Simple question for evolutionists

reply to post by creatednotEvolved

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

The Bible is the only 'God book' to predict events well before their time with 100% accuracy.

The Bible isn't a book to predict events before its time. It's chock full of post-hoc rationalizations, it's just not that anyone predicted anything ahead of time with it. Last I checked, we're still waiting for the end of the world and the apostles aren't going to live to see it just like Jesus said they would.

Christianity and the Bible are always trying to be silenced because of the truth contained within its pages.

Yay, I get to use my 'scientific falsehoods in the Bible' again...


Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
...actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

What I sense from evolutionists is that they are always coming up with all kinds of questions like who created god and they do not like the definition associated to God.

I think you mean 'atheists'. I accepted evolution without a doubt my whole life, but I've only had a problem with the idea of a deity for about 5-6 years now.

An infinitely intelligent being who dwells in and out of His creation as an invisible spirit and He was not created because he has always existed, because He is not affected by time, He invented time.

So why not simply ascribe timeless existence to matter and energy? And again, where is the evidence of such a being?

If what evos seek to do is change who God is, it will not happen. They can change God in their own mind and make him a limited god without control or soverignty over his creation, but then that is a false god just like baal.

...no, 'evos' seek to explain the biological world. And you do realize that Yahweh is basically a Hebrew rebranding of Ba'al, right? Hell, the Hebrew word for god prior to Yahweh was "Elohim" based around the same deity that was found in Canaanite religion "El"...because Hebrews were initially polytheistic. There are even passages that treat "Elohim" (typically translated as "God" rather than "Lord" or "Lord God" in the KJV) as a deity amongst many.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You will find whatever your heart desires in the Bible, it is designed to confound those who think themselves wise.
"Hear O Israel, the Lord (Adonai) your Gods (elohim), He is One."
The Hebrews believed that all the manifestations of The Creator in old times were many Gods, The Creator clarifies it to them that it is only Him and there is no other. El is a title meaning God. Yahweh is not baal, I researched it unbiasedly and it is not what you think it is. And I will not try to convince you.

Let me ask you a question, if you were from another planet and you suddenly appeared on earth and the first thing you saw was the NASA space shuttle and you inspected it, would you logically conclude that someone designed and made it, or would you think that it all came together by random chance with a magic ingredient called "time?"

I think the Eden or its realm must have been outside time as we know it, what happened in there could have gone on for millions of years outside our time frame and once man was thrown out we got into a dimension where order and chaos rules rather than perfection, so time began for man 6000 years ago while Eden was outside time as we know it and could have been an accelerated time dimension where maybe Adam and Eve could have had a hand at determine life to a microscopic level. Ever since then earth has gone backwards in genetic qualities, species die out and become extinct man lives less than they did and diseases spread and we have death because of sin. It might explain a few theories on both sides.

Originally posted by creatednotEvolved
reply to post by madnessinmysoulLet me ask you a question, if you were from another planet and you suddenly appeared on earth and the first thing you saw was the NASA space shuttle and you inspected it, would you logically conclude that someone designed and made it, or would you think that it all came together by random chance with a magic ingredient called "time?"

AAHHH, the classic straw man argument. Mis-interpret your opponents position and then find a non-related incident where you can immediately refute his argument/questions without actually answering them.

I'll help you out with this one:

No. It is ridiculous and completely illogical to think that anyone or anything would make such an assumption.

But given your weak attempt at setting up an easily defeated argument, let me bring out the match and burn it down for you.

Assuming that we were from another planet:

1. We can see the shuttle
2. We can touch the shuttle
3. We can hear the shuttle
4. We can have OTHER "people" hear, see and touch the shuttle to verify that it is indeed real and not just in our imaginations.
5. We can investigate and seek out the individuals that made it, where they got the materials and in what state/country those materials were assembled into parts for the shuttle
6. We then can travel to the place where they put all the parts together which created what you see in front of you.

We can provide a trail of evidence leading all the way back to the mines where the materials were pulled out of the ground before they were ever melted down to make steel, aluminum, titanium, etc. etc.

HOWEVER, we don't assume that it magically came to be because we can prove where it came from. We know it was assembled because we can talk to the man/men/women who assembled it.

