Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Loudmouth]

A HUGE amount of research has gone into trying to figure out how farming spread from the middle east to Europe. Noah was simply the first to take his whole farm / show on the road or ark as the case maybe. Natural grains are spread by the wind. With artificial selection the gains have to be gathered and stored and transported. If you want to take Noah and rip his page out of the history book then tell me what you got that you want to replace it with. Good luck getting rid of Noah sense his story is so ingrained and wide spread in so many areas of the world.

Where did you show that Noah spread farming?

 

[HitchSlap]

Of course we do: oxytocin and vasopressin are the love hormones.

I'm aware. You need to tell Edmund this.

 

[HitchSlap]

Love is just an example. So, no, your toolbox is not okay, it's way too small and limited. You are out of your league, and you have some strange idea that the majors should come play in your minor sandlot. It ain't going to happen. So, take the "example", or leave it, but you are not going to get anywhere agreeing with yourself.

Nor you, making up metaphysical woo-woo. I'm willing to accept that which can be demonstrably verified. Until then, feel free to keep piling it on, and I'll keep my boots and shovel nearby.

 

[ScottA]

Nor you, making up metaphysical woo-woo. I'm willing to accept that which can be demonstrably verified. Until then, feel free to keep piling it on, and I'll keep my boots and shovel nearby.

That's so like you...so earthy...like boots and shovel would be just the thing!

 

[HitchSlap]

That's so like you...so earthy...like boots and shovel would be just the thing!

Well, one of us has to demonstrate a little reason, might as well be me.

 

[ScottA]

Well, one of us has to demonstrate a little reason, might as well be me.

Aah, now you're just asking for it. "Demonstrate" reason? Really? You got no "evidence!" You haven't done it yet, why start now?

 

[HitchSlap]

Aah, now you're just asking for it. "Demonstrate" reason? Really? You got no "evidence!" You haven't done it yet, why start now?

Correct. I have no evidence for your claims, and neither do you. See, easy peasy being reasonable.
You should try it sometime.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Where did you show that Noah spread farming?

You are a biologist not a historian right? We are talking about the neolithic revolution, where it began and HOW it spread to Europe. IF you can not pack the show up and put it on the road then how did farming spread from the Middle East to Europe?

 

[Davian]

You got no "evidence!" You haven't done it yet, why start now?

 

[ScottA]

Correct. I have no evidence for your claims, and neither do you. See, easy peasy being reasonable.
You should try it sometime.

No, no, no. You don't get to turn it around on me. We were talking about YOU this time, not being able to demonstrate you being reasonable. You [YOU] got no proof!

 

[Smidlee]

Not true. One can indeed "know" what another does not. And given the nature of the subject, your idea of "demonstration" would not work anyway. For instance (and I am sure this has been said to you a thousand times) if one were to "demonstrate" love, the demonstration does nothing to show the kind of demonstrable evidence that you are asking for. Your toolbox is lacking.

Also you can only know what you already know. You can demonstrate all you want to your dog how to build an automobile and how to build house and it won't do a bit of good. Yet a dog understands finger pointing, even though it has no fingers, better than an ape. Hmmmm.
A baby come into this world with the ability to understand the world and it's designs around it. The baby automatically tries to make sense of the noise coming out of his/hers mother mouth. Language.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, no, no. You don't get to turn it around on me. We were talking about YOU this time, not being able to demonstrate you being reasonable. You [YOU] got no proof!

It's perfectly reasonable to reject your metaphysical woo-woo claims. See, "proof," right before your very eyeballs.

 

[ScottA]

It's perfectly reasonable to reject your metaphysical woo-woo claims. See, "proof," right before your very eyeballs.

I see it...but your describing God as metaphysical woo-woo, is more likely proof that you are not from this planet.

 

[HitchSlap]

I see it...but your describing God as metaphysical woo-woo, is more likely proof that you are not from this planet.

More like, your description of god. See the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Calling me ignorant. Is an insult.

No, you are simply over sensitive. We are all ignorant in certain topics. You are clearly ignorant in science. But fear not! Education can cure ignorance.

Never disagreed with this. That doesn't prove Evolutionary change. My fathers descendants were human, as I am human.

