Tweet
The most obvious ones are the many NT verses in which it is prophesied that Jesus will return soon (within the lifetime of Paul, and James, and Peter, and John).
AFAICS Jesus never said he would return during the livetime of the named people. I think you refer to the "this generation shall not pass......" passage.
The common explanation for that is indeed that Jesus talks about his death and ressurection, which sets the beginning of the kingdom of God, and the new testament. (not the bunch of books, but the new convenant)
The apostles indeed do talk about Jesus coming as something to happen soon. No matter what people say about 'soon for men is different than soon for God' I think I must say: they were wrong. They really thought they should live to Jesus coming back.
BUT the apostles were not prophets. Their job was to spread the gospel. Not to forsee the future. For that reason I think we cannot take their words to be prophecies, but morely an enthiousiast message that Jesus could return any minute, which is something we, christians, are about to expect.
What if Paul would have said "Jesus will return in another 2,000 - x,000 years.......
Jesus on a sidenote gave some specifications about the end of times, at first that the gospel must have been spread all over the world. (a prophecy that's almost fullfilled!)
Conclusions: some of the apostles were wrong. That doesn't change the biblical message though. The bible never prophecied a return of Jesus during the livetime of the disciples.
If you refer to Jesus who says to Pete that "If he wants John to live to see him return from the clouds" it can be exlained by figurative speaking. Jesus says "IF", and he continues his speach by "what good would it be if you knew that?"
There are also the cities that were to be "utterly destroyed" and never inhabited again, but still exist in later books, and even in the modern world
can you quote the right passage?
But Isaiah predicts that five cities in Egypt will speak Caananite (now an extinct language) and that there will be an alliance with the Assyrians (now an extinct civilization). So no "it hasn't happened yet" argument will work here.
again, can you quote the right passage?
And Jeremiah 42 predicts that all Jews who return to Egypt will die. They didn't, and Joseph and Mary supposedly took Jesus there to keep him safe!
Jeremiah talks about permanent going back to Egypt, and thus Israel ceasing to live in the land God gave to them.
"How" is not relevant: merely that it happens.
it happens in a vacuum, the big bang theory postulates no preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate.
The two steel plates in a vacuum are pushed together by the pressure of the virtual particles forming around them.
Ok, that might be true (and obviously is true) but my comment on '2 steel plates is not nothing' is based on the question, are we sure about the effects of these 2 steel plates on the virtual particles, or on the energy.
That it occurs around steel plates does not nescecary means it happens when there are not two plates near.
anyway, even *if*, you still need a vacuum (space, room) to have these particles to exist.
Second, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.
If there is doubt about whether something came from nothing, then there is doubt about the need for a God.
That's true.
But, I think that my theory might be a "use a god to fill a gap" theory. Yours morely is the "ignore the gap" theory.
Is there any scientific theory about an infinite backwards existing 'space'? Can you link to one?
The construction of the human genome does not require any bricks that aren't available, or a special method of stacking that we don't have. Therefore, in principle, it is "evolvable", just as a wall is "buildable".
once the bricks were inavailable.
But I agree, if the mutations will occur in the right order in the right place, and natural selection will not take them away (which MIGHT happen as well)
BUT: this is al theoretical.
And:
If evolution worked like that, with several successive changes needed to make something that works: yes, this would be a problem. But that's why the theory insists that all evolutionary changes work in small steps where every step counts.
if it would work like this, the diversity should be much bigger than the diversity there is right now on earth.
There are not enough between forms. There are some 'example' forms, but there's not the ammount of between forms one would expect in this case. Neither is there the expectable ammount of detail differences between human races.
If we take other mammals, there is so much diversity among them. There are many types of monkeys, fishes, wales..... etc. Why are all humans so close related?
The racial difference is so tiny compared to other animal families......
The difference between an human and a monkey is huge compared to the difference between a german and a chinese. The racial differences could have happened during a fair little ammount of time. Our skin differences might have occured in the past 10,000 years..... And even most scientists talk about degeneration on that topic, since the african black-skin was about for sure the oldest type of humanity, and the white race have a skin-type that's for sure not better compared to the african type.
If we compare our capabilities with apes, since they appear to come from the same ancestors, in fact apes have evoluved much further than humans.
Indeed, humans evolved inteligence. But apart from that apes have a better sight, better ears, they control their body better, their capacities to survive in the jungle are better.
How comes that we, humans, survived, how did we escape natural selection? If we got brains first, I wonder why we are not apes with brains right now? Since the degenerated humans could never survive the earlier inteligent humans........
But still there is no inteligent life among any other species.
Nobody has yet come up with an example of something that could NOT have evolved in small steps like that.
but all the species we have right now are (temporary) end products.
It's not like we have species with step-1 eyes, step-2 eyes, step-3 eyes etc. etc. Pherhaps there is on example (which again must prove the entire theory) but if the step-10 eyes survived natural selection, step-9 and step-8 eyes must still exist in broad forms. But they do not.
We have humans with bad eyes, but again, that's not the former step in evolution, but morely degeneration.
In fact there are more proofs for degeneration than for evolution. Can degeneration and evolution happen at the same time? Or do you deny the existance of degeneration?
Sava
Anyone who says that they have experienced God is no different from the Islamic fundies that crashed the planes into the WTC in the name of Allah.
Thus: you want to compare me with mass-killers?
You want to compare me with people who kill 3000 people with no mercy?
If you would confirm that next to me I would beat the hell out of you. You're a fanatic fundamentalist yourself by putting up utter crap like that.
Lemmy:
the highest attainable intelligence would be 10, and let's assume humans are at 13, (i think the difference is in fact much smaller)
If I compare the human achivements with the achivements of monkeys I would say...... nah 10:13 really makes no sence. 10:10000 would be more close to it.
Now with each generation, there is a chance of a genetic mutation, making a monkey smarter then any monkey before
but there's a bigger change of degeneration. let's say 1:999.999 (mutation in fact is a good form of degeneration, one gen doesn't transit the right way into the new organism, but while this usually results in a broken gen, it results by accident in a new type of gen)
Than that new organism should not die by a natural cause, (in nature, most of the newborn babies are killed. and if the difference is that little, the new type still has a big change to not survive!)
after that, when this specy reproduces, the new gen should not be lost again, because the gen of the mating partner replaces the newly found gen.
Anyway, since there's a big change for degeneration, what if the 10,5 monkey by accident mates with a 0,5 monkey? ooops.
The problem is that natural selection would do a good job if we did indeed talk about big-steps. If I evolve into a 4-arms human, the change that my kind will survive your stupid 2-arms type is big. Natural selection will most certainly do that job.
But now, you guys talk about little step by little step.....
Remember that in that case natural selection will hardly work, for sure if you take the effects of degeneration into it.
If there are 100 mutations in one generation,
and one of them is good, and 99 is bad.
Pherhaps indeed much of the bad ones will die because of natural selection, but the change that more of them will survive than the 1 good mutation is large.
I know the odds are small, but they don't need to be big if you accept that the world is 4-5 billion years old
4-5 billion years is not that much if you consider how much must be done by pure luck.
I predict that within the next 10 years, scientists will suddenly claim that the world is not 5 billion years old, but 50 billion years. That's not because of new insight. It's because they need more time.
and that's the big flaw, in theory, everything can happen, if you give it enough time. That's why scientists give those huge ammounts of time to everything. It's the easy to give, hard to check, factor that will heal everything.
CyberShy
Comment