The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously, "credible evidence beyond the Bible" means the creation, the earth ecosystem, the planets, the wonders of life on earth and millions of lifeforms we see around us, which we are part of. These are proof of God if we do not deny the overwhelming evidence.

Oh. All of that is evidence against the Bible stories. I do not think you understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Obviously, "credible evidence beyond the Bible" means the creation, the earth ecosystem, the planets, the wonders of life on earth and millions of lifeforms we see around us, which we are part of. These are proof of God if we do not deny the overwhelming evidence.

Proof of God, perhaps, but not proof of your assertions of prescience in the Bible, which is what you were asked for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof of God, perhaps, but not proof of your assertions of prescience in the Bible, which is what you were asked for.

Trying to argue that the Bible is a book of prophecy is never a winning strategy. To do so one has to cherry pick, misinterpret the Bible itself, and ignore the history of the Bible along with other errors. It is largely self refuting. Why would anyone do that?

 

[Speedwell]

Trying to argue that the Bible is a book of prophecy is never a winning strategy. To do so one has to cherry pick, misinterpret the Bible itself, and ignore the history of the Bible along with other errors. It is largely self refuting. Why would anyone do that?

I think it's silly. The Bible is not in itself proof of anything, it's a handbook "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" as Paul informs us. There is no proof; faith is required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it's silly. The Bible is not in itself proof of anything, it's a handbook "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" as Paul informs us. There is no proof; faith is required.

I agree. If anything it is an attempted abuse of the Bible. And it leads to claims that others are not True Christians™. I am sure you have had that false charge made about you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you want to know what my original post is, go to #881 which contains my words in quotes, and click on the quotation. I mention a few peoples' names, but decided to make it more inclusive so others can answer as well.

Except that you suddenly edited out all of our names.

Also, a circle and a sphere are still two distinct and separate objects. The first is a flat, 2-Dimensional shape, the second is a round, 3-Dimensional shape. So anything that is written to describe something using the world 'circle' refers to a flat 2-Dimensional object.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No proof does not mean it didn't happen. Surely you are not unaware of this fundamental. Can you literally going to prove everything and if not, they are not real ... are you going to say that? There are trillions of stuff not proved.

About the Hebrews in Egypt you mentioned. Do we know how the pyramids was built? The ability to make the huge stones and to cut their surface so smoothly that even a paper cannot slip through has baffled historians and scientists today because the technology and engineering were not known to exist 3000 years ago. Today, we don''t know how they did it, but does it mean people back then didn't build it?

Repeating one part of my argument and pretending that's the only thing I said is not an honest tactic. You have, unsurprisingly, avoided addressing the point I made and pretended that I said something I didn't say.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hebrew is a human language and not totally unlike other languages with tenses and different connotations, so it is not irrelevant to use Japanese and Chinese. After all, many of us including you don't know hebrew, aren't we all reading translation into english?

You obviously are not a linguist, so please stop arguing about something you do not really understand. Japanese and Chinese characters have no relevance whatsoever to Hebrew semantics.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do we know how the pyramids was built?

Yes.

https://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de...oemer_Englische_Fassung_Pyramidenbau_2011.pdf

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/42015/pdf

https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Lally-Engineering-a-Pyramid.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a770/04c8ee85fe6b53c9aedffaeaa716a2b4fa45.pdf

 

[Kylie]

Said these before: "He sit upon the Circle of the earth and "He suspend the earth upon nothing" but not good enough for over-critical people.

That's circle, not sphere.

And there are passages in the Bible that describe how someone up very high can see the whole world, which is just not possible on a sphere.

Seems to me that this is a case of the second thing I mentioned - taking a passage that can be interpreted in different ways, finding one interpretation that fits with science, and then insisting that's how the original authors intended it.

Today we say "Men are taller than women." Is it fact? No, some women are taller. But is the statement seen as wrong? No, because we know what it is trying to say. Of course, one may insist on holding the Bible to a much higher standard, and insist that it spell things out the way you want because they refuse to believe.

Yeah, that's not at all what I was talking about.

