Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 01:55 AM)Beaker Wrote: The point wasn't about whether science or religion declared the world round. The point was that science will adapt as new discoveries are made. Religious people like to claim the fact that science is tentative means its wrong. It is simply the best explanation we have at the time based on the available evidence. As new evidence becomes available, science will test its validity, then adjust its paradigm based upon the new evidence. Religious types love to try to hold that up as science is wrong. Guess what, when science is wrong, it corrects itself. When religion is wrong, it simply claims science is wrong more often and sticks with the old paradigm.

No doubt folks that can read understand that the theme of this thread has been trying to prove science wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:25 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: The mental image i get when i read it. Drawing a circle on the face of the deep/depth, whatever. The image i get is like a painter, using an easel. 

Cause God hadn't invented desks yet.

That's interesting because the image I got was a desktop. LOL

[Beaker]

(06-13-2015, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: No doubt folks that can read understand that the theme of this thread has been trying to prove science wrong.

Actually the OP was to point out that another discovery about how life began has been made. Its another piece of the puzzle, and the picture becomes a little more clear. There is a long way to go, but they are getting to an understanding step by step.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 01:52 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I understand it perfectly and my hope is one day you will as well. But until then occupy yourself with explaining the differences between round things.

No. You don't. Obviously.

I will need to check, but I don't recall you making one semi-intelligent comment in this thread, yet. It's like Denny and TommyC mated and spawned a love child.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-12-2015, 08:52 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Flat and circle are two different things. No need for leaps there.

I'll be happy to concede if you can show me where the bible says the earth is flat.

On a side note; i like how the writers of the old testament were so smart and able to predict the future that they were able to disguise bible verses so well that over the span of centuries, there wouldn't be a clear instance where something was stated that was proven to be scientifically false. That's not even speaking on the fact that the bible was written centuries ago, yet it's still followed and believed by so many millions of people over the span of time. 

Craziness, i tell ya.

On a sphere there is no high point in which all other points can be seen and yet Satan took Christ to such a point.  That would only be possible if the Earth was a flat circle.  You can't even see it entirely from space.  Must have been some mountain.  Must have also been some rainstorm to fill the entire earth with that much additional water.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2015, 11:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Science is just a guess ....  Look how many times they have been wrong on everything.     For the love of Pete look at global warming, everytime they are wrong they change the name.   It's warming, then cooling, then weirding.

Science is willing to say, "I was wrong."

Religion is only willing to say, "I'm right." Every religion says, "I'm right." Logically they can't all be right. So how does one decide the Truth?  Largely, geography.  In Iran your truth would likely be Islam. In India your truth would likely be Hinduism.  In Italy your truth would likely be Roman Catholic. In China your truth would likely be Buddhism. It seems religious Truth is highly variable. I think a truth as important and central to so many as an Almighty Creator would be a self evident truth, but clearly that isn't the case.

I find it ironic a Libertarian such as yourself who complains about too much government in our lives expects the government to enforce your religious beliefs on others.

If you believe same sex marriage is immoral based upon your religious beliefs, fine. Just don't try to impose your religious beliefs on others.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 10:16 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: On a sphere there is no high point in which all other points can be seen and yet Satan took Christ to such a point.  

Where does the scripture say Satan took Jesus to a point where they could see the whole world?

[Bengalzona]

I thought the intermediate step to the beginning of life was foreplay.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-13-2015, 04:03 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I thought the intermediate step to the beginning of life was foreplay.

Foreplay is just another creation myth.  

[Bengalzona]

(06-13-2015, 06:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Foreplay is just another creation myth.  

Why do they call it foreplay anyway? I've always found twoplay to be sufficient.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-13-2015, 02:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where does the scripture say Satan took Jesus to a point where they could see the whole world?

Matthew 4:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

[Belsnickel]

(06-13-2015, 11:08 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Matthew 4:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Not to be too nit picky on the semantics, but showing all of the kingdoms of the world is not the same as showing all of the world.

[*bfine32*]

(06-13-2015, 11:08 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Matthew 4:8King James Version (KJV)

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

(06-13-2015, 11:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to be too nit picky on the semantics, but showing all of the kingdoms of the world is not the same as showing all of the world.

Bingo

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:53 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I have difficulty with language of appearances vs biblical inerrancy because Christians themselves can't agree on one or the other. Same with allegory vs literal. It is the least simple simple can be.   Clear as mud.

Definitely clear as mud, in a lot of cases, without a thorough study and cross-reference with other passages. And i've always felt that if you give a human a chance to screw something up, he'll never disappoint you, so i fully understand complaints that even Christians can't always agree on something that they all believe in.

My feelings are, it's all there: allegory, literal, language of appearance, inerrancy, etc. It's not simple in any way, shape or form, yet sometimes it is. 

So, in theory, i agree with you but i do believe there is reason to it and, all that said, i know i've done nothing to really make it less muddy. >.<

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 01:55 AM)Beaker Wrote: The point wasn't about whether science or religion declared the world round. The point was that science will adapt as new discoveries are made. Religious people like to claim the fact that science is tentative means its wrong. It is simply the best explanation we have at the time based on the available evidence. As new evidence becomes available, science will test its validity, then adjust its paradigm based upon the new evidence. Religious types love to try to hold that up as science is wrong. Guess what, when science is wrong, it corrects itself. When religion is wrong, it simply claims science is wrong more often and sticks with the old paradigm.

I don't believe that. I don't expect science to be omniscient and i have no issues with new ideas replacing old ones, when they're proven inaccurate. 

Seeking knowledge isn't a bad thing. Limiting the seeking because you (generally speaking) think one side disproves the other when it hasn't/can't, can and usually is, bad.

You can say one side is worse than the other but i still call it a generalization because i know plenty of people that don't think that way. Of course, it's the individual's prerogative if they want to curse the darkness instead of lighting a candle. But that's always wrong.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-13-2015, 10:16 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: On a sphere there is no high point in which all other points can be seen and yet Satan took Christ to such a point.  That would only be possible if the Earth was a flat circle.  You can't even see it entirely from space.  Must have been some mountain.  Must have also been some rainstorm to fill the entire earth with that much additional water.

Not all other points, all the kingdoms of the time. Probably some previously spoken of allegory here since the point was that satan lied and said he'd make Christ ruler over everything if he would fall down and worship him.

[Belsnickel]

(06-14-2015, 02:27 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Not all other points, all the kingdoms of the time. Probably some previously spoken of allegory here since the point was that satan lied and said he'd make Christ ruler over everything if he would fall down and worship him.

It's one of those situations where people who complain about some taking the Bible literally try to take the Bible literally to prove a point. It's a lot like the hypocrisy in politics, only good if your side is doing it.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-14-2015, 02:27 AM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Not all other points, all the kingdoms of the time. Probably some previously spoken of allegory here since the point was that satan lied and said he'd make Christ ruler over everything if he would fall down and worship him.

You could not have seen every kingdom from any mountain. Nice try though.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-14-2015, 07:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's one of those situations where people who complain about some taking the Bible literally try to take the Bible literally to prove a point. It's a lot like the hypocrisy in politics, only good if your side is doing it.

The point being the bible was written by flat feathers.

[WhoDeyWho]

(06-13-2015, 11:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not to be too nit picky on the semantics, but showing all of the kingdoms of the world is not the same as showing all of the world.

Regardless neither were possible. Unless of course the writers thought the Earth was flat. Ever been in an airplane? They fly much higher than the tops of mountains.