Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > The Woodshed

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-27-2009, 02:06 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Isaiah 40:22 (New International Version)

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

A circle, by definition is round but flat. A sphere, which was not included in the verse, is a perfectly round geometrical object in three-dimensional space. Nice way to change the words according to your argument.
And I'd love to see a verse for your claim that says the Earth goes around the Sun rather than the Earth being stationary, if you can find one.


But thats not the point of the Topic here. I gave you your links, contained within a nice page. I'll supply it again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Links to peer reviewed studies are contained on that web site for each specific Evolutionary evidence. Have fun ignoring the evidence again.
Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-27-2009, 03:02 AM
mscomc
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again

----Just a little off topic. But twice I gave you actually published science articles supporting macro evolution (well whether or not it is support can be debated)...but is was in reference to how they believe chickens/birds came from lizards....you told me you were going to look into it, so i posted the link a third time.

I'll do it now a fourth time....what is your oppinion on this matter. I dont beleive in maco evolution, but i find it hard to turn my head away from such as experiments (seen below)

---it started from a question from crisco about what came first, chicken or egg?

I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon



There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-27-2009, 04:19 AM
shon8121
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris F View Post
Not English stop pretending you have any understanding of scripture.

Also you already posted that link and as I said before those are not peer reviewed. Try again
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.

Hahahaha. And you simply claiming these peer reviewed studies aren't good enough doesn't make it so. You yourself claimed that you are not very Scientifically inclined or knowledgable. If that is the case, who are you to interpret Science related matters and information? Its the equivalent of me trying to understand Scripture as a non-believer, right? Haha.

Mscomc is correct on the subject of Chickens having evolved from smaller Dinosaurs. In their DNA are the blueprints for such things as "reptillian" teeth, which has been well observed and documented to occur when "inhibitors" governing what is commonly referred to as Junk DNA, ceases functioning properly allowing an older trait from a distant ancestor to be expressed.

A similar thing occurs (and has been well documented also and previously linked to in this very thread) in Humans allowing fully functional tails complete with bone, muscle and voluntary movement to be expressed.

The Theory of Relativity is not in the Bible... but that doesn't stop Relativity from being true, nor does it infringe on the Bible's teachings. It's the same thing with Evolution. If your god exists, he clearly used Evolution to "create" the variation of life on this Planet. To deny Evolution because you accept a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible means you must also believe that the world is flat and rests upon 4 pillars. If thats what you choose to believe in, I won't stop you, but you shouldn't act like you know Science or Science related topics when you don't.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.
Your reading the word in the wrong Language
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-27-2009, 02:43 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
Thats the point im making. Unfortunately, Rome spoke on behalf of us all to the people who mattered.
All the people who mattered to other people, not all the people who mattered to GOD. As Christians we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with worldly popularity. Jesus already warned us that the world was going to hate us because of Him, so why bother seeking acceptance from the secular establishment of this dying world?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
It was rulled that Christianity rejected Science...and IT DOES reject FAR to much even now.
I'd like to see that declaration from the Catholic Church in writing. It just sounds to me like you are spouting more revisionist history or your personal opinion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-27-2009, 02:45 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shon8121 View Post
Sir. There's no need to try and understand "scripture". The word used is "circle", not "sphere" like you claimed. You either intentionally lied or exaggerated. Admit to your mistakes like a rational human being.
Like Dave said, you are studying the passage in the wrong language. If you are not even going to make an attempt to study the historical context of the verse, in it's original language, and simply try to refute it based on a superficial reading of an English translation; then it's pointless to even attempt an intelligent discussion with you, since you have no intelligence to share with us.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-27-2009, 04:53 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
1) All the people who mattered to other people, not all the people who mattered to GOD. As Christians we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with worldly popularity. Jesus already warned us that the world was going to hate us because of Him, so why bother seeking acceptance from the secular establishment of this dying world?



I'd like to see that declaration from the Catholic Church in writing. It just sounds to me like you are spouting more revisionist history or your personal opinion.

1) As Christians, we SHOULD be concerned about the Truth. The truth is the facts presented by the Enlightenment Philosophers WAS TRUE, and Rome claimed they were false. As far as Evangelism goes...the fall of Rome has led to the increase in "christians" but DECLINE in Christianity...now every tom dick and harry call themselves Christians in England...and they wouldnt know a Bible if they saw one...let alone whats inside.

Doesnt THAT concern everyone?

2) Begin with Emmanuel Kant. He's the guy who turned GOD into a Clockmaker. Or you might try The Catholic response to Copernicus, or better still, what the Roman Catholics thought of Issac Newton

The Enlightenment, or Modern Era was really a shrugging off of Religious Absolutes, and a replacement with science, reason, and logic. In EXACTLY the same way as figured in the minds of those who signed the American Declairation of Independance, The Enlightenment was about philosophical freedom from the Tyranny of a view controlled by the Church. It was a rebellion against Authority...and it had wide reaching implications...for example...it had been thought that Monarchs were rullers placed in that position BY GOD...therefore, Gaining Independance from Great Britian, was one of many middle fingers that were upped at the prominent ideas of Christianity...because by default, you were saying GODs ambassidor was a Tyrant. Also, the split of Church and State...Church had always been run by State because the Monarchs were seen as both the political AND Religious placecards of GODs choosing. So revolutions to get rid of Monarchies, like the English Civil War, or the French Revolution...again, products of the Enlightenment. then there were the philosophers who challenged and asked epistemonlogical questions about how the church could be sure of what it was saying, there were the biologists like Charles Darwin, the Astronomers, the mathematicians, the physacists.

