What is Truth? (1 Viewer)

[rajncajn]

I would like to throw a few things out there....just a "$.02" kinda thing. Take them as you will: Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study.

Unlike many in the Christian religion, including & especially those of my own faith, I believe that the Bible, as written and interpreted by man, is capable of having flaws. I feel that it is up to myself and my faith in God to be able to determine what is the true Word of God and what is not. Many people will point to that as an example of only taking the parts that I like and not being a true Christian or even a hypocrite as it would seem. So be it, that's the way I've chosen to practice my faith and only God has the right to tell me if I'm worthy or not. I pray that I am and I pray God's forgiveness if I am not.

I agree with several of our atheistic friends here that Christians often seem to lean towards exclusivity rather than inclusiveness and that's not what is Biblically taught. We are to love one another as Christ loved the church ( also as we love ourselves). Again that is love one another...not accept each other's sins. I can love a person who is gay or trans (or any other "sinful" person) without accepting their behavior. There's a difference. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or wish ill will towards you. We are each individuals with God given free will. Yes, even God says you can do whatever you want with your life. He also says there's only one way to Heaven, so you have a choice. God doesn't condemn people to Hell, we make that choice. Sorry, I tend to get lost I tangents.

I think this is another sticking point among non-Christians. Christians need to get away from calling people "sinners." We are all sinners in God's eye, true, so in fact none of us are better than the other. However, when we call non-Christians or even non-repentant Christians sinners we are in fact telling them that they are condemned to hell . The problem with this is that, while that may be what we believe based on our teachings, it is not our place to judge and anyone who is a non-believer simply sees this as being judgmental.

 

[SystemShock]

It seems we are all getting caught up in the minutiae and falling into various irrelevant points. As far as the differences between creationism and evolutionism, if you go back to the origins of life discussed by each, both take faith.

NO, THEY DO NOT.
No matter how many times you repeat it, there is no faith in accepting the preponderance of demonstrable evolution evidence.

Both will claim to have scientific evidence

But only one has valid evidence.

I would say it takes less faith to believe in a creator vs coincidence on that scale.

And you'd be wrong.

Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study.

The classic preach it until you believe it. How can you be sure you understand any parts of it? Conveniently, it is only the contractions and the non-nonsensical that you "don't understand" and need to "further study".

 

[SystemShock]

difference being verifablity - can you draw provable conclusions based on observation?
in biology you can, but there is no testable/provable theory about the Arc & flood

Actually, there is testable theory for the ark, the flood, and just about any Bible myth, but they only succeed in proving the Bible myths wrong.

 

[JimEverett]

I am not sure what is meant by "faith" but there most certainly is a requirement to believe in unobservables in any Explanatory Theory.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

NO, THEY DO NOT.
No matter how many times you repeat it, there is no faith in accepting the preponderance of demonstrable evolution evidence.

especially since most testing of scientific theory starts off with the assumption that it's wrong and then must prove it's verifiable

 

[RetroMcBananaFace]

This is, at least, the 2nd time I've seen you say this and you say it as if people here are a bunch of cowards trying to "hide" behind a username. Yet I just tried to "look you up," St. PJ from Lafayette (which is the only thing I had to go by. Is you name really Saint PJ?), and the only thing I could find was PJ's Dance and Arts School. Let me just say, you look much better in tights and a tan.

Seriously, I don't think anybody here is trying to hide behind anything and calling people out for using a username that is not their own just comes across as trying to make yourself look macho when really all it does is make you look insecure. My name is Justin, I live in Ocean Springs, Ms but I'm from Biloxi. I'm Cajun/German and Catholic. I have kids, a wife and two dogs. You'll have to excuse me if I don't provide you, someone I know absolutely nothing about, on an anonymous and open message board, my full name, address and phone number & I wouldn't expect any half-intelligent person to do that either. Just because I use a made up name doesn't mean I'm trying to hide. I use it because it's part of my personality and I've been using it for nearly 30 years.

Seriously, I never addressed those posts because it seemed like typical macho posturing bullshirt, but if one wanted to figure out my name, workplace and even get a decent approximation of my home address from what I've posted on this message board, it wouldn't be particularly hard. I don't invite that, but I haven't exactly taken any measures to obscure my identity either.

Who we are typically has less to do with what our name is, or the image of our face, as it has to do with what we do and say. I feel like over the past couple years I've gotten to "know" plenty of people here very well without necessarily having to know their first name or what street they live on.

 

[SystemShock]

I am not sure what is meant by "faith" but there most certainly is a requirement to believe in unobservables in any Explanatory Theory.

The misguided idea is, from the apologetics side, to bring science down to a religion level, then question it as a religion, and claim people who accept evolution as the best possible explanation to why we are what and who we are, do so based on religious faith.
But science has no faith. Science looks to disprove itself. There is no faith in something being true, because its default position is to reject a claim.

As for believing in unobservables, there is a HUGE difference between believing in something you didn't see happen when you have no factual evidence it happened, and accepting something happened that you didn't see happen based on the evidence it left behind, and/or on whether you can recreate the event.

