2+2 = 11 (base 3).Why a poll on a fact? Would you do a poll on does 2 plus 2 equal 4?
Homo sapiens is a great ape. Simples.
Human - Wikipedia
Numbers are ideas, so you need to stay alert.
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!
2+2 = 11 (base 3).Why a poll on a fact? Would you do a poll on does 2 plus 2 equal 4?
Homo sapiens is a great ape. Simples.
Human - Wikipedia
What objective test will tell us whether Person A has "conquered death" or not?Humans have conquers death. Well, only one really. So we’re a tad different from the humans portrayed in the fictional story of evolution imo.
That certainly would be true… I might call it “serpent oil”.Yes, medication is the right comparison. You can obviously say what you want, but many medications are supposedly working for some while causing bad side effects or no good reaction for others. Snake oil might be when some people claim to be a medium and talk to the dead.
Yep, deception is what creationism preachers try to do. (Though it is not misconduct in science as they are not scientists.)Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.
No, I don't say He was impersonating someone else.and sorry .. but yes .. this means that God was impersonating the Supreme God EL and/or YHWH is the Enlil of the Sumerian Pantheon.
I think these indicates otherwise.and No .. beings who are not God .. are not being called Sons of God ..
Consensus is not useful, only that which has the best reasoning/evidence matters.Now obviously and according to the consensus of modern Theological scholarship
Assumptions are not good enough.The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El
In Biblical point of view there are other so called gods, but only one true God. Other maybe called gods, like the golden calf, but not real God.The problem is that while you may wish to believe in monotheism .. and therefor there can't be other Gods that YHWH is defeating
No, I don't say He was impersonating someone else.
I think these indicates otherwise.
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Ex. 4:22
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2 Sam. 7:14
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
It is interesting that also Moses was called a god.
Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1
(I think that shows also nicely that the word Elohim, is not a proper noun in Bible, at least not always).
Consensus is not useful, only that which has the best reasoning/evidence matters.
Assumptions are not good enough.
In Biblical point of view there are other so called gods, but only one true God. Other maybe called gods, like the golden calf, but not real God.
… we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:4-6
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
I appreciate things like smallpox vaccines, polio vaccines and things like that. Not all do. I am not against science. Plus I don't know what you think or believe about "creationist preachers," so I'm sure there are all sorts of different types of thinking about creation and/or evolution. To clarify, I do not believe that every day of creation is 24 hours long. I believe the evidence or rocks and fossils show that each time period of creation took longer than 24 hours each. The word day is used, in my opinion, in the creation account of the Bible as a time period with an opening and a close. Not 24 hours each 'day.' Geology shows different than 24 hours each said day. I have concluded the word day used there does not refer to a 24 hour period of time but rather a period that opens and closes and another period begins after that.Yep, deception is what creationism preachers try to do. (Though it is not misconduct in science as they are not scientists.)
They lie about what science is, what scientists say and what is common knowledge in science. (And Hanlon's Razor doesn't cut it for them as the science has been explained to them.)
The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).I appreciate things like smallpox vaccines, polio vaccines and things like that. Not all do. I am not against science. Plus I don't know what you think or believe about "creationist preachers," so I'm sure there are all sorts of different types of thinking about creation and/or evolution.
Until these recent posts I never heard of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I cannot account for certain things in the Bible scientifically, that's for sure. I am not discounting them, but I also cannot account for everything that is supposed to have happened according to the laws of science in reference to evolution.The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).
People may have forgotten what they learned in school or their school wasn't that good or they never went to school. When they listen to the propaganda they get a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and it is very hard to educate someone who thinks they know already.
Once you know and accept the facts and you understand the theory, you are very unlikely to dismiss it.
I don't have any good reason to accept that, sorry.as EL is another God
I don't have enough reason to think El in the Bible is the same as in Sumerian Pantheon.If you wish to say YHWH Is EL - the Enlil of the Sumerian Pantheon
I think Bible explains it sufficiently.and how then do you explain the Golden Calf affair ?
