Obama for President = Second Coming?

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2811753
I do have another question for Veni; do you believe that natural disasters are created by god?
I wouldnt speak on GODS behalf ,but there are things in the Bible that suggest that HE has.Floods,Fire and Brimstone....
 

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2812576
From the National Academy of Science, USA:
"Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century. As a 2006 “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, “Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines” (emphasis in original). (See http://www.interacademies.net/Object...0statement.pdf.)
Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God."
Journey: There is a difference between the two. But, we shouldn't hijack this thread, so I'll shut up at this point.

until scientists can create in a lab something from nothing im going to believe in a creator
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by peef
http:///forum/post/2811666
The moderator didn't have to ask Obama to answer the question 3 or 4 times and stop changing the subject. She did have to with Palin!
LOL did you see the interview with Biden in Florida.He didnt like getting asked tough questions and was offended that the reporter didnt ask him what his favorite color is and what kind of ice cream he likes.
Imagine that ...a "NEWS REPORTER "actually doing her job.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2812576
From the National Academy of Science, USA:
"Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists’ confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century. As a 2006 “Statement on the Teaching of Evolution” from the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, a global network of national science academies, said, “Evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines” (emphasis in original). (See http://www.interacademies.net/Object...0statement.pdf.)
Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God."
Journey: There is a difference between the two. But, we shouldn't hijack this thread, so I'll shut up at this point.
You quote a bunch of evolution believing scientists to me to point out how they believe evolution is a more acceptable theory?

I posted the definition of a "theory". I'll let people decide for themselves what that means.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2812567
Nobody makes fun of Obama's suits because he earned the money to buy them from the books he wrote. OTOH, Palin may not read books.
Mediocre education and she became Governor of a state against pretty long odds and has the best approval rating in the nation. Maybe some of those books she dosn't read is the problem
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2812846
You quote a bunch of evolution believing scientists to me to point out how they believe evolution is a more acceptable theory?

I posted the definition of a "theory". I'll let people decide for themselves what that means.
No...you posted your definition of a theory, which is not the accepted definition by either "evolution believing" scientists, evolution doubting scientists, or dictionaries the world over. Accepting the theory of evolution is one discussion, but the definition of what a theory is is not really open to discussion. You are right, in part, that a theory is unproven, since a theory cannot be proven, only disproven. The point I was making by quoting the National Academy text is that there are substantial objective and measurable data consistent with evolution, making it a theory. The hypothesis that "Godidiit" is a hypothesis, which is a horse of a different color. The issue, it seems to me, here, is not about evolution, just about what constitutes a theory.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
http:///forum/post/2812691
until scientists can create in a lab something from nothing im going to believe in a creator
That depends on what you mean about something from nothing. If you mean amino acids from non-organic molecules - done that. If you mean more complex organisms from less - done that. If you mean the appearance of new characteristics in an existing organism - done that too. None of that should in any way affect your belief in a creator since science has no mechanism or desire to address that question.
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2812852
Mediocre education and she became Governor of a state against pretty long odds and has the best approval rating in the nation. Maybe some of those books she dosn't read is the problem

Yeah - stand up and cheer for ignorance. Is that the message we want to send to our children in school - that reading and knowing about things is bad, but avoiding knowledge and going on "gut" is good? Try having surgery from a surgeon who avoided surgery books or knowing about germs, physiology and all of the other things that are explained in those books.
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2812565
A Theory is a set of ideas or an explanation to something unproven.
I see no difference between the two.
Creationism is not a theory it's an option. There are no testable hypotheses, you can not scientificly validate if god did or did not create the universe

