A Quick History of Theory: Creationism and Evolution.

Im sure there are tens of millions of natural world objects not mentioned in the Bible.
God had to go with references to 'Stars and Heavenly Bodies' - no doubt to save Moses a lot of writing.

Regarding Salvation.

What we DO know is that anyone who understands these things to be true - yet - deliberately rejects the truth they have - is choosing to go to Hell.

For those who do not know the Gospel to be true - they are to respond to the light they are given.

If your telling me you understand Christ is your Salvation but are purposely going to reject it - then how could you complain about deliberately choosing to go elsewhere?

There is simply no 'Contradiction' in that whatsoever.

 

Brocktroon

How is christ occams salvation?
What is salvation? from what?

Occam DOES NOT CHOOSE TO IGNOR THE SALVATION OF CHRIST.
HE DOES NOT UNDERSAND WHAT IT IS.
AND WHAT is it?
Fiction

What part or whole of occam needs to be saved?
Nothing
The only thing of occam that deires or requires saving.
Is the self preservation of the totality of occam.

Only occam can desire that...And it has NOTHING to do with religion.
Self aware being desires its self preservation.
Religion 'requires' its self preservation.

Religion the system will survive.
Occam the MIND will not.

So what...Occam has what he has FREE. [existance]
If he gets no more freebies...tough
He is not a social system as religion is.
He is an existant being.

He will die..Sytems such as religion only die when the PEOPLE that belive in them die. And none replace them..evolution. Religion and belief systems exist because self aware beings do.
Without US.
They do not exist

There are NO GODS .. without human beings.
There is only complexity in reality..and its causes


Occam

 

So the point is you dont understand what Salvation is, why you need it or who gives it. (etc etc).
So how can you be held to rejecting it?

Lets say Jesus is the Way and The Bible called it all correctly.
You Die.
You show up on Judgement Day.

What happens to you next - I do not know.
Maybe its explained to you then - and THEN you are asked to make a decision?

Where the Bible is silent, so are we.

As to your assertion there are no gods without human beings... I suppose you are entitled to beleive that by faith.

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on this one, Brocktoon.

Show me !!!

Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."

Show me where Christianity states anything converse to Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


Darrell

 

Brocktroon

No..Occam does not.
He has no soul as interpretations of the bible describe it.
There is no judgement day as interpretations of the bible says.

If any of the above EXIST..occam has seen no evidence,
If he sees no evidence...
They are low probabillity only.

Who has seen their soul?
None occam knows.
Who has seen judgement day?
None occam knows.

Soul, salvation and judgement day are YOUR words that mean NOTHING TO OCCAM.

In you holy righteousness..you say they exist.
Fine..

SHOW THEM TO ME.
Occam lives in a world where we believe or not...
Based on a method...
Reason has shown religious method to be non-existant.
And religion knows it.
The simple question of the existance of hell has destroyed most peoples faith in religion.
No rational being will accept eternal torture.
For that is what hell is.
Without redemption.

Yes..to be punnished is acceptable..
to be tortured forever IS NOT

Religion has destroyed itself by stupid clinging to dogma.
And that is why so many turn away from it...

Religion is a a path to power for those that create it..
[in this reality, occam sees no other]

Christ would vomit if he could see what 'christianity' has become.

Occam

Faith? HoHo

Occams faith is of one thing. That humanity , using self aware reason, Will make its own fate..
We will make reality to be ,, what we wish.
Occam has precedent for this faith...
It is the difference between us grubbing for root plants as a tribe of semi conscious beings.
And us building a machine that can process 70 trillion coded instructions
PER SECOND [floating point calcs]

It is the difference between someone like occam being an 'elder', someone who is still alive after 40. [no mean feat,, maybe self awareness originated in ENVY of those that continued to exist...repeatedly... ' i want to continue' on the virgin lips of the pre-sentient]
And just another self styled middle aged idealist who has it so easy, that his life CAN BE, totally, a persual of interests.

If
WE have come that far in a mere few thousand rotations of earth....
The future is ours to make of as we wish.

 

Amen, brothers!

 

"..On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

So the Bereans are counted as Noble for examining (questioning) what Paul was trying to prove to them.

Happily that is almost a word-for-word answer to your Question.

Sorry, I cant find anything Converse to Hebrews 11:1

Please note the Obvious - Christianity starts with as much hard living reality as you can ask for.
So we START with an observable, recordable, falsifiable reason for the Faith we have.

