proving evolution as just a "theory"

[AV1611VET]

#6033 has been deleted.

Huh?

Here it is:

Can't get your mind off fossils, can you?

The fossils look real because they are real.

What fossils have to do with the Grand Canyon though, I have no idea.

And what the Grand Canyon has to do with the events of the creation week I also haven't a clue.

In my opinion, the Colorado River came after the Grand Canyon; not before it.

When God pulled the continents apart, and the earth cracked open and the Grand Canyon appeared, a river of water started flowing through it.

 

[OzSpen]

No, evolutionists are not afraid of reading books and taking courses. Theres is a genetics text sitting on the shelf by my computer--right next to the Oxford Companion to the Bible and the Bible itself. Why not go the same places evolutionists do? Read The Genesis Flood, Noah's Ark: a Feasibility Study, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Darwin on Trial and many others.

To that I would add biologist, Dr Michael Denton's, 2 books:

1. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Burnett Books, UK; Adler & Adler USA, 1985).
2. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (Discovery Institute 2016).

In my view, these 2 books put dynamite under the Theory of Evolution. I urge you to read them. Denton also has other books addressing similar topics.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Fossils had NOTHING to do with the creation of the Grand Canyon.

Please read me accurately.

That is NOT what I stated. This is what I wrote: 'So, fossils have much to do with the layers in the Grand Canyon'. I said not a word about fossils and the 'creation' of the Grand Canyon.

I mentioned this FACT that there are fossils in the layers of the Grand Canyon.

Oz

 

[AV1611VET]

Please read me accurately.

Alright.

My bad.

This conversation isn't getting anywhere.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Bungle,

FALSE!

You spend all that time telling others what presuppositions are and then can't recognise your own? Wow. Just wow.

In this question, you assume 2 errors:

1. Documentary evidence outside of the Bible is needed to confirm its authenticity.
2. The Bible's documentary evidence is fake and is of no use in determining the trustworthiness of the Bible documents.

Is it true that these are your assumptions?

You didn't answer my question. Please do so before asking your own questions.

Sadly, this demonstrates the 'nonsense' you are promoting here. You don't want to acknowledge that texts and physical evidence outside of the Bible that affirm the authenticity of OT or NT.

So you'd have no problem presenting that evidence? The remainder of your post would seem to demonstrate that you actually have nothing and this is all bluster.

There are three primary tests that historians use to determine the historical veracity of a document:

In his book, Introduction in Research in English Literary History, C. Sanders sets forth three tests of reliability employed in general historiography and literary criticism. These tests are:

• Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
• Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
• External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

It might be noteworthy to mention that Sanders is a professor of military history, not a theologian. He uses these three tests of reliability in his own study of historical military events (Dr Patrick Zukeran, Understanding Archaeology).​

It is you who are creating your own dilemma. You are demonstrating you are not a textual critic who understands the rules/criteria for determining reliability of any historical document.

I probably understand them better than most. I made clear that external evidence is used to back up textual claims. You're taking that too far in insinuating that this evidence can be used to support stories set at the same time as a known historical event.

Here you state that F.F. Bruce's book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable, is demonstrating 'The whole argument appears to be "the documents were written between 20 and 70 years after Jesus death, therefore they must be accurate'

That is bunk and it is not the evidence provided by the Professor of New Testament at Manchester University in the UK, the late F F Bruce, in that book.

You don't get to handwave that away. If you think there is anything else you need to tell us what other argument is presented. I can support my claim, so you need to do more than just say "that is bunk".

I already have, but you are not listening. Your anti-biblical presuppositions are standing in the way of your being able to examine the bibliographical and archaeological evidence objectively.

You haven't presented a single piece of supporting evidence. Is this reflective of your dissertation? If so, it doesn't reflect well on either you or the institution that confered your gong.

What did you do in your post?

1. You misrepresented my view and so created a straw man logical fallacy.

No, I really didn't.

2.You demonstrated you don't understand the criteria for determining the accuracy of any historical document, including the OT and NT

Projection?

