proving evolution as just a "theory"

rjs330 said:

All you have to do is look at the scientific definitions. They have been posted on here a couple of times. Evolution does not make the criteria required according to the definitions themselves. Neither does the big bang.

Click to expand...

That's not an answer to his question.

rjs330 said:

You strike at the heart of the matter. We should not adapt our theology according to the beliefs of this world We should adapt our beliefs to what the Bible says. When the world belief system contradicts scripture we should hold fast to the scripture not the world. Remember the wisdom of the world is worldly not Godly and is foolishness.

Click to expand...

Evolution is not a "world belief system" any more than heliocentrism, germs causing diseases and plate tectonics causing earthquakes are "world belief systems".

rjs330 said:

That's a good question. Why do they attribute it as science when it doesn't even fit their own definitions?

Click to expand...

So do you have an answer?

rjs330 said:

Those who who are anti bible love to try and find supposed contradictions to show how the bible can't be trusted.

Click to expand...

I don't "love" to point out bible contradictions. I legitimately wish it didn't have any. Think of it like when a teacher makes you grade a friend's homework assignment, and you find wrong answers. It's not like you want to give your friend a bad grade, but it'd be dishonest to ignore the flaws.

rjs330 said:

Yet there is an answer to every supposed contradiction. Here's one.
Why do 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9 disagree?

Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/forwha...17/02/09/1-corinthians-10-8-numbers-25-9/amp/
Oh yes, an "explanation". Ever notice how those explanations tend to demand specific interpretations that the bible itself doesn't lead the reader to? For example, a lot of the number ones, like how many horses a person had being 4000 or 40000, are explained away as being accurate to different time frames of that person's life... yet the bible itself never actually makes such a clarification. Furthermore, there are versions of the bible that actually remove some of the contradictions. If they aren't contradictions, then why are people throughout the ages changing them?

rjs330 said:

As far as Saul is concerned the bible describes how he died. The Amalakite was simply lying to David. It's not that difficult really.

Click to expand...

The bible never says it's a lie and never implies it's a lie. You are just claiming that it MUST be a lie, since that interpretation removes some of the contradiction... not that this is the only death in the bible that is contradictory. For example, did Judas die by hanging, or did he essentially explode like a gory balloon? The bible's words do not suggest both happened just because it gives 2 causes of death.

rjs330 said:

But those who don't want the Bible to be true will do anything try and discredit it.

Click to expand...

I have been a seeker for 9 years. I very well want its contents to be true. You are being presumptuous of my character.

rjs330 said:

But then that shouldn't surprise anyone. Since the bible teaches us about God and Christ and the only way to salvation the enemy must do all in his power to convince everyone it's a false document to keep people from believing.

Click to expand...

And I would benefit from trying to block people from salvation how? I'm very capable of understanding that any temporary reward I could get from doing that would pale in comparison to the potential eternal beneficial afterlife. Plus, I don't even try to deconvert people; I'm trying to get people to convert me, if anything. I see the contradictions with reality and itself that the bible contains. I don't see any sufficient evidence that the deity spoken of within its pages exists. If anyone is finding evidence I haven't found, I want to be exposed to it. Please oh please, save me from existential dread!

rjs330 said:

As Jesus said men love the darkness rather than the light.

Click to expand...

Viewing death as the end of existence is not fun. Viewing our existence as irrelevant on the grand scale of the universe is not particularly pleasant either, though I'm ultimately ok with not being significant. I am not an atheist because I would rather there be no gods, that doesn't even make sense. If it were within my power to stop believing in something solely because I don't want it to exist, then I'd stop believing in death.

Aman777 said:

Reminds me of Trump. Take all positions and no one knows what you're going to do. Perhaps God is insuring that ONLY by faith can one be saved. Saving faith can only come from the Father as a Gift. Eph 2:8 Keeps the riff raff out of Heaven. Amen?

Click to expand...

I will agree with you, that it takes stronger faith to recognize the contradictions and still believe than it does to act as if there aren't any contradictions.

Aman777 said:

No. i was just explaining that they were His kinds. I don't understand your experiment. Can you tell me more?

Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely, though if you have any specific questions, you should ask them in the thread dedicated to the experiment. I explain it (albeit in a tone that is a homage to TV ads) in the first post of that thread. The basic premise is that people on this site get to pick 2 traits out of a list I provide to be considered "better for survival" for the experimental population of Triops, while a control group breeds without my intervention. Be sure to pick 2 traits you'd like to see in the post with your questions, since I can't have too many posts clogging up the thread before the votes are tallied.

rjs330 said:

The Bible says Jesus was the creator. So I think he would know. It's all about being God and knowing who.God is.

Click to expand...

Jesus was the Creator of those who are subject to death. (His kinds) God The Trinity is the Creator of the Eternal. (Their kinds)

expos4ever said:

I agree that it seems hard to believe that God the Father would not know the "how" of creation.

Doesn't the text say that all things were created through Jesus, not by Jesus. That is a significant difference.

