My YEC Evidence Challenge

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Short term memory loss? Must be because you're old and fickle.

Seriously though, you believed that the theory of evolution was a hypothesis which I agreed with. Are you now saying due to peer pressure and the need for man's praise that it's not a hypothesis now? Again lets be careful with the terms 'evolution' which you tend to use lazily.

I could copy and paste to refresh your memory?
Go right ahead. My recollection is that I have affirmed many times that abiogenesis is an hypothesis. But I will see if you can correct me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Macroevolution has been observed. Multiple times. Just be honest. Your problem with it is religious. When I was a creationist that's why I didn't believe it, because that would make God a liar and if there is no original sin than there's no reason for Jesus and my whole life is about Jesus! I can't live without believing in Jesus! I feel like he's true! I must deny reality to protect my feelings! (my thoughts weren't that clear cut I thought I was standing up for the truth and totally in the right but looking back that's what my reasoning was.) That and I was taught an evolution story that if true was indeed ridiculous and wrong. (Thankfully I finally looked at the evidence head on instead of being fed a version of it. I was blown away at the evidence because my whole life I was just told opinions, thoughts and feelings about god, jesus, etc. and this was millions of pieces of hard evidence not just thoughts, opinions and emotions. So strange and amazing. Truly amazing.) And that's fine if you want to deny science but when you try to take out science and/or put in non-science in public schools, that's a big problem. You be you otherwise.

Welcome to the forum. I have to ask, what the heck is that thing, a giant guinea pig?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

I'm curious as to what your explanation is for the diversity of life on Earth, both living and in the fossil record?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,385
29
Wales
✟346,788.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Behold! A great beast gilded in armor like horses prepared for battle. It has the appearance of a locus with the upturned tail of a scorpion. It has the heads of 2 men, the teeth of a lion, and the appearance of wearing a crown. Its movement is thunderous, like the movement of a thousand horses in battle, and like the rushing of mighty winds! It was given the power to kill and torment men, like the sting of a scorpion.

230786_f631e3f535ea72d5fd795e862154e495.png

First off, you didn't even say which part of the Bible that quote is from.
And secondly, you do know that a scorpion uses it's sting OFFENSIVELY, to attack, while an Apache gunship only uses it's tail rotor to control it's directional flight, right? And how is a rotor comparable to a crown?
Is your name Stretch Armstrong because that was a might big reach.
 
Upvote 0

Abraxos

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem.
Jan 12, 2016
1,116
599
123
New Zealand
✟69,315.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Go right ahead. My recollection is that I have affirmed many times that abiogenesis is an hypothesis. But I will see if you can correct me.
This is basically how it went:

You: The evolutionary lines appear to have emerged from a single point. No actual direct evidence but as I said, it's a reasonable conclusion--or hypothesis f you prefer.

You: "Nobody knows if it's true, but it seems reasonable."

Me: "If something cannot be demonstrated or tested repeatedly and you see no problem with that, then you have left science and entered into a belief system."

You: "There are many reasonable conclusions scientists come to that they are unable at the present to test. They remain hypotheses until such time (if ever) as it is possible to test them. If you assume common descent to be one of these, why should it be a problem, any more than any of the others?"

Me: "The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact."

You: "Regarded by who? Who is so foolish as to believe that"
Then you continued: "People find the common descent hypotheses pretty convincing. So what? It is pretty convincing."

Then I concluded the discussion in which you never replied back.
(Ask for source if you want)

I don't mind if you believe in the theory of evolution, many Christians do -- but respectfully don't pretend it's a scientific fact while discrediting other Christians that point out it's inconsistencies.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟268,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't mind if you believe in the theory of evolution, many Christians do -- but respectfully don't pretend it's a scientific fact while discrediting other Christians that point out it's inconsistencies.

What inconsistencies?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
This is basically how it went:

You: The evolutionary lines appear to have emerged from a single point. No actual direct evidence but as I said, it's a reasonable conclusion--or hypothesis f you prefer.

You: "Nobody knows if it's true, but it seems reasonable."

