Prove it or remove it challenge

[-57]

Children only matter in the womb, after that they only matter at military recruitment age.


.

In todays society....even in the womb they don't matter.

 

[digitalgoth]

In todays society....even in the womb they don't matter.

That's certainly true.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In todays society....even in the womb they don't matter.

They do make useful political tools... at least until they're born.

 

[digitalgoth]

They do make useful political tools... at least until they're born.

Who cares after babies after they're born? If you can't take care of them you shouldn't have them. But if you get pregnant, don't you dare change that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Who cares after babies after they're born? If you can't take care of them you shouldn't have them. But if you get pregnant, don't you dare change that.

I'm never going to get pregnant, so I don't have to dare....

How about you? How much say do you have in the matter?

 

[digitalgoth]

I'm never going to get pregnant, so I don't have to dare....

How about you? How much say do you have in the matter?

Pregnancy is fattening.

I have a ton of say, I'm not getting pregnant, I control my reproduction by any means necessary, and sure aren't going to let anyone else determine it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Pregnancy is fattening.

I have a ton of say, I'm not getting pregnant, I control my reproduction by any means necessary, and sure aren't going to let anyone else determine it.

Luckily, my gender permanently precludes me from pregnancy... yours isn't listed, so I had to ask.

It seems that we can both agree that the determination should not be made by any elected stooge in D.C.

 

[digitalgoth]

Luckily, my gender permanently precludes me from pregnancy... yours isn't listed, so I had to ask.

It seems that we can both agree that the determination should not be made by any elected stooge in D.C.

Or those shooting up clinics. Saving life in the name of God and all that.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many are beneficial?

For crying out loud, READ THE FREAKING SENTENCE. It isn't that hard.

The human genome is 3 billion bases large and the mutation rate is about 50 mutations per person per generation. It only requires 180 million births to get that one mutation, assuming that there is only one possible mutation.

It takes 180 million births, on average, to get a beneficial mutation in the worst case scenario where there is only one possible beneficial mutation in the whole 3 billion base genome.

 

[sfs]

F
It takes 180 million births, on average, to get a beneficial mutation in the worst case scenario where there is only one possible beneficial mutation in the whole 3 billion base genome.

And of course, for something like the echolocation system, which has many individual components that can be improved in the new aquatic environment, there are bound to be many possible beneficial mutations.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

I'm all for the idea of prove it or remove it. Because it's been thousands of years and I haven't seen much of anything from the Bible proven.

 

[elijah2016]

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. Good in that he will be learning how to read, count all those good things. Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false. We don't understand RNA, DNA, etc, so we have to remain silent and trust others. But there is one way that the average man CAN fight back, and that is by using the fossil record. We can all understand and SEE fossils. We see fossils of dinosaurs, horses, birds, so from the very beginning of creation until now we have a record of animals that have lived. So really what should we expect to see in the fossil record, we should expect to see changes between species, wild and dramatic changes, partially developed wings on lizards, something turning into a monkey. But the real truth is we don’t see any of those things happening. We only see different sized monkeys being called our ancestors, or different sized horses being said to have evolved. But think of Dogs (alive today) there a big dogs called Great Danes, and small, dogs, even tiny ones. If all put in a row from small to big they would look like what we have been told is evolution.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see. The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

http://nazaroo.blogspot.ca/search/label/evolution
covers a lot of the arguments around evolution from a biblical perspective.

 

[elijah2016]

SOMETHING I FOUND

Roman Catholic Apologists, ever pushing Evolution and allegorical interpretations of the Bible in many places (especially prophecy * ),
also wish to downplay or avoid a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter One.
One apologist recently tried to sell Genesis One as a kind of 'hymn' or poetic allegory.
The creation account in Genesis 1 resembles a hymn, and is thus sometimes called the Hymn of Creation, or the Poem of the Dawn. No reference is given.
Just disembodied unknown 'people' of unknown authority.
The bogus practice of using the Passive Voice to avoid identifying the Subject of the Action,
has long been recognized as a charlatan's debating technique.

Whenham indeed calls Genesis 1 a "hymn", but even he does not call Genesis 1 itself poetry. Instead he compares it to poetry such as that found not in Genesis, but in
the Book of Psalms:.

