If Evolution were true...

Greg1234 said:

You still haven't provided a viable mechanism for bacteria to turn into cats much less for invisible cats.

Click to expand...

Greg you can rest assured that they never will either, why? because just as your God is impossible so is what you're asking of evolution, evolution just doesn't work like that but if it makes you feel better keep asking for more of the same and you won't ever be disappointed, it's a bit like me asking you to get your God to sit in on a game of cards with me before I believe in him, it's just not going to happen is it?
So unless you want to spend the rest of your time here talking rubbish to people may I suggest you find yourself another subject.

Insane_Duck said:

The question is, are most creationists this far gone?

Click to expand...

Sadly, it would appear that way:

Apparently he hasnt substituted it for Godless myths, tales about homo erectus writing the bible or fairy tales about men sitting at a table writing for ignorance.

Click to expand...

SignOfGod said:

Greg you can rest assured that they never will either, why? because just as your God is impossible so is what you're asking of evolution, evolution just doesn't work like that but if it makes you feel better keep asking for more of the same and you won't ever be disappointed, it's a bit like me asking you to get your God to sit in on a game of cards with me before I believe in him, it's just not going to happen is it?
So unless you want to spend the rest of your time here talking rubbish to people may I suggest you find yourself another subject.

Click to expand...

The irony is; we have, over and over and over again, but I think Greg suffers from "STICK FINGERS IN EARS AND LALALALA!" syndrome.

Greg1234 said:

Who needs Alice when intelligent design can be ascertained through man? You still haven't provided a viable mechanism for bacteria to turn into cats much less for invisible cats.

Click to expand...

Would it be sufficient to provide a mechanism for a bacteria's genome to turn into a cat's genome? Because that would be relatively simple. And everything else boils down to effects derived from the changing genome and environmental effects.

rjc34 said:

Actually, looking at the consensus among even Christian scholars, we come up with:

• Anonymous
• Anonymous
• Anonymous
• Anonymous

Click to expand...

Please provide your source that supports what you say. There is a plethra of research that support who the authors of the Gospels were.

rjc34 said:

No. No no no no no. Stop. Do not ever equate my (and sciences) search for how the universe works with your need to believe the mythology you were raised on. There is nothing I 'want' to believe. Perhaps I 'want' to believe in some sort of all-loving deity that grants wishes (prayer), and has a paradise prepared for me after this life, but I don't believe in wishful thinking. My search for truth and reality is evidence, reason and logic based. You can't name a single thing I believe that isn't supported by evidence, reason and logic.

Click to expand...

What you say is unfortunate. First you have no idea how I was raised and I have no idea how you were raised. So let's not go there. I will remove the words "want to believe" and then I stand on my position that the facts are all the same for both sides of any debate. Once both sides look at the facts, how they are interpreted is then directly correlated to how we defend our position. I believe that God doesn't want us to follow Him with "blind faith" but rather with "faith" supported by intelligence. I can honestly say that I read the Bible and study it a lot before I came to the position I have. I also feel very strongly that given time I and others that believe as I do can show that science and the Bible are fully in concert with one another. I believe the Bible to be 100% inerrant in its original manuscripts, and that the Holy Spirit will guide us to understand what it is that God wants us to know. I don't mean to say that the Bible is a science book or a history book, it isn't. What it is, is a book of theology inspired by the creator of everything you and I and everyone see, feel, touch, smell, or hear.

selfinflikted said:

But those are exactly the things I was pointing out that science does not line up with. There is nothing in science that in any way, shape, form, or fashion suggests that the flood, for instance, ever happened. Yet, I keep hearing you guys say that science repeatedly backs up the Bible when, clearly, it doesn't.

Click to expand...

You can read the biblical account of the “Flood” in Genesis 6-8. As you read this you will notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered hydrothermal vents at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. So it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. Science has also proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very mild. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time – indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

By the way, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas – some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Deaver said:

You can read the biblical account of the “Flood” in Genesis 6-8. As you read this you will notice in Genesis chapter 7, verses 11 and 12 that the rain is almost an afterthought. The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered hydrothermal vents at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. So it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. Science has also proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very mild. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time – indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

By the way, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas – some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Click to expand...

They have obviously done a wonderful job on you, you have swallowed the stories hook line and sinker,
it can honestly be said that you have been well and truly captured.

Deaver said:

The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were “the fountains of the great deep” and “the windows of heaven.” Science has discovered hydrothermal vents at mid-ocean ridges in 1977. So it is easy to imagine “fountains of the great deep” being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood.

Click to expand...

