Beckett, I'm sorry that we live in a willfully ignorant world. Science substantiates the Biblical account. Perhaps your kids can further expound on their worldview with Creation Science evidence that is hard to refute. The teacher would have a hard time flunking a student with plausible science that refutes the classroom teaching. It's more work but God can move on that Teacher through the research. Check out Billy Crone and go to the getalifemedia website. He has easy to understand creation science teachings in a variety of series such as An Intelligent Creation, A Fearful Creation, A Judged Creation and a Young Earth. These are great tools to help build confidence in what we believe. you can watch them on the website for free. God Bless and may The Lord help you and your family through this rough time and that your witness will bear fruit. I will pray for you guys (and I KNOW He hears them)
Hmmmm....Lets see "Creation Science" is not Science? Let's see if that holds up. Evolution says that the world was created in a certain manner, isn't that "Creation Science". In other words studying the process of how the world was created. Therefore again it is Creation Science. "The study of the Creation", because I believe in God you say Creation Science is not Science at all. I disagree. The Bible tells us that God created the world, but still the same rules apply. The laws of Science still have to apply. The scientific method does not change because of your presupposition.
Somehow people assume that If we say God Created then it automatically somehow fails when compared with scientific observation, but actually it holds up quite well under scientific scrutiny. Let's agree that no human was present at the creation.
It doesn't matter if it was evolution or if it was God, no one was there to see either one. So now that we are on the scene and with the intelligence an information we have we want to know our origins. So we employ science to study what we have on hand to see how it all began. This is "Creation Science" again the study of creation. It doesn't matter your viewpoint at this time because the "Science" or study will help you towards a conclusion.
Creation Science is defined by Dictionary.com as "a form of creationism advocated as an alternative to the scientific theory of evolution, and holding that the creation of the universe and everything in it was supernatural and relatively recent."
That is not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is the slow process of species evolving over time. It does not say anything about the creation of the world. Biogenesis is the start of life, yet it doesn't cover the start of the world: the formation of the planet.
Of course humans weren't at the start of everything. We are a very young species, and the most advanced life form we know of. Scientists don't think a god was there because that raises the question, how did it get created? There is always a beginning to something.
Christians believe that God created the universe and all that we see. So, using the scientific method we study the evidence to see if that claim is true, based on known ""Science" techniques, like Physics, Thermodynamics, Biology, and a list of many other Scientific Methods. This information available from science breakthroughs is not all generated from Christians. Christians use the research of all scientists regardless of religion, sex, ethnicity and so on. Science is science.
Christians didn't write the laws of Thermodynamics, but we compare the creation to them, just like an evolutionist would compare his model. It just so happens that the God creation account does not fail under scrutiny with scientific research, for example Thermodynamics...Thermodynamics say that things go from order to disorder. When something is created say a car for instance. The car is in pristine condition shortly after it is made, but in time the car will start to deteriorate. It will get worse with time not better.
The only way the car will stay pristine is with help from a third party (the owner of the car) but even with the owners care, parts will still wear out over time. They don't get better with time they get worse. This is science we can observe today. Have you ever had anything new that got newer the longer you've had it? No, of course not.
"Science" techniques? Physics, thermodynamics, and biology are not techniques. They are branches of Science. To compare with something familiar to you, they are comparable to the different types of churches. Each are different, but they are all part of the same faith.
I see. You are like the scientist priest in Angels and Demons (book or movie, take your pick), who gets murdered and branded in the very beginning for believing that science and religion are two different parts of the same thing. Now I understand your thinking much better. Thank you for clarifying.
If God did truly created the world, then it would have been new when He made it. Over time it show signs of wear and tear. It would get worse not better and even with the help of its inhabitants, it's clear that the world is not getting newer it's getting worse. So then A God created earth holds up to the laws of Thermodynamics. This is just one "Scientific Method" of known science that a God created earth holds up too, and there are many, many more.
