What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[KWCrazy]

However, I am wondering if you ever asked your minister about 2 Sam. 21:19.

Actually, I posted much of Samuel 21, culminating with verse 22. These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men. Your absolute refusal to accept the Scriptures defies logic. Everything you say is so easily disproved a 12 year old can defeat your arguments. Seriously, I wonder if you actually think any of this through.

Also, I am wondering if you have bothered to look at Deut. 5, which omits any reference to God creating in six days.

Why would it? Moses is talking about the Commandments, not reading them verbatim. They were already recorded. It had already been established that they were written by God on the stone tablets, which were subsequently destroyed because of the disobedience of the people and restored by God.

For a Biblical scholar, everything you say is incorrect.

 

[KWCrazy]

`

You know, it goes without saying that you have some extremely strong opinions here. Now, our dialogue could be improved if I had a better understanding of the kinds of life experiences you have had that led you to such beliefs. So why not share some that you feel comfortable in sharing here?

You really don't want to know. You prefer to think of yourself as intellectually superior to those of us who have come to realize that the ultimate truth of the universe lies with the Creator of that universe; not its composition. You believe that the classes you took which were taught by those who doubt the Word are somehow more enlightening than the hours we've spent interacting with actual experts who love the word as much as they love the Lord. To you angels and demons are the musings of ancient, unsophisticated goat herders, but to those of us who have actually encountered them they are absolutely real. To you the opinions of science professors count for more than the Creator of the Universe. The most important thing to learn about science is its limitations. It can only study the physical world. It can neither prove nor disprove anything supernatural. If God chose to make another world exactly like this one in ever detail he could do so. Science would probably call that world millions of years old as well.

 

[Hoghead1]

By now it's very clear to everyone that you are NOT a Biblical scholar because you have no comprehension whatever of what is written. You are so blinded by your determination to disprove the Bible that you completely ignore the chronology of events. Seriously, if you're going to pretend to be an expert, do a little more homework first. You really embarrassed yourself.

Why don't you do more homework? Did you look at Deut. 5 and compare it with Exod.20? If you do that, you will easily see that you are embarrassing yourself here. Anyhow we're getting way off topic here.
What do you want me to do? Post my resume, transcripts, sample syllabus, published writing sample, and three letters of reference? If you don't believe I am who I say I am, that is your problem, stemming from your total ignorance about the world of biblical scholarship. The mess is in your head., It's up to you to fix it. I see absolutely no need for me to justify myself to you here. If you don't believe something I have said about the Bible, OK. Then shake a leg and go see for yourself. Go see what the recognized major experts on Scripture have to say. I've already given you one name. I am sure you can google all sorts of solid material.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually, I posted much of Samuel 21, culminating with verse 22. These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men. Your absolute refusal to accept the Scriptures defies logic. Everything you say is so easily disproved a 12 year old can defeat your arguments. Seriously, I wonder if you actually think any of this through.

Why would it? Moses is talking about the Commandments, not reading them verbatim. They were already recorded. It had already been established that they were written by God on the stone tablets, which were subsequently destroyed because of the disobedience of the people and restored by God.

For a Biblical scholar, everything you say is incorrect.

I wonder if you read anything I said. Again, I said the "brother of" is not in the original Hebrew. That was added in when later translators tampered with the texts. That is why the Revised English Bible, 1989, Cambridge University Press, omits the "brother of," so that the translation of 2 Sam 21:19 reads exactly as in the original Hebrew and therefore is best rendered into English as, " In another campaign against the Philistines in Gob, Elhanan, son of Jair of Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, whose spear had a shaft like a weaver's beam," p. 279. Also , get busy, open your Bible and read the description of the Ten Commandments in Deut. 5. you will see that is no reference there to God creating in six days. Exod. 20, yes; Deut. 5, no. I would appear that you are the one who doesn't know your Bible and is stubbornly refusing to fact the facts. Also, you are obsessing over an issue that is way, way off topic.

 

[Hoghead1]

Actually, I posted much of Samuel 21, culminating with verse 22. These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men. Your absolute refusal to accept the Scriptures defies logic. Everything you say is so easily disproved a 12 year old can defeat your arguments. Seriously, I wonder if you actually think any of this through.

Why would it? Moses is talking about the Commandments, not reading them verbatim. They were already recorded. It had already been established that they were written by God on the stone tablets, which were subsequently destroyed because of the disobedience of the people and restored by God.

For a Biblical scholar, everything you say is incorrect.

O.S. If you have a KJV Bible handy, look up 2 Sam. 21:19. You will find that the expression "brother of " is set off in italics. That is the translator's way of indicating that he is adding in something not found in the original.

 

[Hoghead1]

`

You really don't want to know. You prefer to think of yourself as intellectually superior to those of us who have come to realize that the ultimate truth of the universe lies with the Creator of that universe; not its composition. You believe that the classes you took which were taught by those who doubt the Word are somehow more enlightening than the hours we've spent interacting with actual experts who love the word as much as they love the Lord. To you angels and demons are the musings of ancient, unsophisticated goat herders, but to those of us who have actually encountered them they are absolutely real. To you the opinions of science professors count for more than the Creator of the Universe. The most important thing to learn about science is its limitations. It can only study the physical world. It can neither prove nor disprove anything supernatural. If God chose to make another world exactly like this one in ever detail he could do so. Science would probably call that world millions of years old as well.

Yeah, sure. Same old, same old fundamentalist ideological nonsense.

 

[Shemjaza]

So, how many mutations are needed to pull the human intelligence apart from the chimp's?

Quite a few, but six million years is a long time.

 

[juvenissun]

Quite a few, but six million years is a long time.

