Knowledge or Science, falsely so called.

[Neighbor]

3 hours ago, FJK said:

But can you define time without relying on time to define it?  Without time itself being necessary to use in the definition of time?

This sort of thing can get really interesting when you try to think it out.

I find myself buying into the reveals  by Gerald Schroeder.

[JohnR7]

7 hours ago, Who me said:

Evolution is based on the assumption that progress is through  random change.

Actually just the opposite. At the core of evolutionary theory is the concept of natural selection, which was proposed by Charles Darwin. Natural selection is a process by which organisms with certain advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those traits on to subsequent generations. This mechanism, along with other evolutionary processes such as genetic mutation and genetic drift, contributes to the gradual change and adaptation of species over time.

[Ray12614]

23 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

This is pretty much the case, and it can be a bit misleading. Gravity is also considered theoretical because of how little we know about its underlying mechanics. There's a lot about gravity we can clearly observe. When so called scientists put evolution under the same umbrella as gravity they're doing a disservice.

Somewhat true. I think the matter has been somewhat confused over the years because there's some truth to be found under the umbrella of what they call evolution. A lot of the things they call microevolution can be observed and repeated. Like if you got a bunch of cats with long hair together, bred them, and then only let the longhaired cats breed. Then when some of those cats had kittens that chanced into even longer fur you bred those together until the extra long fur became a dominant trait they would call that an example of microevolution.

There are problems with this. The first is that what they're calling microevolution has already been explained as genetics. The second is the assumption that because instances on the micro scale are true the macro scale must also be true. That's like saying "Because I can handle taking care of, feeding, and playing with large groups of housecats I can also handle large groups of lions." That sort of thought is considered a false equivalence, or in other words a logical fallacy.

I personally take a lot of "science" with a grain of salt these days. I don't throw it out the window entirely but a lot of it is going into the theoretical or it's just things being strung together to fit a particular narrative. Someone finds a whacky looking skeleton and it's "evidence" of a missing link and therefore "evidence" to support evolution. The thing is there are other potential explanations. The scientific community just doesn't want to explore them because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

Agreed . . . microevolution really is adaptation within species. What is missing in the evolution theory is evidence of one species evolving into another species. Horse becoming a dog etc. I remember an quote from Darwin saying that within 50 years evidence will be found of evolution from one species to another, OR . . . his theory will be invalid. At least Darwin knew evolution was an theory.

 

[FJK]

24 minutes ago, Ray12614 said:

Agreed . . . microevolution really is adaptation within species. What is missing in the evolution theory is evidence of one species evolving into another species. Horse becoming a dog etc. I remember an quote from Darwin saying that within 50 years evidence will be found of evolution from one species to another, OR . . . his theory will be invalid. At least Darwin knew evolution was an theory.

 

I don't think we've even been able to do that in the laboratory under intense and purposeful  intelligent direction yet (correct me if I'm wrong).

[teddyv]

The OP use of "science" (gnosis) in the quoted translation is equivocating on the modern use of the word. Based on the time and context of "gnosis", it is most likely related to the growing issue of Gnosticism, rather than a warning against modern scientific theories arising in the last 200 years.

 

 

 

[teddyv]

 

6 hours ago, Ray12614 said:

Agreed . . . microevolution really is adaptation within species. What is missing in the evolution theory is evidence of one species evolving into another species. Horse becoming a dog etc. I remember an quote from Darwin saying that within 50 years evidence will be found of evolution from one species to another, OR . . . his theory will be invalid. At least Darwin knew evolution was an theory.

 

A horse becoming a dog would disprove modern evolutionary theory. Anyone who tells you that is what evolutionary theory predicts or says is either woefully ignorant or deliberately lying to you.

Whatever Darwin said is completely irrelevant to whatever happened 50 years down the road.

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, FJK said:

I don't think we've even been able to do that in the laboratory under intense and purposeful  intelligent direction yet (correct me if I'm wrong).

We can't do that because that is not what biological evolution is.

[LiveWire]

On 6/2/2023 at 7:07 PM, Mr. M said:

1 Timothy 6:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Paul taught by the Holy Spirit. The Word of God by definition should prevail over the opposition from the ideas of man, and sciences, so called. Therefore, the prayers made on behalf of ministry outreach has to be directed towards the hearts of those who will hear the message. Prayer is an essential element of kingdom building. Assuming we can agree that prayer is submission first and foremost.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane, vain babblings and oppositions of falsely named knowledge,

21 which some professing concerning the faith have erred.

 

 

This Speaks about False Doctrine, like you, have falsely turned this Verse into!

 

Has nothing to do with worldly knowledge, only the knowledge that we don't have to go through Jesus to be with the Father.

[BeyondET]

38 minutes ago, LiveWire said:

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane, vain babblings and oppositions of falsely named knowledge,

21 which some professing concerning the faith have erred.

 

 

This Speaks about False Doctrine, like you, have falsely turned this Verse into!

 

Has nothing to do with worldly knowledge, only the knowledge that we don't have to go through Jesus to be with the Father.

The knowledge of making money. There's a science in being rich.

1 Timothy 6: is talking about false doctrines and those who have worldly knowledge of making money.

Edited June 4, 2023 by BeyondET

[LiveWire]

15 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

The knowledge of making money. There's a science in being rich.

1 Timothy 6: is talking about false doctrines and those who have worldly knowledge of making money.

There could several connections here to many sorts of things, but, the original Greek, does not use the word, Science, in this Verse.

That is planted by the OP.

That is deception.