Let's look at the evolutionary theory with the same law. Remember this is "Creation Science". Our cause may be different, Example: God or Random Process, but we are studying Creation. Evolution has some problems with the laws of Thermodynamics though. Because it's cause actually asserts that in started in a disorderly state and worked into an orderly state. That contradicts the same science that non Christian scientists have studied and determined to be empirical science. Nothing we see today goes from disorder to order without an external cause. Dishes can sit dirty in a sink for 40 years, they will only get worse the longer they sit (this is called entropy). The only way they will become organized is if someone does them. The theory of evolution has failed a scientific method test, that a God created idea passed. The reason you say Creation Science is not Science is because you want to see God and shake his hand before you believe in Him. You want me to prove God exists, I say He already told you he exists by the proof of a world that is uniquely designed so that you can live in it.
If it is designed then it had to have a designer. I wish I could walk you right up to God and say here He is, but I can't. He reveals Himself to who He wants too. In the Bibke He says that you know in your heart He's real, but you deny him because of your own willful and sinful desires.
You will choose a deliberate lie that is not supported by the science you asked me to provide. God is who God is, i answer to Him, he doesn't answer to me. I can't make Him come down here to do some parlor tricks so you can believe, either you believe or you don't, He gave you the ability to choose for yourself, I've made my choice, apparently you've made yours...your worldview is small and limited and I expect you'll say it's not, but I'm not here to talk about God to anyone who doesn't want to hear about Him...if you are offended by Jesus, just skip over any of my comments because I'm here for those that want to know.
Science is indeed a very incorrect word to apply to almost anything in our religion. It's very much the wrong tool to examine religion, kinda like trying to hammer in a nail with a pair of tweezers. That being said there is a decent bit of science in the Bible, just don't ask me for book chapter page and verse because it's been a while.
7 ups, 5y
Thanks for teaching your son well Beckett
1 up, 5y
Remind your kids about what Christ said to his disciples about how when they are hated or persecuted, to remember they hated Him first. I think it's great that your child could let his light shine in front of other kids at school by sharing his belief in creation. I guarantee some other kids in class asked their parents about God at supper time that night.
Because the curriculum doesn't include the fact that Darwin was on a mission for Queen Victoria. He had to come up with a story that would please the Queen who bankrolled his studies. Had he not concluded that living things evolve and that his Queen was the most evolved creature on Earth and far superior to the less evolved savages that roam the Earth, he would not be the famous historical figure we know him as. The theory of evolution is one of the most fundamental deeply rooted sources of racism and is actually a "scientific" basis that supports the idea that slavery involving less evolved savages is proper for more evolved human beings.
No, it is just politically incorrect to say so today. You can absolutely, positively rest assured that in early economic theory books, written by the famous economists that all college students study in college, say it plainly and openly when discussing slavery and labor. In almost all early "modern" economic theory, there is tons of commentary about evolution and how it made the slaves susceptible to becoming enslaved because they didn't evolve fast enough to become the slavemasters. Its the things like this that get covered up in the PC BS that make things worse, because the theory of evolution was sanitized just enough to survive and subtly continue to promote the separation and divides that are ruining all aspects of human society today.
Yes. There was "philosophy" then "economics" then "psychology" in that order. Unfortunately, actual science and mathematics was removed with the passing of time or the evolution of society. It does make sense. Its simple. Economic theory and economic measurement included slavery. The economist doesn't simply say "in the lands where the savage is used to till the land without remuneration the land is tilled nevertheless and the farmer's crops harvested and taken to market." The economist explains the know cultural and natural thought process that drives the forces of the economy. And they would literally observe all of this just like Darwin did, while offering their commentary on all of it.
3 ups, 5y,
So by evolution, I assume you're talking about humans being a product of random chance and death that evolved from single celled organisms. If that's so, and you don't believe such a belief leads to racism, then I'd like to see how you explain the development of morals.
I wasn't talking about laws or even WHY we have morals. I was simply stating that holding the belief that 'morals are a product of evolution' will directly lead to racism. Here's why I think that, if we believe that all of our traits are evolved, and we know that different people from different areas have different traits, how are 'morals' any different. If the color of my skin is a product of evolution, then why aren't the morals I hold, or my level of intelligence, etc. also a product of evolution? Once, that is realized, you can see how that will lead to the belief that there are races (races being people with grouped genetic differences from other groups) that are 'superior' to other races, i.e. racism.
