Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

Matthew777 · Feb 23, 2005

Eternal Mindset said:
It cannot be a theory...
In order for it to be classified as a theory, scientists must be able to reproduce their findings.

So technically, evolution is just a hypothesis; is it not?

Check out my sig

Dale Martin · Feb 23, 2005

corvus_corax said:
Ive got a book.
Its about a soldier in WW II. The soldier is a werewolf and uses his lycanthropy to fight the Nazi's.
Its not a very compelling book, I had to fight my way to the end chapter. However, it does accurately portray civilization, people and events.
So, according to your argument, we should take this book seriously, as evidence for lycanthropy?
And regarding prophecies, Cassandra made prophecies. She was ignored, but her prophecies came true. According to the story, she lived in Troy. At one time Troy was thought to be a mythological place. We now know better, we know that it not only existed, but it was in the spot described by Homer. So according to your argument, we should take the Illiad seriously, and agree that everything that happened (including the fulfilled prophecies) happened?

There are several other books I could mention, but I think those two will do for now.
[/font][/color]
There are several Jews on this board who will disagree with you regarding any mention of Jesus in the OT.
But perhaps you should take up that argument with them.
[/font][/color]
Sources please? Specifically sources attesting to the supernatural feats of Jesus (other than the Bible). Thanks

corvus_corax)

"Ive got a book.
Its about a soldier in WW II. The soldier is a werewolf and uses his lycanthropy to fight the Nazi's.
Its not a very compelling book, I had to fight my way to the end chapter. However, it does accurately portray civilization, people and events.
So, according to your argument, we should take this book seriously, as evidence for lycanthropy"

Are you serious? this book was actually presented to you as nonfiction? Just how does it accurately portray civilization, people and events. ( I seriously doubt it).

I was referring to centuries long arguments by "enlightened" scholars claiming that the scriptures were full of mistakes and lies as in the cases of of Belshazzar (Daniel 5). Daniel tells us that Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon. Yet for centuries Belshazzars name was found nowhere outside of the Bible. Historical records named Nabonidus as Babylons final king. Some scholars of the last century, therefore, rejected Daniels account, labeling it one of the Bibles many "historical mistakes."

In 1853, archaeologists discovered small clay cylinders at Ur in Mesopotamia, inscribed with accounts of the rebuilding of Urs ziggurat (temple tower) by King Nabonidus. The inscriptions concluded with prayers for Nabonidus healthand for his eldest son and co-regent, Belshazzar!

References to the Hittites (as in 2 Kings 7) were also once regarded as scriptural inaccuracies. Until a little more than a century ago nothing was known of the Hittites outside of the Bible. Some suggested there had been a scribal error and that Assyrians were actually intended.

The Bible was vindicated when Hittite monuments were discovered in the 1870s at Carchemish on the Euphrates River in Syria. In 1906, excavations at Boghazkoy in Turkey uncovered thousands of Hittite documents.

A more recent example: Some scholars doubted that biblical King David actually lived. But in 1993, Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran discovered a ninth-century B.C. stone tablet among the rubble of a wall at Tel Dan in northern Israel. The 13 lines of script on the tablet commemorate the defeat of Baasha, king of Israel, by Asa of "the House of David." This provided not only the first corroboration of their warfare (described in 1 Kings 15), but also the first mention of the name David outside the Bible.

And regarding prophecies, Cassandra made prophecies. She was ignored, but her prophecies came true. According to the story, she lived in Troy. At one time Troy was thought to be a mythological place. We now know better, we know that it not only existed, but it was in the spot described by Homer. So according to your argument, we should take the Illiad seriously, and agree that everything that happened (including the fulfilled prophecies) happened?

First, I would never count out the possibility of prophecy by others than Gods chosen. God him self prohibits this practice. I hardly doubt that God would prohibit a mere game. Second you mentioned the reliability of the new testaments but there reliability is much greater than this 'POEM" or "SONG" created by Homer. Just check out the chart below.

