Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[David M]

Not as bad as you messed up your genealogy, I guess. Pretending you belong to a royal blood, [master race], when you are just like the others celebrating ignorance.

Where did I pretend I belong to royal blood. I challenge you to substantiate your dishonest claim or retract it. If you do neither you will just make yourself look even more foolish.

My post about genealogy was:

Strange, my family can be traced back over 500 years and in a patchy way up to 1000 years ago when the family name first arrived in the UK. Maybe the difference is that some people (i.e. my father and his cousins) are willing to make a serious effort while others just like to meander along celebrating ignorance.

Where is any mention of a "master race" in there. Unless you are proposing that the British are the "master race" which is an interesting claim as we are a mix of many people: Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Irish, Vikings from a number of places, Normans (who were of Viking descent), Romani, Huguenots and many others. I am 1/16th Dutch on my fathers side and that is only from 2 generations ago.

Perhaps you are ignorant of the standards of historic record keeping in the UK, mainly by the church in the form of birth, marriage and death records which extends back to the 1600's (and earlier) in a pretty comprehensive form. Added to that is nearly 2 centuries of official census data so its not uncommon for anyone in the UK to be able to trace their genealogy back centuries, especially if their surname is uncommon.

 

[David M]

LK 2:2 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.
LK 2:3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

Which should mean their city of residence, which was the way that a Roman census was carried out.

 

[gnostic]

Where did I pretend I belong to royal blood. I challenge you to substantiate your dishonest claim or retract it. If you do neither you will just make yourself look even more foolish.

I have stated that my family name is very similar to that of Zhou dynasty, but I wasn't making it as if I came from that house. The Chau family name is quite common in China.

But I have inclination to trace my ancestors, because I couldn't care less of such connection, because it would be pointless and meaningless to me, not to mention it is often unreliable.

That was my point to JM2C, genealogical history are unreliable. Family names get changed, over time. And I have no desire to be of royal line or ancestry.

But JM2C jumped to the conclusion as he normally do, that I was making claims that I was of royal line. The names are just similar, that's all.

But with some people, it is important to have the connection, like that of Jesus. And the genealogies given in two gospels, showed contradictions, embellishment and omissions. They were both invented so to connect Jesus, to David, through Joseph. But if Jesus wasn't Joseph's son as both gospels claimed that he wasn't, their is connection between Jesus and David.

And even then, I think David is a mythological figure, and the two authors just wanted connect Jesus to David, as a propaganda to boost Jesus' claim as the prophesied messiah, though Jesus didn't fulfill one iota of the messianic prophecies.

JM2C also brought up Matthew 1:23...

1. but anyone with a brain, who have read Isaiah 7 & 8, could see that the sign had nothing to do with the messiah and nothing to do with Jesus, because the sign related to the war in Ahaz and Isaiah's time, with the two enemy kings (Rezin and Pekah) and to the then king of Assyria.
2. And anyone with eyes and brains could see that Immanuel is really Maher-shalal-hash-baz, son of Isaiah, because the sign in 8:3-4 is very similar to that of 7:14-17,
3. and 8:18 clearly stated that Isaiah and his sons were the signs.

But of course, jm2c will no doubt ignore everything in those 2 chapters, just as many Christians that are like him will blindly follow Matthew's claim.

 

[Bunyip]

Is that your opinion or are you basing this argument from facts? They are not returning “to their places of birth for census”. Most Judeans were from the tribe of Judah. IOW, they don’t have to leave Judea if they belong to the tribe of Judah, right?


Only those who live in another city or were born and raised in another city that belongs to the tribe of Judah were the one traveling to register to their own city.


LK 2:3 And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.

LK 2:4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,

Yes, and of course that is not how a census works. People stay at their place of business, the idea of them going back to their places of birth is ridiculous..
Also as I sad, Herod was dead.

 

[Bunyip]

I know that at the very least least Pegg is not much like JayJayDee.
At least here on RF.

I do not agree with much of Pegg's beliefs, but I do respect and like her.

