Theistic Evolution

[-57]

When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.

Hmmmmm, you're right....Jesus never died on the cross and then rose again. (climbing back into my small box now)

 

[Loudmouth]

I am just showing the difference between human understanding and monkey understanding, which demonstrates the difference between spiritual understanding and human understanding.

And yet you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have reviewed the evidence and I agree that there is no hared evidence to support the Exodus.

You have reviewed the evidence and agree that there is no hard evidence to support the Exodus.

What evidence?

How can you review evidence and conclude there is no evidence?

That's like saying I studied my drivers license and concluded it is not my drivers license.

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you can't produce a shred of evidence to support your claims.

Then what is it you claimed you studied?

 

[Loudmouth]

You have reviewed the evidence and agree that there is no hard evidence to support the Exodus.

What evidence?

How can you review evidence and conclude there is no evidence?

The same way you can review evidence and conclude that there is no evidence for a Leprechaun being involved in a crime.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then what is it you claimed you studied?

Observable phenomenon that support the real existence of time and other processes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The same way you can review evidence and conclude that there is no evidence for a Leprechaun being involved in a crime.

What evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence?

Here are 29 pieces of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[AV1611VET]

Observable phenomenon that support the real existence of time and other processes.

Okay ... you studied observable phenomena, called it evidence, then concluded it wasn't evidence?

Or (as I suspect) did you call it evidence first, then studied it, then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay ... you studied observable phenomena, called it evidence, then concluded it wasn't evidence?

Where did I do that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Here are 29 pieces of evidence.

I think I'll just pass on believing you.

You may have studied something you thought was evidence (for whatever reason), then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place (meaning you wasted your time chasing rabbits).

But hey ... scientists have to sound like they're doing something, or they'll lose sponsorship.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think I'll just pass on believing you.

Why?

You may have studied something you thought was evidence (for whatever reason), then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place (meaning you wasted your time chasing rabbits).

When and where did I do that?

Are you yet another creationist who is going to make false allegations about me?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

I just love it when I'm supposed to believe scientists studied [x] and concluded [event x] didn't happen because [x] wasn't really [x].

 

[Reasoning]

I think I'll just pass on believing you.

You may have studied something you thought was evidence (for whatever reason), then concluded it wasn't evidence in the first place (meaning you wasted your time chasing rabbits).

But hey ... scientists have to sound like they're doing something, or they'll lose sponsorship.

Could you explain to me how I can know if evidence is actually evidence, without examining it first? Or do you mean this strictly linguistic? Because then findings or expected-evidence would be a better word maybe, or indications. Call it whatever you want.

 

[AV1611VET]

Could you explain to me how I can know if evidence is actually evidence, without examining it first?

You tell me please.

What would you think if you heard someone say:

"I studied evidence of the Flood and concluded there was no Flood."

 

[Loudmouth]

I just love it when I'm supposed to believe scientists studied [x] and concluded [event x] didn't happen because [x] wasn't really [x].

What are you talking about?

Where have I ever done such a thing?

 

[Loudmouth]

You tell me please.

What would you think if you heard someone say:

"I studied evidence of the Flood and concluded there was no Flood."

What if someone said that they studied geology, and found tons of evidence that contradicted a recent global flood?

 

[Reasoning]

You tell me please.

What would you think if you heard someone say:

"I studied evidence of the Flood and concluded there was no Flood."

That sounds perfectly normal to me. If you would say that X is evidence only if it is proving your hypothesis right, I think that is not correct. You can examine evidence and conclude it is wrong or not conclusive. In the same way criminal investigators look for evidence, and maybe take fingerprints (called evidence) but which is later dismissed because it was of an unrelated individual.

Evidence does not necessarily have to mean 'positive evidence in favor of that what I want it to prove'.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if someone said that they studied geology, and found tons of evidence that contradicted a recent global flood?

That's completely different.

 

[AV1611VET]

That sounds perfectly normal to me.

LOL

Well okay.

As long as the common people buy it, I guess it serves it purpose, eh?

Evidence does not necessarily have to mean 'positive evidence in favor of that what I want it to prove'.

So it's labeled "Evidence" first, then studied ... right?