Evolution Exposed

[HitchSlap]

If it weren't for God, there wouldn't be any DNA in the first place!

That reminds me of the joke, "get your own dirt."

 

[joshua 1 9]

Maybe it's evidence for Bob. How would you know if you were wrong?

We use science to verify the Bible and the Bible to verify science. So when they agree then we know. That is not always an easy process to work through. Hutton known as the father of modern geology worked his way through the process to verify his understanding.

 

[HitchSlap]

We use science to verify the Bible and the Bible to verify science. So when they agree then we know. That is not always an easy process to work through. Hutton known as the father of modern geology worked his way through the process to verify his understanding.

When the bible has been proven fiction at just about every conceivable point, it would be absurd to use it as any potential validation of reality.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Believing it doesn't make it true. What you have are the words of men that you have elevated to the level of God.



This is the funny bit. For things that a literal interpretation of the Bible gets wrong, you throw out the science. Where they seemingly agree, you point to the agreement as evidence that the Bible is inspired by the supernatural.

Do you see the problem?



Not that hard to do when each author has the work of the other authors.



Except for the ones that don't come true. How do you explain that?



Popularity does not indicate accuracy.

Believing it doesn't make it true. What you have are the words of men that you have elevated to the level of God.



This is the funny bit. For things that a literal interpretation of the Bible gets wrong, you throw out the science. Where they seemingly agree, you point to the agreement as evidence that the Bible is inspired by the supernatural.

Do you see the problem?



Not that hard to do when each author has the work of the other authors.



Except for the ones that don't come true. How do you explain that?



Popularity does not indicate accuracy.

No science is being thrown out, the Bible is not supposed to be a science text book (otherwise, it would be long out of date by now), but when it does mention scientific things, it ought to be trustworthy, since if has come from the one who knows everything.

Having the work of other authors doesn't account for the remarkable consistency over such a vast period of time, let alone the motivation to keep the project going. How many other similar works of literacy can you name that even comes close to this?

Which prophesies haven't come true?

I agree with your last statement - "Popularity does not indicate accuracy" - the popular idea of evolution does NOT indicate accuracy LOL

 

[HitchSlap]

No science is being thrown out, the Bible is not supposed to be a science text book (otherwise, it would be long out of date by now), but when it does mention scientific things, it ought to be trustworthy, since if has come from the one who knows everything.

Having the work of other authors doesn't account for the remarkable consistency over such a vast period of time, let alone the motivation to keep the project going. How many other similar works of literacy can you name that even comes close to this?

Which prophesies haven't come true?

I agree with your last statement - "Popularity does not indicate accuracy" - the popular idea of evolution does NOT indicate accuracy LOL

When the Hebrew word raqiya is used to describe a literal metal dome in the sky (firmament), why in god's name would one use the bible for anything having to do with reality?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

What are the half-truths you are referring to?

Like the nice neat geological column shown in many text books. I don't think that represents the real world for starters. Then there's all the problems with the Big Bang or the way life supposedly got started from lifeless chemicals that never get a mention.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like the nice neat geological column shown in many text books. I don't think that represents the real world for starters.

It was never meant to represent a real geologic formation. It is no different than a timeline found in a history book, like this one:

If I said that the timeline was a half-truth because you don't find artefacts for those things one on top of another at any archaeological dig, what would your response be? Would you scratch your head wondering why I would ever think such a thing? Do you understand that the idealized geologic timeline in textbooks was never meant to represent any geologic column found on Earth? Do you understand that it is only meant to represent the relative ages of different geologic ages?

Then there's all the problems with the Big Bang or the way life supposedly got started from lifeless chemicals that never get a mention.

How is not knowing how life started a half truth?

 

[HitchSlap]

Like the nice neat geological column shown in many text books. I don't think that represents the real world for starters. Then there's all the problems with the Big Bang or the way life supposedly got started from lifeless chemicals that never get a mention.

We can always use qualified scientists to help add to our current understanding.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

When the Hebrew word raqiya is used to describe a literal metal dome in the sky (firmament), why in god's name would one use the bible for anything having to do with reality?

Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once). So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object.

 

[lasthero]

Like the nice neat geological column shown in many text books. I don't think that represents the real world for starters.

It's not supposed to. It's a model meant to give you a basic understanding of the concept. It's just like when you see a picture of the solar system that's nowhere near to scale or a picture of an atom that's a bunch of little balls.

 

[Loudmouth]

No science is being thrown out,

Then why do you throw out evolution?

but when it does mention scientific things, it ought to be trustworthy, since if has come from the one who knows everything.

Then why do you insist on an interpretation of the Bible that makes the Bible wrong? Why do you insist on an interpretation that is contradicted by the facts?

Having the work of other authors doesn't account for the remarkable consistency over such a vast period of time, let alone the motivation to keep the project going. How many other similar works of literacy can you name that even comes close to this?

False. It does account for the remarkable consistency.

Which prophesies haven't come true?

The failed Messianic prophecies come to mind. The Messiah was supposed to conquer all the nations that stood against the Jews. That was a rather spectacular failure.

I agree with your last statement - "Popularity does not indicate accuracy" - the popular idea of evolution does NOT indicate accuracy LOL

The evidence does demonstrate the accuracy of the theory of evolution.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I asked about half-truths, not half lives.

There is a book on Amazon called the half life of facts. Why everything we know has an expiration date. I have nothing to add to that.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is a book on Amazon called the half life of facts. Why everything we know has an expiration date. I have nothing to add to that.

You could add a discussion to that. This isn't a recommended reading forum.

 

[HitchSlap]

Raqia comes from the Hebrew verb raqa, which means "beat," "stamp," "beat out" and "spread out." Occurring 11 times in the Old Testament, raqa has the meaning to "stamp one's feet" (twice), stamp something with the feet (once), spreading metal (four times), spreading out the earth (three times), and spreading the sky or the clouds (once). So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

Genesis 1:8 says that God Himself defines what the raqia is, saying "God called the expanse heaven." So, the so-called firmament is nothing more than heaven itself and does not comprise a separate structure. This fact is further emphasized in Genesis 1:20, where God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." Obviously, birds cannot fly through a solid structure, clearly indicating that raqia is not a solid object.

Many ancient cultures, including the Hebrews, believed they lived beneath a dome. Only recently in history have Christians deliberately misinterpreted facts to suit their need to believe.

 

[joshua 1 9]

How many of those God fearing men include supernatural processes in their scientific theories?

The obvious answer is none. Still if your hypotheses is based on a true supernatural process then it will pan out when you look for scientific evidence to substantiate your theory.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You could add a discussion to that. This isn't a recommended reading forum.

Oh ok.

 

[HitchSlap]

The obvious answer is none. Still if your hypotheses is based on a true supernatural process then it will pan out when you look for scientific evidence to substantiate your theory.

Such as, Thor, god of thunder, throwing down lightning bolts?

 

[Loudmouth]

The obvious answer is none. Still if your hypotheses is based on a true supernatural process then it will pan out when you look for scientific evidence to substantiate your theory.

Can you show us one of those supernaturally based hypotheses that has panned out?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Such as, Thor, god of thunder, throwing down lightning bolts?

No that is differ

 

[joshua 1 9]

Can you show us one of those supernaturally based hypotheses that has panned out?

In this case we are talking about Uniformitarianism. Darwin tried to adapt this for his theory of gradualism. This did not work as well for Darwin as it did for Hutton.