And ape of course. If you go back far enough your ancestors were not humans. And you seemed to have a problem with this when you implied that vertebrates and mammals were the same group. Just as your grandfather's descendants are larger than your fathers descendants, vertebrates is a bigger group than mammals. The purpose of the line of descent was to show that there was no "change in kind".

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.
Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.
We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began with and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.
Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.

Wrong, you are simply misunderstanding evolution as Darwin conceived. Once again there is no change of kinid in evolution. The offspring of vertebrates will always be vertebrates. Some of our terms right now are incorrect. Clades are monophyletic. Terms that are not monophyletic will result in confusion among non-scientists.

There you go...definition of Kind. Try to keep it short...but not easy to do.

Wait, were you trying to define "kind" there? You did not do so. You gave some weak examples. I like my definition better. It works.

As I have said earlier. I've told you the evidence...creation...is the evidence, you just don't accept that. Can't help you there.

Sorry, you do not understand the concept of evidence. Since this is a scientific discussion it only makes sense to use scientific evidence. If you don't have a testable (which means falsifiable) hypothesis you don't have evidence. What reasonable test would falsify your acceptance of creationism?



[qoute]]

Well, your correct...evolution isn't good enough...and that isn't good enough for many us to change from believing that God create things to this half way thing of good enough.[/quote]

When you are going to be this dishonest how do you expect people not to insult you? And remember, life is "good enough". It is clearly not "good".

Your also correct that life isn't good enough, That's why God is here, and why He sent His Son, because we, none of us are good.
But creation, nope that was perfect.

Gen 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Gen 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good
Gen 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day

So, Yeah, Creation is GOOD

You just contradicted yourself and you are also demonstrably wrong.

In 1993 Walter REMine's book "The Biotic Message"1 hit the street, bringing with it several devastating arguments against evolution that are still clamoring through the halls and smoke rooms of the evolutionary faithful. One of these arguments is based on a paper by J. B. S Haldane in 19572 that showed the reproductive capacity of vertebrates was way too low to pay the costs needed to account for large-scale evolution. This problem is referred to as Haldane's dilemma.

Don't say foolish things that are not true. No one is paying that bit of idiocy the least bit of attention. The book is simply based on a false premise. No real biologist has any concern about those claims.

It exist, just you evolution believers, don't want it to exist.

No, it was refuted long ago. Please, you are just making yourself look worse. And more ignorant by the way.

there is no scientific evidence that disproves God or disproving that He didn't create.

It depends upon which version of "God" that you believe in. If you believe that your God flooded the Earth that God has been refuted. I will get to the rest of your errors later.

 

[ScottA]

More like, your description of god. See the difference?

I am not following your dodge, but I do know the facts, and your not knowing them is evidenced in your own description. But then again, you even admit it.

But enough about us... I only started down this path because of the irony you expressed in using the term "reason." It is not reasonable to consider matters of God without going beyond the physical realm, or to demand physical proof of a non-physical entity. But that remains your ridiculous position.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is not reasonable to consider matters of God without going beyond the physical realm, or to demand physical proof of a non-physical entity.

Hold your horses, there partner. Please demonstrate how you have gone beyond the "physical realm."

P.S. This is the part in our interaction where you get to actually provide some evidence. Savvy?

 

[dad]

We have freedom to choose if we want to follow God or not. We can choose life, health and prosperity or we can choose death, sickness and poverty. That is the choice we all are given from God. People can choose to eat junk food that will make them sick or people can choose to eat healthy food and be healthy. God gives them that choice.

True. But as far as creation goes, there was no choice for us about what laws of nature would be in place in various times.

 

[dad]

Hold your horses, there partner. Please demonstrate how you have gone beyond the "physical realm."

P.S. This is the part in our interaction where you get to actually provide some evidence. Savvy?

The bible is spiritual words from a spiritual being that work in the spirit of man, aided by ministering spirits called angels at times. In all ways God is out of the fishbowl. In all ways God is out of the physical only realm.

 

[ScottA]

Hold your horses, there partner. Please demonstrate how you have gone beyond the "physical realm."

And how would you propose I demonstrate the non-physical part? [Rhetorical] See? You're doing it again...demanding what you are not prepared to receive. I am ready, able, and willing...but you are not.