Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have one of those.

I think I have been pretty consistent in stating that fact.



As posted previously - all of them are good and they all show that a diehard atheist evolutionist - a scientist, a well known scientist is pointing to some 'unflattering detail' where the true devotees usually want to sweep it all under the rug in the religionist's "all news is good news" fashion. You keep proving that point as you insist that these non-flattering statments surely surely must be in error - because... they..... are not ... flattering.

I don't mind that you are content to make my point.

Then by your standards the Bible says "There is no God" and you are being a hypocrite. You are also being a bit of a coward. I offered to take on your best one and you ran away from that offer. It shows me that you know that you have nothing.

 

[Hoghead1]

Amen to that, SubductionZone.

 

[Hoghead1]

Good point, SubductionZone. Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity represents a rich plurality of divergent and often conflicting POV's. The Emperor Julian complained that Christians were fighting like cats and dogs, and apparently thought of returning to Pagan beliefs, as they had less in-fighting. Troublesome as this can be, it's good, because it means you have freedom to choose. If one church doesn't work out, try another.

The notion that all professors of biblical studies are atheists is totally off the wall and inappropriate here, and shows BobR has not done his homework or ever taken a course I n biblical studies.

 

[BobRyan]

Amen to that, SubductionZone.

As I have said all along - those two views are the same.

in real life - even your own atheist evolutionists are saying things about evolutionism that scientists do not say about real science.



Karl Popper (atheist philosopher of science) wrote that natural selection is an all purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing. When attacked by evolutionism’s devotees for saying what he said, Popper wrote in his own defense:


“some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring” citing Fisher, Haldane, Simpson and others. (A Pocket Popper (1983) p242


Following this, the journal "Nature" came out with an article titled “How True is the Theory of Evolution?” in which the editors interpreted Karl Popper as having said that Darwinism is “both metaphysical and unfalsifiable” and then confessed that “This is technically correct ”


(Nature: Vol 290. p 75)

And then later tried to recover by adding the lame observation “the theory of evolution is not entirely without empirical support”.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is no more "atheistic" than the laws of thermodynamics, or the theory of gravity (GR in case you did not know).

Its gross 'equivocation' of that sort that will be the death of faith in evolutionism.

a. We can "SEE" gravity in the lab -- and so also for the laws of thermodynamics. So then -- no debate over that.
b. Evolutionism is a blind-faith fiction not at all reproducible in the lab. And that include the purely mechanical bits like abiogenesis that require NO zilliion-generations to get the magical mutation!! That's right even the most basic mechanical bits - amino acids -- are not observable self-organizing into existence in the lab!. So then "debate" follows.

Even among evolutionist atheists themselves -

So while we NEVER see top-level scientists saying "Gravity -- never happened in nature" or "laws of thermodynamics - never observed in nature" -- or "Gravity - only accepted on the basis of religion not science" . "law of Gravity - conveys anti-knowledge. Knowledge that is harmful to physics".

We never see top level scientists saying "I used to believe in the bible but then I found out that rocks fall to the ground due to gravity and I had to stop being a Christian"

YET - we CAN see those very things said about blind-faith-evolutionism EVEN by athiest scientists themselves!!.

sweeping the whole thing under a rug as if by doing so these little "inconvenient details" will never get noticed - is another fiction.

=============

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

========================

Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".

AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

REALLY?? That is what you see happening???

================

And we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

Much less claiming that it is a "tautology" as we saw here 8 minutes ago #1478

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its gross 'equivocation' of that sort that will be the death of faith in evolutionism.

a. We can "SEE" gravity in the lab -- and so also for the laws of thermodynamics. So then -- no debate over that.
b. Evolutionism is a blind-faith fiction not at all reproducible in the lab. And that include the purely mechanical bits like abiogenesis that require NO zilliion-generations to get the magical mutation!! That's right even the most basic mechanical bits - amino acids -- are not observable self-organizing into existence in the lab!. So then "debate" follows.

Even among evolutionist atheists themselves -

So while we NEVER see top-level scientists saying "Gravity -- never happened in nature" or "laws of thermodynamics - never observed in nature" -- or "Gravity - only accepted on the basis of religion not science" . "law of Gravity - conveys anti-knowledge. Knowledge that is harmful to physics".

We never see top level scientists saying "I used to believe in the bible but then I found out that rocks fall to the ground due to gravity and I had to stop being a Christian"

YET - we CAN see those very things said about blind-faith-evolutionism EVEN by athiest scientists themselves!!.

sweeping the whole thing under a rug as if by doing so these little "inconvenient details" will never get noticed - is another fiction.

