Is it a hoax?

[lesliedellow]

All historical writings are after the event.
So would current writings of history be less accurate in your book
that you are writing? Not nearly as accurate as your sources?
That's what you are claiming, that you cannot, today, write as accurate
as your source material?

I am claiming that if historians can use evidence available in the present to write about events in the past, evolutionary biologists can do likewise.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am claiming that if historians can use evidence available in the present to write about events in the past, evolutionary biologists can do likewise.

So the further the distance from the past event...the more accurate or less accurate?

You made a point about scripture being less accurate.
Are you sticking with that then?

 

[lesliedellow]

My mistake. The three synoptic gospels.
Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke called the synoptic gospels?

Because the account of Jesus' life is similar in the three synoptic gospels, and both Matthew and Luke draw upon Mark for source material. Matthew more so than Luke. John is noticably independent of the other three in his depiction of Jesus' life and ministry.

 

[lesliedellow]

So the further the distance from the past event...the more accurate or less accurate?

You made a point about scripture being less accurate.
Are you sticking with that then?

That all depends upon the amount of evidence available, doesn't it?

I don't remember saying anything about the accuracy of scripture, beyond noting that the gospels were written after the event.

 

[Zoii]

why not? there are many evidence for design in nature and many evidence against evolution. for instance: the kinesin motor is like a robot that walk on two:

we know that such a structure is evidence for design and not a natural process. another problem is with the time we need to evolve such a complex system. even a small protein have a giant sequence space and 4.5 bilion years may be too short in time.

all you've done is give your opinion - what evidence is there that the kinesin motor is not the product of evolution. My point is that too often we Christians refute anything that doesn't fit tightly into the literal translation of the bible despite the steady stream of scientific evidence that builds. That IMO just makes us seem closed minded and stuck in the 1st century.

Whats more absurd is that we are happy to embrace science when it suits us..eg the very internet your using is based on many scientific discoveries. But when similar evidence is put forward eg Big Bang then too many Christians simply wont even consider it basing there refute on the literal words in the bible.

The purpose of the bible is not to be a scientific text. It isnt a manual on how to fix your computer and it isnt a manual for matters related to astrophysics. Its intended purpose is a paradigm on how to live our lives and to love god, and not as the textbook of science and biology. We misuse use it and then get into illogical debates with reputable science.

 

[sfs]

I would be thrilled to engage in a serious discussion of the subject, IF, you are interested in one as suggested below, are you?

"I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, or will you have an excuse for not doing so? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral which I would think would be obvious but seems not to be the case for some."

Absolutely. I am always willing to engage in a serious discussion of evolution -- with the caveat in this case that I'll be gone for the next couple of days(*) on my summer vacation, so my replies may not be prompt.

For the future, you might want to note that opening by accusing your opponents of acting in bad faith is not a good way to indicate a desire for a serious discussion.

(*) Short vacation this year.

 

[sfs]

I suggest we start with my point about humans and chimpanzees, since it's a pair of species for which we have lots of genetic evidence, and which includes the species most people are really interested in: us.

Did you understand my point about mutations and differences between humans and chimps?

 

[tevans9129]

Please answer me this question,

"I am willing to answer all questions that you may ask with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, I will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. I will also address each point that you present, IF, you are willing to reciprocate in like manner, or will you have an excuse for not doing so? My offer to answer all questions is not unilateral which I would think would be obvious but seems not to be the case for some."

IF, someone "knows what" they are talking about, they would be willing and able to answer all questions they may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers rather than deflections, diversions and/or avoiding.

 

[tevans9129]

All historical writings are after the event.

I have read that God's prophecies are history written in advance, which so far has been proven true.

 

[lesliedellow]

Oh look, post #68, he can copy and paste - or rather, he can pluck phrases out of context and quote them. That is the one thing he seems to be really really good at.

 

[tevans9129]

Absolutely. I am always willing to engage in a serious discussion of evolution -- with the caveat in this case that I'll be gone for the next couple of days(*) on my summer vacation, so my replies may not be prompt.

Just to be perfectly clear, you are willing to answer every question that I may ask with plausible, verifiable answers, just as I agree to do, is that correct? If so, I am very much looking forward to it and there is no hurry, it is at your convenience.