Agreed.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And in the gospel of Matthew (GoM), there were no mention of Roman census in his account of Jesus' birth. In fact, there is no mention of Joseph and pregnant Mary travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem. It would seemed that they were already living in Bethlehem.
The only time Nazareth is mentioned, is when Joseph decided it was not safe to live in Judaea, when he heard news that Herod's son Archelaus was in power, so they migrated from Egypt to Nazareth.
The GoM clearly telling a very different story to that of the GoL.
Personally I think both gospels invented their own nativity stories. That's why their stories are different.

There is one gospel with 4 different writers.

There does Not have to be two mentions about why they traveled to Bethlehem.

The gospel accounts are Not repeats. Luke adds details not mentioned by Matthew:

Luke 2:4 from Galilee - out of Nazareth to Judaea - Bethlehem ( Micah 5:2 Bethlehem-Ephrathah)
Then later when Jesus was 40 days old his parents took Jesus to Jerusalem - verse 22
Then, in verse 39 they returned ' home ' from Jerusalem to Galilee to Nazareth
The magi followed the star to ->Jerusalem ( they were never at the manger )
By the time they found Jesus - Matthew 2:9-11 - Jesus was a child in a house with Mary.
That house would have been in Nazareth.
From their house in Nazareth - Matthew 2:14 - to Egypt.
Then, from Egypt back home to Nazareth - verses 19 -23

 

[gnostic]

The gospel of Matthew (GoM) make no mention of census or of travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem.

While GoM mentioned going to exile in Egypt, while the gospel of Luke (GoL) make no mention of that journey to Egypt, nor the threat to Jesus' life by Herod. That would be a very important details to leave out.

I see that both stories were invented by two different authors, and neither stories could confirm the other.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That's better. Thank you, URAVIP2ME.
Truthfully, I have not read works either authors, but you originally wrote:
There lie my confusion.

Sorry for my ' synapse error ' and thank you for keeping an eye on what I posted.

 

[JayJayDee]

I'm guessing that you don't consider any non-JWs to be "true" Christians anyway.

Anyone who claims to be a Christian is not going to promote an idea that paints God as a liar. The Genesis account is not negotiable by "theistic evolutionists" who want to maintain a foot in both camps. That is called compromise and allows one to exhibit a sham form of Christianity whilst keeping in the good books with their peers in the scientific world. I am sorry but I have no time for wishy-washy Christians who try to justify themselves for personal benefit. (Rev 3:15, 16)
If they want to swallow the party line...let them. It's their choice. God forces no one to believe in him or to promote him correctly. He knows who the real Christians are.

However, a person doesn't have to be a JW in order to believe in a Creator. To say that one can either believe in a Creator or accept evolution, but not both, is a false dichotomy. What exactly prevents someone from, say, believing that the Universe was fine-tuned by God to allow humans to develop via evolution? Theistic evolutionists do exist.

The term "theistic evolutionist" is a creation of man. Does God acknowledge such a person? We will see. (Matt 7:21-23)
To claim belief in a Creator means what? Even the devil believes in a Creator.
Obeying the Creator is a whole other issue.

The Bible does not allow for the theory of evolution to be the way that all life originated on this planet. The order of creation is written as it was revealed by God. It began in the oceans and ended with man. Science supports this. But there was no morphing or gradual changes that led one species to become another. Adaptive changes in living creatures does not stretch that far. Grass and trees are not our ancestors. Whales were "designed" to live in the ocean. Land animals were "designed" to live on land and their food source was "designed" for them to eat. The Genesis "kinds" do not allow it to be a progressive morphing of one "kind" into another. People can believe whatever they choose. We are all allowed to do that. Just don't try to justify ourselves to the one who knows what we think and why we think it. He knows when we are just playing our cards in order to become acceptable to others. Compromise will not save anyone.

Alternatively, one can just as well believe that evolution is false while disbelieving in a deity (they may hold that some other, possibly as yet undiscovered, mechanism was responsible for our development).