Me: "If something cannot be demonstrated or tested repeatedly and you see no problem with that, then you have left science and entered into a belief system."

You: "There are many reasonable conclusions scientists come to that they are unable at the present to test. They remain hypotheses until such time (if ever) as it is possible to test them. If you assume common descent to be one of these, why should it be a problem, any more than any of the others?"

Me: "The problem is that the theory of evolution is not regarded as a hypotheses, but it is regarded as a scientific fact."

You: "Regarded by who? Who is so foolish as to believe that"
Then you continued: "People find the common descent hypotheses pretty convincing. So what? It is pretty convincing."

Then I concluded the discussion in which you never replied back.
(Ask for source if you want)

I don't mind if you believe in the theory of evolution, many Christians do -- but respectfully don't pretend it's a scientific fact while discrediting other Christians that point out it's inconsistencies.
It will be interesting to see if anyone reading that exchange besides you will decide that in it I presented abiogenesis as anything but an hypothesis--just as I said. But you asserted that I presented the theory of evolution as an hypothesis and then changed back to calling it a theory under pressure of others. Obviously that is nothing but an offensive falsehood and you can find no evidence of it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Wondered if I was missing anything in this forum.

Waded the first page of this hot topic and saw no substantive discussion, just a lot of cheerleading.

So I guess I'm not missing anything.
So now where ya headed?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,978
64
✟333,182.00
Faith
Pentecostal
When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.

Absolutely. You are spot on!
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,978
64
✟333,182.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Show me this "Macroevolution has been observed." I bet you a trillion cents that you'll use variations as proof a fish can turn into an astronaut.
I've heard that from evolutionists before. And you are right. It's always a creature or plant or whatever that remains what it was while having some sort of microevolution or adaptation. It's never something that evolved from one type of creature into something else entirely.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
:D Hello @Jennifer Rothnie, Thanks for your response - Sorry for the piece-mealing of your posts, you've covered quite a lot and I find it disjointed addressing several paragraphs of Gish-Gallop with several paragraphs of response, so please bear with me...
#1. Not having the original manuscripts is only marginally relevant, as the manuscript copies we have are in over 99% agreement with each other, and variations are limited to such things as spelling differences, differing synonyms, word endings, minor grammatical differences, and sometimes an accidentally repeated line. While we do not have the original manuscripts, we can have extreme confidence that what we do have is very near to the contents of the originals - moreso than in any other ancient manuscript. We also have the ability to study the manuscripts in Greek and compare them - so anyone worried that an English translation is inferior can go check.
When you say little differences, they seem to be a little more than minor contrivances you mention there - for example, could you clear up the 'Begats' in the Bible from Adam to Jesus? Could you tell me in which order the Genesis account happened? Do you know who bought the Potter's Field after Jesus was crucified, and how Judas died? I'm sorry, but there's a cavalcade of texts in the bible that requires in-depth explanations that are themselves often contradictory to the other in-depth explanations offered by other believers... Also, I've always found it perplexing that the canonical Bible refers to so many non-canonical writings, why would a God have his official text referring to non-official texts so much, are they supposed to be included and God let them be lost by time, or are the divinely inspired biblical authors wrong to refer to them in the first place?
Furthermore, the scientific observations are filtered through 'fallible man' and experiments are conducted by 'fallible man' - over a far shorter time frame and with less corroboration than the writing of scripture! There is actually a huge problem in the sciences of 'science' taking a back-seat to big personalities or socially pushed theories. As a theory reaches the limits of scientists to test (equipment, finances, time, etc.) the scientific method begins to deteriorate as the theories move from slow, verifiable experiments to math-based models instead. Big personalities (Bill Nye, anyone?) become more important than objectivity, and research compromised as the scientists play to what is politically correct to get grant money rather than sticking to the purity of science, which should play no favorites.
The limits of science and the scientific method - ScienceDirect
Science has no 'Authorities' or 'Personalities' whose word has to be taken as gospel. Even Albert Einstein was challenged and proven wrong on scientific matters, particularly in the field of Quantum Mechanics. Nobody is ever taken to be an authority immune to question, no matter how popular or famous they might be. As many Science:101 classes begin on the scientific method, "No matter how attached to your theory you are, no matter how elegant a solution you have proposed to a problem, ultimately, in science, data rules all. If your idea doesn’t match the observations then it must be discarded. You can’t describe how the universe works if you don’t pay attention to what the universe is telling you.", so to say that everyone has the same facts, but interprets them differently is just false. Keep in mind that science has to account for ALL data, not just the ones cherrypicked to support a pre-conceived belief. Here's the kicker though, Scientists of all backgrounds, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Secular, etc. come to the same broad conclusions 99.9% of the time. Where anything in Science has become a theory, it's because it has survived the gauntlet of not only the original Scientist/s rigorously attempting to falsify the theory, but the peer review process invites every other Scientist to invalidate through the same testing regimes any way they can too.