So there is a substantial warranted Faith in which we base our hopes for things not yet seen.

This is NOT the same as a Faith where there is no objective reason to START with and then asking to maintain that for things not yet seen.
(Like Evolutionisms Faith)

Big Difference

 

Where I said: Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."


You followed with: On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

You, Brocktoon left out two important keywords, one in your first claim to "critically examine the claims it makes" and second in not mentioning to "examine Scripture". So what you really meant to say was to "examine Scripture, to see if these things are true," not to "critically examine the claims it makes."

In examining Scripture, you are not making any examinations on your own using logic, deductive reasoning, or scientific proof ... your making claims to examine the words written by men several hundreds of years ago (perhaps several several thousands, since that is probably how old the text is now that the Bereans had to examine back then). In reading what someone else said, you're going on blind faith that that is what is true without actually examining the truth for yourself.

Darrell

 

"...Christianity starts with as much hard living reality as you can ask for.
So we START with an observable, recordable, falsifiable reason for the Faith we have."

Would you please elucidate on the meaning of this statement? Are you saying that the christian faith in god is subject to verification thourgh observation- and meets the test?

 

So, what you're saying is that you began the essay by mentioning that cultural myths were an influence in writing the torah, yet do not talk of where the ideas come from, meanwhile giving an account of the formation and modification of the evolutionary ideas. You start at the end with creationism, yet begin at the start with evolutionary perspectives. You have given no evidence of what formed these ideas in the first place, or how the ideas came to be accepted by people, which what you should base your comparison on, as you are looking at the difference between two viewpoints.

Look at it like this, if I were to compare the effects of the first and second world wars in the way you compared the two concepts, I would say: The first world war had a basis in foreign policy, but for the purposes of my essay I will look at its effects from the writing of the first textbook explaining the event onward. The second world war began with the assassination of franz ferdinand, which then quickly progressed to germany fighting a war on two fronts etc etc etc. Therefore, the second world war had more widespread effects, because the only thing which came out of the first world war was a textbook, and it only SAYS that people were injured/hurt/upset. Rather revisionist, don't you think?

You also concede that the bible should not be read scientifically, yet it's ok to compare it to a fully scientific concept? It's like comparing the running ability of a cheetah with a piece of carpet, completely invalid. You can't compare the two from either a scientific or a belief base, because, for one, they have totally different concepts of proof, evidence, belief, and fact. Doing things like this, to me, seem far too much like an imagined power trip to give people a buzz, to make them feel that their concept is right, from whichever side they come from.

 

disarm,

You're way off base.

"And you are quite right: The bible is not to be read as a scientific document. and by implication, creationism is not a scientific theory.

And that's the point!"

Did you skip those two sentences?

I don't "conceed" that the bible is not science- THAT's MY POINT!

It ISN'T " ok to compare it to a fully scientific concept..."

Again, That's the point. Talk to the creationist- it's THEY whom equate biblical statements with science, not I.

"So, what you're saying is that you began the essay by mentioning that cultural myths were an influence in writing the torah, yet do not talk of where the ideas come from, meanwhile giving an account of the formation and modification of the evolutionary ideas."

There IS no documented INDIVIDUAL history of the development of creationism. Naming every culture with a creation myth, serves no purpose. There is no research trail- no train of historical people who slowy acumulated knowledge, suggested hypothesis, and eventually reach the tentative conclusion of creationism. It did not develop through consideration of other, lessr theories.
In EVERY case, creation myths appear full blown without ANY empirical reason.
THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY DERIVED.

Evoultion theory is based on prior research and obseravtion over a period of time.
Science.

At that's the point of the essay- only a fool would call creationism science, and evolution a belief system.

Perhaps you should read the thread before you make wild assumptions. Try a few others, too.

They're filled with me explianing to that creationist wacko that CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

I've posted thousands of words stating that- and demonstrated it to boot.

You need to do a review-

I await your apology- unless your faith forbids you from admitting your mistakes.

CREATIONISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

 

Yes, these people put faith in these scriptures (OT), which turned out to be physically and tangibly proven out in reality (Messiah).

So these Christians (and today) are STARTING with an objective reality which begins their reason to then have faith in what will come next.