I want to be clear, while I believe morals come from God, that was not my argument. My argument is that a belief that we are a product of evolution leads to racism (I was just using morals as an example). Darwin excepted this conclusion in his follow up book "The Descent of Man."
4 ups, 5y,
4 ups, 5y
We have only been able to observe changes within a family classification, otherwise known as diversification. Anything beyond that is only speculation based off of bones of creatures that once existed. Similarities in DNA can be explained by the habitats we live in, food we eat, what we drink, and just overall everything around us. There was a test done at one time where the DNA for a fly's eye was extracted and placed into the embryo of a rat after they removed that DNA from the rat. The rat still grew eyes exactly where they were suppose to be at, and they were still rat eyes. What little we know about DNA is not evidence for common ancestors. Science can only provide evidence for what we can sense with out 5 senses. Many of the other claims they make is only speculation.
It is not. Things dont evolve. What happens is similar species wander around until they meet other similar creatures. If they are similar enough, they breed. Like when polar bears meet grizzly bears and breed making a new type of bear. This limited type of cross breeding is the only true evolution. We observe drastic changes in breeding wolves and dogs for certain traits, but that phenomena is limited to canines because they have special DNA that allows it. Other animals do not.
The idea that a preying mantis could "evolve" into an orchid, just by the ones selected by predators is absurd and actually not supported by the theory of evolution. Evolution is an internal process. It could not possibly be attributed to the shape, color and form of another living thing. Because the mantis' DNA is completely blind and completely independent of the orchid's. There is no way, genetically, that the DNA of the orchid can have that dramatic an impact on the DNA of the mantis. Either there would have to be some other unoknown method of intermingling the DNA of the mantis and the orchid or the theory of evolution says this type of external cross species adaptation is not possible.
Just today they announced on the news that early humans "split" from chimpanzees thousands and thousands maybe millions of years earlier than previously thought. The claim that they "split" is 100% wrong. Nothing "splits." They combined. That's the problem with "evolution." It involves mysterious "splits" which is not what is happening. The idea that there are "splits" is the deepest depths in the science of racism. That is because it was completely immoral to mix things early on. And just like the polar bears and grizzleys everyone is going nuts to try to stop them from mixing. But if we weren't here to observe it we would consider it a "split" and think nothing of it. But once theres a combination, everyone is up in arms trying to stop it. There are different types of will to survive. One is necessity. If the polar bears and grizzleys don't combine, they may not both survive. Then there's the other type of survival, if they had no necessity combine, they don't combine and instead prefer to sustain their original bloodlines. Its instinct. But the human theory of "evolution" is based on independent, noncombined change by simple selection for specific slightly better traits. The reality is either the polar bears die off completely or they combine with the grizzlys to make a new bear that is perfectly adapted to the new climate and geography. There are no "splits."
I, personally, believe that they do make a conscious decision. Domesticated dogs and cats might not, but wild animals do. There weren't any polar bears and grizzly bears intermingling when they encountered each other over the last few thousand years. But once the polar bear consciously or at least instinctually realizes survival is at stake, it decides to intermingle. I have seen very few types of animals that have no conscious thought. Most large mammals are conscious of a lot of things. If your lost in the woods and wind up stared down by a wild bear, you'll see that it is VERY CONSCIOUS of where it is, who its looking at and everything else a person is conscious of, plus even more, because they have such a good sense of smell. Bears look both ways when they cross the street just like people and they're not usually hit by cars like other animals because they're conscious of things.
We all talk about "gravity" because we observe it and can even measure it. Anyone who claims to know what it actually is, is a liar. Science has never known what it is. Start with the obvious. Then get to the less obvious. Science doesnt know what life is either. We simply observe it because its there and we are capable of observation, which, again, is entirely magic. Science explains many things. But it has never explained or even known what THESE THINGS are. That is the flaw in all claims of science over inexplicable magic. Science cannot explain the most important obvious things that make all things what they are.
