Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[hippie]

I repeat: not that kind of prediction!

Example of a scientific prediction:

Hypothesis: Ammonites preceded trilobites.
Predictive test: If ammonites preceded trilobites, then their fossils should be found in older rock formations and layers.

If that's a valid example of scientific prediction all I can say is DUH 'casue a 5 yr old could figure that out!!

Example of a non-scientific prediction:

The Astros will lose the 2006 World Series.

Example of Biblical prophecy
Micah 5:2

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
​

though you are small among the clans£ of Judah,
​

out of you will come for me
​

one who will be ruler over Israel,
​

whose origins£ are from of old,
​

from ancient times.

​

​

Fullfillment:

​

Matthew 2:1

​

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem....

​

 

[HairlessSimian]

About what? Science being successful in making predictions? If those are reasons to accept the theory then why aren’t successful Biblical prophecies enough reason to accept the Bible? Oh yeah that’s right…one is a “religious” belief and the other is a “scientific” belief!!!!

Taken with enough hindsight, every prediction may come true. Be that as it may, others have dealt with biblical prophesies in great detail elsewhere. Let's not get into that here because that would be hijacking. Scientific predictions are testable and repeatable. The "predicted" birth of the messiah is hardly in that category, and neither are the other biblical prophesies. Get off this line of reasoning or you'll be revealing only more stubborn silliness.

 

[gluadys]

In order for you to make the statement that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus or for His crucifixion you need to commit intellectual suicide. The extra-biblical proofs for His existence are many. Here is just one of them:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

I am quite familiar with Josephus and various other references to Jesus in extra-biblical literature. Every last shred of it is a report of the testimony of what Christians believe about Jesus---most of whom were not themselves eye-witnesses of his life, but themselves dependent on the testimony of the apostles. In short, this is at least third-hand hear-say testimony. It does not verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. All it verifies is the existence of Christian communities who believed (not knew--believed) in his life, death and resurrection.

 

[HairlessSimian]

I am quite familiar with Josephus and various other references to Jesus in extra-biblical literature. Every last shred of it is a report of the testimony of what Christians believe about Jesus---most of whom were not themselves eye-witnesses of his life, but themselves dependent on the testimony of the apostles. In short, this is at least third-hand hear-say testimony. It does not verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. All it verifies is the existence of Christian communities who believed (not knew--believed) in his life, death and resurrection.

What's more, Josephus' purported extra-biblical verification of Jesus' existence is a forgery.

 

[HairlessSimian]

If that's a valid example of scientific prediction all I can say is DUH 'casue a 5 yr old could figure that out!!

A 5-year-old could figure out the proper test to apply to that hypothesis, yes, but YOU couldn't understand the difference between a scientific prediction and biblical prophesy. Hence, I had to reduce it to your level, but I still don't think you got it.

 

[hippie]

A 5-year-old could figure out the proper test to apply to that hypothesis, yes, but YOU couldn't understand the difference between a scientific prediction and biblical prophesy. Hence, I had to reduce it to your level, but I still don't think you got it.

response editted by hippie

 

[mikeynov]

I am quite familiar with Josephus and various other references to Jesus in extra-biblical literature. Every last shred of it is a report of the testimony of what Christians believe about Jesus---most of whom were not themselves eye-witnesses of his life, but themselves dependent on the testimony of the apostles. In short, this is at least third-hand hear-say testimony. It does not verify the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. All it verifies is the existence of Christian communities who believed (not knew--believed) in his life, death and resurrection.

*wonders where matthew is*

I can't really emphasize enough how much points like these are glossed over when there are LEGITIMATE matters of religious faith at hand.

I think creationists tend to recognize their own obvious shortcomings in terms of establishing conclusions first, and then trying desperately to rationalize everything to fit into their insane conclusions due to perceived religious necessity. Thus, they characterize their opponents with the very worst aspects of themselves. Projection 101.

However, I can't help but notice this recurrent theme in nearly all areas of "religious scholars" who seem to color everything as if the viewpoint they adopted before having any rational basis was "obviously right," and interpret evidence through that filter. I.e. I get that "creationist" vibe when I read about the historicity of Jesus in the same way I do when I read about AIG. Disturbing stuff, being that wed to those beliefs that you have to forsake intellectual honesty.

