Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[Nathan Poe]

Not hardly -- you would need some extra cooperation, even from the Romans themselves; like the aforementioned visit of the Wise Men, the slaying of the children, the piercing of Jesus' side, and making sure "Jesus" was placed between the two thieves.

And for this man who played the part of the Messiah to die like that -- knowing it was a lie -- well, that just plain doesn't happen.

You really don't/don't want to get it, do you, AV -- I can show you how most, if not all of that, is liturgical interpretive myth, not history.

You, on the other hand, are stuck in your same myopic circle of, "It happened this way because it happened this way."

I'd feel sorry for you if I didn't think you'd get off on it -- martyr complex and all that.

 

[dad]

I keep clicking 'view post' in this thread just because your responses are so hilarious. (Also, you did post something of moderate use to support a point you tried to make, so I was hoping that would happen again...)

But I feel you almost grabbed onto the ledge of reality and then slipped hopeless back down into the depths of delusion.

Thanks for sharing. Hope that makes sense to someone.

 

[AV1611VET]

You really don't/don't want to get it, do you, AV -- I can show you how most, if not all of that, is liturgical interpretive myth, not history.

Go right ahead if you think you can; but remember, you asked us to explain this stuff to you; so if you think we're even remotely interested in your version, just wait until we ask for it -- okay?

Otherwise, we just might think your 'innocent' question was nothing more than a veiled lead-in to espouse your own doctrine.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes. Their not knowing means, well, that they do not know! People in that position need to learn to be quiet.

People in the position of not knowing need to investigate so that they DO know. If you just sit and be quiet when you do not know, you will be forever ignorant.

False! God is something! Therefore life came from Something. Since all we now see is what we conceive of as something, naturally, it would not have come from that stuff. Elementary.

If God is something, then he either came from nothing or was always there.

If something came from nothing, then we can apply the same to the universe and hence have no need for God.

If something was always there, then we can also apply that to the universe and claim that it existed in some form before the Big Bang.

Ha! So as long as evolution says nothing about how life got here, it has some germ of truth. However, it DOES say plenty that depends on present state laws existing, to set the rates of evolving, and timeframe involved! That means you must prove the state of the past, or it is all naught.

The world, when investigated, gives results that indicate that the law sof nature have always been much as they are (except for the first few seconds immediately after the Big Bang).

Do you have any testable evidence that the laws were ever any different to what they are now? Please provide it or admit that you are just guessing.

Also, if you include in your definition of evolution a first lifeform, then you are in troubled water indeed. Do you? Where do you draw the line?

Why not? Since you are just believing, there are few rules.

I accept based on evidence. i do not believe based on faith.

Yes. As I said, the lion in the millennium, as well as the wolf, and etc, will eat grass or straw. The end of the tribulation is when that period starts. There is no long ages for wolves and etc to evolve, it has to be fast! The evidence we see also supports this. After the flood, man had his skin pigmented and many other adaptations to the sun, and cold. The time frame for the flood makes it impossible for the evolving to have happened slow.

And this has actually happened? Wow. I guess I must have been busy that day, because I completely missed it! did you take any photos of this remarkable change of diet?

Oh, wait, you are making guesses about the future, aren't you? This hasn't actually happened yet! if it hasn't happened yet, how can you cite it as proof?

You can't use science of the here and now do deal in that can you? Apply that to the past, and you will see where you stand.

What nonsense is this I see before me?

 

[Tiberius]

Just replace "evolutionary theory" with "chance". That's only materialism. If you people were just going to ask people to accept materialistic doctrine then don't go through all the trouble of attaching "theory" to it and think that that distinguishes it from any other materialistic request.

Evolution is not chance. Now go and write it a hundred times so you actually learn it.

 

[1611AV]

Got any Biblical or secular evidence for that, or are you guessing?

I have just as much evidence as you have regarding the man. You should move on with some other thing because you got nothing here that I have not heard before. There simply is not enough solid historical fact about him to make any concrete agrument.

What else do you have?

 

[1611AV]

What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

 

[1611AV]

Evolution is not chance. Now go and write it a hundred times so you actually learn it.

