Evolution is just a theory!

[DogmaHunter]

If Adam & Eve had not followed the Serpent in his rebellion then the earth would be a paradise today. Not in the condition that it is in. All of creation is going to be redeemed and restored. Evolution seems to disregard all of that. It is like trying to solve a puzzle when you are missing an essential piece.

There is no reason for biologists to entertain your particular creation myth of choice, which you most likely only believe in because of geographic accident.

Your religious ideas and beliefs are quite irrelevant in the lab.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Blame the theory of evolution on apes. Man looks at apes(1*), looks at themselves(2*)-
all of a sudden the headline reads 'we evolved'(3*).

You seem to be missing a few steps between 2 and 3.

A "few steps" that, these days, is worth +150 years of research by thousands, millions, of biologists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By the same token, we see atheist that claim that things that happened long ago, preserved in religious evolution, didn't happen because that was a long time ago. Atheist have no proof that it didn't happen, so their contentions become a matter so faith.

And you have no proof that rainbows don't mark the place where the leprechauns have hidden pots of gold.

 

[Colter]

And you have no proof that rainbows don't mark the place where the leprechauns have hidden pots of gold.

But you knew that before you came here hunting dogma so what's your point? This is a religious forum.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are you trying to suggest that Noah was not a real person, there was no flood and there was no Ark filled with animals?

Not only would I suggest that. I'ld flat out tell you that.
Indeed, there was no Noah, no ark filled with animals and most certainly no global flood.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So-called "Christian" scholars and theologians (and now geologists) have been attacking the Bible narratives for a long time now. So what else is new? We have so-called "Christian" professors today who are doing the very same thing. They just don't have the courage to say "We are simply pretenders. You should not be listening to us".

Accusing others of not being "real christians" is against the forum rules.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you knew that before you came here hunting dogma so what's your point? This is a religious forum.

The point, obviously, is that the burden of proof is with the one who makes the positive claim.

The claim that requires evidence in support of it is that leprachauns hid pots of gold in places marked by rainbows. Absent that evidence, the claim may be dissmissed at face value.

The same goes for religious claims, or indeed any other faith-based claim.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

So telling me that "I can't prove X is NOT true" in an attempt at making your faith-based claims concerning X to sound more credible, is no more or less then a logic failure. It's trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

[Colter]

The point, obviously, is that the burden of proof is with the one who makes the positive claim.

The claim that requires evidence in support of it is that leprachauns hid pots of gold in places marked by rainbows. Absent that evidence, the claim may be dissmissed at face value.

The same goes for religious claims, or indeed any other faith-based claim.

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

So telling me that "I can't prove X is NOT true" in an attempt at making your faith-based claims concerning X to sound more credible, is no more or less then a logic failure. It's trying to shift the burden of proof.

Atheist dogma hunters choose questions that can't be answered without subjectively experiencing it yourself. You then use that self deceiving technique as proof to yourself. The failure is your inability to find the God of our experience. The truest and only proof of our experience with God is in the lives that we live.

But we cannot prove God to the satisfaction of the doubters mind who us unwilling to seek God himself. It seems you should have figured that out long ago. So, what you need is another hobby.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Not only would I suggest that. I'ld flat out tell you that.
Indeed, there was no Noah, no ark filled with animals and most certainly no global flood.

We know that there was no Global flood. At least the is overwelming evidence that there is no Global flood. But you have zip, zero, no evidence to show that Noah was not a real person and that there was not a real Ark. IF Noah was a pretend story then there should be just as much evidence to that as there is that the flood was NOT global. If the Ringling Brothers could put their whole circus on a train then Noah could put his whole traveling show in a boat. He just built a boat big enough for his family and all the animals on his farm.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Atheist dogma hunters choose questions that can't be answered without subjectively experiencing it yourself. You then use that self deceiving technique as proof to yourself. The failure is your inability to find the God of our experience. The truest and only proof of our experience with God is in the lives that we live.

But we cannot prove God to the satisfaction of the doubters mind who us unwilling to seek God himself. It seems you should have figured that out long ago. So, what you need is another hobby.

They love to build a straw men argument then defeat their own argument. They love to argue with themselves. Often I agree with them. For example when they tell me their concept of God I agree that their concept of God does not exist. They do not know the God of the Bible. They are fully convinced though. The question is what are they fully convinced of or in. I am fully convinced also. This is exactly what God wants is for: " Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind."

 

[Colter]

They love to build a straw men argument then defeat their own argument. They love to argue with themselves. Often I agree with them. For example when they tell me their concept of God I agree that their concept of God does not exist. They do not know the God of the Bible. They are fully convinced though. The question is what are they fully convinced of or in. I am fully convinced also. This is exactly what God wants is for: " Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind."

You make a good point, Atheist do often have an immature God concept that they yearn for in contrast to the true God of mystery, with a far reaching plan, that requires patience, trust and faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

I recall that, in the petrified, stunted mind of the Bible fetish, truth and facts about God and his universe stopped at the end of REV 22.



88:2.7 "In olden times the fetish word of authority was a fear-inspiring doctrine, the most terrible of all tyrants which enslave men. A doctrinal fetish will lead mortal man to betray himself into the clutches of bigotry, fanaticism, superstition, intolerance, and the most atrocious of barbarous cruelties. Modern respect for wisdom and truth is but the recent escape from the fetish-making tendency up to the higher levels of thinking and reasoning. Concerning the accumulated fetish writings which various religionists hold as sacred books, it is not only believed that what is in the book is true, but also that every truth is contained in the book. If one of these sacred books happens to speak of the earth as being flat, then, for long generations, otherwise sane men and women will refuse to accept positive evidence that the planet is round." UB 1955

The [fallen] sons of God, who wrote this in 1955, know it is called "Completion of the Scriptures."

