explored parts of the world like Argentina, Chile, Galapagos & other islands in the pacific, Australia & South Africa, examining living plants and animals, not fossils (he only really studied fossils after he returned home at the Geological Society (of London) and at museums & universities). he noticed that at islands of Galapagos and the mainland South America as the different species of finches and different species of tortoises. He examined all sorts of wild life and plants in that journey, wrote copiously notes and drew many sketches in his journals. He noticed that different islands nearby to each other (Galapagos) that have different climate patterns and different terrains, can different species of the same plant genera, or different species of finches, or different species of tortoises, can have traits that differ from one another.
Those journals were starting point of his research into speciation, that formed the basis of Natural Selection, one of the mechanisms in evolutionary biology. What he found that he later recorded in On The Origin Of Species (1859) and in other works, that environmental factors, when environment changed, environments are driving forces for change (eg adaptability & speciation).
It has been 165 years since the publication of On the Origin, but since his death, biologists have revised and updated Natural Selection, with new observations, evidence & data, with new testing methodology (eg DNA testing & analysis, morphological analysis, clade taxonomy, etc), and of newer fields in biology (eg modern genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, etc), all of these brought forward Natural Selection into the 21st century. Natural Selection are today, more robust than the times of Darwin and his contemporaries, eg Albert Russel Wallace (another pioneer of Natural Selection), Joseph Dalton Hooker, Thomas Henry Huxley, Gregor Mendel (whom Darwin never knew about, the pioneer of modern genetics).
Biologists and paleontologists don’t deny speciations, what they may disagree with, are mainly classifications of certain species to certain genera or families.
Look at the hyenas for example. They have certain traits and features (especially their behavioural) that are canine-like, but others that are more feline-like. So which would you put “canine” or “feline” carnivore group?
Well, DNA comparisons showed that are actually more closer to feline than to canine. And yet biologists still debate between these 2 sides.
Sometimes classifying organisms are clear cut, but at other times they are not so. But regardless of whether they are for or against one side or the other, they don’t deny speciations in evolutionary biology.
His response to you was approximately 39 words. If that is too long then what is the optimum length for a reply?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Go back in history mate. And you ignored "four words" in your attempt. If four words is "verbiage", even 39 words you toiled to count is a tap. This is the problem with jumping to defend people just out of allegiance. Even hyper religious groups don't.
Ciao.