 

[hippie]

I appreciate the discussion/debate I've had with most of you on this thread but I'm done hanging around and being insulted simply because I disagree with the others. When others can't or won't entire into a dialogue without resorting to inane and, dare I say it ....[editted by hippie] then it's time to leave

 

[mikeynov]

I appreciate the discussion/debate I've had with most of you on this thread but I'm done hanging around and being insulted simply because I disagree with the others. When others can't or won't entire into a dialogue without resorting to inane and, dare I say it ....stupid comments then it's time to leave

You're not going to last long if you get spooked that easily on internet message boards. I don't mean this as an offense, but it's something you got to know going into places like these.

 

[HairlessSimian]

I appreciate the discussion/debate I've had with most of you on this thread but I'm done hanging around and being insulted simply because I disagree with the others. When others can't or won't entire into a dialogue without resorting to inane and, dare I say it ....[editted by hippie] then it's time to leave

You show your stripes, you fly the flag, you get the bullets.

You put down your flag, take off your stripes and we'll talk.

 

[gluadys]

So because you found a source that you think discredits Josephus that means what exactly? That Jesus wasn't a real person? I can only assume that is what you mean since the post concerning Josephus was in response to a post that disputes whether Jesus ever lived!

No, it does not mean that Jesus was not a real person. It means the citation from Josephus is not evidence that Jesus was a real person.

There are very few people whose historical existence is documented, even today. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, only that we can't verify that they existed. Jesus is one of the many in this respect. He was not important enough on a human level for history to take note of him.

 

[hippie]

You're not going to last long if you get spooked that easily on internet message boards. I don't mean this as an offense, but it's something you got to know going into places like these.

I understand that; it's imply that I refuse to sink to their level. I have my standards and don't think that being deliberately offensive in necessary. In fact I think it's part of the problem we have in society now.

Peace

 

[HairlessSimian]

So because you found a source that you think discredits Josephus that means what exactly? That Jesus wasn't a real person? I can only assume that is what you mean since the post concerning Josephus was in response to a post that disputes whether Jesus ever lived!

You used Josephus to substantiate your assertion concerning the extra-biblical authenticity of Jesus. I responded with a scholar's detailed rebuttal on the authenticity of the Josephus text. That's debate.

For over 2000 years there have been no serious scholars that have questioned the authenticity of Jesus. It is a relatively modern concept to challenge the idea that Jesus actually lived; an idea, btw, that no reputable scholar endorses. They may question His being GOD but they all admit His existence.

2000 years, 5000 years, 100,000 years - doesn't affect one iota the question of authenticity. Only in the past few decades have scholars felt at liberty to question the authenticity of many canonical and extra-canonical texts.
One scholar, one hundred scholars, a hundred thousand - doesn't affect one iota the question of authenticity. This is an appeal to authority - a commonly used fallacy to sway the argument without substantively making one.

And I'm sure you've polled every reputable or serious scholar ...

 

[corvus_corax]

For over 2000 years there have been no serious scholars that have questioned the authenticity of Jesus. It is a relatively modern concept to challenge the idea that Jesus actually lived

So what?
It's a relatively modern idea that germs cause disease
The theories of relativity are "relatively modern"
The theories of gravity are "relatively modern"
Quantum theory is specifically modern
Modern does not equal "wrong" or "bad"

an idea, btw, that no reputable scholar endorses.

NO reputable scholar?
NONE?
Methinks you need to sit back, take a deep breath, and relax
And then take a look at what makes a "reputable scholar"
More to the point, however, isnt Josephus' (for example) statement of the existence of Jesus, but rather the forgeries that were added to his writings concerning the existence of Jesus.
In Christianity, forgeries (often long held to be true) abound, just as they do in any religion.
We must not listen to the forgeries, but rather to those who point out the forgeries (along with why they were made)

They may question His being GOD but they all admit His existence.

Of course, THIS is the crux of the matter is it not?
Whether Jesus existed is, in a religious sense, irrelevant. If he is not God Him (or Her) self, then Christianity falls apart.
It really isnt a question, despite my above statement, as to whether he existed or not. It's a question as to whether he is GOD or not.

And yet I would contend that given the fact that there are plenty of warnings concerning medications and that people are well aware of the inherent risks with taking those medication that it requires an act of faith (I won’t have those side effects). If they don’t have enough faith then they don’t take them or they don’t fly in airplanes. It’s still a matter of faith and trust.

Well (and not to demean people who think like hippie ascribes) those types of people are stupid
Yes stupid
As opposed to "I wont have those side effects", a more realistic approach would be "I may have those effects, but the statistics are on my side and so the possible benefits outweigh the statistical numbers detailing my possible loss"

About what? Science being successful in making predictions? If those are reasons to accept the theory then why aren’t successful Biblical prophecies enough reason to accept the Bible? Oh yeah that’s right…one is a “religious” belief and the other is a “scientific” belief!!!!