We cannot however make the false assumption that it was magically pulled out of thin air by some esoteric "David Copperfield" with nothing more than a very weak instruction manual written in another language.

I have to say that your attempt to set up a straw man to refute honest questions and answers as a way to derail the actual questions is very common and a classic theist trick. Try harder. Next time I'm sure you're going to make comparisons to a rock being intelligent hmm?

King

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer Please point out where I said the big bang theory has no supporting evidence? I said it was not proven a completely different thing than saying there was no evidence, and you accuse others of deflecting the issue...

I'm sorry, but you said the following:

The big bang theory is just that a theory, with no proof of fact, it is just accepted as the most logical reasoning by atheistic scientists.

You made the ignorant assumption about 'atheistic scientists' at the end for good measure. Now with no proof of fact (odd turn of phrase that it is) doesn't mean 'not proven', it means there isn't any proof...and you implied that it's only accepted because it's logical and that the only people accepting are 'atheistic scientists'...and I promptly pointed out that it's a lot more than atheists accepting it out in the scientific community.

Talk about trying to deflect the issue, THERE is no conclusive proof for the big bang theory, you even state it yourself

doesn't mean 'not proven', it means there isn't any proof

If there isn't any proof then it is NOT proven, it is an assumption, and just a theory.

Your next reasoned argument left me literally laughing out loud, seriously you do come up with some dreadful arguments.

So I stated science was based on belief, and for that I am ignorant, yes science can clearly be demonstrated being built on belief, the big bang theory demonstrates it is based on belief, the big bang theory is not proven, yet it is "believed" to be true by some (most) academics and scientists, you even state so yourself

It's based on reasonable belief derived from testing, which is not the same as irrational belief based on faith.

It is still belief, whether reasonable or otherwise, it is still belief. Obviously a concept you cannot grasp at all.


Now we get to some fun, I loved this quote and was waiting for it so thanks for that

...technically no, you cannot prove anything. But it has enough evidence for it to be incredibly unlikely that it is false as a general concept if not completely right on every single specific. There exists no other theory that explains any of the facts of the universe as observed by the Big Bang theory and it has made successful predictions about observations that were made later.

So what about all the anomalies in the big bang theory? What about all the things that don't fir in with all the other theories? such as:

1. Redshift with Distance due to Doppler Effects of Receding Motion
2. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
3. The Big Bang and the Formation of Elements
4. Superclusters and Voids are Older than the Big Bang Universe
5. The Universe is Ordered thus Infinite
6. Singularities / Infinite Energy Densities are Mathematical Concepts Only
7. Inflation is an Ad Hoc Solution to a Theory that Contradicts Observation
8. What is Decelerating?
9. Distant Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field are not 'Primitive' and Move as if Surrounded by Matter.
10. The Big Bang Satisfies the Religious Creation Myth

In fact, it seems that present-day science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' (Let there be light) uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies ... Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, God exists! (Pope Pius XII, 1951)

Source

There are contradicting theories, and alternative views within the scientific community such as the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space.

The big bang is not the be all and end all of scientific knowledge or theory, it is just a BELIEF, getting the concept of belief now?

It's not a misspelling, it's a downright conflation of two different scientists. I don't tend to blink when someone rights "Dawkin" or "Dakins" or some clear variation of the name that has enough components to get the basic meaning across, but when you make the clear mistake that all sorts of people make of confusing two people in two different fields who have admittedly similar names it means you're not really taking any time. And what's wrong with the work of Dawkins anyway? He's a published and renowned biologist...

This is a pathetic argument really, So I misspell Hawking to Hawkins (not the one letter difference there) and from that you try to refute my argument, hardly renders any validity to your argument. And considering I was talking about the Big Bang, why would I be mentioning Richard Dawkins? He is not an astrophysicist, perhaps you are trying to use obfuscation?

So you say people like Einstein, Newton were ignorant? LOL that really is rich coming from someone without any accreditation, tell me where is your work published and accredited? I think they have far more weight to any arguments than you do, or I do or practically anyone on this board. Well I guess you feel you are more enlightened than they are, I believe many on here would disagree

I do, on all sorts of issues. I understand that some people enjoy the Twilight books, I understand why they see the appeal and I do not....but this is science, it's not something about viewpoints.