Man will never stop trying to make God go away. Evolution is a relative newcomer on the worldly scene. I do not believe that it is a co-incidence that it appeared just as the "last days" of this present world system began. This is the period when the Bible says that satan goes all out in his efforts to get humans to leave God. He is manipulating things behind the scenes, using man's ego and desire for prominence as a very successful weapon against him. The Bible says that when Jesus shows himself as judge of all the world, that people are not going to repent....they are going to be angry....very, very angry. Much the same as the people of Noah's day reacted when the flood waters swirled around their feet. It was too late to get to the place of safety. I know not many will believe this, but a warning has to be given. (Matt 24:36-39)

We are telling people everywhere to wake up and see evolution for what it really is....a fake form of science that relies on biased interpretation of their "evidence". The fact that it is promoted by the big guns of science is appealing to the egos of humans who do not want to appear to be "stupid" for believing anything else. Peer pressure doesn't just work on teenagers you know.

That sounds awfully close to a form of "argumentum ad Hitlerum": If a concept originated in a white supremacist political system, then it's bad, regardless of what the concept is or what it has to deal with.

Seriously, there is no point to this argument. Evolution will continue to convince unbelievers that God had no part in their creation. (2 Cor 4:3, 4) Believers have a choice...stand up for what the word of God teaches, or sell out to the world. I will never sell sell out to the world....no matter how foolish I appear to others.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The gospel of Matthew (GoM) make no mention of census or of travelling from Galilee to Bethlehem.
While GoM mentioned going to exile in Egypt, while the gospel of Luke (GoL) make no mention of that journey to Egypt, nor the threat to Jesus' life by Herod. That would be a very important details to leave out.
I see that both stories were invented by two different authors, and neither stories could confirm the other.

It has been calculated that nearly 60% of Luke's gospel account is unique. That does Not make it wrong.
It has also been calculated that 42% of Matthew's account is Not found in the other 3 gospel accounts.

Matthew is focused on establishing Jesus as Messiah which that would have been of interest to a Jewish reader
Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14
Matthew 2 vs 1-6; Micah 5:2
Matthew 2 vs 13-18; Hosea 11:1; Jeremiah 31:15
Matthew 2:23; Isaiah 11:1

Mark's account written for non-Jews
Luke's account for people of all the nations.

 

[gnostic]

The gospel accounts are Not repeats. Luke adds details not mentioned by Matthew:

Luke 2:4 from Galilee - out of Nazareth to Judaea - Bethlehem ( Micah 5:2 Bethlehem-Ephrathah)
Then later when Jesus was 40 days old his parents took Jesus to Jerusalem - verse 22
Then, in verse 39 they returned ' home ' from Jerusalem to Galilee to Nazareth
The magi followed the star to ->Jerusalem ( they were never at the manger )
By the time they found Jesus - Matthew 2:9-11 - Jesus was a child in a house with Mary.
That house would have been in Nazareth.
From their house in Nazareth - Matthew 2:14 - to Egypt.
Then, from Egypt back home to Nazareth - verses 19 -23

That's tenuous claim, you trying to connect Luke's version to that of Matthew's.

Matthew made it quite clear that their home was already Bethlehem, so no need for travelling. And when Herod, instead of moving back home in Bethlehem, Joseph decided to move to Nazareth from Egypt, because of Archelaus (2:21-22).

22 But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23 There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.”

The last verse is very important... Did you notice the big red text I had highlighted?

That sound like Joseph have never been or live in Nazareth before Egypt. "There he made his home in a town called Nazareth" clearly suggested they have never lived in Nazareth till now, after Herod's death.

Why would Matthew's write that (2:23), if their home were already in Nazareth (as the GoL)?

You are not thinking logically and you are not reading the verses in GoM, because you are trying so hard to reconcile two different birth stories, only to make you sound foolish and very desperate.

That's the problem with Christian apologists, they make up all sort of desperate claims, just to reconcile different accounts of events, and failing miserably to grasp what is clearly in front of their faces.

 

[gnostic]

Matthew is focused on establishing Jesus as Messiah which that would have been of interest to a Jewish reader
Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14
Matthew 2 vs 1-6; Micah 5:2
Matthew 2 vs 13-18; Hosea 11:1; Jeremiah 31:15
Matthew 2:23; Isaiah 11:1

Mark's account written for non-Jews
Luke's account for people of all the nations.

And yet, none of those OT that GoM have used, relate to any messianic prophecies or signs. Matthew or whoever is the real author to that gospel, was using several signs that occurred after the events already happened (like Hosea 11:1, clearly referred to the Exodus, when the Israelites (child) were slaves in Egypt), or shortly before it happened (like 7:14-17, clearly referred to the war against Ahaz).