3.I provided the evidence, but your atheistic presuppositions are a barrier to being open to ALL the evidence.

Rather than calling this a dishonest claim I'll say that something obviously got deleted between you hitting the Post Reply key and the post appearing on the forum.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Feeding the priests?

They had to eat too.

Last I checked, eating is a secular activity.

Unless, of course, it's at the Lord's Table.

But who told them they couldn't own property or feed themselves?

 

[OzSpen]

You spend all that time telling others what presuppositions are and then can't recognise your own? Wow. Just wow.

You didn't answer my question. Please do so before asking your own questions.

So you'd have no problem presenting that evidence? The remainder of your post would seem to demonstrate that you actually have nothing and this is all bluster.

I probably understand them better than most. I made clear that external evidence is used to back up textual claims. You're taking that too far in insinuating that this evidence can be used to support stories set at the same time as a known historical event.
You don't get to handwave that away. If you think there is anything else you need to tell us what other argument is presented. I can support my claim, so you need to do more than just say "that is bunk".

You haven't presented a single piece of supporting evidence. Is this reflective of your dissertation? If so, it doesn't reflect well on either you or the institution that confered your gong.
No, I really didn't.Projection?
Rather than calling this a dishonest claim I'll say that something obviously got deleted between you hitting the Post Reply key and the post appearing on the forum.

Bungle,

I will not continue to engage with you when you erect straw men like this again. We cannot continue a logical discussion when you engage in this fallacious reasoning. Reasonable engagement goes out the window when you argue from silence:

You haven't presented a single piece of supporting evidence. Is this reflective of your dissertation? If so, it doesn't reflect well on either you or the institution that confered (sic) your gong.

This is an Appeal to Ridicule fallacy.

I was about to present the evidence in support of historiography for,

• Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
• Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
• External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

Because of your ridicule of me and your failure to wait for the evidence to be presented by me, I've decided that I won't cast pearls because you are not open to the historiographical evidence.

Oz

 

[bhsmte]

Havent seen this level of projection for a while.

 

[omega2xx]

Do you mind verifying that please? Let's see how you go. Show me where I don't understand verifiable evidence and we'll go from there.

So far you have only presente4d opinions for what you believe.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Bungle,

I will not continue to engage with you when you erect straw men like this again. We cannot continue a logical discussion when you engage in this fallacious reasoning. Reasonable engagement goes out the window when you argue from silence:

Oh please, if you really can't see your own presuppositions then it's you who is at fault, not everyone else.

I was about to present the evidence in support of historiography for,

• Bibliographical (i.e., the textual tradition from the original document to the copies and manuscripts of that document we possess today)
• Internal evidence (what the document claims for itself)
• External evidence (how the document squares or aligns itself with facts, dates, persons from its own contemporary world).

So what did you mean when you said "I have presented the evidence"? Are you admitting it was a dishonest claim? I'll accept your apology and we can move on.

Because of your ridicule of me and your failure to wait for the evidence to be presented by me, I've decided that I won't cast pearls because you are not open to the historiographical evidence.

I'm very much open to evidence. Your bluster and posturing doesn't impress anyone and is only evidence of your lack of support for your claims. I suspect that what you consider pearls are more likely to be plastic imitations.

 

[AV1611VET]

But who told them they couldn't own property or feed themselves?

Deuteronomy 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.
4 The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him.
5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not quite as reliable as trial by fire, I grant you...

Just out of curiosity, can you see my Post 6033?

Someone said it was deleted, but I can see it just fine.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Deuteronomy 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.
3 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.
4 The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him.
5 For the LORD thy God hath chosen him out of all thy tribes, to stand to minister in the name of the LORD, him and his sons for ever.

So there was never anything "secular" about it -- as expected.

 

[AV1611VET]

So there was never anything "secular" about it -- as expected.

Suit yourself, professor.

I don't expect you to understand.

 

[Aman777]

2. Two independent insertions at the same base. If the specificity of retroviral insertion causes ERV's to occur at the same position 99.9% of the time (the rate needed to produce the shared ERV's between the human and chimp genomes), then we should find PtERV insertions at the same location in both the chimp and gorilla genomes.

