Whoa, simmah down son.
Okay, I'm going to clear up what I stated and the issues you had with it. First let me express that I am not a bible thumper. My beliefs have nothing to do with what I am seeing happen globally and that is that science and documents (the bible, koran, etc) of an early era are beginning to show evidence of the same thing(s).
First, The Theory of Evolution has as strong a following as any religion on the planet. I'm sorry but it's far from "theory" <----What is the standard you use to make this claim? . It is "belief" by many (athiests and agnostics really subscribe to this belief typically) and the belief discussed as "fact" in many classrooms. I also wasn't trying to disprove anything. That belief has as much room for discussion as any other belief that may support it or contradict it <---Can you name any theory that contradicts it with scientific evidence? . I would also recommend looking up what the difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution as I think you have blurred the line between the two. Adaptation on a biological level is a form of evolution. Therefore, a tan is evolution "in real time" which means a person doesn't have to look back 500 years to see it happen. No, the adaption of skin to change color in order to protect it may be an evloutionary adaptation but the the fact that you tan would be the same evolutionary adaptation as walking upright. Add to that, a person who tans or over-tans has a higher chance of melanoma (skin cancer) which increases the likeliness of their offspring to then be subject to that ailment.
Second, what I said about Radioactive decay and/or Carbon-Dating was that the evolutionists of the 60s-80s attempted to use this method as a means to prove their belief was accurate. No, carbon dating is a tool used to estimate the age of things. It is not used to support evolution However, today, the two beliefs are actually finding some common ground. That is to say, the bible/koran/bhagavad gita/etc all speak of things that happened at a place or of a person who lived and did this or witnessed that... science (and carbon dating being a part of that science) is finding that many of those events did happen. Please cite examples of scientific evidence supporting a biblical event However, the interesting thing to note is that the Nile did not turn into blood as scripture and Egyptian writings would have one believe but it due to a mineral being churned from the bottom of the Nile and turning it's waters a deep read - for example. Please cite this example So this would be where science and scripture agree. The zealot for either side would have you believe that either scripture is absolutely wrong or absolutely correct - it was or wasn't actual blood. I am not saying that here.
Third. A day is a day? Sure, so long as we can agree a day is a man made concept to describe our planets rotation and a year is our way of describing our revolution around the sun. They are man made measurements of time. Likewise, it's possible that a person who "hears" from God misunderstands what is being "communicated" to him. Armed with only a basic and very human understanding of the measurement of time, that person could translate that communication into "on the 7th day God rested" when in fact it could have been "in the 7th millennium God saw that his creation was perfect and had nothing else he wanted to do". You could say that to justify any contradiction or ambigious section of the bible. These are not deep philosophical things (I'm trying to keep it light) but I hope the point is made. In addition, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the sun worshiping Egyptian of biblical times, and many others have their own version of creation. You obviously have your own. Actually every society has a creation myth to explain their origons.
I think it is a person with closed mind who would respond in a way which offered nothing in terms of discussion but only attacked things for the sake of the attack. If you reread my original post, you'll see that when you state "The bible will never disprove science..." and "science will never disprove the bible", I had effectively said the same thing. Hence the reason for my response at all.
No feathers ruffled here. You're entitled to your opinion as is the next individual. It's the comprehension of those opinions where we differ I think.
I'll probably never find proof of UFOs, but I won't wasting my life searching either
There is a difference between "Defending" and calling out the obvious. Skimming back through, I don't see where I was defending MY beliefs as much as laughing at Zietgust and ribbing your comparison to it's validity compared to the Bible. no defending, just pointing out the obvious:
Good point about the tanning thing. I guess it might be more accurate to see it as an already evolved reaction to solar radiation. I'll have to chew on that and the analogy that I used and see what I comes out in the wash.
For everything else, I will defer to my first post which simply stated, "Go investigate these things for yourself". I wasn't looking for a philosophical debate over the internet on a motorcycle forum.
If we're going to continue this conversation or debate, I'm not going to continue to share while you two choose not to. So, you should state what it is that you believe to be true. Also, I am not going to remain on the defensive, so be prepared to bring your references to the conversation which support your stance, your opinion, and the/your facts - since that is what you are asking of me to do. I am confident in what I believe and I feel I can show evidence to support what I believe should we get to the point that you state what you believe (in a short misunderstood post and it's follow-up lol) for the world to see.
I think you'll find it's easier to mock, ask questions, and poke holes in someones 50 line or less post than it was to actually put your neck out there and state that your great(x200 ?) grandfather was a monkey who used to pick it's rear and smell it's finger. Yeah, I was right, that is definitely easier.