It is back to this: "He sit upon the Circle of the earth and "He suspend the earth upon nothing" plus other stuff already said. However, you "want it to be clear and unambiguous" on your terms , so you refuse to believe.

I think "clear and unambiguous" is a perfectly reasonable request.

In Revelation, the apostle John wrote about future machines of war: "Locust that made whirling noises" (helicopters and jets) and "horses with heads like lion and threw sulphur"" (armor tanks). If you lived 2000 years ago, what words would you use to try to depict machines that did not exist on the ground or in the dictionary?

Tanks are not horse shape, they do not have lion-like heads, and they are not flame-throwers.

If I was living at the time and I tried to describe an army tank, I'd probably say something like:

And I saw a great metal box moving across the land, unstoppable and relentless. Its walls were thick, and no spear or arrow could penetrate it, and swords bent and broke on its sides. A great beam like the trunk of a tree emerged from the top, pointing out at the thing's enemies like a spear, and there was a great boom like thunder, a flash of flame, and a great stone was flung with such force that it could kill a thousand men who were so far from it that they could not even see it.​

But like I said, you saw the passage about horses with lion heads and spewing flames and interpreted it to mean army tank, and now you've convinced yourself that you can't possibly be wrong. But it describes a guy with a flamethrower riding a motorbike while wearing a helmet much better.

 

[Kylie]

Even God give you free will. so why would I use threats of punishment, was just stating my belief even if it does not sound pleasant.

About your need for reality . I will repost this (it is a previous post a few months ago), the point being that if people does not have the facts to prove something is real, it does not mean that "something" isn't real or isn't true.

I will try to keep this true incident brief (and it is only ONE of the many such spiritual things that happen). Many years ago, a close friend at same church was on the verge of death, from a lightning strike. He was the only Christian among his many siblings, and as he laid comatose for a few days in hospital, his family decided to consult the temple medium (a pagan priest) who communicated with spirits. Although our church was not agreeable, however, we cannot stop the family. As the medium called upon ithe spirit, he did something to an ordinary porcelain bowl -- he cast a spell, so to speak. He then threw the bowl on the floor and if it broke, my friend would die, and if the bowl didn’t break, my friend would live -- the medium said. At first throw, the porcelain bowl didn’t break. My friend’s family asked him to throw it up in the air so it would fall from a great height. The medium did, the bowl didn’t break. They requested the medium to throw even high, as much as 15 feet – my friend 's brother told me later-- the bowl dropped to ground and didn’t break. He was asked to repeat the highest throw, but the result was same. After the ceremony ended and the spirit’s presence left, the priest, to show that he did not use a fake porcelain bowl, dropped it to the ground, and it broke into pieces. The family told the church members about what they saw. Although I did not witness the process, however, I am sure they would not lie. They even believed that their brother would live. A few days later, however, he died. The siblings, in a state of deep grief, related the same temple process to people who came for the funeral ie they could not be lying.

Can science or reality explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times from high during the spiritual process, and after the spirit left, it broke when thrown from a few feet above ground?

Now, this is not the only unexplained spiritual phenomena. There are many in this part of the world. In about 2010, in Singapore, one incident even went to court as the woman, who used to have a snake spirit, sued the Catholic church and blamed them for mental and physical pain she felt after she was exorcised. During the hearing, the priests and church members narrated that the woman could move like a snake on the floor during the exorcism. Can science explain such spiritual phenomena?

Science does not say non-scientific explanations are unreliable or wrong. But some people say that millions of lifeforms does not mean God created them -- just because science didn't prove it OR they said they have not seen God, so He isn't real. Some people deny the power of observations, common sense, intuition, probability, process of elimination etc. Does science tell you to do so? Or are you denying your basic intelligence in order to make it more complicated and intellectual?

Yeah, anecdote is not evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can science or reality explain how the bowl didn’t smashed into pieces when thrown a few times from high during the spiritual process, and after the spirit left, it broke when thrown from a few feet above ground?

