Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.
I think an all or none approach is a fallacy.
I can bundle these three statements together:
1+1=2
1+2=3
5+8=1
And you can choose to adopt an "all or none" literal approach, but that would be in error. Discovering the context of the bible and the intent of the authors often means moving away from modern fundamentalism (which is a very recent development). This isn't the same as not following the bible "word for word" but giving proper attention to context.
For example, if you discover, after studying context, that I am doing my mathematics on a clock face, and not on a linear number line, then all of a sudden the last equation makes sense.
The trouble is that by itself that isn't enough to make the book special. That just makes it one among many. After all, even the naffest books in the mind, body, spirit section of the bookshop probably have a couple of paragraphs in them that are good common sense, even if the rest is baloney.Many people enjoy the philosophy of Jesus without all the spiritual crap. The sermon on the mount is a good example of this. Are they wrong? Didn't you claim a few days back that you still live by the ten commandments? Are you being a hypocrite?
What you are saying about context and the bible is fine, but the only context that will give results is one that assumes its contents are nothing more than the writing of men 2 to 3 three thousand years ago presenting their mistaken views, their myths and their correct views of the world we live in. Any other context fails. The lengths people have to go to to try and cobble together hopeless defences of other readings of the book demonstrates this.
The trouble is that by itself that isn't enough to make the book special. That just makes it one among many.
Source?And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.
This is a blatant lie! Science does not accept the Bible's claims. Just because real places are mentioned in the Bible does not give its claims credence. Greek mythology is full of real places and real people yet it is still mythology. Harry Potter has real places but is still a work of fiction.Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical cities|Old and New Testament cities in the Bible | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
Every archeological dig made only ends up verifying the accuracy of the Bible. It isn't the accuracy of the Bible that is in question, the only thing scientists doubt are it's spiritual matters.
Wrong! The difference between science and the Bible is that science does not delve into the uinfalsifiable. Religion is purely in the realms of the unfalsifiable. Science and creationism simply cannot agree under any circumstances.The only difference is that the Bible says God created the heavens and the Earth and scientists say the Big Bang miraculously created the heavens and the earth. A theory proposed by a priest and accepted by science to meld the two together.
Really? Are you claiming that the Bible is the only book of history of the times? You need an education on history. This is one of the most absurd claims.In reality you only have a problem with 10% of the Bible, the rest most archeologists know is accurate.
If you applied the dame unfair reasoning to the rest of historical literature that you attempt to apply to the Bible, we would be left with no historical writings at all.
Creationist videos mean nothing to me as they do not constitute as evidence.Some videos you might want to watch before you make inaccurate statements attempting to dispute the Bibles Historical accuracy supported by archeology.
Wrong. I dispute 99% of the Bible.So it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is really in dispute, just the 10% that deals with spiritual matters. So even though the 90% has been shown to be 99% accurate, you would throw out the other 10% based on what?
Your creationists are no match to modern historical science.Time after time it is modern historians that have proved to be in error when they make claims at odds with the Bible's recorded history. Yet people continue to this day to pass on inaccurate rubish they have decided is fact, simply because they want to believe the Bible is not reliable.
And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.
Well I started some research and apparently they found another fossil bird called the protoavis that is 75 million years before the other bird fossil that starts with an A (the dinosaur bird). They say this bird is closer to our modern birds and is 75 MILLION years older than the dinosaur bird....
Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.In conclusion, the fossil record is a very bad indicator of the past!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. ED believes (from what I can tell) that all dolphins, whales, sea turtles, plesiosaurs, and everything else all lived together at one time. The sea level doesn't matter to that claim, nor does the fact that there would be more shallow seas, or anything like that.They would be in different areas and to different extents. Remember, the earth was warmer during the times of the dinosaurs, so the sea levels would have been higher, there would have been more coastline to landmass ratio, so violent weather and general precipitation would have been greater, there would have been more shallow seas than there are today. There is a reason that most of the creatures that lived during the times of dinosaurs are not today, the climate is completely different. Even water and soil pH would be different.
The problem is that there is no evidence for ONE extinction event or a global flood.There is also no reason that the data could be interpreted to show not multiple extinction events but one extinction event caused by rising waters.
(Scientists have listed five unexplained extinction events at the end of certain eras. Most of them being marine species.)
However, there is no evidence to support that notion. Dolphins and sharks live in almost all ocean environments and eat fish. Plesiosaurs and pliosaurs lived in almost all ocean environments and ate fish. What would have kep them from living and eating in the same area?There is also no reason why certain animals may have inhabited only certain ecological areas on the earth, unlike today. Today's environments with animals living together are not necessarily the same as ones in the past.
What dictionary are you using? Because in the ones I looked in, "every" does mean "all".That is what I said. "Every" does not mean "All".
Guess you still do not know the difference.
The fossil record - in defiance of Darwin's whole idea of gradual change - often makes great leaps from one form to the next.
He claimed that the gaps were due to the extreme imperfection of the geological record the fossil record does not in fact give a very good record of the past.