I might agree with you that the Scientific Method is the worst method to come by the truth, except for all the other methods we've tried... As for the Bible, wasn't it written by anonymous fallible men, copied by more anonymous fallible men, interpreted and translated by other fallible men, only to be interpreted yet again by even more fallible men? At least Science acknowledges, addresses and minimises this human nature aspect.
#2 We can't directly examine all of the world around us and the universe. Scientists have discovered that this is actually an *impossibility* - as there are clear limits on what man can observe. Furthermore, we cannot measure 'everything in between' - we are even limited in what we can choose to observe. We can find out the location or velocity of a particle, for example - but not both. We also cannot go back in time to directly observe history, we can only make inferences about it based on current observation - those inferences clouded by any assumptions thrown into the mix, and limited by our lack of knowledge on every specific process potentially involved.
We can observe a surprisingly huge amount of the world around us and the universe, why would you say we can't? Everytime we swing a telescope to the stars, we're observing the past in real time. We can see 13.4 Billion years into the past, so you are factually incorrect on this point. At the other end of the scale, we can observe (for the want of a better word) sub-atomic quatum particles, and routinely do this at the speed of light. Also, Just as a Detective can solve a crime that happened in the past when nobody else was there, there are facts we can discern that show either something has to have happened, such as geological layers laid down over a long period in a very dry environment (salt layers, sulfide mineral layers and unoxidised metal rich rock forming before Earth's atmosphere was rich in oxygen), or likewise, make past events impossible (worldwide flood that bottlenecked all life forms to one (or 7/14) breeding pairs, or a young earth less than tens of thousands of years old, or individually created lifeforms, etc.)
Something observed can also have several potential explanations - simply observing doesn't 'prove' any one potential history over another without further data. [I remember a test question from middle school, where two photographs of a mountain were shown, and we were to choose the correct 'time' between the images. Since they were photos, I chose '100 yrs' since it was the only timeframe within the invention of the camera, inferring that it was likely an eruption that caused the difference. Yet the teacher marked my question 'wrong', claiming it was 10 million years of erosion, and that I was supposed to be looking at the change in the mountain and not the fact they were photos. She saw 'erosion' as the only possible explanation for an observed change. I noted several possible explanations, and used further data (availability of camera) to narrow them down.
I don't have enough information to assess this claim, but I'd be interested to see the question and pics as proposed to you.
Or, for a more general example, Darwin observed finch beaks 'changing over time' and interpreted it as natural selection guiding evolution. Creationists observe that there is no net change over the generations but the growth is cyclic. So, creationists interpret that as natural selection guiding normal genetic variation within a kind. The same observation - different interpretations. The observation itself doesn't 'prove' one without further data. In this case, we do now have further data Darwin did not - that variation in beak size is already present in their genes and not driven by mutations.]
This is a good example to my earlier statement about All of the facts, not just cherry-picked points. Yes, some of Darwin's Finches do still interbreed, and their beak sizes vary depending on the type and availability of foods (though these differences are NOT wholly contained in their genetic information, this is incorrect) - we can agree that these observations could support either conclusion absent any other evidence, however there are a number of Finch species that Don't interbreed, and in fact support Darwin's original claim, and that of Evolution in general. These points of fact CONTRADICT The Creationists standpoint and support Evolution only. This is what we'd expect from Evolution if it is correct, that is, speciation is a gradual process that takes many thousands, if not millions of generations to permeate. We can see this in the big Cats too, where some species of cats are able to hybridise (albeit producing mostly sterile offspring such as Ligers) and some cannot. Same with Horses and Donkeys. These are examples of latter speciation where they've been separated geographically or by sexual preference for so long that they'll eventually speciate proper, never to be the same species again. As it is, they already exhibit vastly different traits unique to their lineages. If they continue this trent then eventually, they'll never be able to produce offspring becoming their own species.

