The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Astrophile]

Dear oh dear, why is it you cannot understand the import of what has been said? Could it be that you are blinded by an ideology that considers all others to be irrelevant, suggesting a closed mind. Or is it a case of don't bother me with the truth, I am happy in my ignorance?

The problem is that my memory is NOT at fault as I have said I am a high end autistic person and unlike atheists, I do not need to write down every jot and tittle because I remember what is important for YEARS. To me/us the source is NOT important or even who said it. What is important is what was said.

The point is that you have claimed that 'an atheist' told you either that the Earth is 200 million years old or that scientists say that the Earth is 200 million years old. You have been told over and over again that scientists have known since before you were born that the Earth is more than 2000 million years old, and that you will not find any scientific source written in your lifetime that says that the Earth is a mere 200 million years old. Therefore your informant was wrong or was relying on out-of-date information, or your memory of what your informant told you is at fault. Can you think of any other explanation?

 

[HitchSlap]

For all religions that I am aware of, the idea of an event that is "beyond" natural is assumed to be possible. How these are to be processed/interpreted is an open question. The recommendation made by Thomas Aquinas would be a good guide for Christians;

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).

The Aquinas quote makes my point exactly.

 

[HitchSlap]

I could agree that there are more problems for the Bible. I think it is pretty obvious that the creation and flood narratives are myths. I am willing to go along with a faith based belief in the Resurrection. The real problem that I see is the Exodus. However, that takes us down the path of general apologetics, so we should probably leave it there.

Agreed. The Exodus story is flat out myth.

 

[Astrophile]

The Enlightenment which brought about atheism, was nothing more than an attempt to sweep aside the religious and christian aspect of science so that it could be replaced by man's own efforts to become god's themselves. And look where it has got us. The bible is so true when it says that the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Today we have the modern atheist trying to put religion and christianity to bed, never to rise. It attacks anything that upsets its beliefs and rather than stand on their own two feet, they resort to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

It seems to me that you are doing exactly what Andrew Dickson White complained of; you are saying that dogmatic theology should be allowed to decide what scientific findings should be accepted and what rejected.

 

[ecco]

Dr. Richard Bube, a former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University said that the biblical doctrine of creation is one of the richest doctrines revealed to us by God. It reveals to us that the God who loves us is also the God who created us and all things; at once it establishes the relationship between God and religious faith and the God of physical reality...It is because of creation that we trust in the reality of a physical and moral structure to the universe, which we can explore as scientists and experience as persons. It is because of creation that we know that the universe and everything in it depends moment-by-moment upon the sustaining power and activity of God. Richard H. Bube, "We Believe in Creation," in Origins and Change: Selected Readings from the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (1978)iii-iv, 1978​

OK. A former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering says "We Believe in Creation". Is that supposed to be convincing evidence of something?

 

[HitchSlap]

OK. A former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering says "We Believe in Creation". Is that supposed to be convincing evidence of something?

Yes.

With over 1,300 biologists named Steve accepting ToE, it must be true.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

 

[ecco]

Yes.

After looking through this thread a little more I realize "As I was saying" has his hands full. I'll back out.


ETA: Fun link.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes.

With over 1,300 biologists named Steve accepting ToE, it must be true.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Agreed - with all of entire science once declaring the Milky-Way was the entire universe - well - it must be true - mustn't it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Agreed - with all of entire science once declaring the Milky-Way was the entire universe - well - it must be true - mustn't it?

Creationist claims that evolution is wrong because they found one supposedly well credentialed doctor that says evolution is wrong.

Someone points out that 99.9+% of well respected and well credentialed biologists accept the theory of evolution

Creationist now decides that we can't trust what doctors and biologists say.

 

[HitchSlap]

Agreed - with all of entire science once declaring the Milky-Way was the entire universe - well - it must be true - mustn't it?

Science, it's hard work!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Creationist claims that evolution is wrong because they found one supposedly well credentialed doctor that says evolution is wrong.

Someone points out that 99.9+% of well respected and well credentialed biologists accept the theory of evolution

Creationist now decides that we can't trust what doctors and biologists say.

One? You can't even get things classified correctly according to your own famous evolutionary paleontologist.

Constantly calling babies and adults separate species - along with different breeds of the same species. Calling Finches that interbreed producing fertile offspring right in front of your face separate species. For no other reason than what some crackpot named Darwin said they were after looking at them for 5 weeks while charting the island. Then we do a study on them and find them all interbreeding contrary to what he thought when naming them. And you still refuse to admit to such a tiny mistake in classification. Would rather tell falsehoods than admit to any errors. And this is why they can never be trusted to tell the truth.

 

[HitchSlap]

One? You can't even get things classified correctly according to your own famous evolutionary paleontologist.

