Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence of Demons (and Angels)
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 303 (201295)
04-22-2005 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by kjsimons
04-22-2005 2:32 PM


I've answered this many times already. No, I don't reject geology, I reject the Geo Timeframe. No, I don't reject biology, I reject evolutionism. I understand these terms are just about synonymous in most people's minds so that they have a terrible time separating them but that's what I'm trying to do, separate them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by kjsimons, posted 04-22-2005 2:32 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-23-2005 3:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 246 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:58 PM Faith has replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 303 (201361)
04-23-2005 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-22-2005 8:44 PM


The geo column concept is intertwined with modern geology. You have shown youself unwilling or unable to conceptualize the column(remember the Great Debate?), so how can your uninformed opinion mean anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-22-2005 8:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 9:40 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 303 (201392)
04-23-2005 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Arkansas Banana Boy
04-23-2005 3:54 AM


The geo column concept is intertwined with modern geology.
Yes, "intertwined" is what it is, the theory relating to the science as a parasitic vine to a tree. It has no intrinsic relation to geology, simply habitual association. It would be a VERY interesting test for scientists to practice describing their observations in objective terms leaving out the geotimetable and evolutionism. It would be difficult but since the theory is inessential, not impossible. It's simply a bad habit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-23-2005 3:54 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2005 11:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 255 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-24-2005 6:28 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 244 of 303 (201415)
04-23-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
04-23-2005 9:40 AM


It would be a VERY interesting test for scientists to practice describing their observations in objective terms leaving out the geotimetable and evolutionism.
It's precisely because scientists describe those observations objectively that geologic time and evolution are included.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 245 of 303 (201425)
04-23-2005 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
04-22-2005 12:22 PM


Re: Now the thread has arrived at miracles.
quote:
All the Bible is regarded by believers as factually true,
That's not true.
In fact, only a small minority of believers consider the Bible to be factually true in all things.
The vast majority of Christians do not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 04-22-2005 12:22 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 1:12 PM nator has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 246 of 303 (201445)
04-23-2005 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-22-2005 8:44 PM


It sounds like quibbling. You accept the science, but you reject the conclusions from the science. I bet you reject conclusions from chemistry, from physics, and from astronomy too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-22-2005 8:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 2:09 PM ramoss has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 247 of 303 (201452)
04-23-2005 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by nator
04-23-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Now the thread has arrived at miracles.
Schraf writes:
In fact, only a small minority of believers consider the Bible to be factually true in all things.
The vast majority of Christians do not.
The only thing that matters in the facts is the question of who Jesus Christ is.
If a belief says that He is no longer alive and is a mere man, that belief is not a Christian belief. At best, it is a Pseudophilosophical belief. We are dealing with the source of wisdom, again. Christian belief would by and large agree that at a macro level at least, life was created. Intelligence was created.
Any intelligent Christian is unconcerned so much with evolution on earth. We are concerned with the philosophy of the origin of life in general. The origin of conscious intelligence.
It concerns me when conscious intelligence itself uses logic and reasoning to define its own existence and purpose while bypassing the obvious source, which is a Creator.
As to whether the Bible is factually true, only THIS truth...the identity of the Creator...found in the idea of His Son...really matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 04-23-2005 12:21 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 04-23-2005 1:56 PM Phat has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 248 of 303 (201475)
04-23-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Phat
04-23-2005 1:12 PM


Re: Now the thread has arrived at miracles.
quote:
The only thing that matters in the facts is the question of who Jesus Christ is.
Well, that's your thought, but Faith and Buzsaw and many others disagree with you.
quote:
If a belief says that He is no longer alive and is a mere man, that belief is not a Christian belief. At best, it is a Pseudophilosophical belief.
Oh, I think it could be a real philosophical belief, but perhaps not a Christian belief, at least the way you (and many others) define "Christian Belief".
However, who am I (or you) to tell someone that they aren't a "real Christian" if they consider themselves one, even if they think that Jesus was a mere man?
quote:
We are dealing with the source of wisdom, again. Christian belief would by and large agree that at a macro level at least, life was created. Intelligence was created.
I personally know several devout Christians who do not believe this.
quote:
Any intelligent Christian is unconcerned so much with evolution on earth.
...except those Christian Biologists who delight in God's creation.
quote:
We are concerned with the philosophy of the origin of life in general.
That may have been caused by God, but it more likely to have come about naturally, too. It's just chemical reactions, really.
quote:
The origin of conscious intelligence.
Oh, you mean our great big brains?
Evolution.
quote:
It concerns me when conscious intelligence itself uses logic and reasoning to define its own existence and purpose while bypassing the obvious source, which is a Creator.
What Creator?
quote:
As to whether the Bible is factually true, only THIS truth...the identity of the Creator...found in the idea of His Son...really matters.
Well, tell that to Faith.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-23-2005 12:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 1:12 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 3:17 PM nator has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 249 of 303 (201483)
04-23-2005 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by ramoss
04-23-2005 12:58 PM


It sounds like quibbling. You accept the science, but you reject the conclusions from the science. I bet you reject conclusions from chemistry, from physics, and from astronomy too.
Yes, apparently it sounds like quibbling, but the point is that these theories are NOT "conclusions" from the sciences. The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table. These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:58 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 04-23-2005 7:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 254 by crashfrog, posted 04-23-2005 9:41 PM Faith has not replied

Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 250 of 303 (201517)
04-23-2005 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by nator
04-23-2005 1:56 PM


Re: Now the thread has arrived at miracles.
Schraf writes:
However, who am I (or you) to tell someone that they aren't a "real Christian" if they consider themselves one, even if they think that Jesus was a mere man?
By the same token, who are you to tell a guy who believes that the earth is 6000 years old that they are not a real scientist?
By your definition of science, right?
And so I judge Christians based on an orthodox definition of Christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by nator, posted 04-23-2005 1:56 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by nator, posted 04-23-2005 7:36 PM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 251 of 303 (201556)
04-23-2005 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
04-23-2005 2:09 PM


quote:
Yes, apparently it sounds like quibbling, but the point is that these theories are NOT "conclusions" from the sciences.
Yes, all of those hundreds of thousands of scientists are ALL MORONS, like I said before. Or incredible LIARS.
It really has to be one or the other.
They are so INCREDIBLY STUPID and OBTUSE to base any of their proposed hypothese upon the validity and reliability of the GTT or the ToE.
I mean, SO WHAT if all of their testing of these theories have confirmed them as two of the most solidly supported ideas in all of science? All scientists are CLEARLY so WHOLLY DEFICIENT in the smarts department that not a single one of them has figured out what you have been able to confirmwithout your having any training or expertise in any scientific field whatsoever!
Truly, Faith, if I were you I would start contacting all of the top Geologists, Nuclear Physicists, Evolutionary Biologists, and Paleontologists in the world and tell them how they HAVEN'T actually been doing any science at all, but have been dumbly accepting something that YOU have EASILY figured out just can't be true.
Make sure to show them your math, they will be impressed with that.
They really need to know how wrong they have been about everything for their entire careers.
You would be doing science SUCH a huge service, really.
Wait, wait!!!!!
I've just had a very DISTURBING, DARK thought.
What if there is a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY within the worldwide scientific community to LIE TO THE WORLD about the validity of the ToE and the GTT??????????????
How can you possibly deal with SUCH EVIL as that?
quote:
The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table. These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them.
Maybe you could do us a favor and explain how radioactive decay rates are "imposed" upon Geology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 2:09 PM Faith has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 252 of 303 (201558)
04-23-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Phat
04-23-2005 3:17 PM


Re: Now the thread has arrived at miracles.
quote:
By the same token, who are you to tell a guy who believes that the earth is 6000 years old that they are not a real scientist?
By your definition of science, right?
Not at all.
Beliefs have nothing to do with being a scientist.
Qualifying as a scientist has to do with the methods you use.
quote:
And so I judge Christians based on an orthodox definition of Christianity.
...and I can probably find lots of people who do not fit your definition and still call themselves Christian.
Why is your definition better than theirs?
Are you saying that there is an objective standard that all Christians agree upon?
And I can find lots of Christians who disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Phat, posted 04-23-2005 3:17 PM Phat has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 253 of 303 (201561)
04-23-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Faith
04-22-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Faith and Knowledge
quote:
I've tried many times to show you that you are wrong, but you prefer your own opinion so I'll leave you to it.
I must say, I am disappointed.
You weren't able to address any of my points at all.
That should tell you something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Faith, posted 04-22-2005 11:00 AM Faith has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 254 of 303 (201595)
04-23-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
04-23-2005 2:09 PM


The sciences do NOT support evolutionism or the Geo Time Table.
Which is a kind of funny thing to assert, given that nobody has ever been able to show that this is the case. Not even you, as it turned out.
These two theories are IMPOSED on the sciences and the actual evidence is forced to fit into them.
Since the evidence predates the theories, I find that rather hard to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 2:09 PM Faith has not replied

Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 303 (201665)
04-24-2005 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
04-23-2005 9:40 AM


Parasitic vine a poor analogy
More apt is that its the trunk of the tree. The acceptance of the geo column for almost 200 years by science puts the onus on you and others to dislodge it. You belittle the concept w/o understanding it. You claim the world to be undecipherable while much good evidence exists that deciphers many things.
It's about time that you make some rational arguments supported by physical evidence about creation theory. To differentiate this theory from evolution you need to understand the rationale of the geo timetable even if you don't believe it. Freshman geological concepts of deposition and tectonic movement aren't that hard. I think that you can understand the concepts (and perhaps do having been exposed to some). I also think that you find yourself unable to do so because understanding them is too close to lending credence to them and your religious preconceptions won't allow it. Saying that you don't understand so its not understandable (when so many others do) is not smart.
The bad habit here is that you fail to demonstrate how science got off the track so long ago in regards to the age question.
In the past whenever you settle on a subject (geo column, Grand Canyon geology, etc), you don't stick with it and bounce to another subject when the going gets tough.
You seem much more competent discussing prophets of the Bible where your background is knowledgable and relevant.
My apologies to the Admins as this post adds to the topic drift from Angels and demons. I await another thread where Faith tackles any one particular scientific subject with relevant information.
ABB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 04-23-2005 9:40 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024