Evolution is a farce: Evidence

a reply to: borntowatch

As I said earlier, the only biblical character you can be sure of is Pontius Pilate, the one that claimed according to your scriptures that he doesn't want to have anything to do with the whole thing ...

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: BlackManINC

Wrong most archaeologists do not take the bible as truth.
No global flood has been proved.
Noah,s ark didn't happen.
No evidence of the jews in Egypt. ..the list goes on.
Plus jesus has not been proved to have lived at all.

Is that all you got? Not impressed

a reply to: BlackManINC

The Amazing Spiderman lives in New York, and many specific areas and buildings are mentioned that you could visit and take selfies of yourself visiting this very day.

Using your line of logic regarding the bible and archeology, does this mean that you think Spiderman is also real?

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: BlackManINC

The Amazing Spiderman lives in New York, and many specific areas and buildings are mentioned that you could visit and take selfies of yourself visiting this very day.

Using your line of logic regarding the bible and archeology, does this mean that you think Spiderman is also real?

Spider Man was never claimed to have been a real character, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence shows this, unlike the Bible where there is plenty. So this is a piss poor analogy when talking about the Bible.

a reply to: BlackManINC

Spider Man was never claimed to have been a real character, and the complete lack of archaeological evidence shows this, unlike the Bible where there is plenty. So this is a piss poor analogy when talking about the Bible.

The fact that people claim/have claimed that the Jesus is real is not evidence that he is.

There isn't any archaeological evidence that jesus was a real person, and there's certainly no evidence that the character was a god/son of a god.

The only archaeological evidence in relation to the bible is regarding cities, towns and other such places. This on it's own isn't anymore evidence for the existence of a god than the idea that because the statue of liberty exists Spiderman does too.

The analogy fits perfectly.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The fact that people claim/have claimed that the Jesus is real is not evidence that he is.

There isn't any archaeological evidence that jesus was a real person, and there's certainly no evidence that the character was a god/son of a god.

The only archaeological evidence in relation to the bible is regarding cities, towns and other such places. This on it's own isn't anymore evidence for the existence of a god than the idea that because the statue of liberty exists Spiderman does too.

The analogy fits perfectly.

Actually, no it doesn't, as you have finds like the King Cyrus cylinder confirming the Biblical account of Cyrus's invasion and defeat of Babylon and his decree to allow the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple. Like I said, the archaeological evidence available isn't disputed, its the Bibles claim to a god performing supernatural feats that the secular groups have a problem with.

A 2,600-year-old icon of freedom comes to the United States

The Cyrus Cylinder is a small unprepossessing barrel-shaped clay cylinder inscribed in enigmatic-looking cuneiform, and yet is one of the most iconic objects in the unparalleled world collection housed at the British Museum.

It is an object with many meanings and provides a link to a past that we all share and to a key moment in history that has shaped the world around us.

As such it is an object of international significance and is about to start a tour of five major U.S. museums, debuting at the Smithsonian's Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Washington in March 2013. The tour is supported by the Iran Heritage Foundation.

The Cylinder was buried under the walls of Babylon around 539 B.C. after the Persian king Cyrus had captured the city. It describes how Cyrus was able to defeat the Babylonian king Nabonidus with the aid of the Babylonian god Marduk, who had run out of patience with Nabonidus and his shortcomings.

Once he had entered the city, Cyrus did not burn it to the ground (as usually happened with conquered cities at this period) but he freed the population from forced labor obligations, sent back to various shrines statues of gods, and allowed the people who had been brought to Babylon by the Babylonian kings to return to their homes. By this act, he was effectively allowing people to pursue unmolested their own religious practices.

After it had been buried, the cylinder lay undisturbed for more than 2,400 years until it was dug up in 1879 by a British Museum excavation led by Hormuzd Rassam. When the Babylonian cuneiform was translated, it was immediately realized that the cylinder had a very special significance.

Here was corroboration of one of the best-known stories in the Hebrew Bible, the liberation by Cyrus of the Jews deported to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and their return to Jerusalem to build the Second Temple. Although the Jews are not mentioned by name in the cylinder, they clearly must have been among the people allowed to return home at this time, with their temple goods.

The cylinder also confirmed existing impressions of Cyrus. In the Hebrew Bible he is variously described as the Lord's Shepherd and the Messiah, no doubt largely because of his favorable treatment of the Jews.

Not only did he allow them to return to Jerusalem, but he also restituted the temple treasures seized by Nebuchadnezzar and provided royal funds to pay for the rebuilding of the temple.

Source: www.cnn.com...

a reply to: BlackManINC

Mate I've got the credentials to show I am a scientist. Several bits of paper, piublished articles, and a paycheck dating back over a decade.

You are the one making the "micro vs macro" argument. Evolution is evolution. Trying to be distinct is a creationist tactic.

Legitimate question for YEC or those that believe humans and dinos walked the earth together. When and how do you believe the dinosaurs went extinct?

a reply to: BlackManINC

its the Bibles claim to a god performing supernatural feats that the secular groups have a problem with.

You have to a) prove a supernatural event took place, b) prove a god was responsible, and c) prove which god did it. i see neither "b" nor "c" and "a" is heavily reliant on presupposition.

originally posted by: BlackManINC
Actually, no it doesn't, as you have finds like the King Cyrus cylinder confirming the Biblical account of Cyrus's invasion and defeat of Babylon and his decree to allow the captive Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple.

That's more archaeological evidence for a historical place and event that no-one is disputing. However it cannot be considered evidence for any supernatural events or the existence of a god or its 'son'.

Like I said, the archaeological evidence available isn't disputed, its the Bibles claim to a god performing supernatural feats that the secular groups have a problem with.

.....correct?

It's not evidence for the religious supernatural claims you and other christians make, but it is evidence for a place and event in history.

Just like how the existence of New York and the buildings in that city are not evidence for the existence of Spiderman.....

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: borntowatch

Right, the stories are influenced by the current circumstances as they got written down. The timespan the author chose. Maybe they were imaganing things and exaggerated things, becuse everybody prefers a story with more dramatic elements. Maybe that is why Jesus took a whore as wive. What a lovestory!
I just say the story from Noah and his wives shows up in the Gilgamesh and the bible, because it is an awesome story and one which caried meaning for a long time for the people living in that area, they got flooded regularly in their natural habitat: a hollow between mountains.
Still fiction. Because it was written by someone with an agenda. There is no such thing as "get over yourself" because I need me, otherwise I'd be blind and numb and probably dead. Who ever wrote it, brought in it's own influence. And that on stories retold for a while by different people who added something took something out, made a cover version...
Who ever takes the bible by its word, doesn't know how writing works.

That would be just your opinion Peeple and you are entitled to it, others think its all fake and still others the infallible word of God.

I think you should understand the whole book is accepted or denied based on faith and some based on archaeological discoveries.
I have my opinion and you clearly have yours (Gnostic by the sounds), thank you for your views on understanding the bible, I disagree
I think evolution is fiction being sold as a faith, should I write a post like yours?

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: borntowatch

As I said earlier, the only biblical character you can be sure of is Pontius Pilate, the one that claimed according to your scriptures that he doesn't want to have anything to do with the whole thing ...

Well prove any character from say 1000 years ago or further.
I can deny them all, the proof, evidence for their lives is just written word.
If I decide who is a valid historian and who is not a valid historian I can deny anybody I choose.
I know people who deny Shakespeare.
www.anusha.com...

Outside of the written word prior to DNA, there is no evidence for anyone.


As for the amazing Spiderman and New York, where are his followers, how many have died in his name. What promises does Spidey give to the broken and sinners.
Christianity teaches what no other teaching teaches, its few followers are committed to Jesus, how many are committed to Spidey

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Mate I've got the credentials to show I am a scientist. Several bits of paper, piublished articles, and a paycheck dating back over a decade.

You are the one making the "micro vs macro" argument. Evolution is evolution. Trying to be distinct is a creationist tactic.

A Chemist
You have credentials in biology, in evolution, or in mixing solutions.
Calling yourself something does not mean you know everything.

What qualifications do you have in biological sciences

Evolution is not evolution, where and how did the elements form, evolve?

a reply to: borntowatch

how many have died in his name.