Didn't I refute this nonsense already? Scientists say the exact same thing about the theory of evolution that they say about other sciences because it is observed in the lab. It is observed in nature. It is observed in the fossil record.

=============


<snip of unsupported quote mine.>

I see that you still have nothing. Please try to be honest. Unsupported quote mines are nothing. I offered to show how your favorite one is a lie and you ran away from that. That indicates that you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good point, SubductionZone. Christianity has never been a monolithic religion, just one way. Christianity represents a rich plurality of divergent and often conflicting POV's. The Emperor Julian complained that Christians were fighting like cats and dogs, and apparently thought of returning to Pagan beliefs, as they had less in-fighting. Troublesome as this can be, it's good, because it means you have freedom to choose. If one church doesn't work out, try another.

The notion that all professors of biblical studies are atheists is totally off the wall and inappropriate here, and shows BobR has not done his homework or ever taken a course I n biblical studies.

It seems that BobRyan is set on telling his God how he made the universe. It is amazing that he would treat his God so shabbily. As you know you don't have to ignore science to believe in God.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is no more "atheistic" than the laws of thermodynamics, or the theory of gravity (GR in case you did not know).

Its gross 'equivocation' of that sort that will be the death of faith in evolutionism.

a. We can "SEE" gravity in the lab -- and so also for the laws of thermodynamics. So then -- no debate over that.
b. Evolutionism is a blind-faith fiction not at all reproducible in the lab. And that include the purely mechanical bits like abiogenesis that require NO zilliion-generations to get the magical mutation!! That's right even the most basic mechanical bits - amino acids -- are not observable self-organizing into existence in the lab!. So then "debate" follows.

Even among evolutionist atheists themselves -

So while we NEVER see top-level scientists saying "Gravity -- never happened in nature" or "laws of thermodynamics - never observed in nature" -- or "Gravity - only accepted on the basis of religion not science" . "law of Gravity - conveys anti-knowledge. Knowledge that is harmful to physics".

We never see top level scientists saying "I used to believe in the bible but then I found out that rocks fall to the ground due to gravity and I had to stop being a Christian"

YET - we CAN see those very things said about blind-faith-evolutionism EVEN by athiest scientists themselves!!.

sweeping the whole thing under a rug as if by doing so these little "inconvenient details" will never get noticed - is another fiction.

=============

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:


Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians

"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"


"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...


"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

========================

Now on this thread we are being "told" to equivocate between blind faith evolutionism - and ... 'Gravity' and 'the law of thermodynamics'. AS IF our top scientists today ALSO come out saying "the law of thermodynamics conveys no knowledge.. in fact it seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge. apparent knowledge that is harmful to physics".

AS IF our top scientists today would say "Gravity --and the gravitational constant so near and dear to science text books today - NEVER HAPPENED in nature".

REALLY?? That is what you see happening???

================

And we saw that again in the case of the fraudulent horse series

"I admit that an awful lot of that [imaginary stories] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ..."
Niles Eldredge, as quoted in Luther D Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. 1988, pg 78.


"The uniform continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."—G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953), p. 119.

============================

The sorts of things world class scientists were not saying about gravity and thermodynamics in the 1980's and 1950's

Much less claiming that it is a "tautology" as we saw here 8 minutes ago #1478
===========================================

You have not shown ONE example of prominent scientists of the 20th century making similar disparaging remarks about math or physics or chemistry -- even though you start of claiming that evolutionism is at the same level.

So then via your own participation - I have PROVEN my point.

Didn't I refute this

no - you simply invented false accusations as if the mere act of falsely accusing someone is "evidence that you are right".

False accusations may substitute for truth in your imagination - but in real life that does not work.

I see that you still have nothing.

What I have is 'proof in real life' that prominent scientists cannot be found trashing math or physics as they do some embarassing detail in the junk-science second-rate religion of blind faith evolutionism.

[/quote] I offered to show how your favorite one is a lie [/quote]

And you were welcomed to have a shot at actually doing something along those lines. come up with something 'in real life' not just woulda-coulda ideas about the future.

But you ran away from that. That indicates that you know that you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

It seems that BobRyan is set on telling his God how he made the universe. .

More "fiction"??

You were already shown how your own atheist/agnostic professors view the statements in the Bible - declaring the historic account of all life on earth - origins... the doctrine on origins.

As already quoted in my previous post
Today at 10:27 AM #1434
-- as follows

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that BobRyan still has nothing. Bob, when you want to discuss your many and obvious mistakes I will be more than happy to help you to learn.