Ring species are another example of speciation, where Species A can reproduce with Species B, Species B can reproduce with Species C, and so on around some geographical ring or corridor until Species A meets Species Z at the other end, and the two Cannot reproduce at all! Herring gulls and Lesser Black-backed gulls are one such example, The Euphorbia tithymaloides is a plant species example that has done the same thing around a ring in Central America - where they meet back together in the Virgin Islands, they're ecologically & morphologically different & are unable to reproduce with each other locally even though they have a continually reproducing corridor all the way back around to each other... See Ring species - Wikipedia for a primer.
Young Earth creationists and Old Earth creationists and evolutionists all use the same observations. What differs is their assumptions and interpretations that they filter the observations through.
I'm sorry, this just isn't so. As demonstrated, Creationists dishonestly set aside facts that contradict their pre-conceived conclusion. How does a young earth creationist explain 680,000 years of seasonal permafrost cycle layers? Why does radiometric carbon dating and several other radiometric dating techniques consistently correlate with non-radiometric dating methods such as Ice core layers, dendrochronology and lake varves? Why do ALL of these techniques correlate to real world catastrophic disasters, such as massive bushfires, meteor impacts and volcanic eruptions recorded by our own hand in history (Pompeii for example...)?
#3 There certainly are tangible benefits and advantages to having knowledge of the world around us. However, are they 'superior' benefits to knowledge of morality and God? Few would claim that a scientist who can explain every natural process known to man, but is a greedy serial killer, truly has the advantage over a grade-school educated farmer who abides by the law and shares his crop with the needy. As scripture says, 'what advantage is it for a man to gain the whole world, but lose his soul?' (Mk 8:36) Specifically to the topic of creationism/evolution, it is also important to note that there is no real 'advantage' to evolutionary theory over not. All useful medical and industrial advances have come from other scientific fields, such as chemistry and biology.
Sure there's 'advantage' to evolutionary theory over not! Haven't you ever had a seasonal flu shot? Do you know of the great many Scientists and Medical Researchers devoting their time to a cure for cancer? Stem cell research & Gene therapy for repairing organ failure & old age - then there's DNA testing to determine genetic relationships, such as paternal tests, and then we have Forensic DNA profiling which can tell us the ethnicity, sex and relationship of a suspect to their victim for example, we can tell the hair, skin and eye colour, along with the ethnicity of a person from their DNA, we can even see what genetic problems they have, and the likelihood of other diseases they're more susceptible to in life. All because of evolution!
#4 The scientific method is extremely useful, but it is not the 'best method in all cases,' nor the only method we can use in understanding the world. The scientific method cannot test or explain morality, sentience, love, God or a lack thereof, etc. It rarely comes into play in determining the guilt of an accused criminal. Also, more relevant to the topic, evolutionary theory does not use the scientific method as repeatable experiments are not feasible for all aspects, current observations do not directly support or disprove it, and it is not a falsifiable theory. Parts of it can be tested under the scientific method, such as tracking generations of bacteria to see if mutations arise, but the theory overall cannot. (In this way it is quite similar to creationism. Parts of the theory can be tested, such as flood sediment layering, but overall the theory is not falsifiable, repeatable experiments cannot be done on all aspects, and current observations do not directly prove or disprove it.)
The Scientific Method can indeed test and explain morality & sentience and even to an extent, love. God is the only thing the Scientific Method cannot test & explain, because that's the only thing that doesn't manifest in this universe in any way. If it did, then we could measure it. As discussed, the scientific method also wholly underpins Forensic Science too, the single most reliable form of evidence in a court of law. so it does indeed come into play in determining the guilt of an accused criminal. Why do you think EVERY crime scene is sectioned off & "Processed" by the Department's Crime Lab? Again, you are factually incorrect when you say that the Theory of Evolution isn't born of the scientific method. there are innumerable aspects of the Theory of Evolution that are tested in every way using the Scientific Method, perhaps you just haven't looked into it? We've used the Theory of Evolution to predict where we'd find various "missing Links" in the Fossil record, like Tiktaalik for example. Falsifiable tests for the Theory of Evolution are many and varied, all of which have already been tested, and are often repeatedly tested upholding the Theory with flying colours! For example, here are some things (and it is by no means an exhaustive list) that would disprove the Theory of Evolution: Finding a rabbit fossil (or ANY Mammal for that matter) in the pre-canbrian layer; Trilobyte fossils in the Jurassic period; Mammals with Feathers; Reptiles with Mammary Glands; a Dog giving birth to a Cat; Anything that doesn't correlate with the Nested Tree of Life, such as a Crockaduck (ERV Distribution fits into this category too); and so on. With so many things that could disprove Evolution, why hasn't any Creationist been able to demonstrate any one of these?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
First off to be apparent the object, media, being, or what have you; would have to be clearly visible or understood. There is no need to use the scientific method in a means of experimentation if the subject is already proven, or readily known. As pointed out before experimentation is: a test, trial, or tentative procedure; an act or operation for the purpose of discovering something unknown.