Of course science is about viewpoints, or do you think all scientists agree? Do all the scientists currently looking into global warming agree? Do they all have theories to support their claims? Your viewpoint is you are correct ) even though you have done nothing to prove anything) and everyone else is ignorant, your own beliefs don't only come over as ignorant but quite frankly your arguments are quite idiotic and not well thought through at all.

I'm not insulting them, I'm directly pointing out that they are being ignorant. I do not call someone ignorant unless they have displayed ignorance.

Maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book...

You are ignorant because you have not displayed much in the realm of scientific literacy. Nothing wrong with being ignorant though. I am ignorant about things, just not this thing. I don't know much about metallurgy beyond what it is, but I could correct that if I wanted.

In what way have you shown any greater understanding of scientific literacy? With constant references stating that theory is proven (which it is not) With your blatant disregard for alternative views, this is not scientific literacy it is dogma. The fact you have read up on some scientific theories does not make you an expert, that these theories resonate with you and are believable to you does not make them true or proven, they remain theories and no matter how eloquently you write it doesn't change them from theories to fact.

Wow, so you just discard the first definition (which actually has an example of a scientific theory) and went on to the last bits...a theory isn't something that is a speculation or an assumption

IN what way did I ignore the first definition, being as I repeated it, with underline for emphasis? Break it down for yourself

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained:

A supposition (a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis NOT PROVEN

You can try all you want that a scientific theory is proven but it is not, quote me one source (reliable) that states a theory is actually PROVEN, you cannot and you can twist all you want, but a theory is just hat a theory

What? How does the big bang theory contradict general or special relativity?

6. Singularities / Infinite Energy Densities are Mathematical Concepts Only The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it. In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a significant problem. (Bill Mitchell)

Again, you're displaying an ignorance of the philosophy of science by expecting a scientific theory to be proven. Circuit theory isn't 'proven', even though we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't true.

No I am not, I am simply stating there are always differing views, even within the scientific community, and why is it ignorant to demand proof? Is that not what scientist try to do? Or are all scientific experiments just a waste of money? should we just accept everything that is stated? people come up with alternative theories all of the time, some will be accepted some with not be. You try to portray that only your reasoning is the correct one, that your belief is certain theories is the correct one and all others are ignorant, yet I have demonstrated there are many alternative theories, often scientific theories that disagree, you would call these scientists ignorant. I would not.

Special pleading. And "OBE"s have been recreated in the lab. Experience is no way to derive knowledge about the world around you. That's why science deals in controls.

I have experienced personally that astral projection works, I have moved my spirit/soul out of my body to an alternative space, science cannot yet explain to me the purpose of my soul, why it exists or what happens to it upon death. That experience did give me knowledge, it gave me the knowledge that science does not yet have all the answers, that knowledge means I do not discount theology, because at least theology attempts to answer these questions, It doesn't mean I believe the bible or any other orthodox religion, nor do I accept any bible or religion as having a historically accurate thesis. But it does mean I do not discount everything because of some irregularities, after all the bible states the soul exists and I know it does, so they have at least given information I have evidenced personally as true

This is the sort of thing that I'm talking about! If something is infinite then it cannot be described via the language of time...yet you just called something infinite and then gave it an age. You are clearly demonstrating an ignorance of the concept of 'infinite', but that's okay because it's a damn difficult concept to get around.

I said the universe was infinite, not time, doesn't the big bang theory say that space is infinite? Yet they give it a creation point, does this make them ignorant?

Yes, you refuse to admit your ignorance and you're trying to call me ignorant.

Yes I do, I acknowledge that there are various views on the origin of the universe, various views on religion, various views on science and various views on theology, I use an open mind on all things, I look and accept I could be wrong. You conversely have your own beliefs and call anyone who disagrees ignorant, and that in my mind makes you ignorant. You complain of having to explain things continually to creationists, yet constantly go to every thread and argue with them, that is just antagonistic actually the action of a troll. Their belief is just as valid as yours.