Really, the sole purpose of creationism was to back door religion into public schools.
Also, if god is all knowing and all powerful then when it created life as we know it, its creations would have been perfect and there would be NO need for microevolution as each creation would have been perfect.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
http:///forum/post/2812518
the bible does talk about the dinosaurs. you can answer your own questions just read the bible
It does???? Please do tell me where! I don't know how many times I've read the bible, but I have many times and don't remember dinosaurs?!?!
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2812561
I've got several old science books from college. None of them mention George Washington. Based on your logic, either George Washington didn't exist, or my books are wrong.
The Bible was not written as a Science book.
Are these books put out to be the "word of god"?????
I see your point, but I think it defends my point more than yours....
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/2812472
Do you believe in evolution? I'd be surprised if you did, the seemingly educated person you are. There are vast amounts of evidence (growing daily) proving evolution to be wrong. Many scientists still cling to evolution as their answer because they're too scared to admit that what they so firmly root themselves in is wrong. Yes. Evolution as we know it is wrong. I can give you a plethora of facts about why it's wrong... and a list of names of reputable and influential scientists who have the guts to admit it.
Ever take Zoology?? It pretty much lays out how organizisms have evolved from the simplest cell organisms to people. I have no problem with people saying god set it in motion, I disagree, but I don't know the answer. But when people say evolution doesn't exist they are just being ignorant and are 'clinging' to their holy books.
Please share this plethora of "facts" about why evolution is wrong even though it is obvious in our surroundings.
 

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2812878
That depends on what you mean about something from nothing. If you mean amino acids from non-organic molecules - done that. If you mean more complex organisms from less - done that. If you mean the appearance of new characteristics in an existing organism - done that too. None of that should in any way affect your belief in a creator since science has no mechanism or desire to address that question.
nope I literaly ment something from nothing
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefreak29
http:///forum/post/2812937
nope I literaly ment something from nothing
reef - that's way above my pay grade. I'm not sure where to even find "nothing" so that one could test making "something" from it.
 

reefreak29

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2812908
It does???? Please do tell me where! I don't know how many times I've read the bible, but I have many times and don't remember dinosaurs?!?!
There are a number of places where it appears that dinosaurs or other similar creatures are mentioned in the scriptures. Remember that the Bible was translated into English long before the word "dinosaur" was coined. However, the word "dragon" appears 21 times in the Old Testament alone. "You shall tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shall you trample under feet" (Psalm 91:13). From the context it is clearly speaking about a real creature that it would be impressive and intimidating to step on! Jeremiah 51:34 tells, "he has swallowed me up like a dragon..." which brings to mind the way many carnivorous reptiles swallow their prey whole. Both dragons of the sea (Psalm 74:13) and field (Isaiah 43:20) are mentioned. Indeed, Genesis 1:21 can best be translated: "And God created great sea monsters..." One such sea monster became sufficiently well-known to the ancients to be given the special name "Rahab" (Isaiah 51:9). The prophet Ezekiel likens Pharaoh to a sea monster that invaded the Nile river and stirred up the mud (32:2). The Hebrew word, "Tannin," is from the root meaning "to extend." The language conjures up an image of a long-necked plesiosaur-like creature paddling up the river and stirring up mud from the Nile delta with its flippers. Just such a creature is depicted by the ancient Egyptians who may have netted one just as Ezekiel describes in verse 3. See the plesiosaur-like hieroglyphic (to the left) currently displayed in the London Museum.
Job is the oldest book in the Bible. This book is very interesting from a scientific perspective because of the many natural phenomena that are addressed by God, Job, and his friends. Along the way, God points Job to two special creatures. The first, mentioned in Job 40:15, is usually translated "behemoth" in the English Bible. Some commentators have suggested that behemoth was a hippo or elephant. But the passage makes clear that this herbivorous animal was "chief of the ways of God." Certainly the hippo and elephant (which had other Hebrew names) don’t qualify as the biggest land animal, nor does their anatomy fit the clear language of verse 17. A cedar tree brings to mind a dinosaur’s huge tail! In fact, pygmy peoples in equatorial Africa tell stories of a ferocious dinosaurian creature that occupies their swamps and rivers and lashes its opponents with its tail. It becomes fascinating, as one considers the tail as an offensive weapon, to review the description of Satan as a dragon: "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon ...And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth:" (Revelation 12:3-4).
Job 41 portrays yet another awe-inspiring creature: Leviathan. While clearly one of the fiercest creatures that God made, it is difficult to establish exactly what Leviathan was. The Bible describes a sharp-toothed, scaled creature whose habitat is the mire and deep waters. Ken Ham suggests the ferocious kronosaur as a candidate. Others have suggested that this fire-breathing monster was a land-dweller that merely spent much of its time in the water. Perhaps leviathan was a dinosaur with armor or claws whose "sharp stones" were employed to destroy ancient weapons. Maybe we have yet to discover the remains of a leviathan!
In the Authorized version of scripture we find Isaiah twice mentioning the "fiery flying serpent." Egypt is called the place of the "lion, the viper and fiery flying serpent," (30:6). This fits with classical authors describing pterosaur populations in Egypt and Arabia. Goertzen notes: "The Hebrew word, m'opheph Jpvfm, is a polal participle; a form used only by Isaiah when describing the reptilian saraph. The polal indicates an intensive of the root pvf ooph that means to fly or flutter. The imperfect form of the polal is found in Genesis 1:20, ‘flying creatures that flutter to and fro’ and Isaiah 6:2 ‘seraphim’ (the same word as the reptiles here used for angelic creatures) that fly to and fro.’" (Goertzen, John, "The Bible and Pterosaurs," 1998.) This same word is employed in Numbers 21:6 to describe the poisonous reptiles that bit the murmuring Israelites. Indeed it is easier to envision an attack of nimble flying snakes (pterosaurs) killing many of the children of Israel rather than them being surprised and killed by snakes on the ground. The pterosaur becoming a type of Christ (John 3:14) seems more appropriate than the snake, which from Genesis to Revelation is a symbol of Satan. In addition, the spread wings on the top of the pole would form a cross.
 