 

[DogmaHunter]

We know that there was no Global flood.

And we also know that regional floods happen practically every day somewhere on the planet and thus do not require any supernatural shenannigans.

At least the is overwelming evidence that there is no Global flood.

It's so overwhelming that it's safe to call it a fact that no such flood ever took place.

But you have zip, zero, no evidence to show that Noah was not a real person and that there was not a real Ark.

The burden of proof concerning that claim is in your court.
It's upto you to prove that such a person and boat existed. Failing to meet that burden is enough for me to dissmiss it at face value. Especially since it concerns such a wild and extra-ordinary claim.

IF Noah was a pretend story then there should be just as much evidence to that as there is that the flood was NOT global.

No. In fact, it's not so that there is evidence that there was no such flood. There's no such thing as "evidence for the non-existance" of anything.

The thing is, from the flood story follows a number of testable predictions. If those predictions don't check out, the story is false.

The "evidence against the flood" that we speak of here is thus not actual evidence in support of the negative claim... Nope. What it actually is, is the absence of evidence FOR the positive claim.

For example, the "global flood" story makes 2 obvious predictions:
- a genetic bottleneck in all animals
- a global flood layer of sediments dating to the same period of the bottleneck.

Neither of both exist. And THAT is how we factually know that the story is false.

The only way we can come up with similar evidence against noah and his boat, is if those claims make similar testable predictions. If not, it's just yet another faith-based claim that has no supportive evidence in reality.

Having said that....
Noah and his boat are an integral part of the factually wrong global flood story.
So unless you have any actual extra-biblical evidence for noah or his boat, I see no reason to not consider those parts of the story equally debunked as the water-all-over-the-world bit.

If the Ringling Brothers could put their whole circus on a train then Noah could put his whole traveling show in a boat. He just built a boat big enough for his family and all the animals on his farm.

Yes, that is the (religious) claim.

Now try to support it with actual evidence that is not just about repeating the claim.

 

[Colter]

The [fallen] sons of God, who wrote this in 1955, know it is called "Completion of the Scriptures."

The Urantia revelation wasn't written by "fallen Sons", it was undertaken under the authority of Christ.

Again, I recall the enemies of Jesus suffered from a similar paranoia.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Atheist dogma hunters choose questions that can't be answered without subjectively experiencing it yourself.

I don't know what that means.

You then use that self deceiving technique as proof to yourself. The failure is your inability to find the God of our experience. The truest and only proof of our experience with God is in the lives that we live.

I don't know what this means either.

But we cannot prove God to the satisfaction of the doubters mind who us unwilling to seek God himself.

If god objectively and factually exists, then why can't you show that to be the case?
Why must I first believe it in order to find justification for believing it?

It makes zero sense.

It seems you should have figured that out long ago. So, what you need is another hobby.

What you need, is understanding how the burden of proof works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They love to build a straw men argument then defeat their own argument. They love to argue with themselves. Often I agree with them. For example when they tell me their concept of God I agree that their concept of God does not exist. They do not know the God of the Bible. They are fully convinced though. The question is what are they fully convinced of or in. I am fully convinced also. This is exactly what God wants is for: " Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind."

You must not be talking about me, because I have never given any "god concept" on this site, since I don't have such a concept.

And I know very well of what I am convinced....

I am convinced of the fact that you can't meet your burden of proof for the religious claims that you make.

I am open to be shown wrong on that point and have repeatedly invited people to show me how I'm wrong on that point.

None has ever succeeded. Perhaps you will be the first.
Try it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You make a good point, Atheist do often have an immature God concept that they yearn for in contrast to the true God of mystery, with a far reaching plan, that requires patience, trust and faith.

I have no concept of god because I am not a theist. I don't require a concept of god.

I can only go by the concept of gods presented to me by the theists I talk to.

And I'ld like to add that the number of "god concepts" presented to me in the past, comes very close to the number of theists I have spoken with.

Theists can't even agree amongst themselves on "god concepts" (hence all the denominations and different religions out there), so you can hardly hold it against atheists that they don't happen to share the "god concept" that YOU happen to believe in.

If theists themselves can't even agree on what god is, what makes you think atheists will agree with your personal idea on what god is?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Urantia revelation wasn't written by "fallen Sons",

Yes, it was.

Just like A Course in Miracles was written.

Not to mention the song, Stairway to Heaven.

My guess is: automatic handwriting.

(And why did you capitalize "sons"?)

 

[Colter]

Yes, it was.

Just like A Course in Miracles was written.

Not to mention the song, Stairway to Heaven.

My guess is: automatic handwriting.

(And why did you capitalize "sons"?)

You guess a lot and are wrong a lot.

 

[justlookinla]

Good grief, you might want to try reading that website instead of using it to try and back up your spurious arguments, you might learn something. Why are you quoting them anyway? A small percentage of what they've published is in agreement with your religious beliefs so it's ok, the majority of what they publish doesn't agree with your religious beliefs so it's wrong, as fine an example of cognitive dissonance as I've seen.

I quote them as indicative of the beliefs of Darwinist evolution. Sorta like their 'bible'.

Here's a quote for you I saw on there:

Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

"Descent with modification" is 'change by random mutation'.....a cornerstone of Darwinist evolution. Willy-nillyness.