Regardless, the "short and sweet" intention of my post was, "I find it interesting how the disparity between science and faith has changed in the last ten years, maybe you will too. I would encourage you to seek out your own truth." That still stands.
With highest regard and all joking aside!
Whoa, simmah down son.
Okay, I'm going to clear up what I stated and the issues you had with it. First let me express that I am not a bible thumper. My beliefs have nothing to do with what I am seeing happen globally and that is that science and documents (the bible, koran, etc) of an early era are beginning to show evidence of the same thing(s).
First, The Theory of Evolution has as strong a following as any religion on the planet. I'm sorry but it's far from "theory". It is "belief" by many (athiests and agnostics really subscribe to this belief typically) and the belief discussed as "fact" in many classrooms. I also wasn't trying to disprove anything. That belief has as much room for discussion as any other belief that may support it or contradict it. I would also recommend looking up what the difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution as I think you have blurred the line between the two. Adaptation on a biological level is a form of evolution. Therefore, a tan is evolution "in real time" which means a person doesn't have to look back 500 years to see it happen. Add to that, a person who tans or over-tans has a higher chance of melanoma (skin cancer) which increases the likeliness of their offspring to then be subject to that ailment.
Second, what I said about Radioactive decay and/or Carbon-Dating was that the evolutionists of the 60s-80s attempted to use this method as a means to prove their belief was accurate. However, today, the two beliefs are actually finding some common ground. That is to say, the bible/koran/bhagavad gita/etc all speak of things that happened at a place or of a person who lived and did this or witnessed that... science (and carbon dating being a part of that science) is finding that many of those events did happen. However, the interesting thing to note is that the Nile did not turn into blood as scripture and Egyptian writings would have one believe but it due to a mineral being churned from the bottom of the Nile and turning it's waters a deep read - for example. So this would be where science and scripture agree. The zealot for either side would have you believe that either scripture is absolutely wrong or absolutely correct - it was or wasn't actual blood. I am not saying that here.
Third. A day is a day? Sure, so long as we can agree a day is a man made concept to describe our planets rotation and a year is our way of describing our revolution around the sun. They are man made measurements of time. Likewise, it's possible that a person who "hears" from God misunderstands what is being "communicated" to him. Armed with only a basic and very human understanding of the measurement of time, that person could translate that communication into "on the 7th day God rested" when in fact it could have been "in the 7th millennium God saw that his creation was perfect and had nothing else he wanted to do". These are not deep philosophical things (I'm trying to keep it light) but I hope the point is made. In addition, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the sun worshiping Egyptian of biblical times, and many others have their own version of creation. You obviously have your own.
I think it is a person with closed mind who would respond in a way which offered nothing in terms of discussion but only attacked things for the sake of the attack. If you reread my original post, you'll see that when you state "The bible will never disprove science..." and "science will never disprove the bible", I had effectively said the same thing. Hence the reason for my response at all.
No feathers ruffled here. You're entitled to your opinion as is the next individual. It's the comprehension of those opinions where we differ I think.
nice follow-up...knowing more about your stand I can get your original message. Not the first time I've given a person a combative voice and mis-interpreted their post (ask wwjd ) thanks for not beating me too badly
Good point about the tanning thing. I guess it might be more accurate to see it as an already evolved reaction to solar radiation. I'll have to chew on that and the analogy that I used and see what I comes out in the wash.
For everything else, I will defer to my first post which simply stated, "Go investigate these things for yourself". I wasn't looking for a philosophical debate over the internet on a motorcycle forum.
If we're going to continue this conversation or debate, I'm not going to continue to share while you two choose not to. So, you should state what it is that you believe to be true. Also, I am not going to remain on the defensive, so be prepared to bring your references to the conversation which support your stance, your opinion, and the/your facts - since that is what you are asking of me to do. I am confident in what I believe and I feel I can show evidence to support what I believe should we get to the point that you state what you believe (in a short misunderstood post and it's follow-up lol) for the world to see.
I think you'll find it's easier to mock, ask questions, and poke holes in someones 50 line or less post than it was to actually put your neck out there and state that your great(x200 ?) grandfather was a monkey who used to pick it's rear and smell it's finger. Yeah, I was right, that is definitely easier.
Regardless, the "short and sweet" intention of my post was, "I find it interesting how the disparity between science and faith has changed in the last ten years, maybe you will too. I would encourage you to seek out your own truth." That still stands.
With highest regard and all joking aside!
I'mma use you!
(shout out!)
