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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thank you so much, but I just don't want to argue about any words. I actually feel it's perfectly fine for everyone to understand things their own way.It's not the most interesting video, but I'd run across it earlier today and it seemed relevant to your question.
I am interested in apologetics, though, if you'd like to discuss any particular claim.
???? -- Moving the goalposts means changing the venue; shifting the event in question to another place without addressing the question at hand.
I still don't want to visit Nepal, however. It seems, however, like a pretty popular place, and seems people KNOW, or should know that they're risking their lives climbing Mt. Everest, but they do it anyway. When I read of such excursions, I think: how stupid. But then there are people who like doing things like that.
Now if I were a scientist in that field, however -- of expanding lungs due to atmospheric pressure, I might want to visit Nepal. And it's an interesting thought as to what would happen if they had relations with those with lungs not developed they are now. In a different climate. But it's not particularly a subject of interest to me, if I were a scientist, I think I'd rather work in a lab.
Soooo, with that all in mind, have a good evening.
Huh? The alternative would be no life, wouldn't it?
I'm not proposing a discussion of semantics. I'm just saying I'm open to discussing any of the claimed "proofs" that keep coming up in theological discussions.
In that particular video he responds to the claims of a person that should have known better. The man has a PhD in biochemistry and yet he makes errors that an undergrad would not make. Creation "scientists" are often like that. When they lie, because they are at least trying to look as if they are following the scientific evidence, they are easily refuted. That tells us that they are lying and they know it. Just like Steve Austin when he dated the Mt St. Helens ash.
Wayytt a minute here -- didn't you bring up goalposts first? So ok, I'll relent...here are my goalposts on the playing field-- the theory of evolution cannot be tested, it does not matter in reality what anyone says as if it can be tested. It cannot be tested. It cannot be observed. To say that birds change beak sizes is not observation of the theory, no matter how someone may try to twist it. Because -- yes -- the birds stay birds. There is also nothing to prove or show that the first cells replicated themselves and evolved to whatever they are proposed by scientists to have evolved to. Now, since I am convinced by reason (no evidence beyond that of conjecture about fossils and as if somehow these cells have a magic quality to replicate themselves and mutate) that evolution happened by mutation, that it where I am leaving it now.
No, if there was no "abiogenesis," there would still be life. That theory of abiogenesis is untrue and debunked by reason. It is fantasy. The reason I say there would be life without the so-called "abiogenesis" is because yes, I believe God gave life to that which He wants to. But leave God out of it, if you want to. The more I consider it, the idea of abiogenesis stemming from whatever a scientist may imagine, is getting more and more absurd. Nothing to show abiogenesis, and nothing to show the first living matter on earth and nothing to show what that first living matter evolved to. But thanks for conversation.
Your inability to test it does not mean that it cannot be tested. I know of more than one way that it can be tested.
You may (and Darwin may) say it means evolution, but I suppose you also may say that tribes with short arms and legs is also evolution. Sorry, but birds remain birds, humans are humans.
!!!! It's been tested thousands of times in a hundred different ways. Farmers and herders have been recreating its methods to improve crops and livestock for thousands of years.
It's observed every day!
Yet we're here, and weren't here before the first cells began replicating with variation. How did we get here? magic poofing ex nihilo?
If cells have no ability to replicate themselves wouldn't they disappear after one generation?
The world doesn't owe us any fossils. We are lucky to even have as many as we do. Fossilization is a very rare process.
Magic poofing, is what creationists believe in.
You have completely misunderstood the fundamental principle of language writing.Since I don't know which translation you are talking about I will use the KJV as it is the most recognized and many of the newer ones used all they legally could and still get copyrights on their version.
In Genesis 1:1 the first mistranslation takes place in the second and third words being switched from Hebrew to English. The verb is before the subject of the verb not as it is in English. Which led to a big discussion of verse one and its entire translation which changes the complete meaning of the verse.
It properly translates as, "In the Beginning (all from one word) created (verb) God (subject of the verb) the Heavens and the Earth.
Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement of completed action the earth was ready to be inhabited and was in Genesis chapter 2 verse 4 which starts the history of the day God created the heavens and in Genesis 2:7 the first lifeform was formed from the dust of the ground. Genesis 2:4- 4:24 gives us the history of the man formed from the dust of the ground and his descendants.
That is the original creation story.
Genesis 1:2 starts a completely different story in the KJV the first word is translated as a conjunction when it is marked in the original language as a disjunctive conjunction. The LXX translated it "Now" I think it should have been translated as "But". the word Hebrew word הָיָה translated "was" Is a terrible translation as it is not even mentioned in the definition of הָיָה. :Which is:
הָיָה is translated as was in Genesis 1:2 and 3:1 and in not other place and as you can see it is not in the definition of הָיָה. In Exodus
- to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass.
Exo 3:14
And God H430 said H559 unto Moses, H4872 I AM H1961 THAT I AM: H1961 and he said, H559 Thus shalt thou say H559 unto the children H1121 of Israel, H3478 I AM hath sent H7971 me unto you.
I left Strong's numbers there so you could see הָיָה is the word translated I AM.
Lexicon :: Strong's H1962 - hayyâ
The next mistranslation is in Genesis chapter 1 is found in Genesis 1:5הַיָּה
I will get to the rest of your message later I have to go for now.
Enjoy,
