Creation of Universe, Scriptures vs Science

[IndigoChild5559]

Ok, if it does not mean that species evolved by that way to different species, then I have no problem with it. However, by what I know, evolution theory claims that all species have developed from single species by the mechanisms of evolution to current situation. And that has no real scientific evidence.

How much change must there be before we acknowledge that a new species has emerged? This idea that microevolution exists but not macroevolution is simply at odds with the amount of time that life has existed.

 

[Sheldon]

Evolution is the change in heritable characteristics in a biological population over successive generations.
That is an observed fact.

Ok, if it does not mean that species evolved by that way to different species, then I have no problem with it.

Of course it means that, and who cares what you think about a scientific fact?

However, by what I know, evolution theory claims that all species have developed from single species by the mechanisms of evolution to current situation.

It's the scientific theory of evolution, not evolution theory whatever straw man that is, no it makes such claim, again this is a straw man. The scientific theory of evolution explains the diversity of live, not it's origin, hence Darwin entitling his seminal work "The Origin of Species".

And that has no real scientific evidence.

All the scientific evidence supports species evolution, through natural selection.

 

[Sheldon]

You are wrong. But then you probably do not know what "real scientific evidence" is.

Tell us what you think qualifies as "real scientific evidence". Links from science based sources would help your cause.

If anyone writes "real" in front of scientific evidence, you can pretty much bet they don't know anything about the scientific method. Like people who say evolution is "just a theory", they should go to Hiroshima, and tell them atomic theory is just a theory.

Oh and my favourite, evolution doesn't explain where life came from, neither does calculus, so what?

 

[Sheldon]

How much change must there be before we acknowledge that a new species has emerged? This idea that microevolution exists but not macroevolution is simply at odds with the amount of time that life has existed.

Speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, and in real time. However the fossil record alone is sufficient to demsonrate it is a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If anyone writes "real" in front of scientific evidence, you can pretty much bet they don't know anything about the scientific method. Like people who say evolution is "just a theory", they should go to Hiroshima, and tell them atomic theory is just a theory.

Oh and my favourite, evolution doesn't explain where life came from, neither does calculus, so what?

I like to always point out that when one moves the goalposts that they have conceded the previous argument. That means when they ask where life came from they have already conceded the fact of evolution.

For some reason this is not well received very often

 

[Sheldon]

I like to always point out that when one moves the goalposts that they have conceded the previous argument. That means when they ask where life came from they have already conceded the fact of evolution.

For some reason this is not well received very often

I I know what you mean, try asking YEC's if they believe their deity created the light from stars 14+ billion light years away en route.

You can almost here their bafflement.

 

[Brian2]

And that never happened. Tyre is still a thriving community today.

The mainland part that was demolished and thrown into the sea was not rebuilt. Much of the ruin is there today even and is a world heritage site. The Island part became a peninsula because of the causeway that Alexander the Great made when besieging the Island.
Tyre never regained it's importance as a port and trading centre.
imo it will never be rebuilt, but that is not proven even though the rest of the prophecy has happened.

 

[Brian2]

The Tyre prophecy is very clear as to who it applied to. It referred to Nebuchadnezzar attacking the king of Tyre at that time. It failed so badly that even old Zeke realized it so he made a BOGO deal. He wrote another failed prophecy to go with it.

When read correctly imo, the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled and it was thrown into the sea as prophesied and not rebuilt as prophesied.
I have seen a prophecy about Egyptian 40 year exile which is said not to have been fulfilled, but that is uncertain.

 

[Brian2]

The actual siege of Tyre bears no resemblance to the Biblical narrative, so it was not "fulfilled".
And as you pointed out, there is nothing that conclusively shows the account was written before the event.

The bottom line is that there are no "fulfilled prophesies" that stand up to examination. The fact that you consider the above to be your most convincing example clearly illustrates this.

I just used Tyre because it was chosen for me sort of. But it certainly was fulfilled except if you are an atheist and cannot read what is written in the prophecy.
I'm amazed that you think the prophecy could have been written after the event and that the writer got it wrong.

 

[Sheldon]

I just used Tyre because it was chosen for me sort of. But it certainly was fulfilled except if you are an atheist and cannot read what is written in the prophecy.

Uh uh, our survey said "no true Scotsman fallacy". Either the claim has merit or it does not, you can't simply create a subgroup to eliminate the opinions of anyone who dares to disagree with your assumptions about it.

However even if there were a so called prophecy that we couldn't explain, that doesn't make it evidence for anything supernatural, that's just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

 

[Brian2]

So Tyre will never be rebuilt? I'm sure the hundred thousand odd people currently living there may have something to say about that! There has been a city there for the last 2000+ years.
Also, Tyre was not destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The siege was ended politically and he never occupied it.
So the prophesy fails on at least two counts.