In his commentary, Wenham understands Genesis 1 to be unique in the Old Testament. He notes that it is neither typical poetry (Wenham 1987, p. 10) nor normal Hebrew prose as “. . . its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose.” He instead calls it a “hymn” believing it to be elevated prose(Wenham 1987, p. 10). Wenham sees the use of phrases in day one that become a formula in the subsequent days as making the narrative highly stylized (Wenham 1987, p. 37). Because of this, Wenham believes Genesis 1
. . . invites comparison with the psalms that praise God’s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as Prov 8:22–31 or Job 38 that reflect on the mystery of God’s creativity (Wenham 1987, p. 10). Does Genesis, as Wenham and others claim, invite comparison with Hebrew poetry? Psalm 8 is often used as a comparison with Genesis. However, Robert Alter states:
The poem [Psalm 8] might be described as a kind of summarizing paraphrase of the account of creation in Genesis 1 . . . The difference in form, however, between the two texts is crucial, and instructive. Genesis 1, being narrative, reports creation as a sequence of events . . . Psalm 8 assumes as a background this narrative process, but takes it up after its completion . . . (Alter 1990, p. 117).

Actually Genesis 1 contains NO instances of Hebrew parallelism,
which is a stylistic feature fully identified and described
in scholarly analysis. One feature of Hebrew parallelism
is that the parallel lines be consecutive and joined by VAV.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY:
It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. By parallelism in this connection is understood the regularly recurring juxtaposition of symmetrically constructed sentences. The symmetry is carried out in the substance as well as in the form, and lies chiefly in the relation of the expression to the thought. The same idea is expressed in its full import—that is, in its various aspects and turns—not in a continuous, uninterrupted sentence, but in several corresponding clauses or members with different words. Hencethe name "parallelismus membrorum" or "sententiarum." It has also been aptly called "sinnrhythmus" (Ewald). For the parallel members are related to each other as rhythmical protasis and apodosis, as προῳδός and ἐπῳδός.
...
(1) The synonymous, in which the same sentiment is repeated in different but equivalent words (Ps. xxv. 5; comp. ib. exiv.; Num. xxiii. 7-10; Isa. lx. 1-3; etc.).
"Shew me thy ways, O Lord; Teach me thy paths"
(2) The antithetical, in which the parallel members express the opposite sides of the same thought (Prov. xi. 3; comp. ib. x. 1 et seq.; Isa. liv. 7 et seq.; Ps. xx. 8, xxx. 6).
"The integrity of the upright shall guide them, But the perversity of the treacherous shall destroy them"
(1) There is nothing like this in Genesis 1.

(2) Its also a common feature of non-poetry, as stated above.


My opinion of the historical accuracy of Genesis 1 has no
bearing at all on whether or not its author intended it to be read
as narrative rather than poetry.

However, in hindsight, I think I would now modify my opinion:
As the first post in this thread correctly indicates,
after having taken a serious and thoughtful look at Genesis 1,
I have come to the conclusion first of all that it is indeed intended
to be a historical narrative, not poetry or parable.

Its accuracy is another matter, which I haven't evaluated,
except as to the question of its compatibility with what is known today
from science (see last half of first post).

I would now modify my original opinion,
and state that I would limit the allegorical or parable-like interpretation
of the Genesis text generally to the story of Adam and Eve.
However, even interpreting that text (Genesis 2 etc.)
as purely allegorical has its problems, because again,
from a scientific point of view there had to have been a physical
Adam and Eve, i.e., historical characters that were ancestors
at least of early (EME) Semitic tribes.

What I have shown however in this thread is that Genesis 1
most plausibly is read as a historical text.


_______________________________


I strongly suggest anyone try the following experiment:

(1) Find a few Jewish friends (more than one is a good idea).

(2) Make sure they can actually read Hebrew reasonably well.

(3) Ask them to take a fresh look at Genesis 1 in the Hebrew text.

(4) Limit your question to this very specific one:

"Regarding the form of the text here,
does this read to you more like poetry, or a simple narrative?"

Make sure you are clear that you are not asking about whether
your friend thinks the narrative is true or not.
Make sure you are clear that you are not asking him if he believes
it to be literal or figurative, or allegorical.

(5) Just get him to commit on one simple question:

"Does the text look like narrative or poetry to you?"

Get all the other opinions you want from them, but nail them down
on this one question.
Do this with more than one Jewish person who can actually read Hebrew.

Then count up the votes.

 

[elijah2016]

Dr. Hovind shows clearly through writings and admissions by evolutionists that the millions of years dating of rocks and fossils is based on circular reasoning. Faulty radiometric dating came along long after the ages for the rock layers and index fossils were set.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dr. Hovind shows clearly through writings and admissions by evolutionists that the millions of years dating of rocks and fossils is based on circular reasoning. Faulty radiometric dating came along long after the ages for the rock layers and index fossils were set.

Where did you show that radiometric dating was faulty?

Where is the circularity for radiometric dating?