AUTHOR

DATE WRITTEN

EARLIEST COPY

TIME SPAN YEARS

NO. OF COPIES

Ceasar

100-44 BC

AD 900

1000

10

Livy

BC 59-17AD

-

-

20

Tacitus

AD 100

AD 1100

1000

20

Thucydides

460-400 BC

AD 900

1200

7

Herodotus

480-425 BC

AD 900

1300

8

Sophocies

496-406 BC

AD 1000

1400

193

Eupripides

480-406 BC

AD 1100

1500

9

Demosthenes

383-322 BC

AD 1100

1300

200

Aristotle

384-322 BC

AD 1100

1400

49

Homer

900 BC

BC 400

500

643

NT

AD 40-100

AD 125, *one as early as AD 70

23

24100

* I do not agree with this date and time myself. I believe that some of the original manuscripts were written within 18 to 20 years of the Death and Resurrection of Christ placing them at 48 to 50 AD. In the gospels and in Revelation prophetic warnings were given to the church regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and desecration of the temple in AD 70 by Nero (which is accepted roman history). Don't get Hal Lindsey and the left behind "novels" confused with true scripture.

There are several other books I could mention, but I think those two will do for now.

There are several other examples of the elite being wrong about the scriptures but the aforementioned will do for now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Dale Martin

We have the scriptures from Genesis on to and through the new testament that speaks of Jesus.

There are several Jews on this board who will disagree with you regarding any mention of Jesus in the OT.
But perhaps you should take up that argument with them.

Just one example for now:

John

1In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus) was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.

2The same (Jesus) was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him (Jesus); and without him (Jesus) was not any thing made that was made.

4In him (Jesus) was life; and the life (Jesus) was the light of men.

5And the light (Jesus) shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Dale Martin · Feb 23, 2005

Physics_guy said:
I'd love to see one "eye-witness" account. Even the gospels were written 70 years (for the earliest) after the death of Jesus, and they have been modified a huge amount since then.

1. Matthew Mark Luke and John were Eyewitnesses. If you want to call all four of them Liars thats another thing. . .

2. The gospels were not written 70 years after Christ's death. Some claim the earliest was written in AD 70 which would put them 28 years later. However, because the gospels contain prophetic references to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Nero I thank they were written some 20 years earlier.

3. The scriptures have not been altered since then, this is yet another popular lie.

Dale Martin · Feb 23, 2005

raphael_aa said:
As far as I am aware, there are exactly zero eyewitness accounts of Jesus written during His lifetime. There are zero known references to Jesus written by non-christian sources that were contemporary with Him. As a christian, this does not trouble me for a number of reasons, but I do think we ought to at least be honest.

1. Matthew Mark Luke and John were Eyewitnesses. If you want to call all four of them Liars thats another thing. . .

2. The gospels were not written 70 years after Christ's death. Some claim the earliest was written in AD 70 which would put them 28 years later. However, because the gospels contain prophetic references to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Nero I thank they were written some 20 years earlier.

3. The scriptures have not been altered since then, this is yet another popular lie.

leccy · Feb 23, 2005

Matthew777 said:
Check out my sig

Are you serious?

You are saying that the viewpoint of a Hollywood actor turned politician, who had a well known and deep belief in ASTROLOGY, has any import whatsoever in matters of science?

raphael_aa · Feb 23, 2005

Dale Martin said:
1. Matthew Mark Luke and John were Eyewitnesses. If you want to call all four of them Liars thats another thing. . .

2. The gospels were not written 70 years after Christ's death. Some claim the earliest was written in AD 70 which would put them 28 years later. However, because the gospels contain prophetic references to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by Nero I thank they were written some 20 years earlier.

3. The scriptures have not been altered since then, this is yet another popular lie.

You didn't actually read my post before you gave your knee-jerk response. I said:

As far as I am aware, there are exactly zero eyewitness accounts of Jesus written during His lifetime. There are zero known references to Jesus written by non-christian sources that were contemporary with Him. As a christian, this does not trouble me for a number of reasons, but I do think we ought to at least be honest.

That statement is true. Secondly, there is considerable scholarly debate on the authorship of the gospels. To pin our hopes and faith on historicity is ultimately to build on sand imho.

gluadys · Feb 23, 2005

Dale Martin said:
BTW I do not accept what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I have "faith" that God will use whatever comes my way for good.[/font][/color]

Ah, so I take it you are a Gnostic and not a Christian. A Christian knows that we please God by coming to him in faith. As Jesus said, the faith of a child is the model we should follow, not the so-called wisdom of the scribes.

gladiatrix · Feb 23, 2005

leccy said:
Matthew777 said:

Check out my sig

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

You are saying that the viewpoint of a Hollywood actor turned politician, who had a well known and deep belief in ASTROLOGY, has any import whatsoever in matters of science?

