The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

Yes. There is a history book, as reliable as any other history book which people believe to be historical fact. Actually there is only one surviving manuscript that describes the life of Julius Caesar, and we believe the historical record to be absolutely true, yet for this book there are 25,000 surviving manuscripts that all say the same thing, so according to plain logic, that historical record has to be even more reliable.

Actually there are many credible proofs and evidences in the Bible, supported by history, archaeology and even science and even prophecies fulfilled. But some people rather believe in other filmsy theories of how life began and evolved when there are even less or even zero proof.

Why doesn't some begin to say we are created by aliens? They came, create and left. Honestly, I think critics of God and Bible may prefer to believe it.

PS- I am not against non-believers. I am just commenting on how they turn down credible proofs of Bible and God, and prefer other theories.

 

[Subduction Zone]

However, what proof do you have about the origin of life? If you say there is no God that created or designed, then you imply that some molecules and cells come together and life gradually grow, what proof do you offer? You try to refute biblical proofs (historical, archaeology, some science), and other substantial evidence around us, but what proof do you have about how life begin and change to the millions of lifeforms and ecosystem now?

Do you have more proofs than the Bible? I can confidently say no. Honestly, all those vague Big bang theory and more vague theories about cells transformation, which are all far far from even understood - they are not proofs But yet critics like to believe these stuff somehow are quite credible.

I can direct the same question to the critics of God and Bible in this thread: Where is the proof that life happen and change on its own without a Designer?

And look at you. Even you admit that evolution is true. You have been warned about moving the goalposts but yet you did so again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually there are many credible proofs and evidences in the Bible, supported by history, archaeology and even science. But some people rather believe in other filmsy theories of how life began and evolved when there are even less or even zero proof.

No, there really are not. And you can demonstrate that fact. Tell us what possible observation could refute the Bible? If you cannot think of one then you just demonstrated that you have no evidence.


Tell us if this evidence exists why can't one creationist post any?

 

[Speedwell]

If I was a Christian I would report this post.

I don't think we could. As I understand it, it is against CF rules to suggest that Gen 1-11 might not be literal history.

 

[roman2819]

God's design was flawed since he left it vulnerable to sin.

Do you want to have NO free will? Do you want to be a programmed where you have no choice but to believe in Him?

 

[roman2819]

You have it so backwards. If God's creation was perfect the Adam and Eve story would have never happened. It is a self refuting story.

And pointing out blatant flaws in the Bible is not criticizing God. If anyone is criticizing him it is the creationists that unknowingly call God incompetent and evil. Creationism is a blasphemous concept.

Do you want to have NO free will? Do you want to be a programmed where you have no choice but to believe in Him?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think we could. As I understand it, it is against CF rules to suggest that Gen 1-11 might not be literal history.

I do not think that is the case. If they felt that was the case the whole "evolution versus creationism" page would be against the rules.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you want to have NO free will? Do you want to be a programmed where you have no choice but to believe in Him?

Of course I do not want that. But that is a non sequitur on your part.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you want to have NO free will? Do you want to be a programmed where you have no choice but to believe in Him?

Oh, you used the same logically fallacious argument twice. Why did you do that?

 

[roman2819]

And look at you. Even you admit that evolution is true. You have been warned about moving the goalposts but yet you did so again.

Some time back, I understood what evolution is saying and not saying according to what people here explained it, but also stated that I believe God is the creator who designed the universe, earth's ecosystem and life on earth. Lifeforms and living creatures can change within certain limits, I always believe so. I never believe that life started by itself and evolved to what it is now. No shifting. Even when I was not a Christian yet, I did not believe the probability that life can evolved from nothing to couple of cells, to what we see today. I know many non-Christians subconsciously think so too, whether they believe in God or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some time back, I understood evolution better , but also stated that I believe God is the creator who designed the universe, earth's ecosystem and life on earth. Lifeforms and living creatures can change within certain limits, I always believe so. I never believe that life started by itself and evolved to what it is now. No shifting. Even when I was not a Christian yet, I did not believe the probability that life can evolved from nothing to couple of cells, to what we see today. I know many non-Christians subconsciously think so too, whether they believe in God or not.

I doubt that you ever understood evolution. And in your second sentence you implied that evolution is correct again. You really need to quit shifting the goalposts.

All you have done in fact is to tell us that you never understood it and that you are not reasoning rationally. When one moves the goalposts that is an admission that one has no answer to the facts presented. It is a way of admitting that one is wrong. You have repeatedly moved the goalposts to abiogenesis. That is an admission that evolution is correct.