Are you still talking about the prophecies that Jesus supposedly fulfilled?
Check this out....
Given the right "atmosphere" I can give an accurate "reading" of anybody I meet face to face (and a few of the gullible online) regarding their past, present and the "type of person" they are.
Oh yeah, I can also do this (with near 100% accuracy) regarding their future.
Heck, properly applied psychology and Cold Reading can make a modern-day-Messiah out of anybody.
Of course, in the case of Jesus (someone supposedly well read in the OT scriptures) certain events would be easily manipulable.
Of course, regarding the prophecies that he did NOT fulfill, Christians apply all sorts of rationales (such as "It hasn't happened YET" or, my favorite "It happened in a non-literal sense")

No, Im not trying to derail this into a "Jesus is not the Messiah" thread, but you are the one who brought up the Messianic prophecies (IIRC)

 

[HairlessSimian]

I understand that; it's imply that I refuse to sink to their level. I have my standards and don't think that being deliberately offensive in necessary. In fact I think it's part of the problem we have in society now.

Peace

Who said 'DUH' ?

 

[corvus_corax]

I appreciate the discussion/debate I've had with most of you on this thread but I'm done hanging around and being insulted simply because I disagree with the others. When others can't or won't entire into a dialogue without resorting to inane and, dare I say it ....[editted by hippie] then it's time to leave

Yeah, I know you said you are leaving the debate, but just in case you check back on it, please note-
"When others can't or won't entire into a dialogue without resorting to inane and, dare I say it ....[editted by hippie] then it's time to leave" seems to be an all inclusive statement.
Not everyone on this (or any other thread) will enter without resorting to inane or insulting comments. That's a fact of life.
However, not everyone on this thread has lowered themselves to such.
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of debaters on this thread have not lowered themselves to such

I will be blunt, but not inane (or insulting) and ask quite forthrightly- If you cannot handle the few inane or insulting comments on any given thread, then why are you engaging in internet forum debate?

Trust me on this, I have encountered my fair share of direct insults (both from god-believers and non-believers) on CF, on nearly every thread I enter into. One simply needs to, in such a case, grow a thicker skin (after all, do their comments matter to you?), move on, and get on with the actual debate at hand.

 

[Edmond]

Here are examples of the primary types of response that evolutionists have posted in response to this thread OP. (Shown in red )

--------------------------------------------------------
It shows that you don't understand what the theory of evolution actually states. It doesn't do much debunking.
---------------------------------------
This is, in one sentence, the theory of evolution.
------------------------------------------
That allele frequencies in populations change over time due to mutations and selection. Look at point 1 of NT2's post. It completely ignores selection, and because of that ignores half of the theory of evolution. The rest is just as much bunk.
----------------------------------------------------
Once again, "Allele frequencies in populations change over time due to mutations and selection."
------------------------------------
Then encourage your fellow creationists to learn about the science they're rejecting. It's not nonsense, I'm afraid. Most creationists simply don't understand evolution.
---------------------------------------------------
Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution describes how existing life develops, and as such is no more concerned with the origins of life than Kepler's laws are concerned with the origins of the planets
---------------------------------------------
Yet contradicting that, they go on to say….
-------------------------------------------------------
micro/macro is something creationists made up. It’s all evolution. The only difference is one conflicts with your beliefs.
---------------------------------------------
And…..
---------------------------------
The same exact forces that drive what you call microevolution are the same forces that drive what you call macroevolution only on a larger scale. If you accept one and not the other it’s only because you can’t reconcile it with your religious beliefs.
Yet they say again….
------------------
The majority of Creationists don't know the definition of evolution, including you.
----------------------------------------------
Put a load of scrap metal in a beaker, nothing happens. Put a load of chemicals in, you can get reactions. Obviously, your analogy is flawed. No one says that everything came from chance; whatever reactions led to the formation of life are described by the laws of chemistry, which are not simple chance.
-----------------------------------------
Creationist comment ……
Sorry, seriously, evolution always started with the beginning of the universe but here, whenever probabilities and amino acids combining to form protiens is brought up, it's always the same response. That's abiogenesis. When did that separate away and what is it? It seems to me that it is on much more tenuous grounds, but evolution has to stand on that ground anyway.