You say that like dieing for someones name is a good thing.

For some reason you saying that makes me think of the Aztec human sacrifices.

originally posted by: borntowatch
A Chemist
You have credentials in biology, in evolution, or in mixing solutions.
Calling yourself something does not mean you know everything.

What qualifications do you have in biological sciences

Evolution is not evolution, where and how did the elements form, evolve?

Sounds more convincing than a PHD in Ken Hovind

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BlackManINC

Mate I've got the credentials to show I am a scientist. Several bits of paper, piublished articles, and a paycheck dating back over a decade.

You are the one making the "micro vs macro" argument. Evolution is evolution. Trying to be distinct is a creationist tactic.

A Chemist
You have credentials in biology, in evolution, or in mixing solutions.
Calling yourself something does not mean you know everything.

What qualifications do you have in biological sciences

Evolution is not evolution, where and how did the elements form, evolve?

Evolution is not intended to explain origins. only the journey from amoebas to the life we see today. we are still investigating the origins of life on earth.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Well I guess thats tough for both of us.
I dont have, nor will I accept evolution on YOUR terms.
Your opinion is not as relevant to me as you would wish it to be.

It's tough for you only, because I am defining evolution by the scientists' terms, not my own. This is the definition that we are supporting. If you are arguing for or against anything other than the scientific definition of evolution, you are committing the straw man fallacy. You should be arguing against naturalism/materialism or abiogenesis, not evolution.

Biology Online

Evolution

Definition

noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the evolutionary development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny.

When the first thing you see on a source is a logical fallacy, it's a pretty good indicator that the source is bunk. I'm not even kidding. On all 3 of your sources, each one opened with that same fallacy.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just doing this for the benefit of the 3rd party reader. Hope you have enjoyed.

a reply to: borntowatch

Read carefully neighbor. Post graduate qualifications in (a) Chemistry and (b) Bioinformatics. Bioinformatics is a modern discipline which uses Biochemistry, Genetics (look two biological aka Life Sciences), Computational analysis, and statistics.

So as such yes I am qualified to talk about evolution. Do you understand how phylogenetic diagrams are generated these days? What they tell you? That the length of the branches of them tend to tell you something important?

You really either are trolling as has been implied or you are just that clueless. Where the elements came from has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as that deals solely with life forms adapting. However the current theory is that the heavier elememnts as we know them are produced from the process of fusion in stars (that takes us about as far as Oxygen or Iron) and supernovae (the heavier ones). Astrophysicists have some evidence of this. Go find one and bother them. A chemist deals with the way chemicals react. I'm a Synthetic Organic and Physical Organic chemist by training, though I've got a good back ground in Physical and environmental chemistry too.

Please try to keep up, or at least be less obvious with your trolling.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: borntowatch

how many have died in his name.

You say that like dieing for someones name is a good thing.

For some reason you saying that makes me think of the Aztec human sacrifices.

I guess that if it was all bunk

Seriously has anyone ever died for spiderman
the spiderman argument is ludicrous.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: borntowatch

Read carefully neighbor. Post graduate qualifications in (a) Chemistry and (b) Bioinformatics. Bioinformatics is a modern discipline which uses Biochemistry, Genetics (look two biological aka Life Sciences), Computational analysis, and statistics.

So as such yes I am qualified to talk about evolution. Do you understand how phylogenetic diagrams are generated these days? What they tell you? That the length of the branches of them tend to tell you something important?

You really either are trolling as has been implied or you are just that clueless. Where the elements came from has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, as that deals solely with life forms adapting. However the current theory is that the heavier elememnts as we know them are produced from the process of fusion in stars (that takes us about as far as Oxygen or Iron) and supernovae (the heavier ones). Astrophysicists have some evidence of this. Go find one and bother them. A chemist deals with the way chemicals react. I'm a Synthetic Organic and Physical Organic chemist by training, though I've got a good back ground in Physical and environmental chemistry too.

Please try to keep up, or at least be less obvious with your trolling.

Trolling

No no no
I dont deny I can keep up with all the current theories, they pop up like mushrooms, then fade in the evenings.