Perhaps the best question, how do they determine the age of meteorites?

 

[Jimmy D]

SOMETHING I FOUND

Roman Catholic Apologists, ever pushing Evolution and allegorical interpretations of the Bible in many places (especially prophecy * ),
also wish to downplay or avoid a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter One.
One apologist recently tried to sell Genesis One as a kind of 'hymn' or poetic allegory.
The creation account in Genesis 1 resembles a hymn, and is thus sometimes called the Hymn of Creation, or the Poem of the Dawn. No reference is given.
Just disembodied unknown 'people' of unknown authority.
The bogus practice of using the Passive Voice to avoid identifying the Subject of the Action,
has long been recognized as a charlatan's debating technique.

Whenham indeed calls Genesis 1 a "hymn", but even he does not call Genesis 1 itself poetry. Instead he compares it to poetry such as that found not in Genesis, but in
the Book of Psalms:.

In his commentary, Wenham understands Genesis 1 to be unique in the Old Testament. He notes that it is neither typical poetry (Wenham 1987, p. 10) nor normal Hebrew prose as “. . . its syntax is distinctively different from narrative prose.” He instead calls it a “hymn” believing it to be elevated prose(Wenham 1987, p. 10). Wenham sees the use of phrases in day one that become a formula in the subsequent days as making the narrative highly stylized (Wenham 1987, p. 37). Because of this, Wenham believes Genesis 1
. . . invites comparison with the psalms that praise God’s work in creation (e.g., 8, 136, 148) or with passages such as Prov 8:22–31 or Job 38 that reflect on the mystery of God’s creativity (Wenham 1987, p. 10). Does Genesis, as Wenham and others claim, invite comparison with Hebrew poetry? Psalm 8 is often used as a comparison with Genesis. However, Robert Alter states:
The poem [Psalm 8] might be described as a kind of summarizing paraphrase of the account of creation in Genesis 1 . . . The difference in form, however, between the two texts is crucial, and instructive. Genesis 1, being narrative, reports creation as a sequence of events . . . Psalm 8 assumes as a background this narrative process, but takes it up after its completion . . . (Alter 1990, p. 117).

Actually Genesis 1 contains NO instances of Hebrew parallelism,
which is a stylistic feature fully identified and described
in scholarly analysis. One feature of Hebrew parallelism
is that the parallel lines be consecutive and joined by VAV.

From the Jewish Encyclopedia:

PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY:
It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. By parallelism in this connection is understood the regularly recurring juxtaposition of symmetrically constructed sentences. The symmetry is carried out in the substance as well as in the form, and lies chiefly in the relation of the expression to the thought. The same idea is expressed in its full import—that is, in its various aspects and turns—not in a continuous, uninterrupted sentence, but in several corresponding clauses or members with different words. Hencethe name "parallelismus membrorum" or "sententiarum." It has also been aptly called "sinnrhythmus" (Ewald). For the parallel members are related to each other as rhythmical protasis and apodosis, as προῳδός and ἐπῳδός.
...
(1) The synonymous, in which the same sentiment is repeated in different but equivalent words (Ps. xxv. 5; comp. ib. exiv.; Num. xxiii. 7-10; Isa. lx. 1-3; etc.).
"Shew me thy ways, O Lord; Teach me thy paths"
(2) The antithetical, in which the parallel members express the opposite sides of the same thought (Prov. xi. 3; comp. ib. x. 1 et seq.; Isa. liv. 7 et seq.; Ps. xx. 8, xxx. 6).
"The integrity of the upright shall guide them, But the perversity of the treacherous shall destroy them"
(1) There is nothing like this in Genesis 1.

(2) Its also a common feature of non-poetry, as stated above.


My opinion of the historical accuracy of Genesis 1 has no
bearing at all on whether or not its author intended it to be read
as narrative rather than poetry.

However, in hindsight, I think I would now modify my opinion:
As the first post in this thread correctly indicates,
after having taken a serious and thoughtful look at Genesis 1,
I have come to the conclusion first of all that it is indeed intended
to be a historical narrative, not poetry or parable.

Its accuracy is another matter, which I haven't evaluated,
except as to the question of its compatibility with what is known today
from science (see last half of first post).

I would now modify my original opinion,
and state that I would limit the allegorical or parable-like interpretation
of the Genesis text generally to the story of Adam and Eve.
However, even interpreting that text (Genesis 2 etc.)
as purely allegorical has its problems, because again,
from a scientific point of view there had to have been a physical
Adam and Eve, i.e., historical characters that were ancestors
at least of early (EME) Semitic tribes.

