To the evolution deniers

[SeventyOne]

Like I said to someone else here, don't pick on my use of "all." Or do you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of "all" seeds?

I saw your point in post #7, but it was after my response you quoted. I was going by what you said in the OP, as "universally accepted". Considering universally means 'by everyone, in every case', don't consider it so farfetched that people respond to what you clearly stated. The confusion wasn't on my end.

 

[JoeP222w]

Why is evolution universally accepted among biologists?

Define evolution.

And I believe you have a very hard time proving it is "universally accepted". You would have to ask every single biologist that exists to prove that, then you would have to prove that they accept the definition of evolution you are promoting, and that their understanding is based on truthful research.

Moreover, popularity has no bearing on truth.

So, your question is fallacious.

If you accept that evolution is false despite being universally accepted among biologists

You assert but never proved, thus the beginning of the question is not on solid ground.

why accept the idea that the earth is a sphere?

Category error.

Also, a plain reading of the Bible, together with knowledge of ancient Hebrew cosmology, strongly indicates a flat earth, as shown below.

Assertion, no proof. Confusion of literary genres.

Why do you not believe in a flat earth?

Begs the question logic error.

 

[Hawkins]

So, to be clear, you do not believe that there is some massive conspiracy?

No, I believe that the scientists (or whoever) are working under limits. Those limits failed to be brought to the public to make it clear. I don't think that they intend to make a massive conspiracy or something to that effect.

On the other hand, it looks suspicious for those non-scientists but atheistic evolutionists to try to open such a 'scientific' debate in each and every Christian forums. There seems to be an agenda behind the scene, I mean spiritually speaking.

 

[Tree of Life]

So you are saying that biologists are committing the "well how else could it have happened?" fallacy and that no one has noticed this or pointed it out, or that they are aware but "suppress the truth in unrighteousness" perhaps?

I'm not aware of any fallacy by that name.

I'm saying that evolution is really the only naturalistic explanation on the table. Can you think of another one?

I can't debate you here, but it's not a point in question that the authors of the Bible believed in a flat earth.

Could you produce some biblical text that proves that the Bible teaches a flat earth?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I saw your point in post #7, but it was after my response you quoted. I was going by what you said in the OP, as "universally accepted". Considering universally means 'by everyone, in every case', don't consider it so farfetched that people respond to what you clearly stated. The confusion wasn't on my end.

So you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in every case then?

 

[Hawkins]

So you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in every case then?

It only shows that you are trying to turn semantic. "Smallest seeds" are making illustrations to the best of the Jews (as audience) knowledge. It doesn't need to be a scientific truth.

 

[SeventyOne]

So you believe that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds in every case then?

I don't recall mentioning seeds at any point. What does that have to to with evolution being a fairy tale?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Define evolution.

No.

And I believe you have a very hard time proving it is "universally accepted". You would have to ask every single biologist that exists to prove that, then you would have to prove that they accept the definition of evolution you are promoting, and that their understanding is based on truthful research.

Do I have to stand on every square foot of ground on the earth to prove that gravity applies everywhere?

Moreover, popularity has no bearing on truth.

Correct.

So, your question is fallacious.

Questions cannot be fallacious. Only arguments can. Nice try though.

Also, this is not a debate forum so I don't know why you're trying to point out flaws. I'm asking questions here. Answer them or kindly do something else.

You assert but never proved, thus the beginning of the question is not on solid ground.

And I'm not going to prove that evolution is universally accepted.

Premises must be demonstrated in ARGUMENTS.

This forum is NOT for ARGUMENTS.

Category error.

A question cannot be an error.

You are trying to be a smart alec with me and you're failing miserably. Maybe just participate in the thread or go away.

Assertion, no proof. Confusion of literary genres.

Proofs apply to logic and mathematics. The word you're looking for is "demonstration" in this context.

If you're going to go off topic and try to correct me, at least BE CORRECT.

Begs the question logic error.

Questions cannot be logically erroneous.

Your post gets a big fat 0/10 on style points, accuracy, content, and just everything in general.

Now please admit that you done goofed or we're never speaking again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, I believe that the scientists (or whoever) are working under limits. Those limits failed to be brought to the public to make it clear. I don't think that they intend to make a massive conspiracy or something to that effect.

OK. What do you mean by limits?

On the other hand, it looks suspicious for those non-scientists but atheistic evolutionists to try to open such a 'scientific' debate in each and every Christian forums. There seems to be an agenda behind the scene, I mean spiritually speaking.

I don't want to speak for them but I'd reckon their agenda is to ensure scientific literacy in public schools.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I'm not aware of any fallacy by that name.

I was referring to the argument from personal incredulity.