:::::sigh::::: ALL of those things are magic that science cannot explain. Science clouds the judgment of most people. If we were living off of the land and growing animals for food and assistance, we'd see it differently. When the big evil leopard tries to eat you, but the cute little cat protects the feed for the cows and the dog heards the cows and barks at the leopard and you can ride a horse instead of walking, after growing crops from seeds, you realize the magic in everything around us. Its pretty sad when someone looks at something like a computer, ipad or flat panel TV and cannot instantly intrepret how magical everything around us really is. This science crap has caused as much harm to the world as it has cured, if you ask me.
I haven't taken this discussion as deep as it could go. In the scientific community they are hypothesizing that the world is actually a digital simulation (like the Matrix eluded to, but without the same storyline of course) we won't be waking up in amino rich goo with plugs and what not, but this is a real ongoing discussion with Physicists and Scientists in general right now. They infer that the world around us is actually a hologram and that the human body is a suit that allows us to interact with the environment around us. It also hypothesizes that out consciousness is software and coding and that our body is nothing more than hardware (like a thumb drive). This is all speculative of course, but it is intriguing. If it were true it would would truly help us in our understanding of the laws (programs) that govern all life, weather, gravity, magnetism, plasma, water, temperature and all of the unseen functions that make life possible. I'm not at all postulating that this is true, just an interesting thought that has my ear at the moment. And although there are some people in the Christian community that agree with this school of thought, this idea comes mainly from secular researchers and scientists that have abandoned the Darwinian model to explore this further because of the overwhelming evidence of design. A hologram world would explain a lot about the "Supernatural". Like I said I'm not pitching this as a truth, but it is being discussed today among some brilliant minds in the scientific community.
1 up, 5y,
4 ups, 5y,
2 ups, 5y,
You'll see where I'm going with this, but now, define "supernatural"
3 ups, 5y,
3 ups, 5y
Now back to your earlier comment where you asked for evidence of magic (which we just defined as something that is outside the material world). Now why do ask for evidence in this material world for something that, by your definition, is beyond this material world?
What I'm trying to get at is the your understanding of "natural" limits your mind to only understand things "in the material world."
For someone who believes that something can be created by nothing, I would expect a more open mind from you.
I'm with you on this one Octavia, burden of proof lies on the one who claims its, they claim God exists but have not offered a shred of evidence other than, "it was clearly designed" which is an assumption, not evidence
So following that same thought, evolution clearly assumes a lot of things. With that being said let me say this...If I am wrong about God then I can die wrong and there is no penalty or explaining to do. I will just go off to oblivion or wherever, but if you are wrong think about the ramifications of that. Jesus paid a hefty price on that Cross. Do you honestly think that we the created will not have to give an account for what we did in this life? If you don't know Jesus you have no redemption. I know factually I'm not wrong, but even if I was I don't have a thing to worry about at my time of death, if you are wrong the price is way to high. You should keep that in mind, because it's to late after you stop breathing. I'm not trying to steer anyone in the wrong direction, at least I can say I cared enough to warn you beforehand. This Heaven and Hell thing is no joke and God gives you freewill to make a mockery of it now, but an Eternity in hell is a ruthless excursion. It has no mercy and the torture is never ending. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't make it not true. You think I care about upvotes and debates? I'm simply trying to save your life, but you fight me because you don't know the danger you're in. You need Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ.
Even if you assume god, that tells you exactly zip re jesus. Only one god-believing religion has him as a deity. (Although sons-of-god/ man-god religions were quite common in the ancient near East. ) Please note that god is not a fact - anything you have to believe in is not a fact. Science relies on proof. I know the bible very well; whatever else it may be, "holy" is not one of those things.
