Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[First Baseman]

So, how do you account for the success of modern science?

Where science has been interpreted or assumed to be contradictory to God's word it is just scientists assuming the wrong theories.

You do realize that neither has evolution been proven, it has not even been accepted by all scientists as absolute truth. Indeed, macro-evolution cannot be proven as fact. Unless you know someone who has lived for millions of years. I don't buy into all the dating methods scientists use, they are all based on assumptions, for example. All of the current theories are based on wild speculation that has been assumed as truth, much like axioms are.

 

[First Baseman]

If you think that millions of years and macro-evolution have been proven as fact you have been grossly misled.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You do realize that neither has evolution been proven,

Nothing in science is ever "proven".

it has not even been accepted by all scientists as absolute truth.

Why should it? Does something have to be universally accepted in order to be true?

Indeed, macro-evolution cannot be proven as fact.

It already has been. Genetics, archaeology and ERV inserts make it a logical certainty.

Unless you know someone who has lived for millions of years.

So you think the only way to know something is true is if someone has direct, first hand account of it? Then you literally shouldn't believe 99.9% of what you believe.

I don't buy into all the dating methods scientists use, they are all based on assumptions, for example.

What assumptions? What do you know about the science behind modern scientific dating methods?

All of the current theories are based on wild speculation that has been assumed as truth, much like axioms are.

All you have really done is make claims. I would like to see some evidence and reason to support them, if there is any.

 

[First Baseman]

W
Why should it? Does something have to be universally accepted in order to be true?

All you have really done is make claims. I would like to see some evidence and reason to support them, if there is any.

1. No. Something has to be absolutely true before I will accept it as truth, however. I guess you and I don't have the same standards for truth.

2. I have presented several web references. You either missed them or dismissed them out of hand. Your loss, not mine.

 

[Shad]

If you go back and look at my post you are referring to I in no way implied that archaeology confirms everything in Exodus. Go back and read it again. You are arguing with the wind here.

You argued against an example in which inerrancy is false. If you do not support inerrancy that is fine but why argue against the example. Either you are backpedaling or didn't understand my point

You start off by claiming I am guilty of a Straw Man and do exactly that in your next paragraph. How do you expect me to take you seriously when you do that?

You argued against an example that shows inerrancy to be false. You made this argue thus my conclusion is not only reasonable but easy to make. Maybe be more careful in what you post.

Your anti-Christian bias bleeds profusely. Let it bleed full force or put a tourniquet on it. I can see it clear as day in your posts.

You are making excuse for your errors and now blame me for your mistakes. You have yet to provide the evidence you claim exists.

I have no issues with those that do not follow literalism and inerrancy doctrine. They do not reject evidence in order to maintain their ideology as evangelical and other fundamentalist do.

 

[Blastcat]

The earth and everything else except Humans and Jinnys are obeyers.

Some words and means are newers invented .


If it's about language it's Arabic language,and Quran down with antic Arabic langauge.

Why don't you post a thread about in Islam DIR, they had better English than me ?

Sorry

If it's about language, we need translators. You offer yours, I offer mine.
I suppose now we have to fight over what translation is better, and I can't do that.

I'm going to always defer to the translators, and they don't seem to be able to help us out very much for that passage. I guess it can be interpreted in different ways, so we can have different meanings. Some of those meanings have NOTHING at all to do with the expansion of the universe, of course, and consequently, nothing at all to do with the Big Bang theory.

 

[Godobeyer]

If it's about language, we need translators. You offer yours, I offer mine.
I suppose now we have to fight over what translation is better, and I can't do that.

I'm going to always defer to the translators, and they don't seem to be able to help us out very much for that passage. I guess it can be interpreted in different ways, so we can have different meanings. Some of those meanings have NOTHING at all to do with the expansion of the universe, of course, and consequently, nothing at all to do with the Big Bang theory.

That's your opinion ,it's had nothing to do with me

 

[Shad]

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/does-archaeology-support-the-bible/

Laymen voicing an opinion nothing more.

Gen 1-11 The Babylonian stories predate the Biblical ones by centuries, includes tablets with the story. This argument is backwards. The Bible supports the Babylonia mythology not the other way around.

Gen 11-36 Ur was inhabited for centuries, until 500BCE. However you site misses one major issues. Ur in the text is Ur Kaśdim which is Ur of the Chaldees. However the Chaldeans didn't rule the city until 700 BCE. The
Hittites claim is hilarious considering their Empire didn't exist during Abe's time. There is also an issue in which the Hittites are identified as a Canaanite group not one from Anatolia.

I can address the rest of the tripe posted if need be. However take a look at the sources. One is just a reference to their own work. Another is to Eric Lyons who has no degrees in archaeology. His book is based on inerrancy, nothing more. Albright is the one archaeologist they mentioned. However his theories have been refuted for decades, most by his own students. All AIG has done is reference out of date work...