 

[Kylie]

Obviously, like many people, you do not appreciate that religious manuscripts are written using few words. A novelist will write as elaborately as you do. If the scribes f BIble write like you, teh BIble would be 10,000 pages.

So your argument is that the God-inspired Bible wouldn't have been that advanced? The Bible has been the source of some of the most beautiful language ever written. Now you are telling me that what I came up with in five minutes is too elaborate?

Even your detailed descriptions didn't resemble armour tanks either. Trunk of a tree? ... sounds odd and confusing; many words doesn't always help. You havent describe the locust yet, can you do better?

Yeah, it's the big gun on the top of the tank. What else would people back then have known of that was that size and shape?

And you can do the locust thing for yourself. I've already demonstrated my point.

Religious manuscript from Orthodox religious of mid-east and east (which the Bible is part of) are written in a few words. They combine both literal and figurative (which you may not like). I said before, Genesis says God create day by day, but it does not means 24 hour day. Day figuratively means a stage of time. Scriptures won't delve into details of creation, and even if it does, critics will ask for more.

Don't always use today's modern perspective to read Scriptures.

Of course, when a modern perspective allows you to marry the Bible with what science has shown as fact, you're more than happy to ignore that. You'll never find the truth if you go around trying to fit your sources into the conclusions you have already decided on.

 

[Kylie]

Do you want to have NO free will? Do you want to be a programmed where you have no choice but to believe in Him?

God apparently has no problem forcing people to do things. I mean, look at how much he hardened Pharaoh's heart.

 

[pitabread]

I don't know. There have been quite a number of posts from a whole group of people debating the issue with me. It's all the same though, my question is the same for all, and I wait with bated breath for the answer. Like the cat who waited outside the mouse hole with baited breath!

I pointed you to educational resources. I'd suggest taking advantage of them if you have a true interest in learning how the theory of evolution is supported by evidence.

If you choose not to take advantage of them, then you'll probably never know.

 

[pitabread]

Creationism is actually logical. I dont mean the story of creation necessarily, just that we and this world were created via intelligence, and not some mindless act of evolution which has no intelligent creator.

The issue that creationism (or intelligent design) lacks a defined mechanism. Most often, people just assume those things are the null hypothesis of evolution and therefore by demonstrating that evolution is incorrect, assuming that creationism is true by default.

Unfortunately that's not how it works.

If you ever spend some time looking into creationism and/or intelligent design, you'll quickly discover those ideas don't have anything to self-support them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think I found your problem:

I have gone over the basics of evolution by reading the book "Evolution" by Ken Ham. He explains it very well and to my satisfaction.

It's either that or the positive crankcase valve.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is nothing new at all. The ancient pagan Greeks were evolutionists. Old news.

This seems unlikely. Evidence please.

 

[roman2819]

So your argument is that the God-inspired Bible wouldn't have been that advanced? The Bible has been the source of some of the most beautiful language ever written. Now you are telling me that what I came up with in five minutes is too elaborate?

Yeah, it's the big gun on the top of the tank. What else would people back then have known of that was that size and shape?

And you can do the locust thing for yourself. I've already demonstrated my point.



Of course, when a modern perspective allows you to marry the Bible with what science has shown as fact, you're more than happy to ignore that. You'll never find the truth if you go around trying to fit your sources into the conclusions you have already decided on.

Bamboo would be a closer word to describe the barrel of the tank or armour vehicle. Is the barrel so huge and thick like a tree trunk? Most tree trunks have branches too except BAMBOO or coconut tree.

See your own limitations with words. The bible say it better than you, so don't say how it should say stuff to suit you. It is readers who have to comprehend it, not criticise that it lacks details.

The way of writing religious manuscript less wordy and different from novel. If that is hard to comprehend, then think of the difference between words in a engineering text and a marketing ad.

As for God harden Pharaoh's heart, let me copy abd paste from another earlier post of mine six months ago.

 

[pitabread]

Don't always use today's modern perspective to read Scriptures.

Doesn't this just contradict your own argument?

 

[Yttrium]

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?

Offhand, there are three significant problems I see with your arguments.

First, the ability to think logically provides numerous survival advantages, and so can be a useful trait under various selection events.

Second, it's not just up to chance. Selection and other factors (such as limits on how atoms and molecules can combine) act to filter out traits.

Third, you seem to be following a false dichotomy on evolution and design. Science looks for natural explanations, but doesn't rule out intelligent involvement. There could be an intelligent guiding force behind creation and/or evolution, but that is beyond science's ability to detect and analyze.