Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
No. I likely wouldn’t either. For the record, I consider televangelists somewhere below used car salesmen and lawyers. Even I don’t believe anything I see on TV in that regard.
The people I know who have been healed I’ve either been related to or have been friends. They are people I trust not to lie to me.
The doctor friend of mine who has reported those healings, I’ve known for years and know him to be an honest, trustworthy man. He gets no personal gain from it; on the contrary, it costs him business. If the patient is healed, he gets no money from it. He tells them, and does not treat them anyway.
You need to find people like that.
The bible does not say man is missing a rib.
Recent science shows we can extract stem cells from bone that help produce sperm cells.
How did Moses predict stem cells ?
Where have I ever said that it has to be taken all literally or all figuratively?
Don’t let them National Geographic shows fool you for one minute- Showing all those colloperative ants, all workign together in perfect harmony? Pffft- I’ve seen them really act terrible once they htought noone was watchign them- Brawling, callign eacj other names, stealing fro meach other- then.... when the cameras are back on them? Why it’s back to the structured marching in tune pronto like.
[[They can use it all they want, but they will be incorrect. ]]
You can say that all you like- butr snowflakes do not Macroevolution make- Didn’t read that link I psoted eh?
LOL!
I agree the Bible does not say a rib was removed from the Adam, although the translators down through the ages decided to use the word rib instead of the word curve.
The 'curve' is what was used to make woman that was removed from the Adam. Moses did not predict anything, he was told by the Heavenly Father to describe the help mate woman made from the man.
Jeepers YHAOS, I think the model breaks down even when it's applied to ants:
Recently, it has become clear that simple bacteria can exhibit rich behavior, have internal degrees of freedom, informational capabilities, and freedom to respond by altering itself and others via emission of signals in a self-regulated manner (Ben-Jacob, E. 2003…). Each bacterium is, by itself, a biotic autonomous system, having a certain freedom to select its response to the biochemical messages it receives, including self-alteration, self-plasticity, and decision making, permitting purposeful alteration of its behavior (Ben Jacob, Aharonov and Shapira, 2005…). Bacteria are able to reverse the spontaneous course of entropy increase and convert high-entropy inorganic substances into low-entropy life-sustaining molecules (ibid.). Similarly, di Primio, Müller, and Lengeler (2000 …) have demonstrated that bacteria and other unicellular organisms are autonomous and social beings showing cognition in the forms of association, remembering, forgetting, learning, etc., activities that are found in all living organisms. It is widely recognized recently that biochemical reactions are regulated by complex conditions involving practically the whole cell, governed possibly by a yet unknown principle (see Ben Jacob, Shapira and Tauber, 2006...). — A. Grandpierre, "Fundamental Complexity Measures of Life," Divine Action or Natural Selection, J. Seckbach, ed., World Scientific, 2008.If a humble bacterium can do all these things (i.e., has been observed to do all these things), then why would anybody think that the ever more complex and comparatively "sophisticated" multi-cellular ant could do any less? "Chemotaxis and random searching" seems an extraordinarily drastic reduction of ant behavior, and thus of ant nature....
And we haven't even entered into the domain of the human yet, whose complexity is astronomically greater than that of the ant....
These are questions for which Darwinist theory has no answers; so the questions aren't even asked.
And that's the problem with Darwinist theory. It is a semi-empirical (i.e., "historical") science pertaining only to the speciation of the biota on this planet. It lacks the universality and generality to be any kind of truly fundamental law of nature.
And it has no "theory of man." But it sure does love the model of the "automaton."
But jeepers, even a bacterium isn't an automaton, let alone an ant.
Other than that, the theory is just hunkey-dorey.... :^)
Thanks for mentioning ants, YHAOS! I've been thinking about the little critturs recently....
p.s.: Check out Divine Action or Natural Selection here.
LOLOL CottShop! That's simply hilarious — and oh, so very, very true....
Curve?
Strongs
______________________________
Transliteration:
tsela` {tsay-law’} or (fem.) tsal`ah {tsal-aw’}
Word Origin:
from 6760
TWOT:
1924a
Part of Speech:
noun feminine
Usage in the KJV:
side 19, chamber 11, boards 2, corners 2, rib 2, another 1, beams 1, halting 1, leaves 1, planks 1
Total: 41
Definition:
1. side, rib, beam
1. rib (of man)
2. rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
3. side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
4. rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
5. leaves (of door)
6. side (of ark)
_______________________——
Context:
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
[[They can use it all they want, but they will be incorrect.]]
I’m sorry, but I have to respond to htis again because it warrants further exploration.
I keep hearing your side claim this- that Creationists don’t udnerstand how the second law works ‘in an open system’ and I hear ya’ll say after presenting a scant couple of evidences of STATIC occurances of non living ‘organizations’ such as ice crystals, that if these can defy entropy, then Macroevolution could have too.
But, let me ask you this- if al lyou can come up with is approx. 4 examples of non living entropy defying events, and if htere are literally billions upon billions ofliving systems that all are subject to the second law without fail, then what exactly are you hangign your hopes on? The examples given, which again, are non living organizing structures that follow geometric assemblies, amount to such a small percentage that it is beyond reasonability to think that literally trillions of systems and living subsystems coudl have all defied the second law as they somehow self assembled themselves in ever increasing organizations and ever increasing complexities while averting the second law.
Not to mention we also have the lack of fossil evidence, the lack of lab evidence, the lack of lving examples to even hint at such a scenario- As well, We also have biological impossibilites to somehow overcome, and on top of that we have the mathematical impossibilities of even just one ‘positive mutaiton’ adding non species specific information in such a quantity as to be called a move in the right direction beyond the species kind.
The argument that certain few static objects can defy entropy briefly, thereby defyign the second law just does not hold any weight for your side I’m afraid- it just furhter illustrates how much of a faith based beleif Macroevolution really is to defy such astronimical odds- not just once or tweice in a supposed process- but literally trillions upon trillions of times.
I don;t mean to keep harping on these points, but these are very serious problems for macroevolution, and they can’t simply be waved away by claiming ‘Christians just don’t understand hte second law because a few static things do infact defy entropy’- Again- Read Wallace’s discourse with Schneider- That’s all I can suggest at htis point- We understand hte second law just fine thank you- and it spells doom for Macroevolution every step of the way.
Oh good. You propose, then, to treat Humans as individuals. I’ve had discussions on this forum with people who proposed to treat individual Human action purely as a group.
{ 8^)
It seems to me, relative to human beings, such folks have got the problem exactly backwards. Relative to humans beings, "society" is not the ultimate criterion of what human nature is. Individuals are.
But then folks who have no objection to the idea of understanding man only in terms of species affiliation, and indeed may even be promoters of such an understanding, would have no problem with a a "model" like this.
The theory of evolution is not in the same ballpark. As you say, it is a historical science (like anthropology, archeology and Egyptology.)
I have them all the time.
At 1122, you said:
How do you know if the parts that you think are literal aren't metaphor after all? If you're going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literallyand if you're going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically.
Let's be consistent here.
When I questioned that methodology, you replied
You guys use it all the time when you apply it to the Bible.
Can you give me an example of any of "you guys" saying the Bible has to be interpreted as being either totally literal or totally metaphorical?
Okay. Then consider the exchanges we've had. From my perspective the miracles you describe are second hand accounts by an anonymous poster on an internet chat forum - something you wouldn't take as proof that it happened. If I express any scepticism about it, I get attacked for it.
Among other things, he penned Summa Contra Gentiles, a book entirely devoted to the theory of final causes and design.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.