28 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwYet that revelation can either be studied in a scientific manner, or the most reasonable explanation is that it is delusion.
That is an unreasonable conclusion.
Scientific revelation? Revelation is not "scientific". It's a "spiritual" matter. It is not by revelation that I know that God exists. I know that there is a creator because of the existence of creation.
I "know" God personally by "revelation". There is a difference.
"Science" is merely a tool we use to discover knowledge of material facts about the material universe.
Of course my definitions may be flawed.
Science is a methodology that can be used to study anything that follows rules and can be observed. Your 'revelations' constitute 'observations' and must follow some sort of rules. They can be studied with scientific methods and scientific conclusions can be made. Your reluctance for that to be the case is a good indication that you subconsciously think you may be delusional.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou could present me with a signed letter from God himself, i'd still think it was wacky.
you are basing your evaluation on a single criteria, you need to look at how God views blood, its use, its significance, its symbolic use and its significance, also the textual prohibitions and the meaning of Christs blood for a Christian, its atoning value etc then make a conscience based decision. i am not one to lecture you dear Noobster, but you are making an evaluation based on an interpretation of incomplete data.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"Your 'revelations' constitute 'observations' and must follow some sort of rules."
Yet that revelation can either be studied in a scientific manner, or the most reasonable explanation is that it is delusion.
[b]"Science" is merely a tool we use to discover knowledge of material facts about the material universe.
Of course my definitions may be flawed.
Science is a methodology that can be used to study anything that follows ru ...[text shortened]... t to be the case is a good indication that you subconsciously think you may be delusional.[/b]
God's rules.
A revelation, as it has to do with the knowledge of God, cannot be observed by any scientific methodology I know of.
It isn't a revelation that God exists. The existence of creation is evidence of that.
A revelation is just that. A revealing. A revealing of God on a personal level. It is subsequent to spiritual birth. That spiritual birth occurs as a result of an act of one's faith in what God has said.
Mark 1:11
And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
John 6:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
It's not blind faith no matter what one may think.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by josephwBut rules non-the-less which is sufficient.
God's rules.
A revelation, as it has to do with the knowledge of God, cannot be observed by any scientific methodology I know of.
Then you don't understand what I am saying. Observation does not require scientific instrumentation, it merely requires some form of input of information.
If you claim to have received a revelation, then you or others can apply scientific methods to your claim, and study scientifically the underlying rules of revelation.
It isn't a revelation that God exists. The existence of creation is evidence of that.
No, it is faith. You would continue to insist that there was evidence for God even if I showed that the existence of creation was not evidence for his existence. You would probably simply ignore my arguments and continue to insist that the existence of creation proves the existence of God. Clearly that is non-scientific.
A revelation is just that. A revealing. A revealing of God on a personal level. It is subsequent to spiritual birth. That spiritual birth occurs as a result of an act of one's faith in what God has said.
And it can be studied using scientific methods. It is not somehow safe from scrutiny as you would like it to be.
It's not blind faith no matter what one may think.
I did not claim it was. Quite the contrary, I clearly called it an 'observation' - the complete opposite of 'blind'. But, if you admit it is an observation, then you must admit that it is subject to scientific scrutiny - otherwise you must fall back on blind faith.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehead
So because you mistakenly believe that the Theory of Evolution threatens your beliefs, you are willing to lie about it, insult its supporters, and make outrageous claims that you believe contradict it - regardless of their truth value.
Why is this? Why are you so threatened by views that you believe are in opposition to yours? Why do you feel the need to attack them even to the extent of lying?
What are you talking about,...what lies, i dont understand the attack ???
vishva
28 Jun 10
So; either life started simply (maybe by divine spark, maybe not) and speciation takes place in accordance with some form of evolution, evidence suggesting natural selection by punctuated equilibrium, leading to increased complexity and eventually us, or god made it all as it is and carefully crafted incredibly compelling but misleading evidence to suggest the above should detailed investigation be undertaken (which he of course knew it would be, as he knows everything). I don't claim to know if there's a god or not, but if it's the latter then, frankly, he's not very nice is he?
But still, you guys just sit there and insist that evolution is 'false' and that the vast numbers of researchers and scientists from pretty much all the nations on the planet who have contributed to the overwhelming mass of incontrovertible evidence supporting it are all in league in some sort of insane conspiracy designed to weaken the already failing power of whatever church you choose to follow and/or strengthen the global capitalist hegemony which, I assure you, a great many of them abhor. You might as well go ahead and insist that the moon and stars are all painted on a great glass dome over the flat earth while you're at it.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatTo avalanchethecat
So; either life started simply (maybe by divine spark, maybe not) and speciation takes place in accordance with some form of evolution, evidence suggesting natural selection by punctuated equilibrium, leading to increased complexity and eventually us, or god made it all as it is and carefully crafted incredibly compelling but misleading evidence to s ...[text shortened]... n and stars are all painted on a great glass dome over the flat earth while you're at it.