You understand that the hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor are fed by recirculating ocean water, yes? That they're not fed by a subterranean mantle or crustal source? Fractures in the ocean floor allow water to seep down into the crust, where there are active basaltic magma chambers. The heat produced by these chambers superheats the ocean water, causing it to move back up through the crust and be expelled at hydrothermal vents. So if you think hydrothermal vents provided the flood waters, then all you're really saying is that circulated ocean water caused the flood. Circular logic indeed.

Oh, and BTW, the water that comes out of black and white smokers can be as hot as 400 degrees Celsius (over 800 degrees Fahrenheit). The ark and its inhabitants would have boiled were hydrothermal vents the water source for the flood.

Science has also proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now.

Click to expand...

Source?

Such a “canopy” would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very mild. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time – indicating a superior climate.

Click to expand...

Source? Also, most dinosaurs were human-sized or smaller.
Also, define 'superior climate'

The vast majority of fossils are marine in origin. Crinoids, brachiopods, sponges, corals, oysters, gastropods, fish, and other fossils are the same general size in the rock record that they are now.

At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening “the windows of heaven.” The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.

Click to expand...

Including Noah and the inhabitants of the Ark. You know, because tons and tons of water impacting a wooden boat at terminal velocity would pretty much spell disaster for that vessel.

By the way, this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas – some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.

Click to expand...

These mammoths are found in environments such as lakes, bogs, and quicksand, not floating in massive ice cubes. They likely would have died in these environments even without a global flood, so there is no reason to assume there was one based on mammoth preservation.

SignOfGod said:

They have obviously done a wonderful job on you, you have swallowed the stories hook line and sinker,
it can honestly be said that you have been well and truly captured.

Click to expand...

Is this in any way productive, or are you just here to insult people? Contribute to the thread. Support or refute his comments, or leave them alone. Ad hominem attacks like this aren't helpful to anybody.

Seriously Consol, cut it out.

Orogeny said:

Is this in any way productive, or are you just here to insult people? Contribute to the thread. Support or refute his comments, or leave them alone. Ad hominem attacks like this aren't helpful to anybody.

Seriously Consol, cut it out.

Click to expand...

I will if Deaver understands even 10% of what you wrote above, in fact I bet he comes back with even more rubbish just because you are conversing with him, he honestly thinks he has a case, you and I are wasting our time here because these people are too far gone.

Speaking of gone, so am I.

SignOfGod said:

you and I are wasting our time here because these people are too far gone.

Click to expand...

Then leave and don't come back. It's a simple solution.

Deaver said:

Please provide your source that supports what you say. There is a plethra of research that support who the authors of the Gospels were.

Click to expand...

Source


Source


Source


Source



And remember, all of those statements are themselves sourced, so if you're going to complain about them, please critique the cited source itself, and don't just give me a cop-out 'wikipedia is atheistic propaganda' or any of that other blather.

Deaver said:

I will remove the words "want to believe" and then I stand on my position that the facts are all the same for both sides of any debate.

Click to expand...

The facts don't change. They tell one story. The problem is while science uses all of the facts, and cannot ignore any facts when discovering how the world works, the creationist must ignore most of the facts because they have completely destroyed the YEC position. There was no global flood or genetic bottleneck 4000 years ago. Humanity did not originate from two original humans created 6000 years ago. Humans did not live with dinosaurs.

Once both sides look at the facts, how they are interpreted is then directly correlated to how we defend our position.

Click to expand...

Facts are facts. I don't defend my position with facts, my position is created by the facts. It accounts for all the facts, and doesn't take a pre-conceived position that picks and chooses tiny bits of the facts to support itself.

I believe that God doesn't want us to follow Him with "blind faith" but rather with "faith" supported by intelligence.

Click to expand...

If this 'intelligence' is telling you to ignore the facts and blindly believe your interpretation of certain parts of scripture is inerrant, than isn't 'faith' you have, it's pride and arrogance.

I can honestly say that I read the Bible and study it a lot before I came to the position I have.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Bible isn't the best way to determine which parts of the Bible you should take literally and which parts are meant to be read allegorically. When reality and scripture are at odds, perhaps it would be a good idea to take another look at how you're interpreting the scripture. Interpretations can change -- facts and reality cannot.

I also feel very strongly that given time I and others that believe as I do can show that science and the Bible are fully in concert with one another.

Click to expand...

Patiently waiting for you to show me where the evidence supporting a global flood 4000 years ago along with an extremely tight genetic bottleneck apparent in all species.

I believe the Bible to be 100% inerrant in its original manuscripts,

Click to expand...

A nice thought, but as we don't actually have any original manuscripts, you're left with obviously fallible translations, copies and interpretations. Thus it becomes even more important to realize that neither the copies of the bible you buy today, nor your interpretations of the words therein are infallible, and when a conflict between your fallible interpretation and reality arises, it's extremely important you not just brush that off to keep to your interpretation, but you reevaluate your interpretation in light of the fact that reality is the absolute here, not your fallible interpretation.

and that the Holy Spirit will guide us to understand what it is that God wants us to know.