This is a problem I often encounter with the more dogmatic apologists. They simply accept a claim if it seems to support their existing position and don't bother to do any research to see if it is in any way factual.

I think you are the one who has not done your research.
Nebuchadnezzar defeated the mainland city and caused destruction but could not take the island. It seems Nebuchadnezzar started to build the causeway that Alexander later finished with and the mainland city was thrown into the sea 250 years later or so.
Ruins still remain on the mainland and it is now a world heritage site and has never been rebuilt.

 

[ratiocinator]

But it certainly was fulfilled except if you are an atheist and cannot read what is written in the prophecy.

Atheists can read what's in the prophecy, the difference is that we don't try to force it to fit what did happen, when what the prophecy said clearly didn't.

 

[Brian2]

Test it yourself.
Learn only the two first verses.
But learn them properly, in Hebrew.
If after that you find them remote from the big band description, I will happily accept your "What?!"

I have heard that idea before but imo after the heavens and earth were created the earth was covered in cloud and had an ocean and that is why there was darkness on the face of the deep and the Spirit of God was moving on the waters.
Science actually agrees with the cloud and ocean bits.
Other parts of the Bible also agree with that understanding imo.
Job 38:4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
6 On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone—
7 while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

 

[Brian2]

Propaganda? If one wants to claim that prophecy is evidence of a superhuman prescience, don't you think the prophecies should be superhuman? Biblical prophecy isn't even as good as scientific prophecy, and nobody claims that it is evidence of divinity. Consider the prediction of the Higgs boson. It was extremely specific, specifying the mass, spin, charge, etc., it was improbable, and it definitely preceded the discovery. So great was the confidence in this prophecy, that an extremely large, complicated, and expensive machine was built to find it, and lo and behold, as foretold, there it was.

• "Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science?" - Carl Sagan

As you note, skeptics object to anything weaker than this.

The Bible prophecies are accurate but science has had more failed prophecies than not and they cannot really be said to be in the same class as Biblical prophecies. Science prophecies rely on knowing something to predict something else from it. Biblical prophecies know nothing of the distant future and just say what will happen.
And yes the Bible prophecies are about events in the future and not about the existence of one thing if another idea is correct and the Bible prophecies are not reliant on something like astronomical mathematical calculations to predict an eclipse or something.
You are really comparing chalk and cheese.

 

[Brian2]

Atheists can read what's in the prophecy, the difference is that we don't try to force it to fit what did happen, when what the prophecy said clearly didn't.

If you can read then you will know that the Tyre prophecy happened.

 

[Brian2]

Uh uh, our survey said "no true Scotsman fallacy". Either the claim has merit or it does not, you can't simply create a subgroup to eliminate the opinions of anyone who dares to disagree with your assumptions about it.

However even if there were a so called prophecy that we couldn't explain, that doesn't make it evidence for anything supernatural, that's just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

I like to see the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible as evidence of the supernatural.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mainland part that was demolished and thrown into the sea was not rebuilt. Much of the ruin is there today even and is a world heritage site. The Island part became a peninsula because of the causeway that Alexander the Great made when besieging the Island.
Tyre never regained it's importance as a port and trading centre.
imo it will never be rebuilt, but that is not proven even though the rest of the prophecy has happened.

And if you read the Bible and understood it, or studied history you would know that Tyre was the island. Early Christian historians tried to come up with the "mainland Tyre" nonsense but when one studies the history the Island was the source of power then and had been for quite some time. In the Bible they are very clear to separate the island from "its settlements".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like to see the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible as evidence of the supernatural.

But once again, the Bible lacks those. Some of the Bible is "history written as prophecy". There is even a term for this but it is too early in the morning for me to try to Google it for you. Other examples were failed prophecies from the start because they are excessively vague. Here are some standards that Biblical prophesies need to meet if one wants to claim that it is a fulfilled prophecy. If you do not like any of the standards you need to explain why they are not valid. I can explain why they are proper standards:

Criteria for a true prophecy[edit]
For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements. TLDR: It's true.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical by definition foreknowledge can only come from the Bible itself, rather than modern reinterpretations of the text. TLDR: It's in plain words in the Bible.
3. It must be precise and unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if meaningless philosophical musings or multiple possible ideas could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional rather than accidental. TLDR: Vague "predictions" don't count.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence. TLDR: Lucky guesses don't count.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it. TLDR: Ideas of the time don't count.

 

[1213]

How much change must there be before we acknowledge that a new species has emerged? This idea that microevolution exists but not macroevolution is simply at odds with the amount of time that life has existed.

No intelligent reason to believe that life has existed millions of years. But, about how much change, I would accept for example if you could breed a mouse to a miniwhale.

 

[1213]

...
Tell us what you think qualifies as "real scientific evidence". ....

Something that can be repeatedly tested and gives the same result always (in same conditions) for anyone.