If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[Speedwell]

Either side could use these quotes.
A book of stories, penned by anonymous authors. You have believed a malicious, selfish, evil, deceptive lie.
It is a lie many want to believe. Yes, we all have our choice to follow what we want, and why we want to. We will all have to live with the consequences. I bet I am more blessed, happy, and content with believing the Bible to be the Word of God, than if I believed I came into being by chance, accident, and have no future after death. Talk about "knocking yourself out". Who is doing that? I understand your meaning, but use it now as a fight who accidentally hits himself and k nocks himself out.

Talk about your false dichotomies! What about people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but don't subscribe to your reading of it? Are they necessarily less blessed, happy and content than you? Do they necessarily believe they came into being by chance, accident and have no future after death? Which is not even to mention all of those who belong to non-Abrhamic theisms who don't believe they came into being by chance, accident and have no future after death.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Every hour of every day, you enjoy the benefits of what science has discovered, with it's methods. Yet, you don't trust any of these daily benefits, but still enjoy them.

Don't over exaggerate what I said. Sure I believe, trust, and enjoy much of what scientists have discovered. I just don't trust everything, or all their false conclusions.
God meant for man/scientists to discover what He truly created. Matthew Murray discovered ocean currents after her read of them in Psalms 8:8. Columbus didn't trust the then current false teaching that the world was flat, after reading Isaiah 40:22. One great scientist, during the Renaissance Period I believe, said regarding some of his great discoveries "I have just thought God's thoughts after Him." meaning he had just discovered what God already knew and had created.

 

[Speedwell]

The dragons were dinosaurs. Even some Christian teachers of the Bible have tried to explain certain animals mentioned in the Bible as being animals that exist today: Rhinoceros, elephant, jackal, hippo. Those Christians fail to see that the actual Bible animal described in Job 40:15,17,19; and the one in Job 41:1 and Job 41:21 no longer exist today. Just because some people have never seen such animals doesn't mean they didn't exist. There are even fossil records of similar dinosaurs.

Behemoth was one of three (along with Leviathan and Ziz) well-known legendary creatures of Hebrew folklore. Not a dinosaur.

 

[bhsmte]

Don't over exaggerate what I said. Sure I believe, trust, and enjoy much of what scientists have discovered. I just don't trust everything, or all their false conclusions.
God meant for man/scientists to discover what He truly created. Matthew Murray discovered ocean currents after her read of them in Psalms 8:8. Columbus didn't trust the then current false teaching that the world was flat, after reading Isaiah 40:22. One great scientist, during the Renaissance Period I believe, said regarding some of his great discoveries "I have just thought God's thoughts after Him." meaning he had just discovered what God already knew and had created.

You trust science, except when it disagrees with your personal faith beliefs?

Would that be correct?

 

[Greg Merrill]

That's interesting. Can you name any in particular? And how would you know? You don't seem particularly well informed about Christians outside your own sect.

What "sect" do you imagine me to be in?
For starters, Christianity is not technically a religion.
All religions are based on either being good or doing good to appease or please a god or gods to be on good terms with or blessed by these deities.
Christianity teaches just the opposite. One is not "saved" by good works or being good (Ephesians 2:8-9). One is saved by admitting they are not good enough and need a Savior to do for them what they can't do. The God of Christianity is not looking for people to try to do good enough to have a relationship with Him. He is looking for people to invite Jesus to be their Savior and Lord, thus being born from above (by God) into God's family, beginning a familial relationship
with him, not following a man-made religion.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Yeah, except that the terminology used in the Bible is incredibly unclear about certain things, and also, Disney does not have the market on the descriptions of dragons and unicorns since art of those creatures goes back all the way to the Early Medieval Ages.
Heck, my own country has a dragon as it's national emblem since 829 AD and we sure as heck aren't affiliated with Disney.

The only thing this shows is that you overestimate your own intelligence about the Bible. Classic example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I simply thought more people would understand my reference to Disney rather that giving them all I know about dragons and their symbols used. Your point of dragons being used by ancient people groups is something I am well aware of, and have used for verification that dragon really did once exist and were observed by these people groups or their ancient ancestors.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Hey, when you make claims, I would expect people to ask you to support them. This is the science portion of the forum and people will ask you to provide something other than personal opinion, to support your position.

Let me ask you this; is it at all possible, you could be wrong about your beliefs, or are you infallible in this regard?

I could be wrong in minor details, of course. I am not infallible. But generally speaking, like millions of others that believe and study the Bible well, God has allowed and desired us to know the truth about the world He has created, and what plans He has for it. This knowledge is available to any who will search for it, and search for the God behind it, Jeremiah 29:13; Isaiah 55:6.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I simply thought more people would understand my reference to Disney rather that giving them all I know about dragons and their symbols used. Your point of dragons being used by ancient people groups is something I am well aware of, and have used for verification that dragon really did once exist and were observed by these people groups or their ancient ancestors.

Dragons didn't exist. There's no biological way for such a creature to have lived, and even if they did, we haven't found a single shred of evidence to support the claim that they existed.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Just... wrong. All of this is just so horribly wrong. It's obvious that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Only wrong if you are in a state of denial, pre-programmed to believe in the lie of evolution. Michael Behe felt just like you probably do, only the evidence that what he had been taught as a secular scientist was wrong was so overwhelming, that he had the inner courage to admit to himself that he had "been led down the primrose path" as he calls it.