Either way, the point is moot - there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and we Christians can either adapt our theology or be (rightly) seen as irrational and close-minded.

Click to expand...

False, since evolution is nothing more than descent with modifications within kinds in a population over time. More than 150 years ago, some godless men changed that fact, to the evil word evolution. In the end their punishment is increased. Mat 18:6

Belk said:

Then why does the scientific and academic communities accept it as science? Why have they accepted it as a science for over a 150 years? Why has it become the theory that underpins the science of biology?

Click to expand...

Could it be the brain washing which is implanted as soon as godless people get their hands on little children in the Public Schools? Amen?

PsychoSarah said:

I will agree with you, that it takes stronger faith to recognize the contradictions and still believe than it does to act as if there aren't any contradictions.

Click to expand...

There are no contradictions since the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author. Contradictions are evidence that mankind has misunderstood His Truth. Amen?

Aman777 said:

There are no contradictions since the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is the Author. Contradictions are evidence that mankind has misunderstood His Truth. Amen?

Click to expand...

Meh, but the bible was spread verbally long before it was written down, so there is no telling how much the telephone game altered the message, even if the original message had been of divine origin.

_-iconoclast-_ said:

Such as?

What would convince you?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered.

PsychoSarah said:

Meh, but the bible was spread verbally long before it was written down, so there is no telling how much the telephone game altered the message, even if the original message had been of divine origin.

Click to expand...

Such thinking assumes that God is Un-Able to bring His Holy Word down through the ages perfectly. The most read version is the King James. It's because that's what God wanted us to know. Amen?

Aman777 said:

Such thinking assumes that God is Un-Able to bring His Holy Word down through the ages perfectly. The most read version is the King James. It's because that's what God wanted us to know. Amen?

Click to expand...

Nah, the King James version is one of the more altered versions, based on comparing it to the Dead Sea scrolls.

PsychoSarah said:

Nah, the King James version is one of the more altered versions, based on comparing it to the Dead Sea scrolls.

Click to expand...

Look at what happened to the people who first thought they knew what God wanted from men. In the end, their religious leaders called for the Crucifixion of their own God.

Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Aman777 said:

False, since evolution is nothing more than descent with modifications within kinds in a population over time. More than 150 years ago, some godless men changed that fact, to the evil word evolution. In the end their punishment is increased. Mat 18:6

Click to expand...

Punishment for an evil word? How man evil words will you be punished for in the end?

Aman777 said:

Look at what happened to the people who first thought they knew what God wanted from men. In the end, their religious leaders called for the Crucifixion of their own God.

Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

Click to expand...

Well, when the 800-pound gorilla known as Rome is breathing down your neck, and your God is lying bleeding in the dirt, one can't be faulted for a little lip service.

Fret not, however -- God forgave those Jews just as he forgave the Romans who did the Crucifixion itself. Luke 23:34

rjs330 said:

You strike at the heart of the matter. We should not adapt our theology according to the beliefs of this world We should adapt our beliefs to what the Bible says. When the world belief system contradicts scripture we should hold fast to the scripture not the world. Remember the wisdom of the world is worldly not Godly and is foolishness.

Click to expand...

This sounds like classic fundamentalist dogma. The Bible was never intended to be understood as a "science" book.

Look: the reality is that most Christians accept evolution. The issue is not one of us compromising theology, it is of you compromising truth.

If you assume that something is true based on your interpretation of Scripture, and refuse to accept what reality gives you, the sky is the limit. The Bible could tell us that the sky is red, and you (the typical creationist) would argue that we are all - all 7 billion of us - mistaken.

Look, a little reality please. This untenable creationism position is not the hill the Christian wants to die on. Choose the right side of history on this one - the evidence is just too overwhelming.

PsychoSarah said:

I'll vouch for the guy that discovered the triceratops horn, though. This one was legitimately fired for his beliefs.

Click to expand...

take the first case for instance. he just said that: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."

he just said that he want to give the students alternative possibility for the origin of life. as science suppose to be.

PsychoSarah said:

Of course, I started an entire thread about it a while ago.

Click to expand...

even according to your own links there are several serious problems with szostak work:

"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting. Other problems need to be solved, such as the fact that citrate is not a plausible prebiotic component: it needs to be replaced by an alternative component. Finally, at a certain level of complexity, a third main component of the cell would be helpful: chemical energy (metabolism). Nevertheless, conceptually and practically, the Szostak protocell is the closest approximation so far to the origin of life forms which have the potential to evolve"

or according to szostak himself:

"We have shown there is at least one way to make RNA replication chemistry compatible with primitive, fatty-acid-based cell membranes, but this opens up new questions. Our current best guess is there must have been some sort of simple peptides that acted in a similar way to citrate, and finding such peptides is something we are working on now."

as i said: abiogenesis is just a belief, not a fact.

PsychoSarah said:

except that creatures are, in fact, made of cells, and some of the simpler multicellular organisms are just glorified colonies of cells.

Click to expand...

true, but i refer to something like a cat or a dog.