• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

The Science of Life

temporal and eternal life true success prosperity

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Valor5

  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 29 June 2015 - 11:59 AM


I want to discuss the science of life here on this thread. There are many lives that have been lived and I don't believe in imitating people I believe in imitating principles, the principles that have made such person someone worth imitating, that have made them successful and able to overcome obstacles. The greatest life worth imitating is that of Jesus Christ of Nazareth by virtue of His principles and the destiny he created, here is a Man that never failed.

 

We are the architects of our destinies. We should shape our circumstances and not let them shape us. We have a degree of control. This science of life I wish to explore.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2015 - 06:40 PM

Interesting topic.  Thanks.  So are  you saying who a person is is not important, only what they do and the principals they do it by? :)



#3 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:17 PM

Interesting topic. Thanks. So are you saying who a person is is not important, only what they do and the principals they do it by? :)


Well there are many facets to this question. People are born with innate talents some more than others. This determines usually depending on the next facets their work in life, which is the quality of their work/s. So who a person is in the sense that the person have few or many talents to God is not important since he gave them the talent to begin with (and we don't have control over that, it was His design) what is important is if they are multiplied and how they are used, specifically to His glory and the benefit of man.
  • Informative x 1

#4 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2015 - 08:22 PM

Well I agree with you. on this.  :)  But that was not exactly my question. 



#5 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 29 June 2015 - 10:41 PM

Well I agree with you. on this. :) But that was not exactly my question.

You have to clarify the "who the person is" part, rich, poor, black, white, genius, average, teacher, architect, garbage collector, young, old, male, female, sick, well, famous, obscure, refined, rude, strong, weak, republican, democrat,...

What a person does or fails to do is enormously important in the sense that it is a life and death issue. And typically the way a person governs themselves is probably based on certain principles belonging in one of two camps selfishness or love.

Edited by Valor5, 29 June 2015 - 10:48 PM.


#6 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 30 June 2015 - 01:48 AM

I asked, "So are  you saying who a person is is not important, only what they do and the principals they do it by? :)."  To use your example is Christ important Himself, or only what He does and the principles He does it by?  Do I have to do something to be important?



#7 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 30 June 2015 - 07:06 AM

Is Christ important Himself? yes, role and office. Is Daniel the bible character important himself? No. Jesus is the grand architect. He is the grace and mercy of God. He is the sacrificial Lamb.

 

 

Jesus is God/Man. What Jesus did (occupation) during his life is not too terribly important, we do not all need to be carpenters, the bible speaks very little about His first thirty years. It says, He grew in stature and in wisdom and in favor with God and man. Jesus did not fail to be our perfect example not even by a look, which would have cast us into utter doom if he had. He did not misspend one moment of His life. He is an utterly incredible Human Being.

 

Daniel is just man. What Daniel did (occupation) is not important but the principles that actuated his actions, words, spirit are very important. His lifework was determined by circumstances of the time. He was a captive. Yet under captivity he overcame.

 

Apart from God we can do nothing. We are dependent on God for power, grace, mercy, inclination, pardon, penitence, faith, wisdom.

 

 

I asked, "So are  you saying who a person is is not important, only what they do and the principals they do it by? :)."  To use your example is Christ important Himself, or only what He does and the principles He does it by?  Do I have to do something to be important?

 


Edited by Valor5, 30 June 2015 - 07:07 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#8 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 30 June 2015 - 08:53 PM

:)



#9 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 13 July 2015 - 05:48 PM

In food, in raiment, in work, in regular hours, in healthful exercise, we must be regulated by the knowledge which it is our duty to obtain, that we may through earnest endeavor place ourselves in right relation to life and health. Man has the power to regulate every word and deed.



#10 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2015 - 06:43 PM

I agree with what you have said for the most part.  I thought you were going to discuss What is life Scientifically.  In one sense this is more important.  Why did you use the word "science"? 



#11 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 13 July 2015 - 07:25 PM

Yeah, I had a feeling that it would be understood as you have said, dealing with biology. But, I feel there are mysteries that in the scriptures are not expounded on probably for good reason and to obsess about them is probably a huge waste of time and grace. The Bible has historical fact where we can securely hang our faith. The Bible also has amazing prophetic utterances and wisdom that makes it the most important book.

 

The theory of evolution rose around the time of the great awakening in 1798 that to Bible scholars and students was the deadly wound spoken of in the book of Revelation. Christianity has gone through epochs, times of persecution, times of compromise, etc., these are symbolized by the seven churches in revelation and also the horses of revelation. Men will credit evolution for our advancement but that is not so, God has a framework and he will end all in righteousness. A pivotal point in prophecy happened in 1844. After this time we are living in the atypical day of atonement. Gods mission is to save as many as he can and that is why we have the advances in technology and science which some will purport to evolution. This is how Satan would have it.

