Could someone explain me evolution & Big Bang?

[Justatruthseeker]

The church has long felt?

Well, of course the CHURCH is going to say that. Do you think they might have a reason to be bias? Remember, they are the church and they have motivation to keep people believing what they want them to believe. That is the equivalent of asking tobacco companies 20 years ago whether cigarettes were bad for you.

In regards to Bart Ehrmann, he is arguably the most highly credentialed NT scholar around. The problem with him is, he went from a fundamentalist christian and a pastor, to a more liberal christian, to an agnostic and that raises all kinds of hairs on the neck of conservative scholars who don't like anyone raising the obvious issues he has with the credibility of the NT.

So, don't read Ehrman, read moderate scholars who are neither conservative or liberal and they will raise many of the same issues that Ehrman does and they will virtually all say the same about the unknown authors of the gospels (disagreeing with your church) and they will be in the same ballpark in regards to dates.

Lastly, their are only 3 areas that the vast majority of historians/scholars have consensus on when it comes to Jesus:

-He was a real person
-He was baptized
-He was crucified

Beyond that, they are all over the place in disagreement and many have serious doubts as to what Jesus did or said, as explained in the gospels.

Back to my double standard. Many christians kick and scream when objective criticism of their holy book is pointed out and they put their fingers in their ears, or go running to the church's view or anyone that will tell them it is all bunk, but they have no evidence or logic to support their claim, while historians doing proper work, rely on evidence. Then, they spend time trying so desperately to split every hair in scientific findings, to discredit the same (at least in their own mind), all while crying foul when their book is looked at objectively.

Just as evolutionists have a reason to be biased. They have careers, reputations, funding projects to secure. They are going to say whatever they need to say to make sure they get that next years funding, and one does not do that by going against popular theory, whether it is wrong or right.

many evolutionists kick and scream when objective criticism of their holy religion of evolution is pointed out as well. The facts can point to one thing, and they will tell you no, it's not that way, even when it is.

CCR5 a prime example. I don't know how many times evolutionists keep trumpeting it as a proven example of positive mutation selection. yes, the geneticists make that claim at the start, but then in one or two sentences after paragraphs of double-talk, finally get to the real truth, then go right back into double-talk so you will forget all about that little portion of facts they had tp put into all of their imaginary Fairie Dust.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1275522/pdf/pbio.0030378.pdf

"We also looked at the derived allele frequency (DAF) distribution, which can detect the genetic hitchhiking of variation linked to an allele under positive selection, and found no evidence for selection . All of these tests have limited power, with genotyping data ascertained to favor common shared SNPs and using the chimpanzee sequence for comparison. Therefore, while the results provide no evidence for selection, it can not be ruled out; this could be further explored with sequencing of a large number of chromosomes"

of course it can't be ruled out, that would falsify natural selection even though they have NEVER found any evidence for it. But like Fairie Dust Dark Matter it just gets falsified in test after test after test, but we can't rule it out, even though we have never detected a single WIMP in 25 years of looking for it.

So instead of looking for another possible explanation, they will just pretend everything is fine in wonderland, better that than to admit they don't know anything.

In almost 50 years of genetic mutational research, never has a new alleles or gene been observed, merely what exists has gone recessive or become dominate or deleted from the code, but we can't rule it out as that would disprove evolution.

The problem with theoretical science is it is so far divorced from laboratory experiments, they no longer know what science is. Science has become whatever someone "believes" it should be, no testing required to back theory up.

And how many times are evolutionists going to find fragments, and then divine an entire species, lifestyle and habitat from a mere few fragments of bone. They really need to go to work for the FBI, they could use people with such gifts of deductive reasoning. but alas, the FBI does not accept soothsayers.

Nanotyrannus a prime example. They found two, just two partial specimens, and from this derived an entire evolutionary line. of course we found out later how wrong they were.

Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just as they were wrong about Triceratops and torosaurus being two separate species.

Scientists: Triceratops May Not Have Existed - CBS News

Just as they were wrong about all the years they assured us they were correct in classifying half a dozen variations as transitory species between ape and homo erectus.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian

But don't worry, all is still fine in wonderland, where the facts never affect the theory at all.

 

[Ursus scientia]

Just as evolutionists have a reason to be biased. They have careers, reputations, funding projects to secure. They are going to say whatever they need to say to make sure they get that next years funding, and one does not do that by going against popular theory, whether it is wrong or right.

No, no, NO.
If a scientist does a series of experiments and the outcome refutes evolution, we'd have to rewrite everything we understand about biology. The author of that paper will never, ever be short of funding, would be a dead cert for a Nobel prize and the amount of research it'd trigger is close to unimaginable. Science is littered with refutations of key theories: Einstein's theory of relativity, Copernicean theory, germ theory, etc. all replaced the previous models. There is no conspiracy against truth in science.