 

[bhsmte]

I could be wrong in minor details, of course. I am not infallible. But generally speaking, like millions of others that believe and study the Bible well, God has allowed and desired us to know the truth about the world He has created, and what plans He has for it. This knowledge is available to any who will search for it, and search for the God behind it, Jeremiah 29:13; Isaiah 55:6.

Let me be clearer.

Could you be wrong about the God you believe in existing? Yes, or no?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only wrong if you are in a state of denial, pre-programmed to believe in the lie of evolution. Michael Behe felt just like you probably do, only the evidence that what he had been taught as a secular scientist was wrong was so overwhelming, that he had the inner courage to admit to himself that he had "been led down the primrose path" as he calls it.

No, it's just that I see that you have a horribly poor grasp of science and you seem insanely proud of that poor grasp, and it's genuinely sad.

 

[bhsmte]

Only wrong if you are in a state of denial, pre-programmed to believe in the lie of evolution. Michael Behe felt just like you probably do, only the evidence that what he had been taught as a secular scientist was wrong was so overwhelming, that he had the inner courage to admit to himself that he had "been led down the primrose path" as he calls it.

If I were you, I would google Behe's testimony under oath in the Dover trial. It is highly entertaining and he was exposed, big time.

 

[Greg Merrill]

Talk about your false dichotomies! What about people who believe the Bible to be the Word of God, but don't subscribe to your reading of it? Are they necessarily less blessed, happy and content than you? Do they necessarily believe they came into being by chance, accident and have no future after death? Which is not even to mention all of those who belong to non-Abrhamic theisms who don't believe they came into being by chance, accident and have no future after death.

There are all kinds of Christians that believe all kinds of things, and are at all kinds of levels, under all kinds of teachers, who have various amounts of self study. Of course I can't speak for them, nor would I want to. Believers in God, outside of Christianity, I don't speak for either, though God does tell us to discern between right and wrong, and to JUDGE righteous judgment (not condemnation, but discerning) John 7:24.

 

[Speedwell]

Only wrong if you are in a state of denial, pre-programmed to believe in the lie of evolution. Michael Behe felt just like you probably do, only the evidence that what he had been taught as a secular scientist was wrong was so overwhelming, that he had the inner courage to admit to himself that he had "been led down the primrose path" as he calls it.

He sure was led down a primrose path--by a gang of radical Calvinists who want to impose a theocratic dictatorship on us.

 

[bhsmte]

Only wrong if you are in a state of denial, pre-programmed to believe in the lie of evolution. Michael Behe felt just like you probably do, only the evidence that what he had been taught as a secular scientist was wrong was so overwhelming, that he had the inner courage to admit to himself that he had "been led down the primrose path" as he calls it.

Tell me your thoughts on the devout Christian Francis Collins. Physician and former head of the human genome project and his view on the evidence that demonstrates evolution to be true.

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2


Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

 

[Greg Merrill]

He sure was led down a primrose path--by a gang of radical Calvinists who want to impose a theorcratic dictatorship on us.

I will be doing a google on "Behe's testimony under oath in the Dover trial." I am not a fan of Calvinists, radical or otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

What "sect" do you imagine me to be in?
For starters, Christianity is not technically a religion.
All religions are based on either being good or doing good to appease or please a god or gods to be on good terms with or blessed by these deities.
Christianity teaches just the opposite. One is not "saved" by good works or being good (Ephesians 2:8-9). One is saved by admitting they are not good enough and need a Savior to do for them what they can't do. The God of Christianity is not looking for people to try to do good enough to have a relationship with Him. He is looking for people to invite Jesus to be their Savior and Lord, thus being born from above (by God) into God's family, beginning a familial relationship
with him, not following a man-made religion.

So, no, you can't name any particular books, and I wonder if you have actually read any, given your comments above.

 

[Speedwell]

I will be doing a google on "Behe's testimony under oath in the Dover trial." I am not a fan of Calvinists, radical or otherwise.

While you're at it, Google the "wedge strategy" and The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdooney, wherein the details of the polity the IDists desire are particularly described.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The dragons were dinosaurs. Even some Christian teachers of the Bible have tried to explain certain animals mentioned in the Bible as being animals that exist today: Rhinoceros, elephant, jackal, hippo. Those Christians fail to see that the actual Bible animal described in Job 40:15,17,19; and the one in Job 41:1 and Job 41:21 no longer exist today. Just because some people have never seen such animals doesn't mean they didn't exist. There are even fossil records of similar dinosaurs.

I think you underestimate the human capacity to exaggerate. Komodo dragons are large enough to consume humans, and a few of the words in the OT that are translated as "sea dragon" can also be alternatively translated to mean "crocodile". A few of the dragon mentions in the bible are in Revelations, with one description having multiple heads and tails, which doesn't describe any dinosaur. I'd interpret them as demons as opposed to being a normal fauna, or exaggerations of normal but legitimately dangerous and serpent-like fauna such as crocodiles and komodo dragons. Heck, they may be the result of stories passed down of extinct large lizards that did coexist with humans for a time, such as Megalania.

 

[Greg Merrill]

While you're at it, Google the "wedge strategy" and The Institutes of Biblical Law by R. J. Rushdooney, wherein the details of the polity the IDists desire are particularly described.

Regarding Behe: Just like watching a speech by Trump, and then listening to the "twist" liberal newscasters put on it (which I no longer listen to), it is obvious to those that think Behe was defeated at the Dover trial have been mislead. See MICHAEL BEHE ON THE WITNESS STAND