Are you saying that you think the golden calf is the same as El? Why?As soon as Moses leaves for a few weeks ..the people "Israelites" - go right back to worshiping EL .... the whole affair orchestrated by Moses's brother Aaron.
why do you think the golden calf is the same as El?...comes down the mountain and the Israelites are worshiping the Most High God ...
Two points here:Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.
There are two reasons science deserves to be applauded. The first is that its loyalty is to evidence, not conclusions. The second is that it is self correcting. Because science requires replication of results, fraud is always eventually found out, as is things like sloppy statistical work.Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.
I think there is a difference between accepting or using certain technologies and claiming to accept science. The science behind these technologies may be from different disciplines studying different things, but the same basic scientific methodology is the same. You really can't claim to accept some technology--ick and choose--and deny some science--pick and choose--and claim to accept science at the same time.The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).
People may have forgotten what they learned in school or their school wasn't that good or they never went to school. When they listen to the propaganda they get a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and it is very hard to educate someone who thinks they know already.
Once you know and accept the facts and you understand the theory, you are very unlikely to dismiss it.
By the way, speaking of science, and since the subject of "science" is being discussed, discussions are evidently being considered that mankind is destroying the environment because of -- science. Namely space travel. Projected increase in space travel may damage ozone layer - NOAA ResearchThere are two reasons science deserves to be applauded. The first is that its loyalty is to evidence, not conclusions. The second is that it is self correcting. Because science requires replication of results, fraud is alwa
I never heard of Kent Hovind and the other person until now.I think there is a difference between accepting or using certain technologies and claiming to accept science. The science behind these technologies may be from different disciplines studying different things, but the same basic scientific methodology is the same. You really can't claim to accept some technology--ick and choose--and deny some science--pick and choose--and claim to accept science at the same time.
For instance, paternity testing is a technology reliant on the same evidence and theoretical basis that supports the theory of evolution. A person is not accepting science by accepting paternity testing and, at the same time, denying the theory of evolution.
I don't think I am alone in seeing that as two contradictory positions being attempted by force to exist as both true at the same time. Something about non-contradiction that makes that untenable.
These sites not only produce misinformation and promote pseudoscience, but support a false sense that science can be accepted pick and choose as if the basis that some have for science that makes them uncomfortable in their ideology is different than the more acceptable science that doesn't.
Strict literalists seem to want to have it both ways.
Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.By the way, speaking of science, and since the subject of "science" is being discussed, discussions are evidently being considered that mankind is destroying the environment because of -- science. Namely space travel. Projected increase in space travel may damage ozone layer - NOAA Research
Once again, science can be helpful and it can be damaging.
1. Science has helped and hurt mankind.Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.
My point, which I am sticking to, is that science has done scads more to relieve real human suffering than religion has in its entire history.
If I understand you correctly, I believe you do not believe the Bible, and yes I know there are some things hard to understand, but it says right from the start of human life on the earth, Adam's son killed his brother. Not with a bomb or scientific means but with other means handy. Problems existed right from the start. In addition, religion has caused a great deal of harm to mankind so I agree with you there. (But then so has, as you intimated, human nature contributes to a deleterious situation as well as does science.) Some humans will desist if possible from harming others. Yet others will not desist.Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.
My point, which I am sticking to, is that science has done scads more to relieve real human suffering than religion has in its entire history.
I'm only repeating myself, so I'm just going to move on to other threads. Be well.1. Science has helped and hurt mankind.
2. Religion has helped and hurt mankind.
I do find there are variances within each category.
Meantime, as I understand it many persons are worried about WWIII happening.
American Public’s Concern About Nuclear War Growing, Survey Finds | Air & Space Forces Magazine
A new poll from the Reagan Institute found that one-third of respondents were extremely concerned about a potential nuclear war.www.airandspaceforces.com