• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Bible pwns Evolution with Cryptozoology

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes

Cute Tink

Blah
Site Supporter
Nov 22, 2002
19,570
4,622
✟147,891.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I have a dragon in my backyard. She's getting ready to lay some eggs. You could come over and see, but you can only see if her she wants you to and I can't guarantee that she will trust you.

Oi.

Before you can expect anyone to take you seriously (which I know you don't, you are preaching to yourself), you have to provide some evidence that any of these creatures ever existed. Nobody can prove that they never did. They present 0 trouble for evolution until there is some evidence that a) they existed at some point AND b) they don't and can't fit within the bounds of evolutionary theory. A and B are both failures of yours at this point AV.

Here's an idea, instead of starting topics that you a) have no intention of backing up with any evidence or data and b) aren't trying to actually convince anyone of, perhaps you could just private message yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
LifeToTheFullest! said:
Thanks for posting a video that perfectly describes natural selection.
Click to expand...
Couldn't put it better myself.

Obviously the plant and the insect need each other now, but who's to say what the relationship of their ancestors was? The whole point of evolution is that a) modern species are related by extinct, ancestral species, and b) modern species are different to their ancestral species.
 
Upvote 0

SithDoughnut

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Jan 2, 2010
9,118
306
The Death Starbucks
✟33,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
AV1611VET said:
Like the coelacanth?
Click to expand...

The Coelacanth no longer exists, yes. It's not on your list anyway, so why you are mentioning it is beyond me.

Fictional creatures do not have to evolve, so evolution is often irrelevant where they are concerned.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,903
17,803
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟466,226.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
#1 Nonbeliever said:
I do believe in fairies!
Click to expand...

I've got a Ring Tone saying "I Don't believe In Farries" that repeats 5 times per ring.
Tinker Bells Falling all over the place when I get Calls & Ignore it
 
Upvote 0

JustMeSee

Contributor
Feb 9, 2008
7,703
297
In my living room.
✟38,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others


It is a wild ox, not a unicorn.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
AV1611VET said:
Following is a list of animals found in the Bible:

  1. fowled bat
  2. behemoth
  3. leviathan
  4. four-legged grasshopper
  5. satyr
  6. unicorn
  7. dragon
  8. straw-eating lions
I contend that these animals are problematic for evolutionists.
Click to expand...


ROFL! They are made up animals! Why would such fantasies be a problem for evolution?

AV, should sphinxs be a problem for evolution? After all, there is a famous statue of one in Egypt. But you don't believe in the Egyptian religion, do you? So you don't think that is a problem for science.

AV, these animals are problems for anyone who believes in a literal, inerrant Bible!
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
#1 Nonbeliever said:
Before you can expect anyone to take you seriously (which I know you don't, you are preaching to yourself), you have to provide some evidence that any of these creatures ever existed. Nobody can prove that they never did.
Click to expand...

Actually, on several of them we can. Many of them are stated to exist in material form -- without the caveat you gave your dragon -- in specific geographical areas. We have searched those areas and no such animals have been found. If you can search the entire search space and not find it, then you have falsified the entity.

Some of those we know are fictional because the authors so state in other places. For instance, leviathan and behemoth also appear in Babylonian/Sumerian/Assyrian literature and there they are stated as mythical.

I have a dragon in my backyard. She's getting ready to lay some eggs. You could come over and see, but you can only see if her she wants you to and I can't guarantee that she will trust you.
Click to expand...

This is an example of an ad hoc hypothesis to save your hypothesis from falsification.

The original hypothesis is "I have a dragon in my backyard". In the ordinary way of the word "dragon", that is a large physical beast that can be seen by anyone. However, you already know that if I come into your backyard I will not see a dragon. That will falsify the hypothesis since I have searched the entire search space.

So now you introduce the ad hoc hypothesis of invisibility: "you can only see if her she wants you to". This saves the hypothesis from falsification.

Of course, there are other ways to test for the dragon. Putting a net over the entire backyard would work. So would smoke pots so that the entire yard is filled with smoke, except for the gap caused by the dragon.

Of course, you could then try introducing more ad hoc hypotheses to avoid those falsifications.

As I stated before, AV basically got the "who" those beasts are a problem for wrong. They are a problem for an inerrant, literal Bible. He knows this. He's just trying to distract us from the original problem.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Jewish Passover, the Last Supper, and the New Testament Sacrifice, How are they connected?
Replies
10
Views
1K
General Theology
Mockingbird0
Behemoth (Satan)
Replies
12
Views
5K
General Theology
Legion7777777
I
AI Discussion #1 ( Very Interesting spiritual discussion with Microsoft Copilot AI )
Replies
0
Views
2K
General Theology
InChrist4Him
I
Historical & scientific evidence in Scriptures: For evangelism
Replies
16
Views
4K
Christian Scriptures
stevevw
Lies - How to see Them
Replies
47
Views
3K
Christian Scriptures
CoreyD
Menu
Log in
Register