Basic properties of materials and fracture propagation mechanics.
Can you explain how you know there was a spirit in it and how you know the spirit left it?
I've answered your question, I look forward to the answer to mine.

 

[MIDutch]

I've been "debating" creationists for almost 20 years on "debate" forums like this and if there is one thing I've learned it's that everything in the Bible is LITERALLY true ... unless it's not.

creationist - "the Bible says the Earth is a sphere"
skeptic - "the Hebrew word used is 'chug' which means circle, not sphere"
creationist - "well, they don't mean it literally"

 

[Ophiolite]

I've been "debating" creationists for almost 20 years on "debate" forums like this and if there is one thing I've learned it's that everything in the Bible is LITERALLY true ... unless it's not.

creationist - "the Bible says the Earth is a sphere"
skeptic - "the Hebrew word used is 'chug' which means circle, not sphere"
creationist - "well, they don't mean it literally"

In fairness, I don't think the sharpest and most incisive Creationists frequent forums. Of course, the same might be said of those of us on the evolutionist side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been "debating" creationists for almost 20 years on "debate" forums like this and if there is one thing I've learned it's that everything in the Bible is LITERALLY true ... unless it's not.

creationist - "the Bible says the Earth is a sphere"
skeptic - "the Hebrew word used is 'chug' which means circle, not sphere"
creationist - "well, they don't mean it literally"

And for some reason most creationists get very insulted when one points out that there is very little difference between a flat Earther and a creationist.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In fairness, I don't think the sharpest and most incisive Creationists frequent forums. Of course, the same might be said of those of us on the evolutionist side.

If we are a product of evolution, put together by time and chance, then we are just bags of molecules and nothing more. So, what evidence do we have that we actually have logical minds? Are we even here? How do we know? How do you know if you have the right answers? You might not even know the right questions! If your logical mind is the result of time and chance, how do you know if it is actually logical and not chaotic in its thinking? So, if your thinking can't be proved to be logical, then how can anything you say make sense?

 

[Kylie]

If we are a product of evolution, put together by time and chance, then we are just bags of molecules and nothing more. So, what evidence do we have that we actually have logical minds? Are we even here? How do we know? How do you know if you have the right answers? You might not even know the right questions! If your logical mind is the result of time and chance, how do you know if it is actually logical and not chaotic in its thinking? So, if your thinking can't be proved to be logical, then how can anything you say make sense?

Why do you think that evolution means we are worthless?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why do you think that evolution means we are worthless?

The principle behind evolution is that everything has occurred through time and chance, therefore we are just bags of molecules. So how do you know that you are asking the right question if your logical mind may not be logical at all, because a logical mind implies intelligent design. But evolution denies intelligent design, so there may not be such a thing as a logical mind at all, and that your thinking may just be illogical and chaotic. Even a computer, programmed by design and not by chance, gives logical answers according to its programming. But the human mind, according to evolution is not the product of design but of time and chance, so the thoughts of the mind happen just by chance, otherwise it is not consistent with evolution. Therefore how can you know that you actually exist? Or that you are actually giving logical answers on this forum, if your mind is just made up of random molecules?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If we are a product of evolution, put together by time and chance, then we are just bags of molecules and nothing more. So, what evidence do we have that we actually have logical minds? Are we even here? How do we know? How do you know if you have the right answers? You might not even know the right questions! If your logical mind is the result of time and chance, how do you know if it is actually logical and not chaotic in its thinking? So, if your thinking can't be proved to be logical, then how can anything you say make sense?

Making the same mistaken post here too I see.

In a verbal debate the one time it is proper to slap an opponent silly is when they deny all evidence and pretend it does not exist. Though it may seem extreme it gets the point across quickly to a nihilist. If their response is anything other than to pretend that they have not been hit they have lost the argument.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Making the same mistaken post here too I see.

In a verbal debate the one time it is proper to slap an opponent silly is when they deny all evidence and pretend it does not exist. Though it may seem extreme it gets the point across quickly to a nihilist. If their response is anything other than to pretend that they have not been hit they have lost the argument.

Give me substantive proof that you actually exist.