Question for evolutionist

[Nathan Poe]

Ahhhh, like evolution. A religion of faith... Faith than Something or Someone has made all this that we call life and the universe and everything they contain. While both agreeing that something can not come of nothing. Interesting...

How predictable -- knowing that your own position is untenable, you seek to drag everything else down to its level while at the same time, offering nothing to support your own ideas.

I feel sorry for you that you hold "religions" and "faith" in such low regard, that you need to completely dismiss the very definition of "evidence" -- not to support yourself, but to tear down that which threatens the cornerstone of your self-image.

And all this without even coming close to discussing anything actually covered by the theory of evolution.

Sad, really.

 

[1611AV]

How predictable -- knowing that your own position is untenable, you seek to drag everything else down to its level while at the same time, offering nothing to support your own ideas.

I feel sorry for you that you hold "religions" and "faith" in such low regard, that you need to completely dismiss the very definition of "evidence" -- not to support yourself, but to tear down that which threatens the cornerstone of your self-image.

And all this without even coming close to discussing anything actually covered by the theory of evolution.

Sad, really.

And what is your position Nathan Poe? Any question is probably a waste of time since you never give me a strait answer to my question directed at you but do not hesitate to jump in when you are not called on.

Well here is your chance to set the record strait. What is your position?

 

[Belk]

Ahhhh, like evolution. A religion of faith... Faith than Something or Someone has made all this that we call life and the universe and everything they contain. While both agreeing that something can not come of nothing. Interesting...

How does that make evolution based on faith? Not knowing how life started does not get rid of the information and evidence we have.

 

[1611AV]

How does that make evolution based on faith? Not knowing how life started does not get rid of the information and evidence we have.

It takes faith to have a theory.
What evidence are you referring to specifically?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It takes faith to have a theory.

A theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence. It doesn't take faith to believe in a theory by the sheer definition of a theory.

What evidence are you referring to specifically?

For evolution? The fossil record (transitional forms, lateral geological distribution, etc), comparative anatomy (atavisms, redundancies, etc), comparative genetics (each protein allows you to make a family tree of life; every protein generates the same family tree. Odd that ), etc.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And what is your position Nathan Poe?

My position on what? This thread has gone in a dozen different directions, none of which have any bearing on the theory of evolution.

Any question is probably a waste of time since you never give me a strait answer to my question directed at you

Your questions had nothing to do with the theory of evolution or the Bible -- ask a straight question on either of these topics, and I'll answer it.

but do not hesitate to jump in when you are not called on.

Well, considering that I don't need to wait for you or anyone else to "call on" me, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing, thank you.

Well here is your chance to set the record strait. What is your position?

Again -- position on what?

As I've said, this thread has gone in a dozen directions, none of which are germane to the theory of evolution.

You, like so many creationists before you, seem to be trying to take advantage of that confusion to create a "gap" in people's knowledge so you can shoehorn the God of the Bible (as defined by you, of course) into that gap.

It's a tired and worn-out strategy, made only sadder by the fact that one would expect you to be better at it, for no other reason than sheer repetition.

Nevertheless, I'll humor you -- ask a straight question, and I shall give a straight answer.

Or, take this opportunity to feign indignation and dismiss me in a huff.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It takes faith to have a theory.

So, do you have a problem with faith in all its forms, or just the ones which disagree with you?

 

[1611AV]

A theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence. It doesn't take faith to believe in a theory by the sheer definition of a theory.

You are to smart for that kind of answer WC.

A better definition would be a "best guess for the moment".

That is why new theories are proposed and sometimes accepted to replace "best guess for the moment" for a better than "best guess for the moment" based on new evidence that replaces the "best guess for the moment"

For evolution? The fossil record (transitional forms, lateral geological distribution, etc), comparative anatomy (atavisms, redundancies, etc), comparative genetics (each protein allows you to make a family tree of life; every protein generates the same family tree. Odd that ), etc.

These evidences can also be used to support the belief in creation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are to smart for that kind of answer WC.

