• 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!

Irony of the evolutionary belief

Actually only Mat 28:20 describes the three Gods specifically and other references may be interpreted as Jesus Christ is God incarnate and seated on the right hand of God as a distinctly separate God.. You cannot dhow me the full concept of the Trinity as described in Christian doctrine in the Bible, Nowhere does it say they are 3 in 1.

As per the subject of the thread: Do you accept the sciences of evolution?
Genesis says let us make man in our image and using the word echad a plurality of one not 3 God’s in Deut 6:4.
Jesus Christ and the Father are one not 3, I and my Father are one. The Holy Spirit of God is not a separate God. He is the Spirit of God who dwells in believers. This is all in the Gospel of John and throughout scripture. Nowhere are they described as 3 God’s.

 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Genesis says let us make man in our image and using the word echad a plurality of one not 3 God’s in Deut 6:4.
Jesus Christ and the Father are one not 3, I and my Father are one. The Holy Spirit of God is not a separate God. He is the Spirit of God who dwells in believers. This is all in the Gospel of John and throughout scripture. Nowhere are they described as 3 God’s.

This series of exchanges confirms that direct references we of cource not in agreement. Start a thread and I will continue. Last poston this for now.

Subject of the thread: Do you accept the sciences of evolution?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The science is one thing, the interpretation is quite another.


Posting this misrepresented reference instead making a knowledgeable respond based on science reflect you agenda,

If you actually read the source you would realize it does not reflect what you may have intended. The jest of the article is science by the definition of Methodological Naturalism does not prove anything. I cannot access this article now, but I have seen it before, and you are misrepresenting your source. I believe the article does represent science in a positive light.

The question still stands.
 
Posting this misrepresented reference instead making a knowledgeable respond based on science reflect you agenda,

If you actually read the source you would realize it does not reflect what you may have intended. The jest of the article is science by the definition of Methodological Naturalism does not prove anything. I cannot access this article now, but I have seen it before, and you are misrepresenting your source. I believe the article does represent science in a positive light.

The question still stands.
The article was not positive or negative concerning science, just stating what science can and cannot prove.
My everyday life, how I live, the principles that work, sowing and reaping, planning, making repairs, building things, growing things are scientific experiments and observation. I lived 2 lives, one where I did everything to satisfy myself and self centered, ended up a disaster. The other right now according to the Bible and it’s been blessed and I know God, walk with Him.
You can take all the science you want and make your case about evolution and live a selfish life like that promotes because after all it is a theory that the strong survive but I found that to be false.
I found that God opposes the proud, gives grace to the humble, He confounds the wisdom of this world and raises up the weak.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The article was not positive or negative concerning science, just stating what science can and cannot prove.
Science cannot prove anything. It was positive and specific on the limits of science defined by science
My everyday life, how I live, the principles that work, sowing and reaping, planning, making repairs, building things, growing things are scientific experiments and observation. I lives 2
lives, one where I did everything to satisfy myself and self centered, ended up a disaster. The other right now according to the Bible and it’s been blessed and I know God, walk with Him.
OK, but not the subject at hand.
You can take all the science you want and make your case about evolution and live a selfish life like that promotes because after all it is a theory it the strong survive but I found that to be false.

The sciences of evolution do not remotely have anything to do with "a selfish life," and does not promote this. You may be associating the sciences of evolution with atheism. This false. There is no association of science simply as science with any other philosophical or theological worldview. The Sciences of evolution do not simply believe the strong survive. This is a false belief based on ignorance of science of what survival of the Fittest means, which has changed since Charles Darwin. It translates to the best adapted to the changing environment survives, which is clearly apparent in today's world concerning the adaptation of some populations and the extinction of others due to changing environments. , The sciences of evolution only believe in natural evolution of life which is in response to adaptation to the changing environment over more than 3.5 billion years.

By the way the majority view in the USA for the support of the sciences of evolution are Theistic Evolutionists and believe in God, All the early scientists that developed the sciences of evolution up until the early 20th century were Christians including Charles Darwin. Though Charles Darwin became agnostic later in life. He as never an atheist,
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I lived 2 lives, one where I did everything to satisfy myself and self centered, ended up a disaster. The other right now according to the Bible and it’s been blessed and I know God, walk with Him.

So what do you say to people where the opposite of that is true?

You can take all the science you want and make your case about evolution and live a selfish life like that promotes because after all it is a theory that the strong survive but I found that to be false.