Isn’t it true that, rather than “proofs” of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are “evidences” for evolution to someone who already believes in it?

 

[1611AV]

if you actually have some sort of interest in truth.I wonder why you are so pleased with that utterly false and misleading "cartoon"?

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?

 

[Gracchus]

We (!) take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

Variation is random. Selection is not. This has been explained many times.
You may take biological symmetry for granted, but geneticists didn't take it for granted. Scientists are funny that way. They went and found the basis of bilateral and radial symmetries.

I won't bother to post a link, because you wouldn't follow it, and anyone who wants a citation can easily search it out on the net.

 

[rjc34]

Actually? Yes! You may take it for granted, but geneticists didn't take it for granted. Scientists are funny that way. They went and found the basis of bilateral and radial symmetries.

I won't bother to post a link, because you wouldn't follow it, and anyone who wants a citation can easily search it out on the net.

Sad, but true. We assert a fact and back it up with a source, and then get called liars, because they won't visit the source, or don't care.

 

[1611AV]

Variation is random. Selection is not. This has been explained many times.
You may take biological symmetry for granted, but geneticists didn't take it for granted. Scientists are funny that way. They went and found the basis of bilateral and radial symmetries.

I won't bother to post a link, because you wouldn't follow it, and anyone who wants a citation can easily search it out on the net.

Man has been trying to scratch his own back for a long time, I wish evolution would give us our tales back.

 

[rjc34]

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?

Those aren't 'bases of evolution'. You're taking Kent Hovind style stuff here man, I thought you were above that. All evolution describes is the origin of species, how we came to be. It makes no claims as to the origins of anything else. Those are irrelevant to the theory. This is what we observe happens, it's fact. You can claim whatever you like about the rest, but it doesn't change the theory. And we'd also appreciate you stop making straw men about us.

 

[1611AV]

Those aren't 'bases of evolution'. You're taking Kent Hovind style stuff here man, I thought you were above that. All evolution describes is the origin of species, how we came to be. It makes no claims as to the origins of anything else. Those are irrelevant to the theory. This is what we observe happens, it's fact. You can claim whatever you like about the rest, but it doesn't change the theory. And we'd also appreciate you stop making straw men about us.

Kent has that right and I will not put any work into a post non deserving. Hence the Hovind quote. Funny we creationists are scalded when using our fellow believers work but you all can use all the Darwin you want.

One other thing that must be said. Anyone who believes or takes on ToE must take on evolution in its entirety. As Bible Believing Christians , we are asked to provide evidence from origin to end. ToE hide within a narrow compartmentalized study that dares not go to the origin of the theory.

You believe things evolve? Show us how it all started. Or show us something evolving right now that we can observe. ToE can do neither yet mocks Creation. As Hovind says, ToE is as much a religion as any other.

As far as strawmen. I dont say that. I say Thus Sayeth the Lord!

 

[Hespera]

Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?

"Evolutionists" so called by the creationists, constitute the entire scientific and educated community of the world not excluding christians; minus a few christian cultists. Tryin' to swing a mighty big loop there pard, you dont have it in you.

So, "rejection of the supernatural" is not a necessary nor a relevant component of said theory. You'd have to explain to the christian professors and students at the U here how they reject the supernatural (god).

i think they'd find you quite tiresome and utterly unconvincing.

The "three main bases" so called by you, of evolution are your invention.
you could compact it a bit to 2; origin of the universe and origin of life.
(matter and energy are phases of the same thing anyway, didnt you know)
But of course, they are not bases at all, its just you claiming falsely that they are.

Finally of course, by your invented standard, no theory of any sort is any good, because of course we dont know the origin of the universe. Out go all theories in physics, chemistry, aerodynamics,you name it.

Originally Posted by Hespera

if you actually have some sort of interest in truth.I wonder why you are so pleased with that utterly false and misleading "cartoon"?
​

So there you go, giving us more falsehoods as a non-response to why... if you actually have some sort of interest in truth... you go about promoting falsehood.

Maybe you should bring this up with your conscience, should you find it somewhere about.

