Prove it or remove it challenge

[tiglathpileser]

I can't help it, I am just a nice guy.

Good for you.

 

[Hoghead1]

That isn't quite accurate, Tiglath. Strictly speaking, the question of God is not a scientific question, to begin with. When some scientists, such as Hawking, have declared there is no God, they have stepped outside their role as scientists, whether they want to admit it or not. Also, you are overlooking teh fact that many scientists do believe in God. Many of your fellow Christians, including myself, see God and evolution as reconcilable. I, and many others, for example, believe that evolution would be impossible without God.
When you get into the matter of proofs, yes, there has always been a need for them and so a considerable amount of theological scholarship was and is being devoted to this area. The reason why, is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, faith leads to intellect. People of strong faith also have many questions the seek to answer. Nobody wants to go on just blind faith. Indeed, blind faith is just that, blind, and leads to nothing but ignorance and tyranny. Many Christians do not wish to cut their heads off every time they enter the church. So they seek as least some degree of circumstantial evidence their faith is pointed in the right direction. Also, there is the matter of apologetics. You are not going to win over many converts or skeptics or win any arguments by simply saying the Bible says so. You need a far more rational approach.

 

[essentialsaltes]

why is that?

Because face it. People with scientific knowledge, who spend their time on Christian websites trying to dispel the misunderstandings that people have about evolution, are not afraid of being contradicted. Your painfully obvious charade of being overly solicitous about harming my feelings is just a projection of your own insecurity.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Because face it. People with scientific knowledge, who spend their time on Christian websites trying to dispel the misunderstandings that people have about evolution, are not afraid of being contradicted. Your painfully obvious charade of being overly solicitous about harming my feelings is just a projection of your own insecurity.

Is it? I wonder how you got to know so much about me seeing as we have never met. I could tell you a few home truths about yourself that you would not like to hear but I will not because being able to handle the truth is not one of your strong points.

For that reason I will desist in putting you down or contradicting what you say as you will have trouble handling it so I will be generous instead which I hope will not offend you.

 

[tiglathpileser]

That isn't quite accurate, Tiglath. Strictly speaking, the question of God is not a scientific question, to begin with. When some scientists, such as Hawking, have declared there is no God, they have stepped outside their role as scientists, whether they want to admit it or not. Also, you are overlooking teh fact that many scientists do believe in God. Many of your fellow Christians, including myself, see God and evolution as reconcilable. I, and many others, for example, believe that evolution would be impossible without God.
When you get into the matter of proofs, yes, there has always been a need for them and so a considerable amount of theological scholarship was and is being devoted to this area. The reason why, is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, faith leads to intellect. People of strong faith also have many questions the seek to answer. Nobody wants to go on just blind faith. Indeed, blind faith is just that, blind, and leads to nothing but ignorance and tyranny. Many Christians do not wish to cut their heads off every time they enter the church. So they seek as least some degree of circumstantial evidence their faith is pointed in the right direction. Also, there is the matter of apologetics. You are not going to win over many converts or skeptics or win any arguments by simply saying the Bible says so. You need a far more rational approach.

What isn't quite accurate? Apart from that question, I would agree with most of what you say as I have said the same thing. And this is addressed to you, not to atheists, they have the habit of bringing God into discussion about evolution with comments like "God does not exist" and as soon as they do that it becomes a philosophical discussion.

Personally, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and he didn't need any help from evolution. For me, to read evolution into what the bible says needs a lot of faith which I don't have. Evolution turns God into a scientific object and for me that cannot be done because the key is faith in God, not faith in science. Faith will always give you an answer, science never does. All it does is give you a consensus so I am told by atheists. For that reason I would never replace faith with consensus.

As for winning over people, I realised that atheists cannot admit to being wrong as their whole existence is based on what is right to them so to deny them that means you are taking away their whole purpose for living so they cannot admit to not being right as if they do they do not have any existence. To them, their knowledge is their existence. Whereas for the believer, their relationship with God is their existence and whether they are right or wrong nothing changes that.

That is why atheists want to force you into crossing every T and dotting every I because it is so essential to their existence and they can't cope if they don't have that.

 

[halebobbdotcom]

A choice over which I have no power.

Assuming your baby was planned, and even if it wasn't the choice you have is to pay for the child's education yourselves. Public school is welfare for the poor.
If you choose to take welfare from the state you must accept whatever they teach.

 

[-57]

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.

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, picking numbers out of the sky is "good science"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, picking numbers out of the sky is "good science"?

Actually, good math is good science.

 

[-57]

Actually, good math is good science.

Which helps explain why evolutionism is so messed up.....the belief that picking numbers out of the sky...then plugging them into an equation is considered as "good science"

 

[-57]

Religion:
The belief that a magic man has always existed.


Which magic man? Take your pick, man has created thousands of them.

Atheism......the belief that something can self create from nothing.....be and not be at the same time.

Seems pretty evident the atheist also need magic. The atheist want to pull a rabbit out of a hat..without a hat or a magician.

 

[ecco]

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

So the consensus is that evolution proves that God does not exist. No proof, just concensus. That explains why atheists constantly say they can't prove that God doesn't exist.

You might want to try that argument on the Christians at Biologos who believe in God and believe in evolution.

That explains why atheists constantly say they can't prove that God doesn't exist.

Prove LastThursdayism is wrong, then let's talk.[/QUOTE]

 

[sfs]

Is it?

Yes.

I wonder how you got to know so much about me seeing as we have never met.

From what you write here.

I could tell you a few home truths about yourself that you would not like to hear but I will not because being able to handle the truth is not one of your strong points.

Your contribution to this thread has consisted almost entirely of telling people you've never met negative things about themselves, and then refusing to defend or support your statements because they'll "have trouble handling it." If you were really worried about offending people, you wouldn't have written anything, and if you had any justification for your accusations, you'd have presented it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

The fossil record is a misunderstanding of how life propagates.

Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. Only when Asian and African mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian nor does the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is variation seen within the species or Kind. The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook nor does the Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Brown bears mate with Brown bears and produce ONLY Brown bears, Bottle-nosed dolphin mate with Bottle-nosed dolphin and produce ONLY Bottle-nosed dolphin, This is true for every animal in existence. And true for the fossil record. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found - as did every other infraspecific taxa within the species.

The problem lies in interpretation. If evolutionists had never seen a dog and knew nothing about them and found fossils of the Mastiff and Husky and then later in the layer found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist that either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. We know from direct observation this is not what occurred, even if the Chinook appears later in the record. Worse yet, they would insist the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook were all separate species - simply because their appearances were different. Just as they have done in the fossil record.

These:

are no different than these:

Merely different infraspecific taxa in the species or Kind to which they belong - not separate species. They have simply ignored the observational evidence when it came time to classify the fossil record and have incorrectly classified 90% of the creatures that existed as separate species.

Those who support evolution simply ignore how we observe variation in the species to occur and thereby wrongly classify the fossil record as separate species when they are merely different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong. Supported by all observational evidence of the real world and how variation occurs in the species.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review. There is quite a bit of goading and some blasphemy - and that is not okay.​

 

[Jesus' Follower]

Mod Hat

This thread is being reopened following a clean-up. REMEMBER...flaming or goading any belief system is not condoned and will not be tolerated. Please be respectful.​