I would also point out this disclaimer

"We have not said, “Archaeology proves the Bible,” and we do not suggest it. To do so would be quite wrong, even though such a statement is often made by those introducing a lecturer on biblical archaeology. The Bible itself is the absolute; archaeology is not. If archaeology could prove the Bible, archaeology would be greater than the Bible, but it is not. The Bible comes with the authority of almighty God. It is His Word, and He is greater than all else."

That is open bias, inerrancy and literalism doctrine.

http://www.gotquestions.org/archaeology-Bible.html

No sources just statements. Dismissed for this reason.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/archaeology-increasingly-proving-bible-be-reliable-source-history

The Caiaphas ossuary are not accepted as authentic by all archaeologist. Beside even granting that it is authentic does nothing for the whole text.

I could go on and on. For you to say there is no archaeological evidence to prove the Bible is just not true and proves you do not approach the Bible with a neutral attitude. Your bias defines you.

Bring up bias when you can avoid using apologist websites and blogs.

 

[Shad]

If experts in archaeology, history, and theology are NOT convinced, WHY are lay people so positive?

It comes down due being indoctrinated in a doctrine like inerrancy then defending it tooth and nail regardless of evidence against such a view.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. No. Something has to be absolutely true before I will accept it as truth, however. I guess you and I don't have the same standards for truth.

No, you just have a different standard for evidence of claims which contradict your preconceived beliefs.

2. I have presented several web references. You either missed them or dismissed them out of hand. Your loss, not mine.

Your best evidence is a few websites? My best evidence is the overwhelming consensus of scientists and evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

The fact that you can't prove squat has already well been established. Try not to let your pride overload your mouth - or keyboard - you'll live longer, I promise.

You need to make evidence supported claims or to falsify my claims rather than wasting bandwidth with personal attacks, they do not bother me and do not help you to make your point.

 

[Blastcat]

That's your opinion ,it's had nothing to do with me

Yeah, usually my opinions have nothing to do with other people's opinions.

 

[McBell]

If you think that millions of years and macro-evolution have been proven as fact you have been grossly misled.

this is nothing more than a seriously misinformed opinion.

 

[McBell]

1. No. Something has to be absolutely true before I will accept it as truth, however.

Demonstratively false.
In fact, YOU have demonstrated that your above statement as written is flat out false.

I guess you and I don't have the same standards for truth.

I know your inability to distinguish fact from belief makes it rather difficult to take you seriously.

2. I have presented several web references. You either missed them or dismissed them out of hand. Your loss, not mine.

You have thoroughly demonstrated your exceptional skills of ratification.
Problem is that ratification only impresses the choir.

 

[rusra02]

So you believe that god could not have created an animal that can evolve?

I believe the scientific evidence supports the Bible record of how God did create plants and animals "according to their kinds" , and that the first human couple were created by God, not a product of evolution.

 

[Blastcat]

I believe the scientific evidence supports the Bible record of how God did create plants and animals "according to their kinds" , and that the first human couple were created by God, not a product of evolution.

What "scientific evidence" are you talking about? The "scientific evidence" supports evolution, that's why we HAVE ToE in science, not creationism, after all.

And you forgot to answer the question. Do you think that an all-powerful creator god could NOT create life by way of evolution and that Genesis is a poetical account like so many other theists and non theists think?

Many theists believe in their creator god AND ToE. Why can't you do that?

 

[McBell]

I believe the scientific evidence supports the Bible record of how God did create plants and animals "according to their kinds" , and that the first human couple were created by God, not a product of evolution.

How is this nothing more than hiding behind your god?

 

[First Baseman]

logical certainty; not fact, absolute truth.

Logical certainty is what gets scientists to come up with all of the wrong theories in the first place. You will find no absolute truth in logical certainty. If they are so logically certain, then why do they need to change and modify their theories each decade? Obviously they are not so certain.

As a matter of fact it was proven by Kurt Godel that no formal logical closed system can possibly be consistent. Logical certainty gets people into all kinds of trouble. Good luck with it.

 

[viole]

logical certainty; not fact, absolute truth.

Logical certainty is what gets scientists to come up with all of the wrong theories in the first place. You will find no absolute truth in logical certainty.

As a matter of fact it was proven by Kurt Godel that no formal logical closed system can possibly be consistent. Logical certainty gets people into all kinds of trouble. Good luck with it.

Wrong, sorry. Kurt proved that only for formal systems that have the same power, at least, as arithmetic.

You can have finite formal systems that can give you absolute certainty. They are called tautologies. For instance, I am absolutely certain that there are no married bachelors.

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

Wrong, sorry. Kurt proved that only for formal systems that have the same power, at least, as arithmetic.

You can have finite formal systems that can give you absolute certainty. They are called tautologies. For instance, I am absolutely certain that there are no married bachelors.

Ciao

- viole

Opinion noted.