Then I guess we find ourselves at an impasse :). But I will say I don't know anything about religion. I made a lifestyle choice to follow Jesus. He is the only one that died to redeem me. Allah, Budda and these other so called prophets and diety's are shams. I would never join a religion, the first problem I have with all of them is that you can earn your way into heaven. That's not what the Christian gospel says at all. And to say you "were" a Christian automatically lets me know you have no idea who Jesus is. Christianity is not a club you can pop in and out of. It's a decision that's made before God and it doesn't change with your mood. When Jesus died on the Cross, He died because the sin that entered in the world separated us from God. "Only" those who except that sacrifice will be spared the judgement of God. At the end of the day here it is, Jesus is my Lord and Savior. I know where I come from, I know who is responsible for where I come from and I understand more with Christ then I ever did learn in school or through the human experience. The Bible was specific in its authenticity and purpose. The so called religions are nothing more than confusing mumbo jumbo from Satan to keep you from the "Truth". You can offer up any arguments you like, but through all of this I've realized that you live in a perpetuation of theoretical hypothesis, you have no idea where you came from, you don't know where you're going when you die and that to me seems hopeless. By hopeless it means that you have nothing to look forward too. You will simply do you're 70-80-90 years on earth and walk out into the unknown. What is the purpose of even contributing to life: going to school, getting a job, living day in and day out, going through pain and suffering, good days and bad days if you have nothing to look forward too? Doesn't very well seem worth it to me. That to me is "cruel". Being a conscious person that has to go through this often unbearable life and then die. Why would I even bother to grind it out? You think dead people care about their legacy? They came from nothing, they go back to nothing. I'm good with Jesus, I have a hope and a future. The belief of "no belief" thing could never work out and doesn't paint any reasonable conclusion other than suffering and then death. I didn't invent Jesus He invented me and I'm good with that. Eternity with Him is all I have to look forward too, the alternative is depressing.
2 ups, 5y,
Pasting for Octavia since theres a bug in the system.
"you have no idea where you came from, you don't know where you're going when you die and that to me seems hopeless. By hopeless it means that you have nothing to look forward too. You will simply do you're 70-80-90 years on earth and walk out into the unknown. What is the purpose of even contributing to life: going to school, getting a job, living day in and day out, going through pain and suffering, good days and bad days if you have nothing to look forward too? Doesn't very well seem worth it to me. That to me is "cruel". Being a conscious person that has to go through this often unbearable life and then die. Why would I even bother to grind it out?"
None of what you said proves God exists. None of what you said proves Christianity is true. What you did was make a logical fallacy called an appeal to consequences. "If there is no God, then life is meaningless. I don't want life to be meaningless. Therefore, God must exist." It's faulty reasoning, and it says that if something (like no afterlife or god) is depressing, then it must be false. Something that is true is true even if it makes you feel uncomfortable, and something that is false is false even if it makes you feel comfortable. Are you saying you want to believe something that makes you feel comfortable and happy, even if it isn't supported by any evidence? That's what it sounds like.
The other problem with your argument is the assumption that life only has meaning if it lasts forever. If this life is all there is, that gives it even more value, because it's a rarity, something to be treasured and cherished. I believe this life is all there is, and I don't find that depressing or hopeless at all. I'm sorry if you would. I'm sorry if the ephemerality of life brings you discouragement. I enjoy every day. I enjoy nature, music, laughter, friends and family, and learning. My atheism does nothing to diminish my joy, and I can't understand why some people think it would.
I agree to disagree...you have your position and I have mine, they can't both be right, which I "intend" to imply that one of us is wrong...you say me, I say you. You have people that agree with you, I have people that agree with me. We could spend the next year going around in circles, but let's not and say we did, t-shirt and move on.
Also I never asked you to save me and using the classic "what if your wrong" argument, is getting you nowhere, if either heaven or hell exist, I'd prefer hell, at least I would have my free will, as it is a product of sin and we all know there is no sin in heaven so there is no free will,
SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD THAT HAD NO BEGINNING OR END AND CREATED ALL LIFE AND MATTER, BUT YOU DO BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE MADE ITSELF OUT OF NOTHING AND EVENTUALLY YOU WERE BORN FROM A MAGIC SOUP THAT WAS HIT BY LIGHTNING. THAT ABOUT SUM IT UP? YEAH, ITS JUST A THEORY REALLY...
hotkeys: D = random, W = upvote, S = downvote, A = back