For the future, you might want to note that opening by accusing your opponents of acting in bad faith is not a good way to indicate a desire for a serious discussion.

(*) Short vacation this year.

Did you notice this sentence in my OP?

"The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO." BTW, opinions are accepted if they are not presented as fact.

I am allowed to have my opinion, am I not? BTW, opinions are accepted, if, they are not presented as fact.

 

[pitabread]

Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?

A Ford and a Nissan are made of the same materials. Do they have the same designer?

 

[pitabread]

Exactly, in fact, there is no evidence for much of the claims made by those that believe all life came from a single cell, speculation, conjecture, belief does not equate to evidence.

The earliest fossilized life on Earth are single celled organisms. Multi-cellular life came later.

 

[xianghua]

all you've done is give your opinion - what evidence is there that the kinesin motor is not the product of evolution. My point is that too often we Christians refute anything that doesn't fit tightly into the literal translation of the bible despite the steady stream of scientific evidence that builds. That IMO just makes us seem closed minded and stuck in the 1st century.

Whats more absurd is that we are happy to embrace science when it suits us..eg the very internet your using is based on many scientific discoveries. But when similar evidence is put forward eg Big Bang then too many Christians simply wont even consider it basing there refute on the literal words in the bible.

The purpose of the bible is not to be a scientific text. It isnt a manual on how to fix your computer and it isnt a manual for matters related to astrophysics. Its intended purpose is a paradigm on how to live our lives and to love god, and not as the textbook of science and biology. We misuse use it and then get into illogical debates with reputable science.

ok. first: i doesnt said anything about bible or religion. just science. i actually post a thread about my main argument here:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

you are welcome to explain why it's not a good argument if you think so.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth?

In the first place it doesn't. Earth is very largely silicon, whereas there are only trace amounts of that in the human body. About the only thing they do both have in abundance is oxygen. In the second place. There are only 92 naturally occuring elements to go round, so it is hardly surprising that all of them are to be found everywhere.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Bible states that because of the disobedience of those who stoutly refuse to believe that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and that He rose from the dead, and who irreversably refused to accept Christ as Saviour, God Himself will send on them a strong delusion so that they will be blocked from every knowing the truth of the Gospel. I believe that Evolution is one of those delusions. This is borne out by those who believe in it will fight tooth and nail to support it, even in the face of clear scientific facts that show that it is a complete fantasy. Evolution is a type of religion, rather than a credible science, and those who believe in it, rather than the Bible account of creation are deceived so as to show their separation from those who are genuine believers in Christ. If that is so, no reasonable of logical arguments will convince these people of anything that will show them that their belief in Evolution is an error. This is because the delusion comes from not an intellectual source but a spiritual one.

This isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't share your view of Biblical authority and inerrancy.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Absolutely agree. Satan mixed a little truth in with his lies to mislead Eve and he is still doing the same thing to mislead others for his purpose.

Like the dinosaur fossils God put here to fool us!

 

[Jimmy D]

Just to be perfectly clear, you are willing to answer every question that I may ask with plausible, verifiable answers, just as I agree to do, is that correct? If so, I am very much looking forward to it and there is no hurry, it is at your convenience.





Did you notice this sentence in my OP?

"The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO." BTW, opinions are accepted if they are not presented as fact.

I am allowed to have my opinion, am I not?

Of course you are allowed your own opinion, in this instance though as it involved calling your fellow christians liars it might be better to keep it to yourself, it makes you seem mean spirited and arrogant beyond belief. I don't know what you hope to achieve on this forum but you aren't going to win many converts with that attitude.

I believe the big guy doesn't take too kindly to bearing false witness either, you should be careful there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science cannot re-create events that have past.
But it can imagine that it can. Fiction always wins.
Even when they lose to new fictions, it's called a win.

There is no need to recreate events. Why do you think that needs to be done?

Forensic scientists do not have to murder another person to prove that someone murdered someone.

There is no fiction in science. But guess where there is fiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?

Try to think logically. The human body has to be made up of elements found on the Earth.

The problem with the creation story is that it can be used to make predictions of what we should see if it is true. We simply do not see what it predicts. That tells us there was no creation event as outlined in the Bible.