More intermediate forms have been found. As of yet, nothing even approaching a mammal in the Devonian.Darwin expected more intermediate forms to be found as research continued.
The fossil record is the cause of ongoing debate between evolutionists. On one side geneticists and theoreticians stand for Darwinian gradualism. They continue to claim that the lack of intermediate forms is due to the rarity of fossilisation and the imperfection of the fossil record. Thus, the fossil record is something which needs to be explained away it is not good evidence for Darwinian evolution.
The Fossil Record
Sorry Anya, but finding an older bird doesn't resolve your issue. Your bible explicitly says that the birds and the fish appeared together, along with all the other sea creatures, before the land animals. So when we find land animals before birds and whales and mosasaurs in the fossil record, that is a problem for you. Would you like to address it this time? Feel free to invoke the Flood, but that has been just as thoroughly debunked as an explanation for the fossil record.
Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.
Though by asserting that it is "very bad" you are implicitly agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible, which is good.
Sorry Anya, but finding an older bird doesn't resolve your issue. Your bible explicitly says that the birds and the fish appeared together, along with all the other sea creatures, before the land animals. So when we find land animals before birds and whales and mosasaurs in the fossil record, that is a problem for you. Would you like to address it this time? Feel free to invoke the Flood, but that has been just as thoroughly debunked as an explanation for the fossil record.
Just putting "In conclusion" in front of something doesn't mean it is true or logically follows from what you have posted. In the case, for instance. You seem to imagine that disagreement between gradualists and proponents of punctuated equilibrium proves somehow that the fossil record is not a good indicator of the past world. This is incorrect. It is not a complete record, but that doesn't make it worthless.
Though by asserting that it is "very bad" you are implicitly agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible, which is good.
That doesn't make it valid in all claims. We can use the Harry Potter books to determine that King's Cross station is in London but that doesn't mean the entire Harry Potter series is true.And yet is the most historically accurate book in the world. Used by archeologists to date unknown finds, and to place and date artifacts. Used by Darwin to base the order of evolution on.
Where do you come up with this idea that 90% of the Bible is verified history?In reality you only have a problem with 10% of the Bible, the rest most archeologists know is accurate.
Because what we can verify of the Bible has been verified by sources EXTERNAL to the Bible.So it isn't the historical accuracy of the Bible that is really in dispute, just the 10% that deals with spiritual matters. So even though the 90% has been shown to be 99% accurate, you would throw out the other 10% based on what?
... Snip rambling ...
Actually Hitler used Darwin's "survival of the fittest" theory to destroy 6 million Jews!!! Sounds like a good plan!
First of all, the fossil record doesn't support evolution!! There are no intermediate forms, there are no missing links, there is only ONE possible fossil bird to explain that ALL birds came from it!!!!! From this WHOLE world...
I am not agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible! It does support the Bible more so than Evolution!!
You really think that scientists traveled back in time to see what exactly happened? The fossil record just shows what kind of creatures existed in the past and yes catastrophic events can mess up the fossil record.
Yes birds were created on the same day as fish. If evolutionists can't even agree on their own theories such as whether something Evolved quickly or slowely, is sad in itself.
First of all, the fossil record doesn't support evolution!! There are no intermediate forms,
there is only ONE possible fossil bird to explain that ALL birds came from it!!!!! From this WHOLE world!!!
Evolution just doesn't sit on solid ground. It is just as much as a myth as any other myth out there.
For one it is trying to explain the origin of life, isn't that what a myth does? Try to explain how life came around?
Second, myths are NARRATIVE, trying to put history in a time-structure. Isn't that what evolution is doing? Putting the past into a timeline?
I am not agreeing that it doesn't support the Bible! It does support the Bible more so than Evolution!!
You really think that scientists traveled back in time to see what exactly happened? The fossil record just shows what kind of creatures existed in the past and yes catastrophic events can mess up the fossil record.
Yes birds were created on the same day as fish. If evolutionists can't even agree on their own theories such as whether something Evolved quickly or slowely, is sad in itself.
For example a new discovery in the Cambrian period shows this new update: "Among the most surprising discoveries, announced in 1999, came from the 530-million-year-old Chengjiang fossil bed in China, where scientists found the remains of two different types of tiny, jawless fish. Representing the oldest known backboned animals with living relatives, the fossils showed that our vertebrate ancestors entered the evolutionary story some 50 million years earlier than previously thought."
Cambrian Period, Cambrian Explosion Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic
Now really??? Theories change all the time....
What dictionary are you using? Because in the ones I looked in, "every" does mean "all".
Every 1: a: being each individual or part of a group without exception
Every 1. All of a countable group, without exception.
Every 2. allpossible; the greatest possible degree of: every prospect of success.
Every 1. (preceding a singular noun) used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception
All right. I explain it to you in plain English:
If I have 30 students in a class and I take 20 of them out for a trip. I can refer to the group in traveling by "every students". But this will not include those did not go. In order to include them, I will say "all students"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?