What I have shown however in this thread is that Genesis 1
most plausibly is read as a historical text.


_______________________________


I strongly suggest anyone try the following experiment:

(1) Find a few Jewish friends (more than one is a good idea).

(2) Make sure they can actually read Hebrew reasonably well.

(3) Ask them to take a fresh look at Genesis 1 in the Hebrew text.

(4) Limit your question to this very specific one:

"Regarding the form of the text here,
does this read to you more like poetry, or a simple narrative?"

Make sure you are clear that you are not asking about whether
your friend thinks the narrative is true or not.
Make sure you are clear that you are not asking him if he believes
it to be literal or figurative, or allegorical.

(5) Just get him to commit on one simple question:

"Does the text look like narrative or poetry to you?"

Get all the other opinions you want from them, but nail them down
on this one question.
Do this with more than one Jewish person who can actually read Hebrew.

Then count up the votes.

It's hard to tell where the copy and paste ends and your opinions begin, are you saying that you think Genesis 1 is historically accurate?

Edit: Oh, and if you like counting votes ask some biologists whether evolution and common descent is a fact or some geologists about the accuracy of dating techniques.

 

[ecco]

My emphases

PROVE IT, OR REMOVE IT CHALLENGE

My son has just started his first year of primary school, which is a good thing and a bad thing. ... Bad in the fact that for the next 13 years he will be indoctrinated into the theory of evolution. A choice over which I have no power. So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

Sure you do. It's called Home Schooling. There you can continue to indoctrinate him in the specific religious you hold.

So here is my challenge to all my evolutionist friends, and other interested parties. Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand if evolution is true or false.

Scientific jargon makes it impossible for the average man to understand many things. You accept many scientific things up to the point where they conflict with your religious beliefs.

So my challenge to you is this, before I contact our government, tell me can you PROVE evolution using the fossil record, the only thing we can all understand and see.

Science isn't about proving; it's about people spending a lot of time getting educated, researching, studying and coming to a consensus.

The only thing a court of normal citizens could determine using reasoning of the average man, without being bamboozled by science talk. My challenge is don’t give me a list of text names of supposed fossils, I want to see pictures, for if evolution is true there must be millions of them out there, and surely scientists want us to see them; we have thousands of species, supposedly all evolved. Can you find them? If you can’t provide me with proof from the only historical record we have, then you have been taught a lie, evolution never occurred.

It doesn't really matter. As long as any concept contradicts your deeply embedded religious beliefs, you will go with your deeply embedded religious beliefs.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I have discovered that as the atheist in general only believes in themselves which means that they only believe what they say and for us to contradict them is to challenge their being which they cannot handle hence the need for them to prove that they are always right, thus making us always wrong.

Therefore arguing with an atheists is like arguing with the brick wall. The moment an atheist admits they are wrong their whole world comes tumbling down and everything they believe in comes tumbling down.

For their own wellbeing, it is better to let them think they know everything which will lead to their eternal damnation sad to say when it could be otherwise. According to them, eternal damnation doesn't exist but we'll save that for another day.

What is more important is what is our worldview? That which is informed by an infinite God or that which is informed by finite man? If it is informed by an infinite God then evolution is a complete joke. If it is informed by a finite man then evolution is obvious because you have to replace God with something that removes God from the scene as Darwin made very clear that was his objective.

With a God informed worldview, fossils are not needed to prove or disprove anything. With a man informed worldview, you have to make evolution fit your narrative until the day you die and as I have noticed, it changes like a man might change his socks.

 

[bhsmte]

I have discovered that as the atheist in general only believes in themselves which means that they only believe what they say and for us to contradict them is to challenge their being which they cannot handle hence the need for them to prove that they are always right, thus making us always wrong.

Therefore arguing with an atheists is like arguing with the brick wall. The moment an atheist admits they are wrong their whole world comes tumbling down and everything they believe in comes tumbling down.

For their own wellbeing, it is better to let them think they know everything which will lead to their eternal damnation sad to say when it could be otherwise. According to them, eternal damnation doesn't exist but we'll save that for another day.

What is more important is what is our worldview? That which is informed by an infinite God or that which is informed by finite man? If it is informed by an infinite God then evolution is a complete joke. If it is informed by a finite man then evolution is obvious because you have to replace God with something that removes God from the scene as Darwin made very clear that was his objective.

With a God informed worldview, fossils are not needed to prove or disprove anything. With a man informed worldview, you have to make evolution fit your narrative until the day you die and as I have noticed, it changes like a man might change his socks.

Irony!

And lots of it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have discovered that as the atheist in general only believes in themselves. evidence.

FTFY