Lines of Evidence

[SkyWriting]

History is often revised by the teller.

Also, history is often completely made up by the teller as well.

Correct.

There is no physiological difference between experienced and imagined events.

 

[[serious]]

“but why believe the Bible” --> The Bible is infallible --> “but how do you know it’s infallible” --> The Bible is the word of God --> but how can you be sure it’s the word of God?” --> Because God Himself tells us so.

where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?

 

[SkyWriting]

Where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?

I have found it to be inspired and free of error by experience
using the rules of science for confirmation.
So it is scientifically verified.


That which is historical must be taken on faith.
As with any historical account or theory.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

<edit> free of error <edit>

Dream on.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's time to revive this thread and move forward into:

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?

DARWIN'S EXTREME IMPERFECTION

'Darwin used the words "extreme imperfection" to describe the gappy nature of the fossil record - but is this really such a problem? This article delves into the topic of transitional fossils and explores what we have learned about them since Darwin's time.' (please read: Darwin?s ?Extreme? Imperfection? - Springer )

 

[Split Rock]

and evolution theory.

I've seen a few thesitic evolutionists make this claim, but most do not. I don't believe that the theory of evolution is supported by the bible. I don't believe it's disproved by the bible either, however.

That is not the argument. The argument is that the resurrection of Jesus gives support to the idea that Adam&#8217;s life (Man&#8217;s life) could have been restored (re-created) from a previous life form, rather than evolved from apes. The verse &#8220;Let us make man in our image&#8221; suggests that the man might have existed in a previous form before he was re-created from dust in God&#8217;s image.
"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth" - (Acts 17:26).

This is also a very thin argument.. virtually made of paper. "Let us make man in our image," does not at all suggest man was being re-made.

The historical biblical record shows that humans descended from one man (Adam), which reveals a big flaw in your evolution theory, destroying its credibility.

You need a new theory that is consistent with the history, because you cannot change history.

This is no historical account of mankind descending from one man. No one ever witnessed such an event, nor is it even possible. GEN 1-2 are allegorical stories, not historical accounts. The writers couldn't have witnessed any of it anyway, since they weren't there. I know you are going to say God was there, but he didn't write the bible.. even if he inspired the bible, that doesn't change the reality that GEN1-2 are not historial anyway.

Your dogmatic belief in mankind descending from Adam is inconsistant with objective reality. You need a new belief that is consistant with reality, because you cannot change reality.

You should listen to the Bible. I never claimed my theory was Ultimate Truth. I am simply showing that my theory has greater biblical historical support than yours.

I never claimed the TOE had biblical support... why would it? The bible is about theology, not biology. Therefore, your point is moot.

The only way your evolution theory works is by denying the biblical history. But you cannot change history.

The only way you can rationalize your belief in creationism is by denying reality and misinterpreting scripture.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Good news!

FLOOD GEOLOGY has had a visit from RickG l HERE | HERE

See you there, don't be square!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The only way your evolution theory works is by denying the biblical history.

Coming into a thread such as this, where I (and hopefully there are others who) want to know what evidence there is which relates specifically to the scientific theory of evolution -- and not whether the biblical history sits comfortably with it or not / present pseudo-scientific ideas as possible theories -- are going to experience a certain degree of hurt if they don't want to acknowledge the true focus of it.

But you cannot change history.

There is a sense in which we are not changing old history books, we need 'em, we love 'em, but we are writing new history. What that will turn out to be in 1000 years, if we don't re-create ourselves in much the same way we see in so many movies: I Robot, AI etc. -- and end up becoming slaves to our inventions aka. HG Wells -- thereby turning the world into some sort of post-apocalyptic nightmare, where Darth Vader becomes a real entity and the aliens (if there be dragons) revisit the earth and create spawn like in the days of Noah -- Nephelim, Heffalumps and Magic Garden Gnomes -- but for now, I am as a believer in God -- very eager to understand the evidence with RELATES to EVOLUTION.

Is there anymore?

This is one of the first things that I learned about from a friend who seemed to have a colossal capacity for absorbing all this sort of technical stuff.

Well, this is the current primer -- hopefully they shall come.

EVIDENCE BY EXAMPLE: ARTIFICIAL SELECTION

'Although the history of life is always in the past, there are many ways we can look at present-day organisms, as well as recent history, to better understand what has occurred through deep time. Artificial selection in agriculture or laboratories provides a model for natural selection. ....'

 

[Loudmouth]

You just don't see what I have been saying, or don't want to believe what my position would really be. I did not say at all that fossils are all, or even mostly, fake. I can recognize the fossil skulls too, I have been in classes showing those too. I can see fossil humans which I can say includes Neanderthal people are with what you displayed shown from the skull identified with the designation F and onward from that, including babies' skulls, the other skulls are representing other hominid and ape creatures. I see no actual transition in that.

What features would a real transitional have that these skulls are missing?

Yes I can see there would be organization from the Creator by design into groups according to feature, this is not from being limited, but with being orderly for the Creator's own purposes, there is logic to that thinking, the evidence is just what there is that is interpreted one way by you and others and this way by me and others seeing the same way. So we don't have something conclusive just with that.

What logic is there? Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Why can't there be groups with a mixture of mammal and bird features, just as there are groups with a mixture of fish and amphibian features?

The monotremes, for your example, are their own category of mammals,their features are their own with being mammal, they are not reptilian, what they have would be recognized being distinct from reptiles.