 

[dad]

People in the position of not knowing need to investigate so that they DO know. If you just sit and be quiet when you do not know, you will be forever ignorant.

At least you would know you are ignorant. That might be a start.

If God is something, then he either came from nothing or was always there.

Your rule. Not His.

As far as us and our world and universe goes, He was always there. That's all you need to know.

If something came from nothing, then we can apply the same to the universe and hence have no need for God.

Nothing came from nothing. Everything else came from something else..

If something was always there, then we can also apply that to the universe and claim that it existed in some form before the Big Bang.

That depends, are we talking about the first something, or the second something? Can you define something? Anything!?

The world, when investigated, gives results that indicate that the law sof nature have always been much as they are (except for the first few seconds immediately after the Big Bang).

We interup this post for a fable...

...now back to the thread folks...

Do you have any testable evidence that the laws were ever any different to what they are now? Please provide it or admit that you are just guessing.

What do you propose testing the former laws WITH, our laws!?

I accept based on evidence. i do not believe based on faith.

So where is the evidence for a first life form? Oh, you take that by faith??

And this has actually happened? Wow. I guess I must have been busy that day, because I completely missed it! did you take any photos of this remarkable change of diet?

The one that hasn't happened yet, or the one that happened in Noah's day?

Oh, wait, you are making guesses about the future, aren't you? This hasn't actually happened yet! if it hasn't happened yet, how can you cite it as proof?

No. I am reading. I leave the guesses to science.

What nonsense is this I see before me?

That would be up to you to deal with first, before announcing it as something. Is that too much to ask??

 

[Tiberius]

Isn’t it true that, rather than “proofs” of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are “evidences” for evolution to someone who already believes in it?

No.

One could say that i can't prove you are using a computer, all I can do is provide evidence that works only so long as you already believe.

 

[Tiberius]

At least you would know you are ignorant. That might be a start.

And that's why scientists investigate reality. So that they lose their ignorance and gain wisdom and knowledge. The truthfullness of this knowledge is shown when they can use it to figure out what will happen before it actually happens.

Scientists can use their knowledge about relativity to figure out how things move. And then when they test it, their predictions are shown to be accurate.

Same thing with evolution.

Your rule. Not His.

My rules are based on reality. Yours are based on an old book written by people who didn't understand the world and had to invoke gods to explain whatever they didn't understand.

As far as us and our world and universe goes, He was always there. That's all you need to know.

Unsupported claim. meaningless.

Nothing came from nothing. Everything else came from something else..

You are ignorant of quantum mechanics then.

That depends, are we talking about the first something, or the second something? Can you define something? Anything!?

Let's see you define God first.

We interup this post for a fable...

...now back to the thread folks...

How did you get so skillful at condescension?

What do you propose testing the former laws WITH, our laws!?

Ah, so let me get this straight...

You claim that the laws which currently operate in this universe did not always operate the way they do now. But anything which might provide proof is conveniently missing because when tested with the laws we actually understand, reality gives results that are exactly what we expect from a universe where the laws that we understand have pretty much always operated.

Are you familiar with a self-fulfilling delusion?

So where is the evidence for a first life form? Oh, you take that by faith??

No, it's a logical conclusion given that there was a time when there was no life on earth and now there is.

The one that hasn't happened yet, or the one that happened in Noah's day?

Ah, the story or the fervent wish. Take your pick. Show me evidence of both!

No. I am reading. I leave the guesses to science.

Given that science has been able to consistantly produce results and creationism has yet to produce any demonstratable benefit, I guess that means that science has been pretty lucky, wouldn't you!

That would be up to you to deal with first, before announcing it as something. Is that too much to ask??

I'm not dealing with your nonsense. Science deals very well with the here and now.

 

[dad]

And that's why scientists investigate reality. So that they lose their ignorance and gain wisdom and knowledge.

Sounds noble and glorious. Too bad what they really do is spout myths and dream up Satanic godless pasts.

The truthfullness of this knowledge is shown when they can use it to figure out what will happen before it actually happens.

They can swim in the fishbowl, but not very far. You impress too easily.

