Capital Punishment

Darwin awards rock. The idea is un-christian..ish.... but still, one can overlook the fact that they're based on darwinism and just ahve a laugh at human stupidity.
 
You know that on Darwins death bed he admitted that there had to be a higher being ( God ) to create all this. Ill find the quote in my book later. Its one I got from Disciple Now.
 
Some of the Darwin Awards are absolutely hilarious.

It is interesting how Darwin, even throughout his life, had doubts about his own theory. That why he, in fact, believed that is was only a theory.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (ToJ | Dead_Aim @ July 07 2003,6:31)]You know that on Darwins death bed he admitted that there had to be a higher being ( God ) to create all this. Ill find the quote in my book later. Its one I got from Disciple Now.
Click to expand...
That's a nice little story.  Too bad it's bunk.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is interesting how Darwin, even throughout his life, had doubts about his own theory.  That why he, in fact, believed that is was only a theory.
Click to expand...

People often use this word improperly.  Theory doesn't not mean a "wild guess" that scientists throw out.  Theories are explainations for phenomena given known facts.  Just because it's called the "theory of evolution" does not mean that the vast majority of scientists doubt its validity at all. The common use of the word and the scientific use of the word are VERY different!
 
Concerning Darwin's deathbed conversion, the evidence seriously goes both ways. Don't go around saying that it did happen haphazardly, because it is by no means proven. Personally, I think the evidence weighs in favor of it having happened, but that's beside the point. :) It isn't certain.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Tom Kazansky @ July 07 2003,7:50)]
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]It is interesting how Darwin, even throughout his life, had doubts about his own theory.  That why he, in fact, believed that is was only a theory.
Click to expand...

People often use this word improperly.  Theory doesn't not mean a "wild guess" that scientists throw out.  Theories are explainations for phenomena given known facts.  Just because it's called the "theory of evolution" does not mean that the vast majority of scientists doubt its validity at all.  The common use of the word and the scientific use of the word are VERY different!
Click to expand...
Almost all scientific theory is an attempt to explain the universe (or some smaller part thereof) without God.

I would love to hear a theory of origins though. You know, where something all of a sudden came into existance out of nothing. But I digress from the topic.


I do not agree with capital punishment because I do not beleive there is a person alive today able to correctly judge if a crime is worthy of death, no matter how heinous the crime. That job (judging) is better left to the Lord.

I also do not believe they (prisoners) should get an easy ride in prison either. Full days work should be required be each of them. Whether that be on a farm that provides them their food and food for the homeless or printing license plates or making furniture. No more free University education or cheap cigarettes. And if they riot and destroy their TVs and games room, oh well, nothing new until they have worked enough to pay for new stuff.
 
I don't want to stray too far off topic, but I just need to address this real quick.

Tom, you're right about the use of 'Theory.' I use it in the common everyday sense in that 'there is little fact supporting a belief.'

However, I use 'theory' in this mannor for a reason. Scientists form hypotheses and then try to prove them. If it can be proved, then the hypothesis is no longer merely a theory, but it is a fact--not only has gravity been proved to exist, but an acurate formula has been written to chart its effects. It is the scientist's job to search for the truth and thus, if a hypotheses is proven to be false, he would not be a good scientist if he continued to believe in it because it is the scientist's job to find out truths (not opinions or merely hypotheses) about God's creation and how it works.

Evolution then, is still merely a hypothesis without valid proof. Thus it is not a fact. It is also a highly unprobable reality as scientific fact contradicts what the theory of evolution teaches. (If necesary I can expound on this in a new thread).

Back to our regularly schedualed programming: Capital Punishment
smile.gif
 
It isn't that Science is an attempt to explain the universe without the presence of God, it's merely an attempt to explain the universe.

The collision with Christian faith occurs because, so often, what we come to understand about the universe contravenes biblical law. For example, did you know that the existence of life on Mars has been proven?

Eon
 
In reality, true science and true Chritianity will NEVER EVER clash. Why? Because they both have the same Creator.

Science can not exist without God (let it suffice to say that God created the universe and everything in it). Nor can Christianity, of which He is obviously the founder. Both share the same basis in truth, which is not merely an idea or thing. Truth is a Person. The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity to be exact. Jesus stated it perfectly: "I'm am the way, the truth, and the life." Since Truth is a charactaristic personified in God, and since God is perfect, Truth can not contradict itself. Thus, the Truths of science and Christianity are not opposed to each other, but they mutually support eachother.
 
how exactly does life on Mars contravene Biblical precepts? We know we are not the only beings created by God, whose to say that He did not create life on other worlds? It's actually the height of arrogance of us to assume we are the only life He created.
 
Yeah, it certainly seems to me that there either was or might still be microbiological life on Mars.

The Bible isn't a science book, necessarily. When Jesus said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed, He wasn't right. However, He was making a point, not a scientific observation.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If it can be proved, then the hypothesis is no longer merely a theory, but it is a fact--not only has gravity been proved to exist, but an acurate formula has been written to chart its effects.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is somewhat questionable. Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct results over large distances. Scientists have come up with the idea of dark matter to explain the difference between predicted and actual gravitational forces, but dark matter is far from proven. Newton's Law could just as easily be wrong. Adding to the questionability is that gravitons haven't been discovered yet (last I checked).