 

Why I used the word science. It is a phrase used in my particular Christian religion as far as I know. It might have been used before. Simply it is the idea proposed by the sanctuary system. The sanctuary being a type of that which was to come, namely Jesus Christ and His intercession for us in Heaven as our high priest.

I agree with what you have said for the most part.  I thought you were going to discuss What is life Scientifically.  In one sense this is more important.  Why did you use the word "science"? 

 



#12 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:16 PM

Evolutionary thought goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Chinese, independent of each other.  They saw a pattern in living organisms and designed that old ladder of life concept that is flawed but was a good start down the road to truth.  The concept of a species branching off into another has been hanging around for a long long time, and was solidified by the arise of taxonomy that came before Darwin and Wallace.  It was a given among naturalists, and many tried to figure out why species could and would change.  Many failed to come up with adequate, useful explanations with models that fit all the known facts of the time and were contradicted by none.  Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory of evolution (Lamarckian Inheritance) before Darwin was even born, though his theory was a bit different from Darwin's and Wallace's, and was proven wrong.   It was selection that was the breakthrough explanation for why a species would change at all.  That is why it's special.  Not because Darwin figured out species changed since that had been taken as a given centuries before he was born, but because he discovered the why.


Edited by Duchykins, 13 July 2015 - 08:31 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#13 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:26 PM

So are you Christian Science?


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#14 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:31 PM

Evolutionary thought goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Chinese, independent of each other.  They saw a pattern in living organisms and designed that old ladder of life concept that is flawed but was a good start down the road to truth.  The concept of a species branching off into another has been hanging around for a long long time, and was solidified by the arise of taxonomy that came before Darwin and Wallace.  It was a given among naturalists, and many tried to figure out why species could and would change.  Many failed to come up with adequate, useful explanations with models that fit all the known facts of the time and were contradicted by none.  Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory of evolution (Lamarckian Inheritance) before Darwin was even born, though his theory was a bit different from Darwin's and Wallace's, and was proven wrong.   It was selection that was the breakthrough explanation for why a species would change at all.  That is why it's special.  Not because Darwin figured out species changed since that had been taken as a given centuries before he was born, but because he discovered the why.

 

AS the SO said, the tppic is not about evolution, Darwin or my favorite Wallace.  This has been hotly debated elsewhere.
 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#15 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:34 PM

I was responding to Valor's comments on evolution.  

 

You are not a mod.

 

Biology is the science of life.


  • Good Point x 1

#16 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 13 July 2015 - 08:47 PM

I was responding to Valor's comments on evolution.  

 

You are not a mod.

 

Biology is the science of life.

I never said I was.  Where did that come from?  I showed the topic starter the courtesy of asking what he meant before jumping to blind conclusions.  It matters what we are talking about.



#17 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 13 July 2015 - 11:11 PM

I never said I was.  Where did that come from?  I showed the topic starter the courtesy of asking what he meant before jumping to blind conclusions.  It matters what we are talking about.

 

 

 

 

I still replied to what he specifically said about evolution, NOT his original post.  Dumbass.


  • Agree x 1

#18 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 July 2015 - 01:50 AM

It is off topic here but selection is not enough to explain it either.  Even then you have not explained life.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#19 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 14 July 2015 - 01:54 AM

It is off topic here but selection is not enough to explain it either.  Even then you have not explained life.

 

Well since we're going off topic, okay, I'll bite.

 

Did you know selection is not supposed to explain the origin of life?  You realize that's a job for a different theory.

 

You might as well be saying that germ theory of disease doesn't explain where germs came from (as if that diminishes germ theory of disease in some way).  That's how unlearned you sound.



#20 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 July 2015 - 02:06 AM

Of course but in case you missed it the topic was about the Science of life.and I asked about what it meant.  You on the other hand proceeded to give us a lecture on evolution.  I just pointed out it was inadequate to explain life or evolution.  I hope you were not looking in a mirror when you committed  your logical fallacy of calling people names. 



#21 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 14 July 2015 - 02:23 AM

Of course but in case you missed it the topic was about the Science of life.and I asked about what it meant.  You on the other hand proceeded to give us a lecture on evolution.  I just pointed out it was inadequate to explain life or evolution.  I hope you were not looking in a mirror when you committed  your logical fallacy of calling people names. 

 

You are such a plague.

 

I responded to Valor saying this "The theory of evolution rose around the time of the great awakening in 1798 that to Bible scholars and students was the deadly wound spoken of in the book of Revelation."

 

I'm not going to talk to you anymore unless you have interesting to say



#22 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 July 2015 - 02:34 AM

More name calling while looking in the mirror.  I guess that makes since.  Typical.  OK, this is all off topic here anyway.