 

[boutrous]

I'll try to be brief here in what I mean, but it will be difficult. Macro evolution posits that man (and all life) evolved from a single cell source of life. Somehow, this single cell "first" instance of life, somehow, inexplicably came into existence from "not life", or non-living matter. Once it was "life", what did it eat, what sustained it? Every example we have in science of something living (at least in the animal kingdom) eats something else that is living. What gave it energy to reproduce? It is said (and observable) than a single cell organism can divide into two. We've all heard how one cell can divide into two, then eventually you get asexual reproduction which involves one parent, then that evolved into bisexual reproduction which involved two parents... but is it suggested that this original single cell organism just popped into existence with a fully functioning reproduction system? Even for a one cell organism, that's a very complex process. How did that happen?

Macro evolution is generally the belief that thousands of random mutations occur over millions of years that eventually result in a new species. How do you go from splitting in half to reproduce to asexual reproduction? And then to bisexual reproduction through a process of thousands of small mutations? Reproduction is kind of an all or nothing process. A cell either divides to reproduce, or it doesn't. There's no in-between here. So according to the theory evolution, at some point in time, an organism that divided into two to reproduce somehow gave birth to an offspring that reproduced asexually. How did that happen? Then at some point in time, an asexual parent gave birth to an offspring that reproduced bisexually. How did that happen? How can you be 3/4 asexual and 1/4 bisexual, and then 1/2 asexual and 1/2 bisexual until you get to fully bisexual? -- it just doesn't work. There are no intermediate stages here. The only solution is that at some point in time a fully asexual parent had to give birth to a fully bisexual offspring, and then that bisexual offspring would have to find some other bisexual offspring produced by another asexual parent that had the same sequence of random mutations so that it could mate. What is the probability of that happening?

Speaking of reproduction, can anyone give the process by which the umbilical cord evolved? I'm not saying their aren't any answers, but every evolutionist asked can't answer these questions... they are operating on faith more than fact. Think about it. The umbilical cord ties the baby to the mommy. Baby's body and mommy's body had to mutate and evolve thousands of times, each time in a complementary manner over millions of years to make the system work. What's the odds of that happening? And what about the complementarity of the male and female bodies? How do random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years account for the complementarity of the male and female bodies? You want me to believe that happened randomly - that the male body and female body evolved independently of one another thousands of times over millions of years in such a way that they perfectly complement one another in the reproductive process - really? Is that Science or Faith (in a theory) to reach that conclusion?

What about sight? You either see or you don't see. Somewhere in the evolutionary chain, an un-seeing parent had to give birth to a seeing offspring. That's a HUGE leap that had to happen in ONE generation. Think about the "evolution" of sight - from the antenna of an ant to the eye of a fly. In order to go from the antenna of an ant, which receives various sensory inputs from the environment but does not see, to the eye of a fly, which does see, each part of the antenna system - the antenna, to the nerves leading from the antenna to the brain or central nervous system, the sensory receptors and sensory nervous system and so on would ALL have had to randomly mutate, in the direction of the eye, at the same time, thousands of times, over millions of years. The odds of that happening even once are rather minuscule...the odds of it happening thousands of times over millions of years seems rather impossible.

Flying - you can either fly, or you cant - there's no inbetween. At some point in the evolutionary chain, a non-flying parent had to give birth to a flying offspring. The first flying creature had to have evolved the instinct to fly before it actually evolved the mechanisms to fly. If instinct wasn't already in place, how would it know how to fly? Why would it ever jump out of a tree in the first place? Why would it evolve the instinct to fly before it could fly? Makes no sense.

At some point in the evolutionary chain, an egg laying parent had to give birth to an offspring that didn't lay eggs, with the help of an umbilical cord. There are thousands of questions like this that not one evolutionist has given any credible evidence nor answer nor theory as to how this actually occurred.

For the record, I believe in micro-evolution. Science and observation have demonstrated without a doubt species evolve and adapt over time. But there is not one example or evidence that even evolutionist can agree upon of one species evolving into anther.

For those who claim to go by just science, these are some major leaps of faith in the theory of evolution with zero evidence or answers to any of these questions. I'm open to believing in evolution, but someone, anyone needs to make the case for me and answer some of these questions. The scientific method is all about observation and experimentation, and no one has ever seen nor do they have fossil evidence of any of these particular evolutions taking place. What we have is a ton of scientific speculation. Specualtion based on SOME evidence. But the amount of evidence we have in terms of bone fragments and skulls and so forth for the evolution of man between 4 million and 2 million years ago fits in a small box -- that's from an evolutionist. So the theories we have are speculations, and there are disagreements over how to interpret the various fossil evidence; not all evolutionist agree on interpretations of what a bone fragment is or means.

Again, science can and has observed bacteria involve into tens of thousands different strands of bacteria... but it is still bacteria. There is zero evidence, observation, or experimentation that give even the smallest bit of credence to something evolving into a different species. From all life having origin in a single cell that eventually mutated and became fish, reptiles, mammals, man. If evolution occurs over random genetic mutations occurring thousands of times over millions of years, why has the house fly stayed the same the last 65 million years, yet we believe with millions FEWER opportunities for mutations in the same time frame, we've gone from reptile to human. Yet despite having exponentially more opportunities, the house fly is exactly the same. why didn't it evolve into some higher form of life?

