Misc All Things Religious

[NCSNOW]

Romans Chapter 1:18-32.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

[Downeastnc]

I would encourage you regarding things like the Neanderthals you mentioned to read some resources like this one from a scientific perspective and see what you think. Regardless, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on things.

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals could be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

This paragraph sums up pretty well why this guy found the results he did even though they differ from consensus....the highlighted part below is just false, the fossil and Hominid family tree is ripe with variation and dead end branches of dozens of extinct separate species that are related to us.

"The fact that most paleoanthropologists believe that the Neandertals were a separate species and that most of them also believe that the Neandertals were able to share genes with modern humans represents a basic inconsistency in the interpretation of the human fossil and genetic evidence. The biblical teaching that humans were created in the image of God and reproduce “after their kind” fits well with the fossil record and with the idea that Neandertals and modern humans are members of the same biblical “kind.”"

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.

 

[snowlover91]

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals couldn't be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

I don't think you read the entire article, both part 1 and part 2, judging by your response. I'm sure you are familiar with the results uncovered in 2010 by the Max Planck institute, right? I'll post the relevant info below, keep in mind this study was conducted by evolutionary anthropologists who were shocked by their findings... and yet they align with the article I posted that was written 4 years BEFORE this discovery by the Max Planck institute. It seems this "not mainstream creationist" was actually on the right track...

"A comprehensive and technically sophisticated study published in the May 7 issue of Science, “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” by Max Planck Institute evolutionary anthropologists Richard E. Green, Svante Pääbo and 54 of their colleagues, demonstrates that “between 1 and 4% of the genomes of people in Eurasia are derived from Neandertals” and that “Neandertals are on average closer to individuals in Eurasia than to individuals in Africa.” In fact, the authors note, “a striking observation is that Neandertals are as closely related to a Chinese and Papuan individual as to a French individual.... Thus, the gene flow between Neandertals and modern humans that we detect most likely occurred before the divergence of Europeans, East Asians, and Papuans.” In other words, our anatomically hirsute cousins are actually our genetic brothers. The Neandertal species did not go extinct, because it was never a separate species; instead population pockets of Neandertals died out around 30,000 years ago, whereas other Neandertal populations survived through interbreeding with their modern human brothers and sisters, who live on to this day."

Regarding "mainstream science" claim, the "mainstream" evolutionists NEVER expected to find Neanderthal DNA in humans... and they were completely wrong. Using the "mainstream science" argument is a poor one because the mainstream science in areas of research like this often evolve/change as new data and techniques are uncovered.

"Liberty University cell biologist (and creationist) David DeWitt called the research an “amazing feat” of science that supports creationist expectations. “Finding Neanderthal DNA in humans was not expected by evolutionists, but it was predicted from a creation standpoint because we have said all along that Neanderthals were fully human: descendants of Adam and Eve, just like us,” he told News to Note.

DeWitt also pointed to research on mitochondrial DNA several years earlier that had boldly claimed that Neanderthals were not our ancestors, based on the genetic results at that time. “We really have to be careful with scientific conclusions and data,” DeWitt explained. “Now, with a more thorough analysis, we have the exact opposite conclusions.” Source

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

This is a prime example of what I said, this is bad science, this is twisting the science to fit your beliefs and that is not how science is done. This person already does not believe that Neanderthals couldn't be a separate species as it does not fit into his religious views ....so he finds a way to fit it in. Nothing he does is accepted as fact by mainstream science.....the only people in science that debate the validity of whether Neanderthals were a separate species are creationist who have to have them be deformed humans in order to fit their religious dogma.

When you are speaking of " mainstream science", I want you to re-think what you say. Is "mainstream science" really science by definition?
according to Webster's dictionary ..."knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" . Evolution is impossible scientifically. The first and second laws of thermodynamics ...1) In short- energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed only change forms. 2) the law of entropy- states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time. Therefor the beginning of all things must be Supernatural and the idea that things got more complex and more organized naturally without an outside force is impossible. Folks that believe in evolution must have blind faith because not one thing works or even makes common sense with the concept.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.
[/QUOTE]


what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?
Just because someone gets a degree, or call themselves a scientist doesn't make them credible!

 

[Downeastnc]

Neanderthal DNA is different enough we can actually map it out in our modern genome , as is Denisovan DNA which is another separate group that lived during this time....the science showing that these distinct separate branches of the Hominid tree existed at the same time is set science we know these things to be true. There are at least 15 separate species of "humans" that have existed in the last 2 million years.

what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?
[/QUOTE]

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

what flawed dating method did you use to attain this? Do you kids not ever question anything..you just believe everything someone tells you?

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....
[/QUOTE]


Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything! LOL! are you using a dating method only derived by theory? What makes it right?

 

[Downeastnc]

It's accepted science.....the "homo erectus" evolved around 2 million years ago, "homo antecessor" was 800k-1.2 mya I guess if it will make you feel better add a give or take a 100k yrs in there....

Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything!
[/QUOTE]

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Accepted on what basis? Just accepted because.....???? someone there? time machine ???? Like I said you kids will believe anything!

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.
[/QUOTE]


All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of? Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

 

[Downeastnc]

Kid? I am 47 years old, fossil dating methods of which there are many is accepted because it has been tested over and over again and had the scientific method applied to it, and its constantly being improved and refined allowing better and more precise dating.