The above is a good demonstration of the false ideas of those who worship at the altar of evolutionism. This is because scientists have mistaken the sons of God (prehistoric people) with Humans (descendants of Adam). We inherited, NOT evolved the ERVs of the sons of God (and Apes) when Noah's grandsons married and produced children with the people of planet Earth. IOW, Our blood was contaminated with the blood of Cave men so we inherited their DNA and ERVs. It happened just 11k years ago in Northern Mesopotamia according to History Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE and Scripture. Gen 8:4 That's God's Truth.

 

[rjs330]

Can't speak about others, but my own quest for knowledge about evolution has included taking undergrad courses in University, reading various books about evolutionary biology and genetics (including the better part of an entire textbook, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Edition), and dozens of journal papers.

So where has your knowledge on the subject come from?

Well I was taught about evolution through my schooling in Jr high, high school, and college. Plus reading stuff on the internet.

I wasn't taught creation in school as it wasn't allowed. But I did learn about creation through the Bible and in studying the Bible and learning more about the topic through Creationists books and on line.

 

[rjs330]

And the rocks were created complete with fossils already in them? So all those dinos in the Jurassic rocks never existed?

I didn't say that. I simply said that age was part of the creation. I'm sure fossils were formed just as they are always are generally formed through quick burial and coverage of sediments.

 

[OzSpen]

Just out of curiosity, can you see my Post 6033?

Someone said it was deleted, but I can see it just fine.

AV,

At the time I wrote that your post #6033 could not be seen by me, several other posts around it were not able to be seen by me. Honestly, that is what I saw - no #6033.

However, I can now see it.

Oz

 

[TLK Valentine]

TLK,

False!

At NO POINT have I suggested or inferred that I am infallible. Here you have used a straw man fallacy. I wish you would quit using logical fallacies so we can have rational conversations. Logical fallacies use illogical, erroneous reasoning

You don't seem to be able to understand how any person can be 'born again' (John 3:3 NIV), changed from the inside out. This change doesn't bring perfection or infallibility. It brings changed lives - from rebels to Christians; sexually immoral people and adulterers who live clean lives; druggies to clean living people; murderers, rapists, adulterers, liars, thieves, idolaters, homosexuals, the greedy, and drunkards who are forgiven and changed.

The Scripture states how this happens:

Jesus is

“‘the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the cornerstone.’

12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:11-12 NIV).​

Jesus is the cornerstone of salvation, but you are rejecting him, thus demonstration He is a stumbling block for you.

Oz

Nothing you said even remotely addresses the point of mine you originally responded to. Human beings are fallible in all things.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh please, if you really can't see your own presuppositions then it's you who is at fault, not everyone else.

So what did you mean when you said "I have presented the evidence"? Are you admitting it was a dishonest claim? I'll accept your apology and we can move on.

I'm very much open to evidence. Your bluster and posturing doesn't impress anyone and is only evidence of your lack of support for your claims. I suspect that what you consider pearls are more likely to be plastic imitations.

Bungle,

I know my own 'presuppositions' but it is faith founded on fact: the facts of God's existence, his revelation of Himself in Scripture, the reliability of the origin documents of Scripture, evidence for God in creation, Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection.

This is what I wrote in #5930:

You have the evidence of God's existence and his eternal power and divine nature right before you every day you live, but you you turn God away. Why? Take a read of verse 18 [Romans 1:18].

That's what all secularists, humanists, agnostics and atheists do, including yourself....

If you are 'always open' to the evidence, read that section of Romans 1 again and again and get the understanding of why God does not believe in atheists and that they will be 'without excuse' when they face God in judgment. His existence is screaming at us all in creation.​

So there you have it. I've presented some evidence for you.

'Your bluster and posturing' is your Ad Hominem Fallacy against me. Fallacious reasoning causes rational discussion to be abandoned. You have done that here.

In your replies to me, you have demonstrated you are not open to all of the evidence.

Bye, bye,
Oz