The lack of answers to questions like these is why i no longer believe in evolution. Nothing to do with faith. Though because of my belief in A Creator, I do believe if it somehow could be proved evolution on the macro scale did occur, i believe it could have only happened if it was, in essence, pre-programmed into our genetic code by the Author of life (intelligent design). Atheist would have to believe all of this happened randomly: matter came into being from nothing by random chance, that life originated from non-life, that lower species evolved into higher species, and with so many great gaps in evidence, many many things the scientific method has not and can not demonstrate -- never seen it, but believe it -- is that science, or faith? Just from a probability standpoint, the chance of one of those things happening is infinitesimally small... so to believe all these things randomly happened, is that science or faith? (just to clarify - faith in science or faith in the theory of evolution)

Maybe some scientist 20 years from now might read this and think "what an idiot", and maybe so... I'll readily accept that criticism or statement. But, if you are reading this and you do say that, I'd greatly appreciate answers to some of these questions. I am open to whatever science proves because I know there can be no contradiction nor any conflict between authentic faith and authentic science. Science is actually moving closer and closer to what the Church has taught for 2,000 years - that the universe had a beginning, and that it will have an end, and that all of mankind has descended from one man and one woman. Science used to teach the universe was infinite, no beginning, no end. It used to teach than man descended from many lines of pre-human hominids in various places throughout the world. Science now speaks of Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve, from whom all mankind descended. Recent studies suggest that Y chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve just might have lived at the same time.

Peace out; I'm going play nintendo.

Your missing link here is simple, cells still reproduce the way you described as they always have and cells maintain their 'life' through energy and reproduction. What has changed is how cells work and group together to form organisms. The way an organism reproduces has evolved to the point where it's more beneficial for them to share genes in order to evolve into better more adapted organisms instead of simply cloning off new versions of themselves. Each new organism is still a set of cells that have learned to stay and work together in order to survive longer / reproduce more cells. Most species evolutions have taken place after cataclismic enviromental changes have occurred.

 

[kcirdor]

Sequential hermaphroditism - Wikipedia

plus, xxy xyy xxyy and the female counter parts.... absolute my arse.

/thread

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

It seems we are all getting caught up in the minutiae and falling into various irrelevant points. As far as the differences between creationism and evolutionism, if you go back to the origins of life discussed by each, both take faith. Either you have faith in an all-knowing creator with grand designs or you have faith in inexplicable happenstances randomly tripping through time, both to arrive at this point. Both will claim to have scientific evidence proving their beliefs to be true. Personally, based on my Christian theistic view, I would say it takes less faith to believe in a creator vs coincidence on that scale.

I would like to throw a few things out there....just a "$.02" kinda thing. Take them as you will: Given my belief structure, I trust that the Bible is true. If there is a "flaw" it is because I don't yet understand what the author is really saying and I should further study. I agree with several of our atheistic friends here that Christians often seem to lean towards exclusivity rather than inclusiveness and that's not what is Biblically taught. We are to love one another as Christ loved the church ( also as we love ourselves). Again that is love one another...not accept each other's sins. I can love a person who is gay or trans (or any other "sinful" person) without accepting their behavior. There's a difference. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I hate you or wish ill will towards you. We are each individuals with God given free will. Yes, even God says you can do whatever you want with your life. He also says there's only one way to Heaven, so you have a choice. God doesn't condemn people to Hell, we make that choice. Sorry, I tend to get lost i tangents.

Everyone love each other just because they are human and deserve love. Christians, that goes double for us. On top of my previous statement, WE WERE COMMANDED TO. Double whammy. I hope at least some of this was helpful for someone.

I’m not even sure how one could consider another’s action a “sin” without judging the person.

Thoughts and actions are all people are. It’s fine to judge other people, IMO, but don’t judge them and pretend you aren’t.

Either own your judgement, or don’t judge.

 

[Taurus]

...

Peace out; I'm going play nintendo.

You'd do better by studying what the Theory of Evolution actually says.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Seriously, I never addressed those posts because it seemed like typical macho posturing bullshirt, but if one wanted to figure out my name, workplace and even get a decent approximation of my home address from what I've posted on this message board, it wouldn't be particularly hard. I don't invite that, but I haven't exactly taken any measures to obscure my identity either.

Who we are typically has less to do with what our name is, or the image of our face, as it has to do with what we do and say. I feel like over the past couple years I've gotten to "know" plenty of people here very well without necessarily having to know their first name or what street they live on.

Irl I’m much more of a try to take care of everyone in the room type (I am the irl version of @Humperdoo )
But here - with some anonymity I am more “truthful”
Which is not to say either is more or less me, just two of man facets

 

[SigFreudianSlip]

Guido I’m also the real life version of me. Lol. ?

 

[WhoDatPhan78]

They made a movie about Corey Booker and didn’t cast any black people?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

View: https://youtu.be/F988JDDuFsQ