All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of?
[/QUOTE]

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fossil - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

All right big boy, what fossil dating method are you speaking of?

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....

I am very familiar with those methods.
Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

I know that you are very intelligent, and you are sincere. But you can't believe things just because! You are 47 years old. There are kids that depend on you and people your age demanding factual evidence.

 

[Downeastnc]

Meh I am not interested in debating this with you, you can take your "kid" and "big boy" and shove them right up your....well this is a religious thread so I will leave you with this if you actually interested in this....


Radioactive and stratigraphic dating methods have been proven inaccurate and useless. And don't even try to go carbon dating, it's only theoretically possible up to 10,000 years with organic material.

I know that you are very intelligent, and you are sincere. But you can't believe things just because! You are 47 years old. There are kids that depend on you and people your age demanding factual evidence.

I don't believe them just because.....how do you not understand that these dating systems are all accepted dating systems by scientist everywhere, what system should they use?

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

I don't believe then just because.....how do you not understand that these dating systems are all accepted dating systems by the scientist everywhere, what system should they use?

unfortunately, there is no way to be certain of age accuracy beyond known historic time. We tend to accept many things as fact because someone who has been elevated to a position of authority says so. We have to remember and see that there are reasons to state things as true and factual for personal gain. Though there is some real science to some dating methods,. You've got to remember that these men that produce them are going into their methods with pre-conceived results in mind. They are evolutionist, therefor they will not entertain the possibility of anything else. Kind of like "rose colored glasses"All they do has to fall into that box. Evolution is a religious belief.

 

[Downeastnc]

unfortunately, there is no way to be certain of age accuracy beyond known historic time. We tend to accept many things as fact because someone who has been elevated to a position of authority says so. We have to remember and see that there are reasons to state things as true and factual for personal gain. Though there is some real science to some dating methods,. You've got to remember that these men that produce them are going into their methods with pre-conceived results in mind. They are evolutionist, therefor they will not entertain the possibility of anything else. Kind of like "rose colored glasses"All they do has to fall into that box.

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

Again , for u235 dating to be theoretically possible , the sample must contain u235 . What standard of proof can be produced. There is no hard evidence and no way to obtain hard evidence to substantiate accuracy. It is just theory...

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Again , for u235 dating to be theoretically possible , the sample must contain u235 . What standard of proof can be produced. There is no hard evidence and no way to obtain hard evidence to substantiate accuracy. It is just theory...

Since there is no way to prove a dating method as accurate, let's look at some things that we can prove in the fossil record. have you ever wondered why the fossil record doesn't have species in the process of evolving? Doesn't reasoning tell you there should be more fossils in an evolutionary stage than in a completed stage?

 

[snowlover91]

The science is there to get within a specific time frame....for example using certain U-235 methods on older fossils we know the margin of error is 20 million yrs either way so we know something is 500 million yrs old give or take 20 million years either way.... so for sure the fossil in question is 480-520 million years old.

There has been some research in recent years which suggests that various dating methods may overestimate the length of time. I know one by NC State was published in 2017. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131104433.htm

Also this article goes extremely in depth about some flaws and how the process works. Much of it is way over my head though.

 

[Deleted member 1449]

I have a nephew who is an atheist who says, “ I can’t believe in a dead man coming to life.”

This reasoning fascinates me because to believe in evolution (as he does) is to believe that life came to be from non living material. Literally something dead brought forth life.

What’s further fascinating is that science and the Bible share much common ground, especially in the realm of origins. The Bible and science agree there was nothing, then suddenly the universe came to be. They both agree that life—as we know it—came from the “dust of the earth” and given enough time, all of life returns to the dust of the earth.

And then there is DNA—which, in my mind, requires a great deal of faith to believe that it arrived through natural means only.

I could go on. But for now I just want to say that Christians have many good reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. And to do so does not require rejecting science.

 

[WEATHERBOYROY]

Here is my beef with these so called scientist and people who trust the education being presented today. What they teach as factual is not basesd on factual evidence but theory. To believe what is being taught, you must have FAITH. The belief system(religion) that controls our educational system is atheism. If that religion is allowed in our educational system, why not Christianity. There is far more historical evidence and proof than the Pseudo science we see today that doesn't work. If it did, the new GFS wouldn't be a piece of scrap.

 

[Downeastnc]

I have a nephew who is an atheist who says, “ I can’t believe in a dead man coming to life.”

This reasoning fascinates me because to believe in evolution (as he does) is to believe that life came to be from non living material. Literally something dead brought forth life.

What’s further fascinating is that science and the Bible share much common ground, especially in the realm of origins. The Bible and science agree there was nothing, then suddenly the universe came to be. They both agree that life—as we know it—came from the “dust of the earth” and given enough time, all of life returns to the dust of the earth.

And then there is DNA—which, in my mind, requires a great deal of faith to believe that it arrived through natural means only.

I could go on. But for now I just want to say that Christians have many good reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. And to do so does not require rejecting science.

A point of fact to the beginning of the universe, science does not state there was nothing before the big bang, there are lots of theories out there about what state the universe was in prior to the big bang...but nothing is a commonly accepted one