reefreak29

Active Member
In fact, a plate found with Sennacherib's booty at Calah (from the conquest of Palestine) depicts such a winged serpent on a pole that would seems to match the Nehushtan or brazen saraph of Moses that had become a symbol of worship by Hezekiah's reign (II Kings 18:4). The "fiery" flying snake even matches some cryptozoological reports from New Guinea, which attribute to alleged living pterosaurs a bioluminescent capability like a firefly.
 

jmick

Active Member
Reef, I would have thought you'd know that dragons a representation of Satan in the bible and to try and say they are dinosaurs to prove your point is funny.
 

yearofthenick

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2812913
Ever take Zoology?? It pretty much lays out how organizisms have evolved from the simplest cell organisms to people. I have no problem with people saying god set it in motion, I disagree, but I don't know the answer. But when people say evolution doesn't exist they are just being ignorant and are 'clinging' to their holy books.
Please share this plethora of "facts" about why evolution is wrong even though it is obvious in our surroundings.
Wow this thread has seen a lot of use since I've last been online.
sickboy - I'm way ahead of you... I'm putting together disproven theories about evolution as we speak and am planning on starting an entirely different thread titled "Evolution : Disproven Theories" in the next couple of days. I'm including a full paper trail and referencing reputable websites. It's going to be a good one and I've been meaning to do it. I'll add the link into this thread when I post it.
 

jennythebugg

Active Member
Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2812996
Reef, I would have thought you'd know that dragons a representation of Satan in the bible and to try and say they are dinosaurs to prove your point is funny.
where does it say dragon = satan in the bible?
 

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/2813115
Wow this thread has seen a lot of use since I've last been online.
sickboy - I'm way ahead of you... I'm putting together disproven theories about evolution as we speak and am planning on starting an entirely different thread titled "Evolution : Disproven Theories" in the next couple of days. I'm including a full paper trail and referencing reputable websites. It's going to be a good one and I've been meaning to do it. I'll add the link into this thread when I post it.
Nick (or Year): reputable websites will help only if they reference reputable, peer reviewed research, the results of which are widely available for review. To assert that "I saw a dinosaur at the park last week, and got pictures" is one thing, but if the pictures are too important to show to anyone, well...you get the point. Take a look at this: http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i21/21b02001.htm
 
Top