So by the use of experimentation, testing of results, and by the observance of said results, certain traits become apparent; That would otherwise remain unknown without experimentation.

So by the same standard you set in your question, why ask questions at all? Why does science ask questions about anything that is not physically apparent right in front of our faces? Because we are intelligent beings and want understanding concerning unknown issues. You cannot find the cure for cancer begun on the precept there is no cure.

The same is with God. You will never find answers if you have already provided yourself with the answers. No research. No testing. No proof.
Scientists ask questions about all manners of microscopic and/or invisible/intangible things because previous experimentation revealed it, or indicated it was there to be studied. I still don't know anything of the supernatural, let alone beings that can live there, this is not the same as starting out with the preconceived notion that it doesn't exist in the first place. Scientists have revealed all manner of things from very apparent things too - such as the age of the Earth & Universe, properties of many of the elements on the periodic table, the mechanisms that have produced the various lifeforms on this planet, so on.

Of all the religious beliefs all over the world, it's of no surprise that we can't settle on a god that even exists let alone the correct one. Even here on this Christian Forum, there's hundreds, if not thousands of Christian denominations represented here, so I'll certainly be interested to hear of what experimentation there is to clear this point up?

I spent much of my youth pondering the existence of a God, but as I said, never really had any direction nor was I ever contacted by one. To knock the preconception just a little, I haven't inserted an answer into the question, but I have to admit that the question remaining unanswered is getting pretty long in the tooth... I'm always open to getting an answer, but until then, I still have to live my life in the mean time. Coming to a conclusion about any one of a thousand possible entities that can't be seen let alone heard or obeyed is just non-sensical. What if I prayed to the wrong one, offending the Actual God (if indeed a God exists)? All the while though, I eagerly follow the ongoing success of Science and Technology and enjoy the fruits of that human endeavour.This Universe and the facts about it are Literally Amazing!


Superstitions also occur due to a lack of real proof and understanding. For the most part, superstition is founded in illogical belief. Sometimes it is founded on indoctrination or even fear. Let's take for example someone being deathly afraid of spiders. So as a test we take 3-foot thick bullet resistant glass that will stop multiple .50 cal bullets, and make a terrarium containing a tarantula. There are some with such a fear they would not even be able to enter the room containing the spider. There is absolutely nothing logical about their fear, but without the ability to test, reason, and observe the result that, in fact, the spider cannot touch them; They are held by fear and their irrational thought process. Said individual may even be completely unwilling to even try and see reason, even tho the spider is behind 3-feet of bulletproof glass. Some people can not be reasoned with concerning certain topics.