The goalpost is drifting. But it is OK.
What you said is exactly where the idea of evolution failed, but on the other end. It suggests the evolution is process is toooo fast on the scale of geological time. If intelligence evolved that fast, then we should have a supper super smart ameba.

 

[Shemjaza]

The goalpost is drifting. But it is OK.
What you said is exactly where the idea of evolution failed, but on the other end. It suggests the evolution is process is toooo fast on the scale of geological time. If intelligence evolved that fast, then we should have a supper super smart ameba.

I don't know what you mean by goal posts shifting as you have never presented any evidence.

How is six million years too long or too short?

Yesterday you didn't even believe that intelligence was from the brain!

 

[juvenissun]

I don't know what you mean by goal posts shifting as you have never presented any evidence.

How is six million years too long or too short?

Yesterday you didn't even believe that intelligence was from the brain!

Intelligence to brain is the same as life to heart.

 

[Shemjaza]

Intelligence to brain is the same as life to heart.

A machine can keep life going without a heart. And a different human heart cut from a corpse can be inserted.

Remove the brain and life and intelligence are gone forever.

 

[juvenissun]

A machine can keep life going without a heart. And a different human heart cut from a corpse can be inserted.

Remove the brain and life and intelligence are gone forever.

No. Life always exist. So is intelligence.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hmmm, yes, well, as I said in an earlier post, it would appear to be the case that you, as a Christian fundamentalist, are bound for Heaven, whereas us "eviloution" people are bound for Hell. Big deal, so what? Under the circumstances, I'm glad I'm gong to Hell, because I can hobnob with a better-educated, higher-class clientele. I'll be able to meet up with all those major biblical scholars, who, fluent in Hebrew, pointed out that the Hebrew text omits "brother of." I'll be able to dialogue with all those scholars into the Higher Criticism, who dispute the inerrancy of Scripture. Yep. Hell will be a real intellectually stimulating venture for me.

To be fair, it is rather rare for you to post actual bible quotes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So, how many mutations are needed to pull the human intelligence apart from the chimp's?

The type of experiment it would take to try to test that would likely be illegal. However, given the variety of ways that different mutations and combinations of them can have the same result, this question is nonsensical. You also ask the question as if the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was as intelligent as a chimpanzee or had the same genes associated with it, which is rather silly.

 

[Hoghead1]

To be fair, it is rather rare for you to post actual bible quotes.

To be fair, I don't feel that is always necessary. If anything, firing away biblical quotes can be a bad, immature thing to do in a theological discussion. What happens is that it ends up in a big biblical-quotes war, with both sides firing off quotes at the other. That ignores the fact that often the issue is how on interprets the Bible and the quote fired off. Also, no one ever won or lost a theological argument by citing Scripture, by arguing, "But, man, that is what the Bible says."

 

[PsychoSarah]

To be fair, I don't feel that is always necessary. If anything, firing away biblical quotes can be a bad, immature thing to do in a theological discussion. What happens is that it ends up in a big biblical-quotes war, with both sides firing off quotes at the other. That ignores the fact that often the issue is how on interprets the Bible and the quote fired off. Also, no one ever won or lost a theological argument by citing Scripture, by arguing, "But, man, that is what the Bible says."

No, I think it is far more convincing to have a paragraph or so worth of scripture quoted to demonstrate it actually says what you claim rather than just claim it says something.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, I think it is far more convincing to have a paragraph or so worth of scripture quoted to demonstrate it actually says what you claim rather than just claim it says something.

Well, the issue here is essentially the Genesis account. We all agree on that. I do think that Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies, and I know I have posted x number of times a specific rundown on Genesis to support what I say. When the issue came up about Goliath, I pointed out that I am going on the original Hebrew text, not the translation. Since another member does not believe me here, there is little I can do, except suggest they contact the recognized experts on the Hebrew texts. Also, note, going beyond Genesis really gets us off teh topic here. It's easy to wander off topic. I have to continually remind myself of that here.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, the issue here is essentially the Genesis account. We all agree on that.

Maybe everyone debating in this thread that is a believer does, but not every believe on this site does, and one of them might jump into the conversation.

I do think that Genesis provides two conflicting chronologies, and I know I have posted x number of times a specific rundown on Genesis to support what I say.

I retract my maybe in my previous part of responding to this. You not only aren't interacting solely with people that think that, but I would go as far as to say that this is a pretty dividing issue amongst the Christians on here, even some of the more moderate ones.

When the issue came up about Goliath, I pointed out that I am going on the original Hebrew text, not the translation.

All the more reason to quote it and, if you can, translate it to the best of your ability, or find a good online translation. Quoting it next to the more common English translations would also be helpful.

Since another member does not believe me here, there is little I can do, except suggest they contact the recognized experts on the Hebrew texts.

Actually, having the English and directly translated Hebrew side by side would be very helpful in defending your position, given that the similarities between the two should help to display your honesty. I also have a friend that can read the Hebrew herself and confirm that what you say is accurate. College is a great place to find intellectually diverse friends.

Also, note, going beyond Genesis really gets us off teh topic here. It's easy to wander off topic. I have to continually remind myself of that here.

Not necessarily, given that parts of Genesis are referenced in many other parts of the bible, and that there are multiple stories and parts of stories in the bible that, if assumed literally true, clash with the theory of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

The type of experiment it would take to try to test that would likely be illegal. However, given the variety of ways that different mutations and combinations of them can have the same result, this question is nonsensical. You also ask the question as if the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees was as intelligent as a chimpanzee or had the same genes associated with it, which is rather silly.

Yes, it is very silly.
Because intelligence can not be evolved.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, it is very silly.
Because intelligence can not be evolved.

In some instances it can't even be developed.