MarkForbes

Nathan used a lamb in the analogy. But I think the point is that the bible isn't exactly a hagiography, when it comes to its protagonists. Which is something that makes the text more credible, since ancient texts were commonly hagiographies for kings and people.

Science is NOT "Methodological Naturalism". It's about finding and explaining truth about the tangible world, which includes nature, but human action, society and history as well. In fact, I don't think one can conduct science as purely naturalist endeavor. - Natural Laws are per definition supernatural. They impose behavior on nature, e.g. materials, motion, energy, space, etc. - The scientific method wasn't established by naturalistic means. It's the result of a long standing development in philosophy including certain assumptions about the natural world (e.g. that it follows natural laws, because it had a creator that imposed order and laws). That it is intelligible for human beings, because the stem from creation in God's image. - To communicate the results of scientific research one has to make use of man made mentefacts, actefacts and artefacts, which were the results of human cultural activity like language and philosophy. Materialism is ontologically retarded, since it denies the existence of anything beyond matter and motion. It's self-contradicting in that way as well, since it's merely the expression of an idea. The Materialist's excuse for this is that ideas are only excretions of the chemical processes in the brain.

That Christians can do wrong things is not in dispute. That wrong things were committed in the name of Christian Religion neither. Although there has been a tendency for a long time to misrepresent that kind of things. When Marxists killed "reactionary classes" or even "backward nationalities" that was done in line with the standards and teachings of their world view. The same applies to the large-scale theft and frauds they committed. That's why they simply brush that off, when they are confronted with it. No shame, guilt or admission of wrong on their side. Their ideology is based on dialectical materialism were matter and motion is all that really exists. No soul, no God as real entities have any place in their world view. Materialism necessitates Particle to Person Evolution as part of their ideology. And when humans are only a conglomeration of chemical processes that was the outcome mutation and selection, why would it be wrong to kill them? Especially, when they are deemed to be in the way of "historical progress". With the Christians it's different, when they murder people that would be CONTRARY to their world view. Humans, children of Adam, who was created in the image of God, still have inherent value in them. That's (the) reason why killing them would be wrong. That Christians still do wrong is however also consistent with the presuppositions Christianity makes, as all humans are sinners and hence do wrong things.

wow.i wonder what the men of science thinks about that innocent little quip. and before anyone starts questioning the truth of the above quote, you must remember that in regards to evolution the other side WILL be squelched. I think he's talking about Evolution as in common ancestors of apes, man, bananas and fungi. The pioneers of science, the scientific method and scientific method had zero problem with the bible or Christianity proper. To contrary they had their basic assumption taken from Christian philosophy and the bible. After Materialists and Atheists took over Academia that fact got twisted and obscured a bit.

I was thinking of this as well. Genetic Entropy by Dr. John Sanford is also a good argument

Recently I thought again about our perception of beauty and why it is observable in nature. Why are so many organisms beautiful, without any evolutionary advantage in this (I know the S@xual selection argument, but that's begging the question)?

To quote: 1. Congress. That's the central government's legislative government. 2. It's about establishing a state religion for the whole united states, like e.g. the Anglican Church. 3. It doesn't regulate what state or county governments do or shouldn't do. 4. It's a double edged sword. Central government can't prohibit exercise of religion neither. 5. Prohibiting prayer in schools (by central government fiat) would be unconstitutional as well. A problem would be, if there is no consent by the learners (or their parents). But that's no central government matter neither. A post establishment of constitution problem is the emergence of secular ideologies, arguably those aren't religions, but functionally they still should be considered as such. I think one needs to consider the presuppositions of a text and that includes legal texts. They assumed either existing American citizens or immigrants from Europe, who'd be Christians of some sort. They'd also assume that communities would sort out their own issues without interference from the central government, whose role was limited. Constitution/Bill of Rights/ Amendments served as legal recourse against tyranny or domination by either majorities, powerful minorities or a central government. This has also important implications: There is an assumption being made. Without it the constitution would actually lose it's validity. Now should (government)schools teach stuff that goes against it?

Actually, the law against (teacher led) school prayer can be found here: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." ..... That's not a law against school prayer led by a teacher or not. That's a law against legislating/prohibiting school prayers. That said any educational institution (state run, private or whatever) will also transmit and favor a set of beliefs, even if they're rather vaguely defined.

Here is Richard Dawkins explaining "the Evolution of Whales". Line up different creatures and sort them according to similarity (or actually less dissimilarity) and you have your evolutionary tree branch. This is conjecture at best. No proof that one descended from the other. They don't know that neither, they just keep repeating their claims until gullible people start believing them. And than it becomes a "scientific fact". They do what the church were accused of doing: creating dogma.

So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago ? There is no evidence that is the case, that stance relies on a literal belief in Genesis. That line of argument works both ways. "Why do you believe that life emerged billions of years ago as result of an undirected process?" There is no evidence that is the case, that stance relies on necessity for evolution to occur. - Taken, they interpreted other data in a way that it can fit that bill (long ages for fossils, geologic processes, etc.).

The question that matters is 'are any same state past belief dates used?' If not, then all we are saying is that some stuff is older than other stuff. Hence the term "relative" dating. "Absolute dating" assigns a numerical age. Creationists shouldn't have any real issue with relative dates. They're based on the law of superposition. I get you. It's about sequence not about precise time dates. What we should have an issue with is the claim that those dates are accurate or even precise. They are not, there is no reason to believe that they have to. A lot of "dating" fossils and rocks is based on paradigm not actually methods that have the certitude of a clock, ruler or weight scale.

None, the bugger should have done his homework, plain and simple. No stories or deception operations please. The commandment itself reads Ex 20:16"You shall not bear false~witness against your neighbor. Of course this is aimed at not slandering your neighbor, meaning those close to you. Reason is obvious such lies poison the relationships between people. The examples are demonstrative on why people lie, because they try to dodge consequences of their behavior they think will be negative. They illustrate nicely what methods people will use for deception. There is however problems with lies for those being lied to, as well as the liars. Those believing lies will make the wrong decisions, while lying becomes a habit for the liar becoming unable to distinguish fact from fiction.

First: What are "Laws of Nature" to you? Or what do you mean by "Laws of Nature"? Laws and forces exist in this world that govern how things work. Things like how an atom works. Fundamental forces and laws. I don't doubt the existence of 'laws of nature'. I however would like to get a grasp on them of what they ARE. I'd say there is a difference between formal representations of laws of nature and the essence of how they exist in nature. And yes, what are they in essence, are they material/physical or are they spiritual in character?

First: What are "Laws of Nature" to you? Or what do you mean by "Laws of Nature"?

So clearly not a problem yet you are still unable to explain how not in any plausible way. Starting with the flood and predicting its evidence ? Well that is what the bible believing pioneer geologists did in the 1700s, they went out and realised that a literal Genesis could not be reconciled with the actual evidence. It was therefore falsified. You believe in the flood despite the evidence not because of it. What's the evidence for this statement? The empirical findings are in line with Genesis today as they were yesterday.