A better definition would be a "best guess for the moment".

Actually, a better definition would be, "Explanations supported by facts and evidence."

But since you didn't come up with it, feel free to dismiss it.

That is why new theories are proposed and sometimes accepted to replace "best guess for the moment" for a better than "best guess for the moment" based on new evidence that replaces the "best guess for the moment"

So your problem is with evidence -- seeing as how you have none to support your own guesses, I can understand the phobia.

These evidences can also be used to support the belief in creation.

Based on your say-so, or on something meaningful?

 

[Phred]

So no answer then?

I believe I answered you already. However...

I do not believe these options to be silly, I myself believe God is eternal. I believe all things were created and exist by God.

You can believe whatever you wish. But it's not evidence of anything. There's not even any evidence that your god exists much less that it's eternal or that it created anything.

If you do not believe that all things have a beginning then you must believe that they have always been.

No. That's not a reasonable statement. I believe that all things have a beginning except for those things that do not have a beginning. We don't quite yet understand the nature of our reality. What we do know is that time itself started at the Big Bang so there is no "before" when speaking of it.

So I ask you plainly, If you do not believe in God as the creator of the "Big Bang" What did it come from, And what did that come from, and what did it explode into? and so on...

I don't know. I do know that my not knowing doesn't mean that it must have been a magic being that did it.

You strive to understand how the universe began and what the Big Bang was all about? Let me know when you have a answer. Use your "superior intelligence and wit" The existence of God depends on it.

God, as defined by the Christian Bible, already does not exist. That's been shown well enough to my satisfaction. The rest is a work in progress.

 

[1611AV]

Thank You for the reply Phred.

 

[Tiberius]

I never said that.

Yes you did. Belk asked you if you think believing in evolution and believing the Bible were mutually incompatible. You responded by asking to see evidence of it (evolution) biblically.

Sounds to me like you are saying you want evidence from the Bible before you believe in something.

They are not all Christians according to the Bible

No true Scotsman.

They did not believe according to the Bible

No true Scotsman again.

Because the Bible tells us who they are.

Circular logic. You are relying on the Bible to be correct in order to show you who got it right. But if the bible is wrong, it could say a person got it right when in fact they didn't. You need some outside source in order to verify the Bible's claims, and I've never seen such a source.

So no answer then?

First of all, he did give you an answer. Don't ignore it.

Secondly, you are the one proposing something from outside reality as the cause for the universe. Why is it perfectly acceptable for you to invoke magic, and yet when someone honestly replies "I don't know for sure how the universe was formed" you laugh at them and deride their position? There could well be some currently unknown forces of nature which provide an explanation, but you instead decide you want an answer - any answer - right now, and go with the mystical one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are to smart for that kind of answer WC.

A better definition would be a "best guess for the moment".

That is why new theories are proposed and sometimes accepted to replace "best guess for the moment" for a better than "best guess for the moment" based on new evidence that replaces the "best guess for the moment"

That fits with my definition, though I suppose I could expand on it:

A theory is a hypothesis supported by evidence. There can be multiple, conflicting theories explaining the same phenomenon (e.g., the origin of the Moon), or one main theory with no real competitors (e.g., the origin of species). If evidence goes against a theory, then it becomes a disproven theory - we thereafter know that it is false.

In any case, this doesn't change the founding property of a theory: that it is a hypothesis supported by the evidence. The 'mechanics' of replacing theories with better theories doesn't change this. That currently-held theories are supported by the evidence is why we don't need faith to believe them. They have, by definition, evidence. If they didn't, then they wouldn't be theories. If they were disproven, we wouldn't even consider them to begin with.

Faith, in my opinion, is unnecessary.

These evidences can also be used to support the belief in creation.

How so? Are you talking about Young Earth Creationism?

 

[1611AV]

Yes you did. Belk asked you if you think believing in evolution and believing the Bible were mutually incompatible. You responded by asking to see evidence of it (evolution) biblically.
Sounds to me like you are saying you want evidence from the Bible before you believe in something.