Then when did evolution begin? With the first single celled organism? Doesn't there have to be a firm foundation? A solid evolutionary theory doesn't do much good if the theory of getting to the first cell is weak.
---------------------------------------------------------
the problem with this arguement is you cant simply summarize the theory of evolution in a sentence. Its a good "summary" but its much more detailed then that. Go to your local library and pick up a evolution book. It takes people in college 4 or more years to fully learn all the information, why would you read one sentence and dismiss it all together?

-----------------------------------------------
(Edmond) Therefore ----------


It appears that the bottom line of their argument seems to be this. You can’t fully summarize what evolution is unless you’ve completed a full under grad curricula on the subject or….here it is in one line micro-organism definition of evolution. It has nothing to do with the origins of the universe of life. or…. “The same exact forces that drive what you call microevolution are the same forces that drive what you call macroevolution only on a larger scale. If you accept one and not the other it’s only because you can’t reconcile it with your religious beliefs.

In other words the subject can’t really be defined by the average person, like you, as you are not qualified to say if it’s true or not.

In addition, even their own definitions vary so broadly even in the very small examples of the samplings take from this one thread that it is no wonder creationist, made to appear as the ignorant fools, just aren’t smart enough to even be able to define evolution. Therefore they are not quailed to accurately debate it.

Yes, I must say, in light of their own statements, I can well see how they can label and view the creationists as nothing but a group of ignorant fanatics. What an entirely convenient WAY to thoroughly confuse the format of a subject thereby completely disarming any possibility for realistic debate. Well done on the part of the cleverlutionists.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Nooj]

It's not our fault if you can't understand what we're saying. And believe me, everyone on this thread have tried to put it simply and succintly.

 

[random_guy]

I really don't see what's wrong with my post. I thought it was a clear analogy.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution describes how existing life develops, and as such is no more concerned with the origins of life than Kepler's laws are concerned with the origins of the planets

 

[HairlessSimian]

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution describes how existing life develops, and as such is no more concerned with the origins of life than Kepler's laws are concerned with the origins of the planets
---------------------------------------------
Yet contradicting that, they go on to say….
-------------------------------------------------------
micro/macro is something creationists made up. It’s all evolution. The only difference is one conflicts with your beliefs.
---------------------------------------------

Not a contradiction, since neither micro- nor macroevolution, as generally regarded by creationists, deal with the origin of life.

Creationist comment ……
Sorry, seriously, evolution always started with the beginning of the universe but here, whenever probabilities and amino acids combining to form protiens is brought up, it's always the same response. That's abiogenesis. When did that separate away and what is it? It seems to me that it is on much more tenuous grounds, but evolution has to stand on that ground anyway.

Then when did evolution begin? With the first single celled organism? Doesn't there have to be a firm foundation? A solid evolutionary theory doesn't do much good if the theory of getting to the first cell is weak.
---------------------------------------------------------

This view was refuted. The history of the universe would deal with Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolutionary theory. As has been argued elsewhere in this thread, they don't depend on each other for their own validity. To keep denying this is silly. Notice that Big Bang and Cosmology are Physics. Abiogenesis is Chemistry and Evolutionary Theory is Biology. Inter-related on some levels but not inter-dependent for validity.

In addition, even their own definitions vary so broadly even in the very small examples of the samplings take from this one thread that it is no wonder creationist, made to appear as the ignorant fools, just aren’t smart enough to even be able to define evolution. Therefore they are not quailed to accurately debate it.

That's right. Just as most people are not qualified to debate organometallic chemistry or fluid dynamics. It's not a question of not being smart, but not being knowledgeable. Unfortunately, in the areas of cosmological evolution, origin of life and evolution from apes, some non-scientists are sensitive to the scientific findings because it conflicts with the non-scientific ideas in which they are invested, and some even believe that they can debate the findings without being qualified to do so.

The fact that all three areas (cosmological evolution, origin of life and evolution from apes) are of interest leads some people to lump them all up together into one uber-area which they (inaptly) call evolution, then come debate with scientists on the definition of evolution.

Because these three areas are of interest to almost everyone wondering about life, the universe, its origin and its meaning, high-school textbooks frequently treat the three areas sequentially and thus propagate the mistaken, all-in-one notion of what evolution is. That's unfortunate but not fatal, for someone delving in these areas past high-school quickly discovers the difference.

Yes, I must say, in light of their own statements, I can well see how they can label and view the creationists as nothing but a group of ignorant fanatics. What an entirely convenient why to thoroughly confuse the format of a subject thereby completely disarming any possibility for realistic debate. Well done on the part of the cleverlutionists.

I don't understand the second-to-last sentence.