 

[Parsimony]

Anyone who claims to be a Christian is not going to promote an idea that paints God as a liar.

Christians who are theistic evolutionists aren't calling God a liar. Saying that a scripture is not literal is not the same as saying that the scripture is a lie.

The Genesis account is not negotiable by "theistic evolutionists" who want to maintain a foot in both camps. That is called compromise and allows one to exhibit a sham form of Christianity whilst keeping in the good books with their peers in the scientific world. I am sorry but I have no time for wishy-washy Christians who try to justify themselves for personal benefit. (Rev 3:15, 16)
If they want to swallow the party line...let them. It's their choice. God forces no one to believe in him or to promote him correctly. He knows who the real Christians are.

If a person professes acceptance of evolution (or anything, for that matter) for personal benefit, then they are doing it for the wrong reason. If one simultaneously finds the evidence for God and evolution to be compelling, then that would make them a theistic evolutionist. Belief isn't exactly a matter of choice. I can't spontaneously decide to believe that the world is flat, for example. Beliefs are formed involuntarily from reasoning about evidence.

The term "theistic evolutionist" is a creation of man. Does God acknowledge such a person? We will see. (Matt 7:21-23)
To claim belief in a Creator means what? Even the devil believes in a Creator.
Obeying the Creator is a whole other issue.

A person can accept evolution and still obey God. What about accepting evolution would prevent someone from being saved and following the Ten Commandments?

The Bible does not allow for the theory of evolution to be the way that all life originated on this planet. The order of creation is written as it was revealed by God. It began in the oceans and ended with man. Science supports this. But there was no morphing or gradual changes that led one species to become another. Adaptive changes in living creatures does not stretch that far. Grass and trees are not our ancestors. Whales were "designed" to live in the ocean. Land animals were "designed" to live on land and their food source was "designed" for them to eat. The Genesis "kinds" do not allow it to be a progressive morphing of one "kind" into another. People can believe whatever they choose. We are all allowed to do that. Just don't try to justify ourselves to the one who knows what we think and why we think it.

If you did some day find evidence that proved to you beyond doubt that evolutionary theory was correct, would you abandon God and the Bible or would you try to find a way to retain your religion?

He knows when we are just playing our cards in order to become acceptable to others. Compromise will not save anyone.

You think that the only reason a Christian would profess acceptance of evolution would be so that they will be accepted by others? If there are any who do that, then I agree that they are being dishonest. However, I know in my own case, I genuinely accepted evolution because I admitted to myself that I could no longer explain away the evidence. It didn't have to do with putting on a show for others.

Man will never stop trying to make God go away. Evolution is a relative newcomer on the worldly scene. I do not believe that it is a co-incidence that it appeared just as the "last days" of this present world system began. This is the period when the Bible says that satan goes all out in his efforts to get humans to leave God. He is manipulating things behind the scenes, using man's ego and desire for prominence as a very successful weapon against him. The Bible says that when Jesus shows himself as judge of all the world, that people are not going to repent....they are going to be angry....very, very angry. Much the same as the people of Noah's day reacted when the flood waters swirled around their feet. It was too late to get to the place of safety. I know not many will believe this, but a warning has to be given. (Matt 24:36-39)

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands evolution.

We are telling people everywhere to wake up and see evolution for what it really is....a fake form of science that relies on biased interpretation of their "evidence". The fact that it is promoted by the big guns of science is appealing to the egos of humans who do not want to appear to be "stupid" for believing anything else. Peer pressure doesn't just work on teenagers you know.

No amound of bias can alter isotopic ratios, genetic sequences or the location of fossils. Only a conspiracy could do such a thing (in which case, I'd need to see evidence of such a conspiracy, like leaked documents, names of whistle-blowers, etc.).

Seriously, there is no point to this argument.

That post was aimed at Popcorn and technically doesn't have to do with evolution but rather with classification schemes.

Evolution will continue to convince unbelievers that God had no part in their creation.

Anyone who disbelieves in God because of evolution has a serious misunderstanding of what evolution actually is.