In almost 50 years of genetic mutational research, never has a new alleles or gene been observed, merely what exists has gone recessive or become dominate or deleted from the code, but we can't rule it out as that would disprove evolution.

jingwei and SETWAR, to name just two. The article also gives you a list of mechanisms through which new genes can arise. It's intuitive and well written, I'd recommend it.

The problem with theoretical science is it is so far divorced from laboratory experiments, they no longer know what science is. Science has become whatever someone "believes" it should be, no testing required to back theory up.

Nowadays the majority of science which pertains to evolution is biochemical: that is, DNA sequencing, mutagenesis, etc. This is laboratory science. Interpretation of the data gained from laboratory science isn't theoretical because the data are DNA sequences - which are specific, chemical structures - or the metabolic rates/mechanisms of molecules which interact with DNA, for example. You misunderstand the research.

Nanotyrannus a prime example. They found two, just two partial specimens, and from this derived an entire evolutionary line. of course we found out later how wrong they were.

Nanotyrannus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just as they were wrong about Triceratops and torosaurus being two separate species.

Scientists: Triceratops May Not Have Existed - CBS News

Just as they were wrong about all the years they assured us they were correct in classifying half a dozen variations as transitory species between ape and homo erectus.

Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray | Science | The Guardian

At the top of your post you were complaining that evidence which challenges our understanding of evolution is never accepted by scientists. Now you're complaining that scientists accept this new evidence and use it to update and improve our understanding of evolution. It'd be best to rethink your argument (and preferably your position too).

 

[stevevw]

Let's say "moderately real". And I don't think that the historicity of Jesus is any better than that of the Buddha. Though perhaps I should check. Granted there are some mythical aspects of his birth that I discard, but then there are mythical aspects of Jesus' birth that have been shown not to be the case by Roman records.

Thats not the point. The point is even if Buddha is proven real historically then they are both real as historical figures. The point was Golan was saying that it was all lies. That none of it happened and there was no proof of Jesus.

As far as what they say about their beliefs and all that this is another aspect to it. But historically Jesus can be proved. If he can be proved true historically then the next step is to assess whether or not what he done and said was true or not. That can only be substantiated by the bible itself. The eye witness stories that were written down about his life. Though the Qur'an says Jesus did good works and miracles it is not an historical book but it is still a source outside the bible.

If you take what the bible says about Jesus as true then there were many eye witnesses to his miracles. But as i said this cannot be substantiated by an independent outside source. So it is left to your faith, here we have a true historical figure who is claiming to be sent by God and is God incarnate. He is either a mad man or deluded or he is what he claims. He was willing to go to his death in standing on what he said so he obviously felt strong about what he was representing.

Consider also that he is said to be the fulfillment of the old testament prophecies and no one else has been put forward as the promised messiah then this becomes another angle in which we can see the context of Jesus within the bible itself. The prophesies talk about that the promised messiah would do certain things like ride into the city on a donkey, that he would be a descendent of Abraham, he would be rejected by his own people, he would be betrayed, he would be called a Nazarene and many other that have been fulfilled.

Now you can say that he did this on purpose or that the story writers matched it up so that it became fulfilled and that is that cannot be proven one way or the other. No one can prove this apart from what the bible says and the witnesses that saw it happen. But he is said to be the promised messiah and no one else is claiming that and he has fulfilled all the prophecies so there is no one else that fits the bill. At the end of the day his impact has been great and he has change the course of history. Was he a mad man or just a controversial figure or the promised messiah like the bible says comes down to faith.

 

[biggles53]

Well first lets get clear that no one in the scholarly world doubts Jesus existed, except a few fanatics that won't accept anything about the Bible.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted."

So lets put any such claims to rest before we even start.

And here, plenty of sources for doubters to look up, don't ask me to do it for you, I have already read them, perhaps you should try sometime.

The Bible and history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Census of Quirinius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

references are at the bottom, please fell free to look them up and actually read them. Instead of making vague claims how it is not historically accurate.

If one goes by your rules for casting doubt on the Bible, then we might as well throw out half the histories of ancient cultures, and be left with nothing beyond the 12th century.


But of course you have no problem divining the entire history of the universe 13 billion years ago, the start of life and it's entire evolutionary history. But then claim we can't trust anything from a mere few thousand years ago. Hypocrite.

I find it amusing that you include a reference to the census of Quirinus....

It is this claim that creates the 'missing 10 years' of course.......Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, but also as a result of Quirinus' census........Herod died 10 years before the census..!