 

[46AND2]

More "fiction"??

You were already shown how your own atheist/agnostic professors view the statements in the Bible - declaring the historic account of all life on earth - origins... the doctrine on origins.

As already quoted in my previous post
Today at 10:27 AM #1434
-- as follows

for example - the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.

This point is irrefutable.

If that was really Barr's point, why would he, as the believer he was, write books describing how the fundamentalist interpretation of genesis is wrong?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is simply your factless accusation. Did you ever have the intent of demonstrating that it had an ounce of truth to it? I think we all would prefer you to post an actual fact on that point rather than more hollow accusations.

That is as easy as looking up the original source that quote is taken from. Why don't you do that yourself, and see if it is out of context or not? There is a way to type in a word or phrase so that your computer will mark each instance that it occurs, but I forget which function key it is DX

 

[spinner981]

I see that BobRyan still has nothing. Bob, when you want to discuss your many and obvious mistakes I will be more than happy to help you to learn.

But where is natural selection evolution supported in the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But where is natural selection evolution supported in the Bible?

Why do you think that there is a need for natural selection to be supported by the Bible? It exists we know this. Just as hula hoops exist, yet they are not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all of the knowledge of the world.

 

[spinner981]

Why do you think that there is a need for natural selection to be supported by the Bible? It exists we know this. Just as hula hoops exist, yet they are not mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does not contain all of the knowledge of the world.

Then whether theistic evolution is true or not is not a matter of faith in God or the Bible, but rather a matter of accepting or not accepting an evolutionary worldview as well as God and the Bible. Personally, I believe the Bible when it says God created a multitude of different kinds of organisms within a few days.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Then whether theistic evolution is true or not is not a matter of faith in God or the Bible, but rather a matter of accepting or not accepting an evolutionary worldview as well as God and the Bible. Personally, I believe the Bible when it says God created a multitude of different kinds of organisms within a few days.

this point of view does not cut it for me. The reason is, one cannot decide to trust the Bible like that unless one accepts evidence on behalf of the Bible. However, this means that evidence is primary and accepting the Bible is secondary to evidence. Therefore, evidence in favor of evolution has to be considered on its own merits, and evidence for evolution counts as evidence for how to consider one treats the Bible.

 

[-57]

Then whether theistic evolution is true or not is not a matter of faith in God or the Bible, but rather a matter of accepting or not accepting an evolutionary worldview as well as God and the Bible. Personally, I believe the Bible when it says God created a multitude of different kinds of organisms within a few days.

Perhaps for you it means nothing...but in reality Theo-Evoism doesn't explain how sin and death entered into the world without x-tra biblical thought. The account presented in Genesis and supported by other portions of scripture must be discarded and an unbiblical means inserted. You can do that with your bible if you want too, but I won't.

 

[Hoghead1]

The issue, Spinner981 is not whether the Bible is wrong or God is wrong or science is wrong or anything like that. The issue is whether the creation-science theory of God's relationship to Scripture is an accurate account of how God is related to Scripture. The other issue is deciding your model of God or picture of God as he is in his own nature. As I said in another post, there is not just one model in Christianity; there are two. The classical or traditional model came directly from Hellenic philosophy, not Scripture. Seeing God as essentially immutable or static, it did not allow for evolution. However, there is also a neo-classical model, which paints an entirely different picture of God. I could go into the rationale for it here, but will forego that for now. My basic point is that it is essentially a matter of deciding whether certain human-made, possible fallible theories about God and Scripture hold up, and if some don't, then deciding where do we go for a viable alternative.

 

[Hoghead1]

BobR, in that you label evolution as blind-faith fiction, you have convinced me you have no real idea how the academic world of science works. Universities follow a legalistic model where everyone is like an attorney making their case and talking it to court. Nothing is ever blindly accepted. You need to put that notion completely out of your head. If you publish a book or give a paper, first thing everyone does is go for the jugular vein, they want to find out what's wrong with your case, tear it to pieces. Ask me how I know. In this hypercritical-analytical world, there is no place for blind faith. If an idea is widely adapted, such as evolution is in modern science, it is because that idea passed more than enough challenges and probably has more than enough evidence in its favor.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't quite true, -57. TE has provided more than one excellent account of how sin has entered the world and why there is death. Also, much depends on how you are interpreting Genesis. Some Christians argue that it points to original sin. Others do not agree with that explanation for sin, and these others are not necessarily TE people. I don't know how to answer you, because I can only guess your hold with original sin, but am not sure.