That being said, if you are looking into a superstition one needs to look into context, related information, and reasoning behind the superstition. To come to a true conclusion that a topic is, in fact, a superstition one would have to study the topic instead of being dismissive outright.
I've noted a number of reactions even in this thread of people who've had experiences they've unequivocally believe to be demons, or spirits. I've asked but don't seem to be able to get answers for why they held these beliefs on what was essentially explained to be a shadow at a funny angle. To me, that's the best I could get out of them - no matter how far I looked into it, it would always be filtered through that person's superstitious bias, and no way to verify these 'observations' (for want of a better descriptor)... I've talked to plenty of believers who have taken any number of experiences to be demons or the Devil that are amply explainable by common non-supernatural phenomena that we humans are known to experience.

I'm here to learn more about it - that's why I come to these forums for the most part. In my home country, Young Earth Creationists and/or Biblical literalists are pretty thin on the ground, so the opportunity to explore minds who hold these lines of thought generally isn't afforded to me here. In the end though, it comes down to the default of withholding belief until more information is at hand one way or the other. It's proportional though, because depending on the merit of the claim, I could believe it without evidence, for example, you could say you have a pet dog and I'd take you at your word absent any evidence, because such things are commonplace and mundane in our everyday lives. A God that created a Universe yet requires my few dollars in tythe to spread his word is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.
I honestly do not know how to respond to this. I do not 'frame' you in any way. I only hope I can somehow convey my own point of view in a way that you can understand. Can you further elaborate this point, please? Maybe offer more direction and/or clarity?
I can't remember exactly what you stated, but it was along the lines of not talking to people who have no foundational experience with the spiritual realm, or something, but it isn't important for this conversation if you're talking to me anyway... :)
I 'belive' my own belief system needs to be challenged in order for it to be proven to me. If I remain in my own echo chamber, only accepting what I already agree with, I have no way of learning the validity of me beliefs or understanding of said beliefs. My own beliefs need to be shot in the head like a zombie before they bite someone else. Instead, I try to live and present myself as has been revealed to me by my pursuit of knowledge, and truth in Jesus the Christ. If you are always correct, you cannot be taught, instead, you have become the master.
So, I've been away overseas for a month or so, and have been lagging behind on my responses here - Interestingly though, you talk about your belief system and the pursuit of knowledge, but you haven't really answered my question. Do you care what is true? If so, how do you think we'd be best to come to the truth of a thing.
No. The revelations a creation gleams by observing the creation, are not the wisdom received by the creator of all creation. We physicalaly can only understand what we can present to our own understanding. We can only test or question what we are aware of, or try to gain understanding about. But the creator already knows everything we are asking questions about and also knows the answers to questions we have not even thought to ask. Since this is God's creation, he knows far more than we can ever hope to understand by observation. So by having a relationship with God, and by being able to ask God questions, you can get an entirely different understanding altogether.
This is something I have found at odds between believers - Is your God a liar? That's to say, if we can use the scientific method to find out a fact about 'his creation' in this Universe, could you accept that to be true? As an example, we can measure the distance of stars and other galaxies from us here as far back as the first stars and galaxies formed some 13.4 billion years ago. Do you accept this as a factual observation?

Other avenues I'd want to point out at this juncture is the scientific progress and technology gained using these observations of the universe around us (Scientific Method) that has literally given us the longetivity & quality of life we enjoy now - such things as electricity, running water, building techniques, agricultural & farming techniques, progress in the medical sciences, engineering, technology, computers and global communications (internet), etc. All of which came about without any input from the bible, and in some cases in spite of it. We've certainly not had any guidance of a divine nature in revealing this progress, and when I say 'guidance', I mean input from a divine being. If a divine being does exist, we've never been able to get answers for the questions Science would ask, and we've had to progress these things under our own steam..
I felt as if these are the same line of questioning so I will answer them together.

Firstly, since my faith, and any Christians faith is a result of their own walk with Jesus, and is a relationship, no one's faith is the same. Faith is exclusive to their own individual walk with God. However, I feel as if faith and belief are separate entities, as I had previously stated.