Scientists can use their knowledge about relativity to figure out how things move. And then when they test it, their predictions are shown to be accurate.

Example, especially one that involves testing something from the age of Noah??

Same thing with evolution.

I'll say!

My rules are based on reality. Yours are based on an old book written by people who didn't understand the world and had to invoke gods to explain whatever they didn't understand.

Excellent...so what are your rules exactly?

You are ignorant of quantum mechanics then.

Well every person on earth is ignorant of what you want to say about them. That would be because you said NOTHING yet, just mouthed the words..quantum mechanics! get serious. Do you think we impress that easily????

Let's see you define God first.

He is awesome. Wonderful. Spiritual. Merciful, loving, kind, patient, just, smart, ....need more??

How did you get so skillful at condescension?

Got tired of being lied to I guess.

Ah, so let me get this straight...

You claim that the laws which currently operate in this universe did not always operate the way they do now. But anything which might provide proof is conveniently missing because when tested with the laws we actually understand, reality gives results that are exactly what we expect from a universe where the laws that we understand have pretty much always operated.

You are close on this! But let's stick to what you do know. That doesn't happen to include what state the earth was in.

Are you familiar with a self-fulfilling delusion?

No. Tell us all about it. Do you get a rush from it??

No, it's a logical conclusion given that there was a time when there was no life on earth and now there is.

Prove it. What time was that, and how would you know exactly? Or do you just like saying stuff?

Given that science has been able to consistantly produce results and creationism has yet to produce any demonstratable benefit, I guess that means that science has been pretty lucky, wouldn't you!

No. I would say it is able to bump it's silly head on various sides of the present state fishbowl. I give credit where credit is due.

I'm not dealing with your nonsense. Science deals very well with the here and now.

So? The creation didn't happen here. Get a grip.

 

[Tiberius]

Sounds noble and glorious. Too bad what they really do is spout myths and dream up Satanic godless pasts.

Did you get that from a Chick Tract?

They can swim in the fishbowl, but not very far. You impress too easily.

One of Doctor Phil's?

Example, especially one that involves testing something from the age of Noah??

What, you want me to invent a time machine and go back in time do you?

I'll say!

Nothing that you say regarding evolution has any merit or redeeming qualities to it.

Excellent...so what are your rules exactly?

The observable laws that govern the behaviour of the universe.

And yours?

Well every person on earth is ignorant of what you want to say about them. That would be because you said NOTHING yet, just mouthed the words..quantum mechanics! get serious. Do you think we impress that easily????

I'm not going to explain quantum mechanics to you. Do your own homework. I'm not your mum.

He is awesome. Wonderful. Spiritual. Merciful, loving, kind, patient, just, smart, ....need more??

My girlfriend would say the same things about me.

Got tired of being lied to I guess.

So you admit to being condescending then?

You are close on this! But let's stick to what you do know. That doesn't happen to include what state the earth was in.

My analysis of your position is correct.

No. Tell us all about it. Do you get a rush from it??

A self fulfilling delusion is one where a crazy story is told, and any attempt to find flaw in it is explained in such a way that it is impossible to verify.

For example, you claim that the laws of the universe were different a long time ago, yet there is no evidence for this. Any time someone says, "But if you were right, wouldn't we see such-and-such?" you immediately respond with, "No, we wouldn't see it because of this thing!" You explain away every little problem with nonsense in a way to make your story unverifiable.

Evolution, on the other hand, has a ton of evidence. And you, with your self-fulfilling delusion, must try to explain why that evidence doesn't count.

Prove it. What time was that, and how would you know exactly? Or do you just like saying stuff?

You are incapable of recognising logic. So how could you make any comment about proof?

No. I would say it is able to bump it's silly head on various sides of the present state fishbowl. I give credit where credit is due.

You are the one in a fishbowl. You swim around with a reality planted by others, fed from an old book of stories, while on the other side of the glass is all reality that is forever separated from you.

So? The creation didn't happen here. Get a grip.

*Gasp!!!* The creation didn't happen here? Butbut... This is EARTH! If the creation didn't happen on Earth, where did it happen? Mars, perhaps?