Click to expand...

Ah, the 'godmind' excuse.

I don't mean to say that the Bible is a science book or a history book, it isn't.

Click to expand...

Then stop trying to fool yourself into believing that you know more about science than 99.9% of scientists the world over.

rjc34 said:

"Matthew" probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the 1st century;[1] the anonymous author drew on a number of sources, including the Gospel of Mark, the sayings collection known as the Q source, and material unique to his own community.[2]​

Source

Click to expand...

His belief. The belief that the Mark as the author should be relinquished is not universal.

All four canonical gospels are anonymous, but Early Christian tradition identifies this gospel's author as Mark the Evangelist, who is said to have based the work on the testimony of Saint Peter.[4] Some modern scholars consider the traditional authorship account to be essentially credible,[5] while others doubt it.[6]​

Source

Click to expand...

Belief. People doubt the authorship. Big news.

The writer of this anonymous gospel was probably a Gentile Christian.[12] Whoever the author was, he was highly educated, well traveled, well connected, and extremely widely read. By the time he composed the Gospel, he must have been a highly practiced and competent author - able to compose in a wide variety of literary forms according to the demands of the moment.[37]​

Source

Click to expand...

And we know that the gospel writer could never have been any of those.

The Gospel's authorship is anonymous. Its Chapter 21 states it derives from the testimony of the 'disciple whom Jesus loved.' Along with Peter, the unnamed disciple is especially close to Jesus, and early-church tradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books together,[2] yet according to most modern scholars John was not the author of any of these books.[3]​

Source

Click to expand...

Then that's their belief. Also, the condition of multiple authors is to fulfill the requirement of multiple witnesses in a given testimony. Nothing to do with anonymity.

And remember, all of those statements are themselves sourced, so if you're going to complain about them, please critique the cited source itself, and don't just give me a cop-out 'wikipedia is atheistic propaganda' or any of that other blather.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, people already have positions regarding the Gospels.

Deaver said:

Please provide your source that supports what you say. There is a plethra of research that support who the authors of the Gospels were.

Click to expand...

Funny how you ask him for sources, but don't offer any for your claims.

Lion Hearted Man said:

Funny how you ask him for sources, but don't offer any for your claims.

Click to expand...

[tongue in cheek] Sure he did. It's right there in the Bible, right there before the first verse of each Gospel: "The Gospel According to Matthew (Mark, Luke, or John)." What more proof do you need than that? I mean the Bible itself affirms it! [/tongue in cheek]

rjc34 said:

<snip>
And remember, all of those statements are themselves sourced, so if you're going to complain about them, please critique the cited source itself, and don't just give me a cop-out 'wikipedia is atheistic propaganda' or any of that other blather.
​

Click to expand...

You obviously don't know how I feel about contributing in these forums. I don't complain. Even though I disagree with what your sources write, I just want to thank you for at least providing more than just blah blah blah. Even though I could take the time to provide contradictory claims, it wont really contribute, I am sure you are aware of them. If not let me know and I will add them to this thread. This is another example how each of the sides of this debate will find evidence supporting their position, and that is a good thing. I use these forums to gather data that will help me in the future as I continue to support my Christian faith as God leads me. Kudos to you for your response.

Deaver said:

You obviously don't know how I feel about contributing in these forums. I don't complain. Even though I disagree with what your sources write, I just want to thank you for at least providing more than just blah blah blah. Even though I could take the time to provide contradictory claims, it wont really contribute, I am sure you are aware of them. If not let me know and I will add them to this thread. This is another example how each of the sides of this debate will find evidence supporting their position, and that is a good thing. I use these forums to gather data that will help me in the future as I continue to support my Christian faith as God leads me. Kudos to you for your response.

Click to expand...

I assume then you're conceding the point? The authorship of all 4 gospels in anonymous, with most of them only ascribed to actual people through church tradition. This is the scholarly consensus on the matter, and posting the opinions of a few people who support your view isn't going to change that. If you can find a source that shows the scholarly consensus about the authorship of any of the Gospels now supports a specific individual, I welcome the information.

rjc34 said:

I assume then you're conceding the point? The authorship of all 4 gospels in anonymous, with most of them only ascribed to actual people through church tradition. This is the scholarly consensus on the matter, and posting the opinions of a few people who support your view isn't going to change that. If you can find a source that shows the scholarly consensus about the authorship of any of the Gospels now supports a specific individual, I welcome the information.

Click to expand...

Now I see the problem -- 'scholarly consensus'.

Are these 'scholarly consensused' believers in verbal plenary inspiration?

I have a feeling these 'scholars' are about as commonly known by you guys as Colonel Sanders' secret recipe.