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#23 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 14 July 2015 - 04:03 AM

Ok, Duchykins, I think I was aware of that before you mentioned it just not at the time I wrote what you are criticizing. I think you are right that the supposition has been around for a while. However, I would argue that Darwin is much more mentioned than any of the others you have referred to by a long shot. That period was a very special time for eschatology. A lot of strange beliefs and very interesting things happened during that time, i.e. Mormonism. Satan will try to keep you from eternal life by whatever lie he can cause you to believe. As far as origins is concerned, my explanation is quite simple. I am a descendant of Adam the son of God. Evolutionist will deny their genealogy and seek to exclude God by stating that we somehow developed by slow degrees from lower forms of vegetable or animal life. By this you degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin. God made all and then He made us the crowning act, worthy of the hand that formed him, to be rulers of this earth. We did not come from germs, mollusks or quadrupeds. Man did not need evolution.  

 

 

Evolutionary thought goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks and Chinese, independent of each other.  They saw a pattern in living organisms and designed that old ladder of life concept that is flawed but was a good start down the road to truth.  The concept of a species branching off into another has been hanging around for a long long time, and was solidified by the arise of taxonomy that came before Darwin and Wallace.  It was a given among naturalists, and many tried to figure out why species could and would change.  Many failed to come up with adequate, useful explanations with models that fit all the known facts of the time and were contradicted by none.  Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory of evolution (Lamarckian Inheritance) before Darwin was even born, though his theory was a bit different from Darwin's and Wallace's, and was proven wrong.   It was selection that was the breakthrough explanation for why a species would change at all.  That is why it's special.  Not because Darwin figured out species changed since that had been taken as a given centuries before he was born, but because he discovered the why.

 



#24 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 14 July 2015 - 04:27 AM

 

Ok, Duchykins, I think I was aware of that before you mentioned it just not at the time I wrote what you are criticizing. I think you are right that the supposition has been around for a while. However, I would argue that Darwin is much more mentioned than any of the others you have referred to by a long shot. That period was a very special time for eschatology. A lot of strange beliefs and very interesting things happened during that time, i.e. Mormonism. Satan will try to keep you from eternal life by whatever lie he can cause you to believe. As far as origins is concerned, my explanation is quite simple. I am a descendant of Adam the son of God. Evolutionist will deny their genealogy and seek to exclude God by stating that we somehow developed by slow degrees from lower forms of vegetable or animal life. By this you degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin. God made all and then He made us the crowning act, worthy of the hand that formed him, to be rulers of this earth. We did not come from germs, mollusks or quadrupeds. Man did not need evolution.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just explained to you why Darwin was special among all the others (and therefore more famous).  That you haven't heard of these other people doesn't mean you're right about this.  You said 1798, Darwin was yet to even be born at that point.  Origin was published published/sold in 1859.  You're more than half a century off the mark.  Darwin didn't even use the word "evolution" until 1871 and The Descent.    It's not my fault that you don't have a cursory knowledge of the history of evolutionary thought.

 

Of course we didn't come from germs.  If that were true, it would actually break the modern evolutionary synthesis.

 

Unless you actually represent what evolutionary theory says, you aren't actually making any arguments against it.

 

The fact that evolution personally offends you has no bearing on its truth value.  I mean, I'm personally offended at the thought of a childlike deity creating homo sapiens from a golem composed of dirt.  That's ridiculous.   But my being offended doesn't make Genesis wrong all by itself.


Edited by Duchykins, 14 July 2015 - 04:35 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#25 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 14 July 2015 - 05:57 AM

Why Jesus? He might have been a good man, but why not imitate someone like Isaac Newton? 


  • Agree x 1

#26 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:13 PM

From an eschatological point of view, 1798 and 1844 are two very important dates (particularly 1844) and as I stated before during this time strange and interesting things where taking place.

 

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned I am pretty sure I summed it up correctly. It says we developed by slow degrees from the lower life forms. If this has been revised please instruct me. You mention modern evolutionary synthesis and that you believe we did not come from germs.

 

I still hold to the point, however, that I am a descendant of Adam who was the son of God.

 

 

Ok, Duchykins, I think I was aware of that before you mentioned it just not at the time I wrote what you are criticizing. I think you are right that the supposition has been around for a while. However, I would argue that Darwin is much more mentioned than any of the others you have referred to by a long shot. That period was a very special time for eschatology. A lot of strange beliefs and very interesting things happened during that time, i.e. Mormonism. Satan will try to keep you from eternal life by whatever lie he can cause you to believe. As far as origins is concerned, my explanation is quite simple. I am a descendant of Adam the son of God. Evolutionist will deny their genealogy and seek to exclude God by stating that we somehow developed by slow degrees from lower forms of vegetable or animal life. By this you degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin. God made all and then He made us the crowning act, worthy of the hand that formed him, to be rulers of this earth. We did not come from germs, mollusks or quadrupeds. Man did not need evolution.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just explained to you why Darwin was special among all the others (and therefore more famous).  That you haven't heard of these other people doesn't mean you're right about this.  You said 1798, Darwin was yet to even be born at that point.  Origin was published published/sold in 1859.  You're more than half a century off the mark.  Darwin didn't even use the word "evolution" until 1871 and The Descent.    It's not my fault that you don't have a cursory knowledge of the history of evolutionary thought.