Exactly why Reagan was once described as "being like the River Platt, 6 miles wide at the mouth, but only 6 inches deep" (not the sharpest pencil in the intellectual box).

JohnR7 · Feb 23, 2005

Dale Martin said:
1. Matthew Mark Luke and John were Eyewitnesses.

Actually, Luke was not an "eyewitness" and Mark was pretty young. He was there when they were in Jerusalem because Jesus and the disciples use to stay at his mom's house.

There were three that were in on the inner circle that went to the mountain top with Jesus and were in on everything.

corvus_corax · Feb 23, 2005

Dale Martin said:
Are you serious? this book was actually presented to you as nonfiction? Just how does it accurately portray civilization, people and events.

I never said it was nonfiction.
I said it accurately portrayed civilization, people and events (specifically events and people of WW II...if you want exact quotes, I'll have to dig the book out)

I was referring to centuries long arguments by "enlightened" scholars claiming that the scriptures were full of mistakes

Actually no, you werent.
You may have inteded to, but what you said was "you say 'We are physical beings who see material evidence easier than we see into spiritual matters'
But you ignore the evidence of scripture that accurately portrays histories of civilizations, people and events, and prophecies." I dont see any mention or inference of centuries long arguments by scholars. It appeared that you were talking to the forum members who were questioning.
If you're clarifying your intent now, so be it.

First, I would never count out the possibility of prophecy by others than Gods chosen. God him self prohibits this practice. I hardly doubt that God would prohibit a mere game.

Cool

Second you mentioned the reliability of the new testaments

I was asking for your secular sources. I dont know all the sources out there.

but there reliability is much greater than this 'POEM" or "SONG" created by Homer. Just check out the chart below.

Im not trying to be problematic here, but I cant make heads or tails of your chart. It may be clear to you, but to me, its a mess.

There are several other examples of the elite being wrong about the scriptures but the aforementioned will do for now.

I hope that comment about elitism was not directed at me.

Just one example for now: John 1

You do realize that I was referring to the OT NOT the NT, dont you?

Dale Martin · Feb 24, 2005

gluadys said:
Ah, so I take it you are a Gnostic and not a Christian. A Christian knows that we please God by coming to him in faith. As Jesus said, the faith of a child is the model we should follow, not the so-called wisdom of the scribes.

"Ah, so I take it you are a Gnostic and not a Christian"

You may be the most judgmental "Christian" I have encountered on this forum. I never said I did not come to Christ in faith, I said "I do not accept (not I did not) what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I stand by that statement. I do not believe that God would have us remain uneducated about Himself.

gluadys · Feb 24, 2005

Dale Martin said:
"Ah, so I take it you are a Gnostic and not a Christian"

You may be the most judgmental "Christian" I have encountered on this forum. I never said I did not come to Christ in faith, I said "I do not accept (not I did not) what I know about God by faith but by "knowledge". I stand by that statement. I do not believe that God would have us remain uneducated about Himself.

You cannot even have knowledge that God exists except by faith. You cannot observe God with any of your senses. You cannot show God to anyone else. Only your faith assures you that God exists. And only your faith can assure you of any of the attributes or actions of God.

I am not saying faith is unreasonable or irrational. I don't support "blind faith". I am not saying God does not wish us to become increasingly familiar with him and to learn better day by day how to walk in his ways. What I am saying is that all "knowledge" of God is faith-based, not evidence-based.

It is not what we know that counts. It is who we believe and commit ourselves to in faith. When the New Testament was being written, there were those who claimed knowledge of God and prized that over faith. The NT writers (and later the church as a whole, in choosing the canon) condemn this so-called knowledge very strongly.

It constantly amazes me that some Christians are prepared to denigrate faith and declare their faith to be knowledge rather than faith. It fuzzifies so many of these discussions when this distinction is not properly made.

WalksWithChrist · Feb 24, 2005

gluadys said:
You cannot even have knowledge that God exists except by faith. You cannot observe God with any of your senses. You cannot show God to anyone else. Only your faith assures you that God exists. And only your faith can assure you of any of the attributes or actions of God.