All of that is completely appart from the Protestant Reformation within about 300 years the Catholic Church went from Absolute power and control, to a placebo for the people.
This is basic European History Nathan....also, the Roman Church has changed its mind since the Enlightenment. They now have even adopted an Enlightenment approach with Science labs and the likes in the Cities (although they never do anything risque (like examin bones of relics or something )
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-27-2009, 07:05 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,734
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn View Post
1) As Christians, we SHOULD be concerned about the Truth. The truth is the facts presented by the Enlightenment Philosophers WAS TRUE, and Rome claimed they were false. As far as Evangelism goes...the fall of Rome has led to the increase in "christians" but DECLINE in Christianity...now every tom dick and harry call themselves Christians in England...and they wouldnt know a Bible if they saw one...let alone whats inside.

Doesnt THAT concern everyone?

2) Begin with Emmanuel Kant. He's the guy who turned GOD into a Clockmaker. Or you might try The Catholic response to Copernicus, or better still, what the Roman Catholics thought of Issac Newton

The Enlightenment, or Modern Era was really a shrugging off of Religious Absolutes, and a replacement with science, reason, and logic. In EXACTLY the same way as figured in the minds of those who signed the American Declairation of Independance, The Enlightenment was about philosophical freedom from the Tyranny of a view controlled by the Church. It was a rebellion against Authority...and it had wide reaching implications...for example...it had been thought that Monarchs were rullers placed in that position BY GOD...therefore, Gaining Independance from Great Britian, was one of many middle fingers that were upped at the prominent ideas of Christianity...because by default, you were saying GODs ambassidor was a Tyrant. Also, the split of Church and State...Church had always been run by State because the Monarchs were seen as both the political AND Religious placecards of GODs choosing. So revolutions to get rid of Monarchies, like the English Civil War, or the French Revolution...again, products of the Enlightenment. then there were the philosophers who challenged and asked epistemonlogical questions about how the church could be sure of what it was saying, there were the biologists like Charles Darwin, the Astronomers, the mathematicians, the physacists.

All of that is completely appart from the Protestant Reformation within about 300 years the Catholic Church went from Absolute power and control, to a placebo for the people.
This is basic European History Nathan....also, the Roman Church has changed its mind since the Enlightenment. They now have even adopted an Enlightenment approach with Science labs and the likes in the Cities (although they never do anything risque (like examin bones of relics or something )
Again, provide me with some historical documents that support your claims. I don't want to hear your personal interpretation of the events.

Just claiming that this is "basic European History" is not good enough. I need some real evidence because I think you are completely wrong.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-27-2009, 07:19 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I think you are completely wrong.


Why would you think that. You know the world view of the Roman Catholic Church dont you? You understand the Aristotilian idea of Earth?? does that sound ANYTHING like the Enlightenments view????

If your such of a knowledgable buff on European History or The Roman Catholic Church...or the Enlightenment...of infact on the Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion...and the Classical understanding of the world...please...do enlighten us all Mr Rosario.

Where exactly have I gone "completely wrong"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 11-28-2009, 01:35 AM
Chris F
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mscomc View Post
----Just a little off topic. But twice I gave you actually published science articles supporting macro evolution (well whether or not it is support can be debated)...but is was in reference to how they believe chickens/birds came from lizards....you told me you were going to look into it, so i posted the link a third time.

I'll do it now a fourth time....what is your oppinion on this matter. I dont beleive in maco evolution, but i find it hard to turn my head away from such as experiments (seen below)

---it started from a question from crisco about what came first, chicken or egg?

I used this time to give an example of macro evolution, and some of the evidence behind it....i showed why biologists gave beleive the chicken game first..

i wrote the following, followed by a research paper publication...

"Hmmmm not that I am a proponent of Macro evolution as Nate and I had this conversation some time back. But if I recall correctly (evolutionary was a long time ago for me), science seems to point out that the chicken came first...how you ask?

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, many of the genes in a chicken are very homologous to that of a reptile; particularily with: crocodiles, snakes etc etc. Also, scientists have been able to locate these very genes in the chicken and discovered that they were repressed (over what they believe to be millions of years ago). Thus, they were able to turn these genes on, an noticed the chickens were able to grow reptilian like teeth, which is HUGE since they dont have teeth to begin with. Also, their muscle structure also changed (heres one paper that was published)"....

So in short, at some point a lizard creature gave birth to a chicken type creature.

The Development of Archosaurian First-Generation Teeth in a Chicken Mutant
Current Biology, Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 371-377
M. Harris, S. Hasso, M. Ferguson, J. Fallon



There are dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of papers doing similiar experiments on different animals.
Mr. Ferguson works in Wisconsin I beleive.
This is mutation not evidence of human specie change.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.