 

Of course we didn't come from germs.  If that were true, it would actually break the modern evolutionary synthesis.

 

Unless you actually represent what evolutionary theory says, you aren't actually making any arguments against it.

 

The fact that evolution personally offends you has no bearing on its truth value.  I mean, I'm personally offended at the thought of a childlike deity creating homo sapiens from a golem composed of dirt.  That's ridiculous.   But my being offended doesn't make Genesis wrong all by itself.

 

 



#27 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 14 July 2015 - 03:15 PM

 

From an eschatological point of view, 1798 and 1844 are two very important dates (particularly 1844) and as I stated before during this time strange and interesting things where taking place.

 

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned I am pretty sure I summed it up correctly. It says we developed by slow degrees from the lower life forms. If this has been revised please instruct me. You mention modern evolutionary synthesis and that you believe we did not come from germs.

 

I still hold to the point, however, that I am a descendant of Adam who was the son of God.

 

 

 

 

"Lower life forms" is not a scientific concept of evolution.  Sorry, you're just wrong there.  That's a remnant of the old Greek ladder of life concept and has been proven wrong over and over again more than a century ago.  But theists like to keep it because they like putting themselves at the top of this ladder.  

 

 

I don't believe you are as ready for instruction as you say, so I'm not going to spend the next half hour or so elaborating on the synthesis.

 

Creationists believe their interpretation of the Bible is right no matter what.  Their positions are absolutely immovable.  Of course this is not the most reasonable position to take.



#28 Valor5

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 289 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Gator Nation

Posted 14 July 2015 - 03:51 PM

I came from God. You came from a germ. I think I am more reasonable. There is no way in the short time frame of billions of years that something as fearfully and wonderfully made as you and I are evolved developed by small degrees. Impossible.


From an eschatological point of view, 1798 and 1844 are two very important dates (particularly 1844) and as I stated before during this time strange and interesting things where taking place.

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned I am pretty sure I summed it up correctly. It says we developed by slow degrees from the lower life forms. If this has been revised please instruct me. You mention modern evolutionary synthesis and that you believe we did not come from germs.

I still hold to the point, however, that I am a descendant of Adam who was the son of God.



"Lower life forms" is not a scientific concept of evolution. Sorry, you're just wrong there. That's a remnant of the old Greek ladder of life concept and has been proven wrong over and over again more than a century ago. But theists like to keep it because they like putting themselves at the top of this ladder.


I don't believe you are as ready for instruction as you say, so I'm not going to spend the next half hour or so elaborating on the synthesis.

Creationists believe their interpretation of the Bible is right no matter what. Their positions are absolutely immovable. Of course this is not the most reasonable position to take.

  • Ill informed x 1

#29 Duchykins

  • Guest
  • 1,415 posts
  • 72
  • Location:California

Posted 14 July 2015 - 04:02 PM

I came from God. You came from a germ. I think I am more reasonable. There is no way in the short time frame of billions of years that something as fearfully and wonderfully made as you and I are evolved developed by small degrees. Impossible.
 

 

 

 

 

You think your God made me from a germ?  How strange.

 

Anyways, so I was correct about you, your position is immovable.  You lied about being receptive to instruction.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#30 shadowhawk

  • Guest, Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 14 July 2015 - 07:22 PM

 

 

From an eschatological point of view, 1798 and 1844 are two very important dates (particularly 1844) and as I stated before during this time strange and interesting things where taking place.

 

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned I am pretty sure I summed it up correctly. It says we developed by slow degrees from the lower life forms. If this has been revised please instruct me. You mention modern evolutionary synthesis and that you believe we did not come from germs.

 

I still hold to the point, however, that I am a descendant of Adam who was the son of God.

 

 

 

 

"Lower life forms" is not a scientific concept of evolution.  Sorry, you're just wrong there.  That's a remnant of the old Greek ladder of life concept and has been proven wrong over and over again more than a century ago.  But theists like to keep it because they like putting themselves at the top of this ladder.  

 

 

I don't believe you are as ready for instruction as you say, so I'm not going to spend the next half hour or so elaborating on the synthesis.

 

Creationists believe their interpretation of the Bible is right no matter what.  Their positions are absolutely immovable.  Of course this is not the most reasonable position to take.

 

Sense the topic starter has chosen to go off on this rabbit trail, I will be quiet except when you start to claim you understand creation or ID.  I have seen you do this before.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users