For me I have found in my own walk, that mere belief is not enough. I can believe I will jump in my car and go to work tomorrow, but that is not fact. I could die tomorrow before I even make it to work. I could be absolutely convinced my favorite team was the best out there, and truly believe they will win the Super Bowl this year. And I mean with true conviction. But it is not a certain fact that they will even make it to the game or win if they get there.

As far as a cult is concerned, this goes back to testing and observance of your belief system again. If you believe Yorzzburt of the Interstellar Galactica is going to take you to a different planet for murdering your family, You might want to attempt some reasoning of your belief system. Even secularly speaking, poisoning your entire family in a murder-suicide is flawed logic. Something is wrong here, and if that is not apparent I don't know how someone can reason that within themselves.

As for other religions, I know and believe there are other god's out there. Note: little 'g'. I was searching for the God of all creation. In my research, I found it interesting that most major religions in the world believe in Jesus in one way shape or form. The major difference in these religions was whether or not he was God/divine, and did he die on a cross for man's sins. I noticed these religions did not dispute that Jesus exists/existed tho. Jesus is a historical if not religious fact to all of these religions. Even in Wicca, Jesus was viewed as highly advanced and spiritual person, a great sage, and 'saint'. Some Buddhist thru out Inda believes Jesus was a reincarnation of the Budha. Jesus is even in the Quran. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and will come back to condemn Christianity, call his crucifixion a lie, and fight for Islam.

So I had to ask: "What is up with this dude Jesus that he is in almost every major religion in the world?" That lead me to ask him on the assumption that if he was God he would be able to answer. And he did answer.
How did he answer, did you have a vision? hear a voice? Why do more people & religions not believe in Jesus as Lord than do, did you factor this into your "What is up with this dude Jesus" calculation?
Then ask him.
Done that already, many time & many ways. Although the chat window is still open, it's been open for near on 40 years now, and counting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0
Oct 4, 2015
348
230
74
✟7,902.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hi, Bugeyedcreepy. I can't seem to message you, so I'm posting here. You may be interested in my blog, which is a collection of articles relevant to creation/evolution. It includes my own pages on what I think is the best, clearest evidence for common descent (ERVs), and "Bible believing Christian" Glenn Morton's falsification of YEC and particularly the Global Flud story. Veritas
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟88,248.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
When we speak about evolution, it's always a good idea to clarify what we mean by evolution.

1. "Evolution" in the sense that things change is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation, even natural selection). This is what we all agree on. This is the kind of observable science that makes well with forensics, medicine, bioengineering, etc.

2. "Evolution" in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. This is what Darwinism claims and is what I and many others have a problem with. What makes you think we need this nonsense?

Broadly defining the term 'evolution' is what confuses those that don't know any better.
In the Scientific Community, there is only one version of Evolution. Non-sciency types who don't like evidence try to make this micro/macro delineation because they realise the evidence is in fact undeniable.
Show me this "Macroevolution has been observed." I bet you a trillion cents that you'll use variations as proof a fish can turn into an astronaut.
Endogenous Retroviruses.
Behold! A great beast gilded in armor like horses prepared for battle. It has the appearance of a locus with the upturned tail of a scorpion. It has the heads of 2 men, the teeth of a lion, and the appearance of wearing a crown. Its movement is thunderous, like the movement of a thousand horses in battle, and like the rushing of mighty winds! It was given the power to kill and torment men, like the sting of a scorpion.
.... not sure which part of the bible you pulled this from, but I'll assume it's a replication of Revelation 9? sounds more like a description of Killer bees (ignoring for a second your reference to a single creature, instead of the swarm that Revelation 9 refers to)...
Hi, Bugeyedcreepy. I can't seem to message you, so I'm posting here. You may be interested in my blog, which is a collection of articles relevant to creation/evolution. It includes my own pages on what I think is the best, clearest evidence for common descent (ERVs), and "Bible believing Christian" Glenn Morton's falsification of YEC and particularly the Global Flud story. Veritas
:D Thank you So Much! This is Great work...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the Scientific Community, there is only one version of Evolution.
Particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological, or cultural?
 
Upvote 0