What they have is a mixture of mammal and reptile features. If God would mix mammal and reptile features, why not bird and mammal?

There is no falsification of the Creator.

IOW, no evidence will change your mind. Thanks for playing.

 

[Loudmouth]

The circle does not represent my reasoning at all. It represents your denial of the God who inspired the Bible.

Where is your evidence that God inspired the Bible?

 

[RickG]

The writers couldn't have witnessed any of it anyway, since they weren't there. I know you are going to say God was there, but he didn't write the bible.. even if he inspired the bible, that doesn't change the reality that GEN1-2 are not historial anyway.

The one thing that I understand that validates the bible comes from one of the bibles scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:16, which states:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Opposing views of course state something like this:

You say the bible is true because the bible says it is.
​

In other words circular reasoning. Hmmm, "circular reasoning", now where have we heard that before?

Nevertheless, the bible did not exist when 2 Timothy was written. 2 Timothy is specifically speaking of scripture, not the bible. Now, who decided what was scripture and what was not scripture and how do we know what was and what was not inspired by God.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's time to revive this thread and move forward into:

'Darwin used the words "extreme imperfection" to describe the gappy nature of the fossil record - . . .

Hold on a sec. You might want to check the source material.

"The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html
(last sentence of first paragraph)

He used "extreme imperfection" to describe the large time gaps between sediments, not fossils.

If the geologic record is extremely imperfect, then you will necessarily have a gappy fossil record.

 

[Doveaman]

where and how did God tell you? Was it a vision?

No, in my brain.

We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.

It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.

I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, in my brain.

We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.

It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.

What evidence do you have that these voices are real and not just your imagination?

 

[Doveaman]

What evidence do you have that these voices are real and not just your imagination?

God's word predicts what I should experience when I test/obey it. It never fails as long as you know how to do the tests.

 

[Loudmouth]

God's word predicts what I should experience when I test/obey it. It never fails as long as you know how to do the tests.

Any specific predictions that aren't so vague as to be useless?

 

[Davian]

No, in my brain.

We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.

It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.

I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.

It's a shame that this 'godboost' is insufficient for you to make some convincing arguments in this forum.

 

[[serious]]

No, in my brain.

We don't necessarily need ears to hear nor eyes to see. We just need a functional brain for God to work with.

It would seem that theists have more brain power than atheists, hence our awareness of God.

I think it's because God boost our brain power somehow.

You mean like voices? You head God speak in your head and tell you that the bible is the word of God?

 

[stevevw]

You just don't see what I have been saying, or don't want to believe what my position would really be. I did not say at all that fossils are all, or even mostly, fake. I can recognize the fossil skulls too, I have been in classes showing those too. I can see fossil humans which I can say includes Neanderthal people are with what you displayed shown from the skull identified with the designation F and onward from that, including babies' skulls, the other skulls are representing other hominid and ape creatures. I see no actual transition in that.

Yes I can see there would be organization from the Creator by design into groups according to feature, this is not from being limited, but with being orderly for the Creator's own purposes, there is logic to that thinking, the evidence is just what there is that is interpreted one way by you and others and this way by me and others seeing the same way. So we don't have something conclusive just with that.

The monotremes, for your example, are their own category of mammals,their features are their own with being mammal, they are not reptilian, what they have would be recognized being distinct from reptiles.

There is no falsification of the Creator.

It also doesn't take into consideration natural variations within the same species. They have found skulls from one species with variations that would just about cover the entire bottom row of shapes in that skull picture showing transitions. Evolutionists are so eager to name new species that they will make a new species out of every new shape they find in the ground as it gives them some recognition. There have even been as you said younger versions of the same species of animal made into a transitional. Some young dinos will have a few vastly different features of their parents and therefore evolutionists make them a new transitional. They will see the similarities but make them a new species because of the differences. But then later the bones are tested and they are found to be younger versions of the same species.

A lot of the evidence for ape man are based on very one or two features. The position of a thigh bone as it sits in the thigh joint. Or the positions of other bones when pieced back together. Its up for interpretation and when an evolutionists wants something to be transitional they already have a pre conceived idea of what they want. A lot of the time its elevating an ape up to human level and degrading a human down to an ape. There is a lot of disagreement with evolutionists themselves over what features represent a transitional. But many will say that what was presented as a transitional are either just ape or just human.
Ancient skull could change the story of human evolution
The research team suggests that this diversity among a single group of Homo erectus means many other fossils may be misidentified as separate species.
Ancient skull could change the story of human evolution | Natural History Museum
The Overselling of Ardipithecus ramidus
The Overselling of <i>Ardipithecus ramidus</i>
The Evolution of Early Man

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The one thing that I understand that validates the bible comes from one of the bibles scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:16, which states:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
​

Opposing views of course state something like this:

You say the bible is true because the bible says it is.
​

In other words circular reasoning. Hmmm, "circular reasoning", now where have we heard that before?

Nevertheless, the bible did not exist when 2 Timothy was written. 2 Timothy is specifically speaking of scripture, not the bible. Now, who decided what was scripture and what was not scripture and how do we know what was and what was not inspired by God.

A good couple of questions:

Who decided what was scripture and what was not scripture?

No one*

How do we know what was and what was not inspired by God?

*

---
* - Who Decided What Went into the Bible? - Online Bible Study Tools