The theory of evolution concerns itself with a process that all life is inevitably subject to.
It is not a theory on how human ought to live their lives, nor how humans ought to treat eachother.
Nor is it a theory that tells us how we should organize society.

If you have ever believed otherwise, I can only tell you that you were incorrect.
Your misunderstanding / misrepresentation / strawmanning of a theory (any theory) is not an argument against it.

I found that God opposes the proud, gives grace to the humble,

Then why do I observe this constant display of arrogance and condescension on the part of christian apologists?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
If, according to evolutionists, human intelligence eventually emerged in an environment that was previously lifeless for millions and millions of years... what is so strange that a Superior Intelligence has already existed for another INFINITE number of years BEFORE that period of time? :cool:

One is based on empirical evidence, the other is not.

Evolution has a lot of empirical support. Whatever theory you have has to be supported by the evidence.

This idea of superior intelligence, you can makeup whatever theory you want since none of that theory can be verified. You can be 100% wrong and still think you are 100% right. So if you don't care whether you are wrong or right, believe whatever you want.
 
Science cannot prove anything. It was positive and specific on the limits of science defined by science


OK, but not the subject at hand.


The sciences of evolution do not remotely have anything to do with "a selfish life," and does not promote this. You may be associating the sciences of evolution with atheism. This false. There is no association of science simply as science with any other philosophical or theological worldview. The Sciences of evolution do not simply believe the strong survive. This is a false belief based on ignorance of science of what survival of the Fittest means, which has changed since Charles Darwin. It translates to the best adapted to the changing environment survives, which is clearly apparent in today's world concerning the adaptation of some populations and the extinction of others due to changing environments. , The sciences of evolution only believe in natural evolution of life which is in response to adaptation to the changing environment over more than 3.5 billion years.

By the way the majority view in the USA for the support of the sciences of evolution are Theistic Evolutionists and believe in God, All the early scientists that developed the sciences of evolution up until the early 20th century were Christians including Charles Darwin. Though Charles Darwin became agnostic later in life. He as never an atheist,
Israel is an example of a weak nation surviving in a world wanting to destroy it and surrounded by enemies. Hitler seemed to me an evolutionist trying to have the perfect race and exterminate the rest. As far as human beings it isn’t the survival of the fittest.
Evolution is an attempt to disprove God and directly impacts how people view life and live their lives.
Only human beings are interested in finding out the meaning of life, spend so much time and energy digging up the past. Why is that? Where did that drive come from? You don’t see animals worrying about that.
Evolution can’t prove what they theorize from billions of years ago, its interpretation and extrapolation, its ever changing interpretation of science and more like a religion.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Posting this misrepresented reference instead making a knowledgeable respond based on science reflect you agenda,

If you actually read the source you would realize it does not reflect what you may have intended. The jest of the article is science by the definition of Methodological Naturalism does not prove anything. I cannot access this article now, but I have seen it before, and you are misrepresenting your source. I believe the article does represent science in a positive light.

The question still stands.
Show us a creationist argument that does
not require willful misrepresentation .
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Israel is an example of a weak nation surviving in a world wanting to destroy it and surrounded by enemies. Hitler seemed to me an evolutionist trying to have the perfect race and exterminate the rest. As far as human beings it isn’t the survival of the fittest.
It is not natural evolution either. Hitler's beliefs in a 'perfect race were not scientific, they were based on the extreme anti-semitic beliefs common to Christian Europe. The passion plays over the history of Europe described Jews as "Christ killers" based on citations noted by Martin Luther in essay "Jews and Their Lies."

Martin Luther wrote the detailed plans on how to ethnically cleanse Europe of Jews that Hitler followed. He had many beliefs concerning genetics represent a warped misuse of science.


"The Jews and Their Lies"

He did not call them Abraham’s children, but a “brood of vipers” [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, “He has a demon’ [Matt 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a “brood of vipers”; furthermore, in John 8 [:39,44] he states: “If you were Abraham’s children ye would do what Abraham did.... You are of your father the devil. It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham’s but the devil’s children, nor can they bear to hear this today.

First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulfur and pitch; it would be good if someone could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such houses, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now but that we have now given them their due reward.