Sounds to you, thats nice. I will try and make it simpler to understand for some of you.

When reading the Bible we read God made a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils and the man became a living soul.


Here is the scripture I present:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now how do I know God crated man as a man and not a single celled organism. Well I go back to the Bible and see:

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Now knowing that God is not a single celled organism, God did not create a single celled organism called Adam. He created a modern Human man named Adam.

How do I know God is not a single celled organism. Well, I read the Bible and it reads:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Now unless you believe the Apostles were following a single celled organism named Jesus then we know that Jesus came 2000 years ago as a man.

How do I know. Well the Bible says so. And I believe what the Bible says because, I am a Bible believing Christian.


Now what I want to be shown from a Bible believing Christian is something in the Bible that speaks of evolution in any way shape or form. It does not even have to say the word evolution.

Now, can you do that?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Sounds to you, thats nice. I will try and make it simpler to understand for some of you.

When reading the Bible we read God made a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils and the man became a living soul.


Here is the scripture I present:
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Now how do I know God crated man as a man and not a single celled organism. Well I go back to the Bible and see:

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Now knowing that God is not a single celled organism, God did not create a single celled organism called Adam. He created a modern Human man named Adam.

How do I know God is not a single celled organism. Well, I read the Bible and it reads:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Now unless you believe the Apostles were following a single celled organism named Jesus then we know that Jesus came 2000 years ago as a man.

How do I know. Well the Bible says so. And I believe what the Bible says because, I am a Bible believing Christian.


Now what I want to be shown from a Bible believing Christian is something in the Bible that speaks of evolution in any way shape or form. It does not even have to say the word evolution.

Now, can you do that?

O....M....G......

I don't think there's a Big enough for that Epic Face-palm of Biblical Proportions!

 

[Phred]

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:26-27 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.


Now what I want to be shown from a Bible believing Christian is something in the Bible that speaks of evolution in any way shape or form. It does not even have to say the word evolution.

It also doesn't say the word "rapture" but many believe in that also.

However, let me ask you this. How do you know that your god didn't start to create man and it just took about 3 billion years? God took some clay, began the process and three billion years later he had man. Man and woman he created them.

You're basing all your concepts off of the Bible. Which is written by men and (you believe) inspired by God. I base my concepts of studying what (you believe) your God actually DID. You work with second-hand information. I work with first-hand information. If your God did this then evolution is the way he did it. You're denying what your deity gave you.

Best get with the program.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

How do I know God is not a single celled organism. Well, I read the Bible and it reads:

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Now unless you believe the Apostles were following a single celled organism named Jesus then we know that Jesus came 2000 years ago as a man.

I just have to point this out.
You just provided 'biblical proof' that Mary was not only a virgin, but that she squeezed out a fully grown adult man rather then a baby, after all jesus never changed.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

You are to smart for that kind of answer WC.

A better definition would be a "best guess for the moment".

That is why new theories are proposed and sometimes accepted to replace "best guess for the moment" for a better than "best guess for the moment" based on new evidence that replaces the "best guess for the moment"

Calling it a "best guess" implies there is very little evidence. That is wrong.

These evidences can also be used to support the belief in creation.

If you can come up with a way to explain chromosome 2, biogeography, phylogenetics, and the distribution of fossils using either a YEC or OEC model, I'd be impressed. I've never seen anyone give a satisfactory explanation for these things. Go at it.

 

[sandwiches]

The Bible is Truth, we either receive it or reject it.

You should've been more honest here. What you really meant to say was "The Bible is Truth, we either receive it as I interpret it or reject it.

 

[1611AV]

14 pages. 140 Posts and nobody thus far has been able to show any Biblical evidence of Evolution in the Bible.

Lots of mocking tho. Of all the people, you would think with a name like Wiccan Child, he would have the most negative things to say about the Bible, But he has shown himself to be true to his science of study without the need to mock what he disagrees with. I respect that greatly in a person.