God used Evolution to create man

[Loudmouth]

Exactly.

But I'm truelly wondering what he hopes to accomplish with such requests...
I mean, even if he doesn't accept evolution for whatever reason... he should at least be able to realise that to point out that we humans can't observe a process in person that takes millions of years, is as dishonest as it gets.

I can't for the life of me imagine that he actually believes that he is making any kind of valid point.

I consider this, in some way, to be even more "out there" then Kirk Cameron who asks for a crockoduck. A crockoduck request at least can be excused away by pointing to extreme ignorance of how evolution works in practice. But there's nobody here, not even die hard creationists, who do not know that according to the theory, evolution as a process takes a really long time to bring about such big changes.

So I'm left with only being able to conclude that he makes a dishonest and juvenile request on purpose.

I believe that in Christian jargon, this is called "bearing false witness". If not, it's borderlining it at least.

ED demands a time machine and millions of years of observations for evolution, all the while accepting creationism without a stitch of evidence. Did you expect a sane argument from ED?

 

[EternalDragon]

ED demands a time machine and millions of years of observations for evolution, all the while accepting creationism without a stitch of evidence. Did you expect a sane argument from ED?

Loudmouth, I would like to introduce to you our time machine:

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Loudmouth, I would like to introduce to you our time machine:

Out of curiosity, do you believe unicorns were on Noah's Ark? The KJV mentions them several times. My YEC friend explained to me how in her homeschool science class they learned about baby dinosaurs being on the ark, but I neglected to ask her about the unicorns.

 

[EternalDragon]

Out of curiosity, do you believe unicorns were on Noah's Ark? The KJV mentions them several times. My YEC friend explained to me how in her homeschool science class they learned about baby dinosaurs being on the ark, but I neglected to ask her about the unicorns.

Yes, they were and they are still around today. Here is what they look like.
Or looked like. There were different Rhino species that had one horn. Some
are extinct.



http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news/2013/06/tandem-horned-rhino-reveals-origin-unicorn

 

[lasthero]

Loudmouth, I would like to introduce to you our time machine:

That's just a book.

 

[EternalDragon]

That's just a book.

"A" book? You would be making an incorrect statement.

 

[madaz]

I think we just have two similar belief systems here that both center on believing something in a book. Because I know you sure did not ever see an ape turn into a human or a dinosaur turn into a bird. You only believe it on faith.

There is a difference between believing in a book supported by hard evidence and a book that is not. The belief system required for each is incomparable.

We don't see evolution actually happening in the same sense we don't observe an hour hand on a clock move. Only after time has elapsed do we observe the change.

 

[EternalDragon]

There is a difference between believing in a book supported by hard evidence and a book that is not. The belief system required for each is incomparable.

We don't see evolution actually happening in the same sense we don't observe an hour hand on a clock move. Only after time has elapsed do we observe the change.

But you weren't there to see where the "hour hand" was before. So you are only assuming change happened.

 

[madaz]

But you weren't there to see where the "hour hand" was before. So you are only assuming change happened.

Assumption isn't required because the evidence of where the "hour hand" was before, is still present now.

 

[lasthero]

"A" book? You would be making an incorrect statement.

No, I'm not. A book, even if it has a bunch of other books in it, is still consider a singular book. Like, if you put the Lord of the Ring and the Hobbit together in a single work, it wouldn't be considered two books, it would be one book. A 'book' is just a bunch of pages with written text on them strewn together. That's literally the definition of a book.

So, yes. The Bible is 'a' book.

At any rate, you're just talking semantics. The Bible is most certainly NOT a time machine, in even a figurative sense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Loudmouth, I would like to introduce to you our time machine:

So your "time machine" is a book written by humans and which has thousands of rivalling and mutually exclusive books written by other humans. You picked this one for entire arbitrary reasons (most likely, geographic convenience and / or cultural upbringing).

Great.

Our "timemachine" are the genes carried by every living thing and the bones in the ground. You know. Real evidence of which the existance and content isn't subject to cultural background or geographic convenience.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our "timemachine" are the genes carried by every living thing and the bones in the ground.

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

 

[PsychoSarah]

But you weren't there to see where the "hour hand" was before. So you are only assuming change happened.

You were not there for your own birth in any state in which you could remember it. So I guess considering that event have occurred is an assumption on your part

 

[DogmaHunter]

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

For the same reason a forensics detective examines a dead body and has autopsies performed.

To gather evidence.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

​

DH

For the same reason a forensics detective examines a dead body and has autopsies performed.

To gather evidence.

Or more simply: to learn. Good enough reason right there.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, I would like to introduce to you our time machine:

As others have mentioned, that is a book, not a time machine.

 

[florida2]

Luke 24:5b Why seek ye the living among the dead?

As opposed to ripping Bible verses out of context to try and shove them into conversations?

 

[EternalDragon]

You were not there for your own birth in any state in which you could remember it. So I guess considering that event have occurred is an assumption on your part

Actually no, as someone was there to see it that is still alive today.

 

[EternalDragon]

As others have mentioned, that is a book, not a time machine.

So in your world we can't know anything about history from a history book?

 

[Loudmouth]

So in your world we can't know anything about history from a history book?

We don't call something a history book when it conflicts with the evidence.

So in your world, we can't know anything about history from the scientific evidence?