I am not saying faith is unreasonable or irrational. I don't support "blind faith". I am not saying God does not wish us to become increasingly familiar with him and to learn better day by day how to walk in his ways. What I am saying is that all "knowledge" of God is faith-based, not evidence-based.

It is not what we know that counts. It is who we believe and commit ourselves to in faith. When the New Testament was being written, there were those who claimed knowledge of God and prized that over faith. The NT writers (and later the church as a whole, in choosing the canon) condemn this so-called knowledge very strongly.

It constantly amazes me that some Christians are prepared to denigrate faith and declare their faith to be knowledge rather than faith. It fuzzifies so many of these discussions when this distinction is not properly made.

Not drifting off-topic are we?

Dale Martin · Feb 25, 2005

"It is not what we know that counts. It is who we believe and commit ourselves to in faith. When the New Testament was being written, there were those who claimed knowledge of God and prized that over faith. The NT writers (and later the church as a whole, in choosing the canon) condemn this so-called knowledge very strongly.

Let me try to explain this to you"

We have come a long way from the times of "knowledge" that you attempt to use as an example. I suspect his knowledge that the NT writers condemned was the law as used by the Pharisees. We have at our disposal the most concise commentaries, understanding of prophecies, and archeological evidence that any other time even comes close to. When I say that I have knowledge of the truth of scripture and of God I mean just that. I know that 2 + 2 = 4. This is a physical law at work in the universe. There are many laws just like that example that we "know" to be true. In the same way and just as much, I "know" about God. Not everything or even 1/1000 of a percent of His nature but I know as much as I know with the same assuredness as I know that 2 + 2 = 4. I have NO doubts about God. I sometimes doubt my own faithfulness, and my own desires, and I know that I have weaknesses but that does not reflect on God. BTW Just because it is not yet possible for you to know does not mean others can not also. .

Dale Martin · Feb 28, 2005

WalksWithChrist said:
Not drifting off-topic are we?

You are so correct. . . I'm not even sure what happened. I just made a statment on why I "fully believe the scriptures over what I consider slanted science.

WalksWithChrist · Feb 28, 2005

Dale Martin said:
You are so correct. . . I'm not even sure what happened. I just made a statment on why I "fully believe the scriptures over what I consider slanted science.

; ) But what is live if not for the tangents?

obediah · Feb 28, 2005

(the opinion) Most likely to be true does by any means at all make somthing TRUE or a FACT; thus Eviloution which has NO scientific support whatsoever does not even qualify as a field of scientific study; and I do not care how many wordy words you post to suport your religion (eviloution) it just aint so!

raphael_aa · Feb 28, 2005

obediah said:
(the opinion) Most likely to be true does by any means at all make somthing TRUE or a FACT; thus Eviloution which has NO scientific support whatsoever does not even qualify as a field of scientific study; and I do not care how many wordy words you post to suport your religion (eviloution) it just aint so!

Let's assume for a moment your misspelling of evolution is meant to be some kind of sarcastic comment and not just stupidity. Could you outline your education in science that allows you to make such a grand statement completely in opposition to the majority of practising scientists working in their field of expertise?

The Lady Kate · Feb 28, 2005

obediah said:
(the opinion) Most likely to be true does by any means at all make somthing TRUE or a FACT;

There goes gravity, electricity, germs.... and just about everything else science has to offer.

Typical YEC response... if you can't get your foot in the front door... try the back door... if you can't get in the back door, burn down the house.

thus Eviloution which has NO scientific support whatsoever

First, a cheesy "clever" misspelling of "evolution....second, this is a blatant lie.

does not even qualify as a field of scientific study; and I do not care how many wordy words you post to suport your religion (eviloution) it just aint so!

la la la la la la la....you can't hear us....

Why do people call it the "Theory of Evolution"?

Faith is the evidence of things unseen

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Wild eyed liberal

Legend

Card-carrying EAC member

Well-Known Member

Naclist Hierophant and Prophet

Active Member

Legend

Seeking God's Will

Active Member

Active Member

Seeking God's Will

Active Member

Wild eyed liberal

The Lady Kate

Guest

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency