Evolutionists ! Explain this and make sense at the same time.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


i like this post of yours. it sounds reasonable and reasonable is workable.

to prove creationism will take some mighty hard work. first you would be faced with people quoting some pope's interpretation from 700 years ago as evidence that you're wrong, even before reading a word you just wrote down. then you would be faced with the myriad arguments that suggest things change (and they do), and have to argue from the position of how much change, which would then be met with the idea that any change is possible given enough time, which basically can then be used to argue that a rock is a human being (i mean most of the necessary components, chemically, are present in rocks== oh my we are a bunch of gollems).

anyway..........

undo
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

okay follow me here for a moment:

textual evidence. that is what we both have in common. neither of us were present during creation or evolution, therefore, we are basing our opinions, at least in part, on the textual evidence of others. the way the evidence is collected is similar:

1. the scientist collects evidence that he / she views with his / her own eyes. this is tested by comparing it to prior textual evidence.

2. the creationist collects evidence that he / she experiences in their own lives. this is tested by comparing it to prior textual evidence.

some of the science is not correct. some of the creationist evidence is not correct.
that doesn't refute either position entirely. it simply suggests we ask more questions.

No, because Science =/= Theology. theology cannot be tested so none of it can ever be confirmed as correct. So while science corrects for mistakes as information is gained over time, theology has no need to be corrected.

Life experiences shape our faith; however, day to day experiences have no bearing on what happens to life over millions of years and generations. Comparing that day to day experience to a book that was written, not designed to prove anything but to manipulate the population into following a belief system, is not even comparable to the scientific method.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


The thing about missing fossils is that the fossil record is incomplete. The reason these old species may not be known is because we haven't found them yet. Here is a great link explaining how the fossil record works:
fossil record

First, a working definition of the fossil record is needed. We will use an overarching definition: all fossils known to science. The question constantly arises: is the fossil record complete? The short answer is, like the film metaphor above, way far from it. The other question is: Is the fossil record adequate? Here the answer is, it depends on who you ask. A survey of the opinions leads to the conclusion that the fossil record is pretty much adequate, and constantly improving particularly in recent decades. We will revisit these questions later, but first a large amount of background is required.

It is important to address the rarity of fossils in the context that for any particular organism that once existed, the probability that it today is part of the fossil record is infinitesimally small. Such profound rarity is a consequence of three factors: 1) fossil formation is a rare event; 2) fossil survival is a rare event; and 3) an exceedingly tiny fraction of surviving fossils will ever be accessible to be found, though the crust of the earth is filled with them. We’ll examine these factors in sequence.

So just because we haven't found the animal in question doesn't mean that it never existed. Instead of looking for gaps in the fossil record, you should really analyze existing fossils and how they match up to the theory of evolution. Since we cannot prove that a proto-species not in the fossil record does or doesn't exist (you know like proving God), we look to what we do know. So far the fossil record supports evolutionary theory.

You also brought up finding newer fossils buried underneath older fossils. This is very possible if the sedimentary layers that formed the crust of the Earth are formed uneven. Also the dating methods used there are not circular. One can be used to confirm the other, but you don't arrive at an answer through circular reasoning. When finding a fossil in a sedimentary layer, an archaeologist can attempt some sort of radiocarbon dating process and/or attempt to date the sedimentary layer that the fossil was formed in. Unless it is impossible to get the answer to one of these two questions, you don't use the answer to one question to answer the other. The scientist strives to answer both questions separately first.

reply to post by Cypress

theology cannot be tested so none of it can ever be confirmed as correct.

of course it can be tested. i can prove to you right now, that almost every city mentioned in the bible, existed. i can prove to you, right now, that almost every king mentioned, existed. i can prove to you that the israelites really were in egypt, and that they left in a massive exodus. i can prove to you, the biblical food, both the global one and the not so global one. i can even prove to you that the ancient texts describe super massive black holes, thousands of years before they were even supposed to know about them.

the problem is, you have to accept the findings of archaeology and other sciences, other than evolution.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Most of science ignores the unseen world except oddly in evolution. They can't see it happen, they can't produce the missing progressive intermediate changes, and yet because it makes sense to them they believe it! Most of religion is faith based as well interestingly, though not all of it.

Science seeks to disprove any spiritual existence and yet there are some highly strange things that have happened a few of them recorded, but as you can't just repeat the event you can't study it, and therefore you can't apply scientific methods.

How do you explain Chi? How do you explain the heat some can generate on their bodies and use that for healing others? What do you do with near death experiences that people say what they saw happening to them by the doctors, who was watching, what was said etc all after they were apparently dead?

How do you explain precognitive ability? I cannot prove my experiences to you. I know my life. I know what I have seen, heard, touched, and experienced, but except those few times another experienced them with me, I cannot stick it under a microscope and say, "See, here it is!" I cannot explain why I can do what I can do energetically and yet I have done it so many times it is proof for me. I could present to you others to validate those things, but you would just accuse me of having a fellow liar to assist me in this fraud. So, you see, even if I could provide witnesses you would not believe it.

You know, I bet the early Christians did not have this problem because they actually sat and heard Jesus. They actually saw the miracles. You could not reproduce that miracle but they didn't need you to, because the saw it along with many others and the fervency in their stories and faith gleaming through their eyes convinced those near who did not see it. They saw prayers answered, and they saw lives changed for the better, and they experienced it enough to even die for it in horrible ways when all they had to do was deny Messiah, but they could not for they walked with him, talked with him, and witnessed the miracles.

We don't see many miracles today, and the ones that are claimed so like apparitions of Mary I do not believe because of what I know of the RCC. We have a lot of bad bible teaching in the world, and I tend to piss off 99% of the Christian and Jewish communities with what I teach the bible actually says. They don't like it, but they won't even try to prove me wrong in the original texts. They just prattle on what they have been traditionally taught.

Have you ever made a tumor disappear? Neither have I, but God has done it through me instantly. I cannot recreate it. Have you ever physically wrestled with a demon? I have, and had the scratches to prove it, they went away within an hour, but they were there. Have you ever bi-located? I have, but I did it for a very good reason and have never had reason to do it again. I used to show people things energetically which they could not explain and I no longer do it. 1. it becomes a dog and pony show. 2. They follow you around like a lost puppy, and put their faith in you. 3. I don't test God. I have no need to test God, but I can tell you this. At some point in your life, you are going to be faced with something that will need God's assistance, and in that moment you will have to choose. Maybe you do believe in God, but from what I have seen of your writings it does not seem so, but maybe you do believe in something since you asked me why couldn't God have used evolution to create the world. You denigrate the bible often, so I don't think you respect much of what is written by God through his servants.

If at some point you do find the need for help which is beyond science and man, God will hear an honest prayer in faith and answer you is all I can say.

undo
i

How about the biblical account of Jericho and the walls falling out?

Three major expeditions to the site over the past 90 years uncovered abundant evidence to support the Biblical account," he said. As Wood went on to point out, John Garstang (l 930-1936) and Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) both dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city’s destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC.

In September 1997, Dr. Wood visited Jericho and examined the results of the Italian excavation first hand. Incredibly, he found the Italians had uncovered the stone outer revetment wall at the base of the tell with part of the mud brick wall built on top of it still intact. In the balk of the Italian excavation, at the outer base of the revetment wall, Wood noticed the remains of the collapsed mud brick city walls which had tumbled. Not only did the Italians find the same evidence uncovered in the earlier excavations, it fits the Biblical story perfectly!

"The Italian excavation actually uncovered most of the critical evidence relating to the Biblical story," said Wood. "But even more exciting is the fact that all the evidence from the earlier digs has disappeared over time. We only have records, drawing and photos. But the Italians uncovered a completely new section of the wall which we did not know still existed. I had my photograph taken standing next to the wall where the mud brick collapse had just been excavated!"

While excavating in and around Jericho between 1930 and 1936, Prof. John Garstang wrote, "As to the main fact, then, there remains no doubt: the walls [of the city] fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over their ruins into the city." In addition to writing this independent description of this one particular find, he also signed it and had two of his co-workers witness and sign it themselves.

link

How did Isaiah know the Earth was round way back between 746 and 680 B.C.?

God said the Earth was round, we didn't catch up for a LONGGGG time with that info,

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


God told us the air circulates in a pattern, how long did it take us to figure it out with science?

Ecc 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

Dr. Nelson Glueck, perhaps the utmost modern authority on Israeli archeology, said: "No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries." - See more at: www.allabouttruth.org...

link

These are just a few things pointing to the truths held in the bible that support it as factual. There are the fulfilled prophecies, the eye witness accounts that it seems if it were about anything else in history would not be discounted, but because it's Jesus and the bible then it's just viewed as a bunch of religious nuts. You have people denying Jesus /Yeshua even existed when there is more non-biblical texts proving his existence than there are for the existence of Julius Caesar and yet we don't hear people saying he didn't exist now do we? Now, this is a spiritual battle to keep men from the truth.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


You have given me a lot of circumstantial evidence for a higher, spiritual realm than ours. You haven't given any evidence that this realm is inhabited by a being that has created the universe along with (apparently) micromanaging one tiny little world in the vast sea of the universe.

Since you brought up my beliefs, I'll give you a glimpse of what I believe. First I believe that I do not know everything. I find it highly likely that evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang all happened and are happening. I also believe that it is very likely that a higher spiritual plane exists above our physical realm where beings that I cannot comprehend may reside. Of these beings there may be one that is powerful enough to create a universe. But just like I cannot micromanage one ant in the entirety of an ant hill, I believe that it is highly unlikely that this being with the vast power to create all the cosmos has the power or the inclination to micromanage one small aspect of his entire creation (Earth). It would make more sense to create laws and rules (physics, evolution, abiogensis, gravity, conservation of energy, etc) to govern how the universe is developed. This allows the universe to grow increasingly complex (for example: Giant stars exist originally, giant stars go supernova, create heavier elements as well as smaller suns and planets) while maintaining a largely hands off approach. It's almost like running a self-replicating computer program. Maybe that's why I have the belief that I do, it is developed through my study of computer science.

This is why I believe that the bible is just sensationalized historical fiction. Hence why a story about the fall of Jericho may have elements of truth in it (like it actually fell), but I will look questioningly at the more supernatural aspects of the stories. It would be more likely that the supernatural aspects are alien technology or nothing at all as opposed to just magic. By the way (while not necessarily believing it 100%) I believe that ancient alien theory (in regards to things like the bible) is more probable of being true than God did it. For my reasons for this, I refer you back to my second paragraph. God is more likely to do things that effect the entirety of the universe rather than 1 isolated part of it. Aliens would be more likely (with their superior technology and intelligence) to lord over humans and pass themselves off as gods.

UnifiedSerenity
How did Isaiah know the Earth was round way back between 746 and 680 B.C.?

God said the Earth was round, we didn't catch up for a LONGGGG time with that info,

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


God told us the air circulates in a pattern, how long did it take us to figure it out with science?

Ecc 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

Dr. Nelson Glueck, perhaps the utmost modern authority on Israeli archeology, said: "No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries." - See more at: www.allabouttruth.org...

link

These are just a few things pointing to the truths held in the bible that support it as factual. There are the fulfilled prophecies, the eye witness accounts that it seems if it were about anything else in history would not be discounted, but because it's Jesus and the bible then it's just viewed as a bunch of religious nuts. You have people denying Jesus /Yeshua even existed when there is more non-biblical texts proving his existence than there are for the existence of Julius Caesar and yet we don't hear people saying he didn't exist now do we? Now, this is a spiritual battle to keep men from the truth.

en.wikipedia.org... Here, Ancient Greeks (cannot argue these guys were Jewish or believed in one god) also believed that the Earth was round at around the same time Isaiah was allegedly told the earth was round. Meaning he could have just talked to a Greek person.

Prophecies are poor evidence for the validity of the bible. The prophecies can just as easily have been written after the fact and molded to fit the character of the person or event they are describing. Or the character in question (let's stop beating around the bush here, Jesus) is made up to fit the mold of the prophecies. Eye witness accounts barely hold up in a court of law let alone as evidence for something 2000 years ago. How often do you hear several witnesses' accounts of a bank robbery and they can't even be consistent with something like the description of the perpetrator?

About Jesus, I leave you with this link to talk about if Jesus really did exist or not.
rationalwiki.org...

undo
reply to post by Itismenotyou

 

did you read about the schist vases? schist is like flint. it splinters, fractures easily, and is very brittle. they found vases with schist fluted necks. check this out
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

That is very odd. I had not heard of these. Great find. I will have to do some research into them. thanks.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


That wiki source gives no dates close to the time of Isaiah.

Regarding Jesus existence I give you this:

Letters from Pilate proving Jesus existed

UnifiedSerenity
How did Isaiah know the Earth was round way back between 746 and 680 B.C.?

God said the Earth was round, we didn't catch up for a LONGGGG time with that info,

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The greeks new and actually had a fairly accurate measurement of its radius. The world being round was proven everytime a ship sailed over the horizon. The earth being flat was an urban myth that arose in the middle agesmore or less.

God told us the air circulates in a pattern, how long did it take us to figure it out with science?

Ecc 1:6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

Any culture able to sail a ship had better know how to handle wind and water currents. Then again, its not like the cristians in the bibles were familiar with sea trade and fishing

UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

That wiki source gives no dates close to the time of Isaiah.