If the evolution theory is correct, then it is only possible if there is that divine spark behind it.
I am not hearing anyone say that, so iam disagreeing with the notion, that it all comes about by itself, is that what you guys are saying? ( it all happens by itself)
vishva
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuFor goodness sake do you not listen??
To avalanchethecat
If the evolution theory is correct, then it is only possible if there is that divine spark behind it.
I am not hearing anyone say that, so iam disagreeing with the notion, that it all comes about by itself, is that what you guys are saying? ( it all happens by itself)
vishva
Three times now i have told you that the theory of evolution makes no claim as to the origins of life. That's not what it is about, evolution by natural selection is an explanation for the diversification of life we see on this planet. Not how life started.
Will you please stop confusing the two, we're 200+ posts on this thread and you still haven't got it.
28 Jun 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobto Properknob
For goodness sake do you not listen??
Three times now i have told you that the theory of evolution makes no claim as to the origins of life. That's not what it is about, evolution by natural selection is an explanation for the diversification of life we see on this planet. Not how life started.
Will you please stop confusing the two, we're 200+ posts on this thread and you still haven't got it.
But you cant give half the story, if you claim the evolution therory to be correct, you must exsplain the beginning (origon), and without the start of evelution exsplained then half a cow is a dead cow.
vishva
29 Jun 10
5 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuOh well in that case, you can't just give us half the story if you claim the existence of humans is the direct handiwork of "God" is correct, you must explain the beginning; this explanation should be more verbose than stating goddidit please.
to Properknob
But you cant give half the story, if you claim the evolution therory to be correct, you must exsplain the beginning (origon), and without the start of evelution exsplained then half a cow is a dead cow.
vishva
Evolution need not surrender it's credibility to the scientifically benighted who conflate mechanism and origin; nor need the latter be known infallibly to justify the former.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou assured us that species never change and that the Theory of Evolution is a pack of lies by Darwinists trying to deceive everybody. Then later on, you admit that you have nothing against evolution unless it fails to admit the possibility of 'a spiritual catalyst'.
What are you talking about,...what lies, i dont understand the attack ???
In other words, you do not believe what you were saying about evolution earlier, you were just making it up because you thought evolution contradicted one of your beliefs (that a spiritual catalyst is necessary). ie you were lying.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuThat is simply not true.
But you cant give half the story, if you claim the evolution therory to be correct, you must exsplain the beginning (origon), and without the start of evelution exsplained then half a cow is a dead cow.
You are essentially claiming that you cannot know what you did yesterday unless you know what you did the day before and the day before that etc, since you were born.
It is not necessary to know all of history in order to know a part of history.
There is nothing wrong with half a story.
Half a cow can make a good meal for 50 people. Its not as useless as you think.
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehead
You assured us that species never change and that the Theory of Evolution is a pack of lies by Darwinists trying to deceive everybody. Then later on, you admit that you have nothing against evolution unless it fails to admit the possibility of 'a spiritual catalyst'.
In other words, you do not believe what you were saying about evolution earlier, you wer ...[text shortened]... contradicted one of your beliefs (that a spiritual catalyst is necessary). ie you were lying.
Before i continue, i must know the darwinians position, so the Big question is, do they accept the spiritual spark behind the origon of the species or not???
vishva
29 Jun 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhy must you know that? How is it relevant?
Before i continue, i must know the darwinians position, so the Big question is, do they accept the spiritual spark behind the origon of the species or not???
As for the answer:
1. There is no such thing as a Darwinian, or Darwinian position. Charles Darwin was the first person to propose the Theory of Evolution, but the theory is not a religion. What you probably mean is 'what is the position of most scientists in the field of evolutionary biology', or possibly 'what is the position of most people who accept the Theory of Evolution to be sound.
2. I actually don't know what proportion of atheists can be found in the field of evolutionary biology, nor do I know what proportion of theists accept evolutionary theory, nor do I know what any of the aboves views are on abiogenesis.
3. I personally, do not believe in spiritual sparks, and I am sure that there are many scientists and others like me. But it is not tied to the Theory of Evolution.
Now, are you going to explain why you would lie about something simply because you think it disagrees with your spiritual beliefs?