Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What you've just said makes no sense whatsoever. The point being made is that evolution is scientific, whereas the notion of a designer is inherently supernatural - and therefore, cannot be scientific.
Again, this makes no sense and reads extremely incoherently. How, exactly, can you test for creation scientifically? If I provided you with two objects that you have never seen before and told you that one was created and one was not, what specific features or qualities would you look for in those objects to be able to tell me whether or not they were created?
The Bible claims that birds and fish we created simultaneously and that land animals came after birds. This is utterly false. Also, the order a book says things were "created" in doesn't demonstrate anything about the truth value of the book or it's claims.
Then you are wrong. The genesis account has no basis in scientific reality whatsoever, and no evidence has ever come to light to support it.
Really? I missed that. Could you give me the biblical reference that explains particle physics and the theory of special relativity. Then we can tell the folks at the LHC in Cern they can go home and put their feet up. They could do with a day off.
Where are any of those things mentioned in the Bible? And, please, do not cite any vague passages that could literally mean anything you want them to.
Where????
How can you do that? The concept of the world being created is absolutely dependent on the existence of a creator - you cannot claim one without evoking the other - whereas evolution and abiogenesis are completely different. You can easily claim "life changes over time" without claiming "the origin of life is the result of nothing more than chemical processes", but you cannot claim "life is created" without evoking the necessity of a creator. That makes no sense.
Then it's already been falsified. We know the Universe is not the result of merely seven days and we know that life is the result of lengthy evolutionary processes and that species were not simply magically poofed into existence.
This is just brazenly false. There would be any number of means to falsify evolution if evolution weren't true. The truth is that no single fact has ever come to light that contradicts evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life. If there are, and evolutionists have simply "made up a story about it" to "sort it", please give an example.
But they didn't get any scientific facts accurate. There's no science in genesis whatsoever, just a mythical fable.
Then please explain why nobody seemed to know this until science found it out hundreds (if not thousands) of years later. If it was in the Bible, why did science need to "re-discover" it? You're just reading into the Bible. Just like what you accused evolutionists of doing, all you are doing is taking facts that do not fit with the account given in your bronze-age texts and trying to make it fit by re-interpreting the script. You can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say if you twist the meaning of the words - this is what makes the Bible, and genesis specifically, unreliable, untestable and unfalsifiable. No matter how many facts are produced that totally and utterly contradict them, you can just twist the vague sentences and words to mean something else.
You are not qualified to make that assessment, unless you can demonstrate that evolution did not happen.
That, again, is bogus. Evolution is absolutely falsifiable and testable - it has and continues to be tested by thousands of scientists every single day. To say evolution is unfalsifiable is just plain wrong, and to continue to state that it is is nothing more than attempting to spread misinformation.
But it's a fixed story that you can just change the meaning of. I've already pointed out that the Bible says that birds came before land animals, were formed at the same time as fish, and that all land animals aside from humans were created simultaneously. These claims are all utterly refuted. They run completely contrary to what we observe in reality and every single fact that is relevant to the subject.
Again, nonsense. Scientists do not just "invent" unknowns. They hypothesize a creature, then they go out and find it. Evolutionary paleontology is rife with examples of scientists using evolution as a model with which to accurately predict the existence and whereabouts of specific transitional forms, then going out and finding fossils that fit those predictions exactly. Scientists in this field never rest on their assumptions, nor do they rest on the mountains of evidence they already possess - work is constantly being done in the subject. To misrepresent their hard work as "hand waving" is disrespectful to them and the work they do in all fields of science every day, and shows a distinct lack of any kind of understanding of the scientific process that each and every one of them undertakes.
Which is totally the opposite of what all the facts indicate.
Same to you
I didn't write Genesis.
I do find it remarkable the implications....
at a time when such story telling could not be reasoned.
Perhaps you might take an intelligent guess...the making of such a tale?
Why would an old man of eighty...tell such a story?
He went up on a mount, and came back with something for which there would no need or reason.
Or maybe....
Moses did ask...and God did answer.
Irrelevant speculation involving supernatural interventionism to promote anthropocentrism.
How are we different?