Regarding Jesus existence I give you this:

Letters from Pilate proving Jesus existed

Regarding your bible passage about a round earth, I give you this:

www.skepticalmonkey.com...

Dedicated believers often say that the word “circle” could actually mean “sphere,” since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah’s use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a “ball:

He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house. (Isaiah 22:18)

The Hebrew word used in scripture for “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg. If the author meant to imply that “circle of the earth” indicated that the earth was a sphere, it would have made more sense to use the Hebrew word for “ball,” which is duwr. The word “chuwg” more likely refers to a flat, circular earth.

If the Isaiah verse were the only one in the bible that spoke of the shape of the earth, differing interpretations of it could reasonably be argued. However, for a Christian to claim the scientific accuracy of the bible in this regard, he or she would have to actively ignore all of the following passages:

…take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

A sphere has no edges. Why would the author of Job have spoken of “edges” of the earth if he had known the earth was spherical? Isn’t it more probable that the author imagined grabbing the edges a flat earth, rather than grabbing the ball of the earth by “edges” that aren’t there? Also, consider that the same author had this to say about the formation of our planet:

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal. (Job 38:14)

When stamped with a seal, clay is flattened—not rounded. If the Job author had known the earth was round, why compare it to clay seals, which are pressed flat? With this comparison coming so soon after his referral to the “edges” of the earth, it seems unlikely that both could be flukes.

“Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; (Mat 4:8)”

In this passage, Jesus is able to see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain. On a spherical earth, this would not be possible.

It should also be noted that there are many biblical verses that claim that the earth has “ends” (impossible for a spherical shape) [1].

Double post!

The fact of the matter is...

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a theory. Neither have been proven conclusively. And have a good chance of NEVER actually being proven.

They both have points to make. But both have flaws that make them extremely difficult to 100% KNOW what's right and what's wrong.

It's down to the individual. Personally all i need to do is look at everything around me. Everything from this planet and beyond to make me have faith in some sort of design. Do i 100% know? No. Do i have 100% FAITH yes.

Evolutionists see the world through different eyes to those who believe in creation/design. That's ok, the world would be a boring place if we were all the same. All i would like is for those who don't believe in intelligent design to not believe those who do are crazy people. I've seen a lot of people make the argument of "why do bad things happen if God is benevolent?" or "Where is God if God exists?" Just because you can't see/feel/smell/hear something doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Don't act like the more intellectual or logical one because you don't hold their faith. It's subjective, and everyone's entitled to a belief system.

Anyway, we'll all find out one day i guess

reply to post by Krazysh0t

The thing about missing fossils is that the fossil record is incomplete. The reason these old species may not be known is because we haven't found them yet. Here is a great link explaining how the fossil record works:
fossil record

With the amount of time evolution needs to become a working mechanism. Wouldn't it make sense
to stop looking for fossils and the bones of this common ancestor ? Seeing that the said amount of time
needed would mostly see every vertebrae ground to a fine dust. Back to the earth from hence it came ?

And the reason evolution is unacceptable to creationism ? Gods word.

reply to post by randyvs


I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you suggesting that we stop looking for transitionary fossils because they may have already decomposed?

Also can you point out exactly where in the bible God specifically says that he didn't use evolution to develop life? I was under the impression that it is very vague and says nothing of the sort. Do you happen to have a more complete bible?

www.biblegateway.com...

20 Then God commanded, “Let the water be filled with many kinds of living beings, and let the air be filled with birds.” 21 So God created the great sea monsters, all kinds of creatures that live in the water, and all kinds of birds. And God was pleased with what he saw. 22 He blessed them all and told the creatures that live in the water to reproduce and to fill the sea, and he told the birds to increase in number. 23 Evening passed and morning came—that was the fifth day.

24 Then God commanded, “Let the earth produce all kinds of animal life: domestic and wild, large and small”—and it was done. 25 So God made them all, and he was pleased with what he saw.

Please explain how the above cannot be God using evolution.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


that quote made me wonder if the 7 days were 7 ages. earlier i theorized each age had a sentient species of overseers, starting with the amphibians, then the reptiles. but where do the birds fit in, before or after reptiles?

reply to post by undo


The one area that would fit is the days before God created the sun, moon and stars. The sun determines the 24 hour cycle though we are also told a day is as a thousand years and a thousands years as a day to God. The explanation some theologians give is that God said each day that it was evening and morning for each day.

Evolution does not explain the very complex systems that have to be there at the cellular level even in the beginning, they were not blobs of simple goo as Darwin thought.