Despite this, I lean towards the theory that there was an 'historical Jesus'...ie, that a person by that name lived around that time.......but that's a loooooong way short of evidence for the 'biblical' Jesus......and you simply have NO primary source material for either......!

 

[46AND2]

I find it amusing that you include a reference to the census of Quirinus....

It is this claim that creates the 'missing 10 years' of course.......Jesus was supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod, but also as a result of Quirinus' census........Herod died 10 years before the census..!

Despite this, I lean towards the theory that there was an 'historical Jesus'...ie, that a person by that name lived around that time.......but that's a loooooong way short of evidence for the 'biblical' Jesus......and you simply have NO primary source material for either......!

And let the census PRATTs begin...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ahh, it does not good to argue about the factual existence of Jesus here,. It gets the mods upset. They don't like it when you point out all of the flaws in the nativity story.

Let's just leave it at Jesus was at least probably a real person and let it go.

 

[stevevw]

The Biblical Jesus can only be seen in the countless changed lives throughout the world.

 

[46AND2]

Originally Posted by Oncedeceived
Why would they not be the most informed and have the most information to the earliest documentation of the gospels. It would stand to reason that if they felt the gospels were authoritative that they would have had reason to believe who wrote them.



In your humble opinion.


Really? Why do you think he is more highly credentialed than other equally credentialed Scholars?



Lost your quote of course. Anyway, credentials. There are many very impressive credentialed scholars that disagree with Ehrmann.

He did indeed go agnostic, however, his mentor who co-authored some of the work remains a Christian and doesn't feel the problems addressed are enough to give up His Christianity and in fact, is as highly regarded as Ehrmann.



What I meant was that even though Ehrmann lost his faith, Metzger didn't see the problems that Ehrmann did in his research.




I've read Ehrman. I've read a number of different scholars. Most modern scholars do not believe in prophecy and so the dates they ascribe to Mark are due to that.



According to Wikipedia.


You assume I haven't.

Depends on who you are talking about.



Oh what bunk. Many Christians are up to date with with criticisms and find that many times these criticisms are the ones that have been refuted for years. Many new so called modern scholars use their own biases (for instance that prophecy is not true) to determine "their evidence".



Prophecy is very complex and in a debate it would be extremely difficult to debate about prophecy due to this. It doesn't mean that it isn't true. The only prophecy that is a problem that I have found is the Tyre one. It can be explained but has to be stretched to do so. However, most unbelievers just have no clue about.



I don't want to sound rude but could you please learn how to do the quotes. You continue to quote your responses in mine and so I can't just go to your post and respond.

Most modern scholars don't believe in prophecy? I'd like to see the data for that. I mean, just calling yourself a Christian pretty much means you believe in prophecy...

I find it much more likely that it is simply that their requirements for calling something a prophecy is more strict, and the literary devices which signify prophecy are not present when the gospels speak of the destruction of the temple.

But that's speculation. I'd be interested to see how you came up with that claim.

Oh, and the Tyre prophecy is irreconcilable. Which is interesting in light of the fact that it is one of the very few prophecies made in the Bible with specifics, and not so vague that any number of things could fulfill it, nor is it something that can be "force fulfilled" by people actively trying to fulfill it.

 

[USincognito]

jingwei and SETWAR, to name just two. The article also gives you a list of mechanisms through which new genes can arise. It's intuitive and well written, I'd recommend it.

It's almost as if Jats hasn't heard of Google Scholar. I plugged "new allele" into the serch engine and quote a few novel alleles from mutations were in the first 6 papers.
new allele - Google Scholar

 

[EternalDragon]

No, no, NO.
If a scientist does a series of experiments and the outcome refutes evolution, we'd have to rewrite everything we understand about biology. The author of that paper will never, ever be short of funding, would be a dead cert for a Nobel prize and the amount of research it'd trigger is close to unimaginable. Science is littered with refutations of key theories: Einstein's theory of relativity, Copernicean theory, germ theory, etc. all replaced the previous models. There is no conspiracy against truth in science.

It's happened before. They have been threatened, called names, called a lair, lost tenure, etc. Evolution is quite a different monster than those other theories.

 

[Ursus scientia]

It's happened before. They have been threatened, called names, called a lair, lost tenure, etc. Evolution is quite a different monster than those other theories.

ED, what specific group of people was doing most of the threatening/claiming the theories were lies? Your statement is quite an ironic one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's happened before. They have been threatened, called names, called a lair, lost tenure, etc. Evolution is quite a different monster than those other theories.

If that is the case you should be able to show evidence that supports this.

Or did you just make another unsubstantiated claim?

 

[EternalDragon]

ED, what specific group of people was doing most of the threatening/claiming the theories were lies? Your statement is quite an ironic one.