I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. There it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help, we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.”
Evolution is an attempt to disprove God and directly impacts how people view life and live their lives.
No the sciences of evolution as well as all sciences are neutral to existence of Gods,
Only human beings are interested in finding out the meaning of life, spend so much time and energy digging up the past. Why is that? Where did that drive come from? You don’t see animals worrying about that.
Evolution can’t prove what they theorize from billions of years ago, its interpretation and extrapolation, its ever changing interpretation of science and more like a religion.
As described before science doe not prove anything. The article you cited is accurate as to what science does, and does not do. You misrepresent the article and science as well
 
Last edited:
As described before science doe sn prove anything. The article you cited is accurate as to what science does, and does not do. You misrepresent the article and science as well
The article is just the article, it was just what science can and can’t explain. Science can only look and observe, evolution has only been observed for changes within species.
As for the rest of the Evolution theory is just a religion and assumptions.
This would be more along the lines of a creationist view:
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The article is just the article, it was just what science can and can’t explain. Science can only look and observe, evolution has only been observed for changes within species.
You are still misrepresenting the article based on your intentional ignorance of science. The article does not remotely say that. If you believe the article states that please cite the article specifically,

Please completely respond to post #1,614.

Your posts are loaded with dishonest misinformation,
 
Last edited:
You are still misrepresenting the article based on your intentional ignorance of science. The article does not remotely say that. If you believe the article states that please cite the article specifically,

Please completely respond to post #1,614.

Your posts are loaded with dishonest misinformation,
My posts are my own observations, but the article makes some points about science:

In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.
It’s a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren’t applicable to the system you’re dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that’s why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.
Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our “proofs” aren’t on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory’s range of validity — we’ll “prove” something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean “they’ve convinced themselves that this thing is true,” or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It’s always subject to revision.
So don’t try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we’ve ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it’s better than a proof: it’s the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My posts are my own observations, but the article makes some points about science:

In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.
It’s a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren’t applicable to the system you’re dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that’s why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.
Even in theoretical physics, the most mathematical of all the sciences, our “proofs” aren’t on entirely solid ground. If the assumptions we make about the underlying physical theory (or its mathematical structure) no longer apply — if we step outside the theory’s range of validity — we’ll “prove” something that turns out not to be true. If someone tells you a scientific theory has been proven, you should ask what they mean by that. Normally, they mean “they’ve convinced themselves that this thing is true,” or they have overwhelming evidence that a specific idea is valid over a specific range. But nothing in science can ever truly be proven. It’s always subject to revision.
So don’t try to prove things; try to convince yourself. And be your own harshest critic and your own greatest skeptic. Every scientific theory will someday fail, and when it does, that will herald a new era of scientific inquiry and discovery. And of all the scientific theories we’ve ever come up with, the best ones succeed for the longest amounts of time and over the greatest ranges possible. In some sense, it’s better than a proof: it’s the most correct description of the physical world humanity has ever imagined.
Your previous posts mixed you own biased observations and opinions with those of the article, and the actual nature of the sciences of evolution. I was correct I had seen this article before and you terribly misrepresented the article. Note the bold. Again based on the article science does not prove anything. Proof is a matter of math and logic, and logical argument that are considered proven are not necessarily true.

You still have more dishonest accusations to account for concerning the science of evolution.The misuse of science by Hitler and those that widely practiced unethical sterilizations in the 20th century in the USA are classic examples of the egregious misuse of science to justify racist and ethnic cleansing 'social engineering agenda.
 
Your previous posts mixed you own biased observations and opinions with those of the article, and the actual nature of the sciences of evolution. I was correct I had seen this article before and you terribly misrepresented the article. Note the bold. Again based on the article science does not prove anything. Proof is a matter of math and logic, and logical argument that are considered proven are not necessarily true.

You still have more dishonest accusations to account for concerning the science of evolution.The misuse of science by Hitler and those that widely practiced unethical sterilizations in the 20th century in the USA are classic examples of the egregious misuse of science to justify racist and ethnic cleansing 'social engineering agenda.
Well, it’s my opinion and where else would he get such an idea? Make a super race? Not from the Bible that’s for sure. That’s not the Gospel at all, because God chose the weak to confound the wise.
Science is one thing and then there is Evolution as the religion and view of how we got here as human beings which evolutionists miss-represent the science and make a whole creation story they can’t prove out of it.

 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
As for the rest of the Evolution theory is just a religion and assumptions.
This reflects your anti-science agenda, and ignores the fact that science is neutral to the existence of God, You cannot cite one sxientific reference that makes the scientific claim that God does not exist. That claim requires an Ontological philosophical claim which is outside the realm of science

This would be more along the lines of a creationist view:
This reference could not be opened, but nonetheless it is a religious claim and has no reference to actual science.
 
Top