Constantly calling babies and adults separate species - along with different breeds of the same species. Calling Finches that interbreed producing fertile offspring right in front of your face separate species. For no other reason than what some crackpot named Darwin said they were after looking at them for 5 weeks while charting the island. Then we do a study on them and find them all interbreeding contrary to what he thought when naming them. And you still refuse to admit to such a tiny mistake in classification. Would rather tell falsehoods than admit to any errors. And this is why they can never be trusted to tell the truth.

I don't believe you.

 

[Loudmouth]

One? You can't even get things classified correctly according to your own famous evolutionary paleontologist.

Constantly calling babies and adults separate species - along with different breeds of the same species. Calling Finches that interbreed producing fertile offspring right in front of your face separate species. For no other reason than what some crackpot named Darwin said they were after looking at them for 5 weeks while charting the island. Then we do a study on them and find them all interbreeding contrary to what he thought when naming them. And you still refuse to admit to such a tiny mistake in classification. Would rather tell falsehoods than admit to any errors. And this is why they can never be trusted to tell the truth.

If you are going to say that H. erectus or A. afarensis are modern humans who are babies, then perhaps you should back it up.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I think it is pretty obvious that the creation and flood narratives are myths.

The "flood" started out in the Epic of Atrahasis as a theological argument about the division of power between the temple priesthood, and the military secular king.

 

[ecco]

Agreed - with all of entire science once declaring the Milky-Way was the entire universe - well - it must be true - mustn't it?

When Einstein's relativity came along it improved and expanded Newtons' concepts of gravity.
When we learned about electrons inside an atom it improved and expanded our knowledge of the atom.
When we learned about about other galaxies it improved and expanded our knowledge of the universe.


You are hoping that something will come along that will destroy evolution when everything that has come along in 200 years has only improved and expanded our knowledge of evolution.

 

[As I was saying]

The point is that you have claimed that 'an atheist' told you either that the Earth is 200 million years old or that scientists say that the Earth is 200 million years old. You have been told over and over again that scientists have known since before you were born that the Earth is more than 2000 million years old, and that you will not find any scientific source written in your lifetime that says that the Earth is a mere 200 million years old. Therefore your informant was wrong or was relying on out-of-date information, or your memory of what your informant told you is at fault. Can you think of any other explanation?

Yes I can and it is this. The ability of atheists to admit that someone who is not an atheist could be right is zero and having a perspective on something that differs from atheism is anathema to them. You can spend the next 100 years arguing that you are right and I am wrong but it will change nothing as I am totally convinced and please note, totally convinced that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....The scriptures says that God is not a man that he can lie. I don't expect you to understand such a claim but I do so let's leave it at that.

 

[As I was saying]

OK. A former professor in the Dept of Materials Science and Engineering says "We Believe in Creation". Is that supposed to be convincing evidence of something?

When you life is motivated and controlled by cynicism, nothing is convincing evidence. I posted what I posted and I am not the slightest bit bothered whether you think it is convincing evidence or not.

 

[As I was saying]

It seems to me that you are doing exactly what Andrew Dickson White complained of; you are saying that dogmatic theology should be allowed to decide what scientific findings should be accepted and what rejected.

And so are you as you are saying that dogmatic atheism should be allowed to decide what other people think about what is truth and what isn't.

 

[As I was saying]

Agreed. The Exodus story is flat out myth.

But of course you have no evidence to support your claim.

 

[As I was saying]

Hi, uh, atheist here. You know nothing about what I believe or why, you have no understanding of how I think, and you should probably stop talking about a group of people you have no understanding of as though your pronouncements were absolute truth.

Well, what else do we have? The bible? That book written, retold, rewritten, and translated dozens of times by men? Which version, the NIV? CEB? Can't go wrong with the KJV. Even if the texts of the bible were given out by god, the book you have in your bedside table is not a direct copy.

Seems we have another atheist who is an expert on everyone else they have never met or talked to. May I suggest that you know nothing about what I believe although you give the impression you do. For example what do I believe about the second coming of Christ?

And you have no understanding about what I think. For example, what do I think about the current refugee crisis?

And why don't you stop talking about a group of people you have no understanding of apart from a few well worn cliches such as the one about the bible which I have seen so many times it is quite boring. As I have a degree in Theology, I do know what I am talking about rather than having to rely on the little red book of quotable quotes which atheists are so fond of.

Whatever translation you have and I have most of them including those in the original language, the essence of the message does not change. Most of the changes are grammatical or to give better sense of what the writer was meaning. And the original language is a direct copy so we do have a clear idea of what God is saying, despite what you like to think and pontificate about. if you knew what you were talking about you would know this.

if you gave some serious study of scripture rather than dabbling in passages that give you ammunition to criticise and carp about God, christianity and christians, you would be a much better person for it as you would start to understand the God of the unverse, rather than your jaundiced view which you have created for yourself so that you can ignore the truth.