Also, I'd like to point out that physicists and astronomers are not particularly afraid to develop theories which go against the evidence. At least a few years ago (I don't know what's happened since M1 supernova evidence showed that the Hubble Constant isn't a constant), the Inflationary Big Bang theory went against consistent observations that have been made with particle accelerators. Every recorded reaction shows that fermions (leptons and baryons) are conserved quantities, yet for the theory to work and explain our abundance of one type of matter, it is assumed that quantities are not entirely conserved, and that the nonconserved particles favor one type of matter (our type).

Even laws are somewhat questionable. Conservation of Energy, for instance, has been shown untrue on small time scales.

My point: science, however logical it might theoretically be, is a tool of humans. And people, as we all should know, make mistakes. Most scientists with half a brain would admit that nothing is certain. Or they should, anyway.
 
That is quite an interesting site, and it was interesting to read their conclusions. I was a bit disapointed that they failed to qualify their statement on the Hydrocarbon emissions - that inorganically produced ones have a certain chemical signature and that organically produced ones have another. Can you guess which the HC's in the meteorite were?

I thought so.

I wonder how much longer these people will be able to maintain their deathgrip on the curtain of ignorance?

Eon
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]However, I use 'theory' in this mannor for a reason. Scientists form hypotheses and then try to prove them. If it can be proved, then the hypothesis is no longer merely a theory, but it is a fact--not only has gravity been proved to exist, but an acurate formula has been written to chart its effects. It is the scientist's job to search for the truth and thus, if a hypotheses is proven to be false, he would not be a good scientist if he continued to believe in it because it is the scientist's job to find out truths (not opinions or merely hypotheses) about God's creation and how it works.
Click to expand...

Maybe you were using "theory" like that, but Darwin definitely wasn't. You said that Darwin believed it was "only a theory". That's insinuating that Darwin was doubtful about the validitiy of his theory, which is false. It's also obvious that Darwin was using the scientific definition of the word, which is seldomly used in these evolution discussions.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Evolution then, is still merely a hypothesis without valid proof. Thus it is not a fact. It is also a highly unprobable reality as scientific fact contradicts what the theory of evolution teaches. (If necesary I can expound on this in a new thread).
Click to expand...

Please do, because I'd have to say that all the science magazines and television programs that I've seen use evolution as a mechanism to explain origins of everything. I don't think they would be doing that if it had no valid proof.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The collision with Christian faith occurs because, so often, what we come to understand about the universe contravenes biblical law. For example, did you know that the existence of life on Mars has been proven?
Click to expand...

Show me in the Bible where it says there is no life on Mars. I've read it cover to cover, and I have never found anything that even suggested that.
 
You bring up some very good points Mr. Nuke. It is very true the limitations of science as humans make mistakes and the realities of the universe are immensely complex. It shows the true awesomeness of God's creation and man's inability to fathom it in its entirety.

I'm gonna start a new thread now, since this is quite off subject
smile.gif
 
I'm going to sound off my opinion of the Lady Hope story as well, while I'm at it.  Here goes.

In my opinion, it's nothing more than a fairy tale.  Let's look at what Darwin himself says about Christianity, as taken from his autobiography.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
Click to expand...

(Quote taken from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html)

That doesn't sound like a man ready to drop his beliefs for Christianity.  It's a bad idea to deploy any piece of "information" that you have without giving it proper analysis, or without knowing it's 100% reliable.  Heck, Hank Hangraff, a Christian who wrote the book "The Farce of Evolution", tagged the Lady Hope story under his "death moves" chapter, which basically explain how to lose an argument.  He has interesting things to say about the Lady Hope story.
 
I earlier stated that Darwin doubted some of his own teachings. This information comes from Biology: God's Living Creation, published in 1986 (I know it's not the most up to date, but the basics of evolution have not changed drastically) by Beka Book Publications. On page 374 there is a quote from Darwin concerning the formation of species lines. The article quoted is an essay published in "Why I accept the Geniesis Record" copyright 1959 by Good News Broadcasting Association, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska. This essay contain the quote from Darwin.

This article argues that "Evolution would of necessity depend on breeding." Since changes in an individual animal (change of weight due to eating, or length of fur due to climate) does not carry over from one generation to the next, the same animal species could evolve into multiple species, but still have some of the same charactaristics. This would eliminate definite species lines proclaimed by Darwin. He infact says: "Why, if species have descended from other species by find graduations, isn't all nature in confusion, instead of being, as we see them, the species well defined?"

This shows that he could not figure out why species were definite instead of unorganized. It could be argued that evolution has since changed its theory and gotten past this tripping point, but this is a key part of evolution. If species did not evolve into definite species (as we see today), did they evolve at all?
 
Quite simply put, the species need to maintain a very similar genetic modality, otherwise breeding is not possible. Radical "chaotic" changes result in what is known as a "sport", which can be a fine and useful animal, but which is effectively sterile, since it cannot breed with others of its baseline species.

I understand that Darwin is supposed to have recanted, on his deathbed. However I would have to say that at the moment of death, most men would recant almost anything they believe in order to preserve life - perhaps he, at that point, WANTED to believe in God and heaven?

Eon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top