Deryl:
Sorry but the only thing I can see here is that you protest that the word 'Critically' was not explicitly included in the description of 'Studied to see if these things were true or not'.

Most of us would say that IS a description and the definition of Critical Thinking.

 

"Yes, these people put faith in these scriptures (OT), which turned out to be physically and tangibly proven out in reality (Messiah)."

A lie. Show this proof that dosen't exist.

Be careful- you're tetering on pathology.

Opinions are not proof-

And no matter how many times you repeat the same idiocy, it will still be idiocy, mr bush.

Now attack me in a fit of frustration, as you do, and see where it get's you.

 

Gecko... for the sake of your bizarre denouncements - Could you PLEASE learn how to use Block Quoting.
Thanks

 

Ditto my last post.

 

Brocktoon Says:
Gecko... for the sake of your bizarre denouncements - Could you PLEASE learn how to use Block Quoting.
Thanks


Gecko Replies:
A lie. Show this proof that dosen't exist.
Be careful- you're tetering on pathology.
Opinions are not proof-
And no matter how many times you repeat the same idiocy, it will still be idiocy, mr bush. Now attack me in a fit of frustration, as you do, and see where it get's you.

 

I'm really, REALLY trying darrell-

May I post another thread without juiceman hijacking it?

I suspect that my threads are welcomed here by all but the flamer.

 

[Geckopelli - Trying what?

Please keep in mind this is an active thread and at least two people are in the middle of a discussion about critical thinking and the Bereans.

Either join in or please stop interjecting unrelated comments.]

Where Darrel said: Show me where in Christian literature where it implies or indicates one to "critically examine the claims it makes, to see if these things are true."


Brocktoon followed with: "On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."

Darrel suggested that this is not 'Critical Examination'.

I suggest that it is.
The type of Examining is made clear - 'To see if what Paul said was true'.
This not only 'indicates' they are being 'critical' but it directly implies they were critical.
I suggest it beyond 'Implication' and is simply stating the act of critical examination in order to determine truth.

For some reason Geckopelli is 'Holding his tongue'?

Is it being suggested that the Bereans accepted what Paul said and did not question it?
Darrel seems to be suggesting this passage describes the Bereans as accepting whatever Paul said as true - then were just 'looking at' things they had already accepted as true.

The text (in any translation I can find) say they did this to see 'IF' Paul was telling the truth.
Without getting into a full-blown English/Greek exegesis on the word 'IF' - I suggest it clearly indicates and implies 'A Question' exists first, in the minds of the Bereans.

So its not 'To see the true things Paul had said'
but rather
To see 'IF' things Paul said 'were' true?
[and that itself implies an 'or were not']

Geckopelli, Please feel free to explain what it is that requires you to 'Try Real Hard' and Why?

 

Its weird but it seems like anything Darrel asked and I replied to has been deleted?

Oddly the last post which was basically nothing more than an insult post was left?


Wierd

 

You're way off base, I'm saying that its wrong to compare the two, and you agree. Yet you write an 'essay' comparing the two. I await YOUR apology

If you call an essay a comparison of two histories, whether one has a history or not (there is no history of the evolution of the concept of creationism, yet you're describing their 'histories..'), then you should talk about the history of the concepts. You say there is no way of finding how the concept of creationism was reached SO DON'T SAY YOU'RE DESCRIBING ITS HISTORY.

To digress, some creationists do try and use science to prove their theories. So attack them. Many things we cannot actually prove, we use a theory which best fits it, and usually completely fits it. This is science. The idea of science, which I'm sure you've heard, is that if all variables are kept constant, then one is changed, any difference is caused by that variable. If something has happened once, and we have absolutely no control over it, nor can we observe it, we choose the best theory which fits the result. As we cannot conduct any investigation on how the universe was created, and know little of its immediate after effects, we cannot have a completely valid scientific theory- we cannot conduct an experiment, put everything in the same conditions, and reach the same result time after time. Therefore, any theory which fits the result is just as valid as the next until it can be disproven. That's what myths are, explanations which fit the environment. So, until you disprove the existence of g-d, or his ability to make the universe; or a creationist disproves all other theories on the creation of the universe; we're all as right as the other.

My point, in a way which I hope you will understand this time, is that you should not compare the two concepts. You have already agreed with this. So don't compare the two concepts, and furthermore don't try and make one seem better than the other- they're incomparable. That was all I was saying.