I'm saying that evolution is really the only naturalistic explanation on the table. Can you think of another one?

I can, but that is off topic. I'm asking why biologists are perpetuating the idea of evolution. If you think that's all they can come up with, then you are charging them with the personal incredulity fallacy. So, do you think they're aware that they are committing this fallacy?

Could you produce some biblical text that proves that the Bible teaches a flat earth?

Let's keep it to one thing at a time.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It only shows that you are trying to turn semantic. "Smallest seeds" are making illustrations to the best of the Jews (as audience) knowledge. It doesn't need to be a scientific truth.

No, I'm not going full semantic mode here. I just want to have a casual discussion, and several people are bringing up the "all" issue. But I find it distasteful, hypocritical, and disgusting to do that IF you give someone else (Jesus) a free pass on the EXACT same issue.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I don't recall mentioning seeds at any point. What does that have to to with evolution being a fairy tale?

Don't get on me about my use of the word "all" while allowing Jesus to do the exact same thing. That's called hypocrisy.

Now, with regards to evolution, do you believe that biologists are willfully engaging in a worldwide conspiracy or do you believe that they're all wrong and they've all somehow chosen the exact same wrong answer?

 

[SeventyOne]

Don't get on me about my use of the word "all" while allowing Jesus to do the exact same thing. That's called hypocrisy.

Now, with regards to evolution, do you believe that biologists are willfully engaging in a worldwide conspiracy or do you believe that they're all wrong and they've all somehow chosen the exact same wrong answer?

I didn't get on you about anything. I responded to what was written as it was written. You used the word 'all' in the context of 'universally'. I get it. You didn't mean what you wrote. Fine. You seem a bit defensive over nothing.

I already answered the question about the biologists. For many of them I suspect they believe what they've been taught to believe since childhood, and it's the only paradigm they know. It wouldn't be much of a deception if it were easy to see through.

 

[Sojourner1]

Mod Hat On

Thread is closed for staff review.

Mod Hat Off​

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

moving to creation and evolution forum as per the sop

 

[Motherofkittens]

I know this is a little old but I just saw this and I have to try to get an answer to my question below.

It only shows that you are trying to turn semantic. "Smallest seeds" are making illustrations to the best of the Jews (as audience) knowledge. It doesn't need to be a scientific truth.

That is very interesting. Most Jewish and Christians from the beginning of their religions to now believe that Genesis (and other parts) are allegory. And as you said quite well, "it doesn't need to be a scientific truth."

So why would you think Jesus wouldn't mention the actual smallest seed, because his audience doesn't know better, but then believe he would speak of the origins of the universe that we in today's age don't even know about? And why would the things we do know now, contradict what a literal reading of genesis say, if it were the trurh?

Can you see that your beliefs are inconsistent? I hope you respond because I would love to know how you are going to rationalize it. Although I have a feeling even if you respond you won't actually answer the question. I would really appreciate it if you at least asked yourself these questions even if you don't post here.

 

[redleghunter]

So why would you think Jesus wouldn't mention the actual smallest seed, because his audience doesn't know better

Parables must use things familiar to the audience. The smallest seed for those in that region was the mustard seed. If Jesus mentioned some smaller seed in another continent no one ever saw, then the whole purpose of using the parable is lost.

but then believe he would speak of the origins of the universe that we in today's age don't even know about? And why would the things we do know now, contradict what a literal reading of genesis say, if it were the trurh?

God revealed He is the uncreated Creation. Not seeing your parallel to the example of the smallest seed.

 

[Motherofkittens]

Parables must use things familiar to the audience. The smallest seed for those in that region was the mustard seed. If Jesus mentioned some smaller seed in another continent no one ever saw, then the whole purpose of using the parable is lost.



God revealed He is the uncreated Creation. Not seeing your parallel to the example of the smallest seed.

And he could be, even though evolution is a fact. Why then do you think that most Jewish and Christians from the beginning of their religions to now, from around the world read genesis and some parts, as allegory?

 

[redleghunter]

And he could be, even though evolution is a fact.

Since when? I know from observation that adaptation is fact for most species. Evolution must be taken on faith in the material world. A "faith" based on suppositions.

Why then do you think that most Jewish and Christians from the beginning of their religions to now, from around the world read genesis and some parts, as allegory?

Most Christians don't who actually know Biblical allegorical language. Genesis 1-9 exhibits no allegorical language in the Hebrew. The paleo Hebrew used to record the Pentateuch was very concrete and communicated historical events in the language and observable world of the people of the time.


The above is what Moses worked with.

If a Christian treats Genesis as allegory then they must conclude Jesus Christ was wrong for claiming it was literal history.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Why are most biologists believers in either God or the supernatural? Why do most medical doctors believe in God?