I do believe when an individual makes threats they make sure they remain anonymous. But other objections would come from fellow scientists. Who else?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe when an individual makes threats they make sure they remain anonymous. But other objections would come from fellow scientists. Who else?

In other words you were spreading falsehoods again. If you cannot support a claim you should not make the claim.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I do believe when an individual makes threats they make sure they remain anonymous. But other objections would come from fellow scientists. Who else?

I see -- no evidence; you're just making assumptions.

 

[mzungu]

I do believe when an individual makes threats they make sure they remain anonymous. But other objections would come from fellow scientists. Who else?

You simply cannot storm into the scientific community and Bible thump expecting them to succumb to your genesis claims without any scientific evidences and a theory that explains those evidences and makes accurate predictions. Science does not work the way religions do. Religions demand blind faith and adherence to a static dogma.

Scientists through the ages, had to suffer persecution, but their perseverance coupled with sound scientific methods, helped sway the public and eventually won the day simply because science worked and works.

Science has rules. Abide by them, write a paper refuting ToE, have it peer reviewed, and go collect your Nobel Prize and become the most famous person in history.

 

[stevevw]

It's happened before. They have been threatened, called names, called a lair, lost tenure, etc. Evolution is quite a different monster than those other theories.

At the end of the day science is science. If they found results that contradicted a theory they it would eventually get out. It my take some time to get out in some cases but it will come out. I would say that most research bodies will have some anti evolutionist on it or at least one or two with differing views.

Sometimes it will take some time as i do believe there is an element of not rocking the boat to much but if the tests prove controversial in the end it will come out.

 

[Black Akuma]

I would say that most research bodies will have some anti evolutionist on it or at least one or two with differing views.

You could say that, but you would be wrong.

The vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory. The highest figure I've ever seen for scientists that reject it is 5% - and that's before we start taking out scientists in fields that aren't related to the theory. If we limit it to just biologists, the percent quickly drops to about 1%.

That's why creationists tend to stick to drawing on public support, where there's still some confusion and where they can still turn gullible minds. In the actual scientific arena, they've long since lost the fight.

Sometimes it will take some time as i do believe there is an element of not rocking the boat to much but if the tests prove controversial in the end it will come out.

Evolution's been debated and discussed for over a hundred years. How much more time do you need?

 

[stevevw]

You could say that, but you would be wrong.

The vast majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory. The highest figure I've ever seen for scientists that reject it is 5% - and that's before we start taking out scientists in fields that aren't related to the theory. If we limit it to just biologists, the percent quickly drops to about 1%.

That's why creationists tend to stick to drawing on public support, where there's still some confusion and where they can still turn gullible minds. In the actual scientific arena, they've long since lost the fight.

I was actually saying that despite any sides bias the truth comes out in the end or you cant hide the truth which ever way the evidence falls.

Evolution's been debated and discussed for over a hundred years. How much more time do you need?

I am meaning as the news comes out on new individual discoveries. Not the theory as a whole. I know the evolutionists have decided that they have enough evidence. Like say The skulls that were found recently at Georgia. Both sides claim their ground but when the dust settles the truth will come out. Well sort of as it still gets disputed by both sides as well until some definite proof can substantiate it one way or the other. Thats why the genetic evidence is good because it cant be left to opinion or conjecture. DNA is there in black and white and will give proof for one side or the other.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am meaning as the news comes out on new individual discoveries. Not the theory as a whole.

Oh, absolutely -- any new discovery or hypothesis is going to be put through the wringer... if the person making the discovery is doing his job right, he's already done so before going public.

Even so, it's the duty of the rest of the scientific community to continue to try to pick it apart, looking for anything the original scientist may have accidentally (or deliberately) overlooked.

In fact, while there are certain anti-science folks who enjoy pointing out the occasional past frauds, what they always (deliberately) fail to mention is that while the general public may have (temporarily) bought into those frauds, and the anti-scientists may exploit those frauds, it was the scientific community which exposed those frauds -- because the system worked exactly as it was supposed to..

I know the evolutionists have decided that they have enough evidence. Like say The skulls that were found recently at Georgia. Both sides claim their ground but when the dust settles the truth will come out. Well sort of as it still gets disputed by both sides as well until some definite proof can substantiate it one way or the other.

And such definitive proof may never come out -- scientists are comfortable enough with "best guess -- until someone comes along who spots something we missed..."

Thats why the genetic evidence is good because it cant be left to opinion or conjecture. DNA is there in black and white and will give proof for one side or the other.

It may become generally accepted among the scientific community, but there will always be someone with an ax to grind and/or a reason to panic about the implications.

Such people will be asked to make their case -- they will fail, but they will not quit.