(2 Cor 4:3, 4) Believers have a choice...stand up for what the word of God teaches, or sell out to the world. I will never sell sell out to the world....no matter how foolish I appear to others.

As I've explained before, accepting evolution is not the same as selling out.

 

[JayJayDee]

Christians who are theistic evolutionists aren't calling God a liar. Saying that a scripture is not literal is not the same as saying that the scripture is a lie.

Read the account again and tell me where you can see even a hint of evolution in the way God created living things.

Creatures arrived after God created the environments for them all to live in.....including man. Food supply was provided for each.....along with the right amount of oxygen in the mixture of gases that make up our atmosphere...enough to allow for a fire but not enough to explode if there was a flash of lightning, or if we lit a match.

Is the fact that our atmosphere is protected from objects from space by burning them up before they can eliminate life on this planet, just another fortunate co-incidence? When was the last time you heard about a mass extinction of human beings by a meteor?

And water....what an absolutely unique substance it is....where did it come from and why do all living things need it in order to exist? Can science artificially manufacture water?....or life for that matter?

Is it a co-incidence that our earth is just the right distance from the sun....and is just the right size and shape....and spins at precisely the right speed on the correct axis. Is it co-incidence that gravity just happens to anchor things to the earth so that everything doesn't fly off into outer space?

And another very fortunate accident is the fact that plant life breathes out what we breathe in and vice versa. The fact that there is no waste in nature because everything is brilliantly recycled, including the water that we drink. Without evaporation and precipitation extracting water out of a very salty ocean, no living thing could survive.

Are you beginning to see my problem with evolution being what science say it is? None of those things have anything to do with evolution, yet life could not exist without them. They are magnificently designed to support life.

Now can you tell me how any Christian can accept all that and still be true to their beliefs?
Doesn't it mean that you have to alter the meaning of Genesis to fit it into your chosen belief system?
Isn't that like science altering the meaning of a "theory" to promote it as a fact?
If God did all that, why would the purposeful design of all living things be a problem for him?

If one simultaneously finds the evidence for God and evolution to be compelling, then that would make them a theistic evolutionist. Belief isn't exactly a matter of choice. I can't spontaneously decide to believe that the world is flat, for example. Beliefs are formed involuntarily from reasoning about evidence.

What if the evidence is not as "convincing" as you have been led to believe? What if it is a complete but clever sham?
If you believe in the existence of the devil, then nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19) The master deceiver is out to turn hearts away from God. What better way than to undermine his ability to create with design and purpose?

A person can accept evolution and still obey God. What about accepting evolution would prevent someone from being saved and following the Ten Commandments?

If I gave you a nice big glass of cold water on a hot day, but then told you it was only a little bit poisoned....would you still drink it? What would persuade you to drink it?....thirst?....the degree of poison?.....the size of the glass?
Our belief in God cannot be swayed by "the world" and what it teaches. If we sell out to them, we have defected from the teachings of our Creator and all that the scriptures say he is. (1 John 2:15-17) Being made in his image and likeness is not the result of evolution. There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionists"....it's a man made term describing those who want to have a foot in both camps. True Christians can't do that. There is no room for compromise.

If you did some day find evidence that proved to you beyond doubt that evolutionary theory was correct, would you abandon God and the Bible or would you try to find a way to retain your religion?

I have examined the evidence for evolution very carefully....there is no proof. It is all supposition based on what a bunch of clever men believe "might have" or "could have" happened millions of years ago. There are no eyewitnesses except God and he has already told us what he he did. Make your choice...believe the word of God or the word of man.

I know in my own case, I genuinely accepted evolution because I admitted to myself that I could no longer explain away the evidence. It didn't have to do with putting on a show for others.

What if the evidence was all just a clever illusion? Would you know?....can you trust worldly men under influence from God's adversary to tell you the truth? Can evidence be misinterpreted by those who are looking to confirm a pre-conceived belief?

Evolutionary theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a deity. Anyone who says otherwise misunderstands evolution.

I have heard this excuse so many times.....I understand evolution perfectly well.....what I don't understand is, that if they do not discount the existence of a Creator, and he arrives one day to clear up the issue, where is that going to leave all those who put faith in evolution? Jesus said it was going to be like the days of Noah when he returns to judge the world. (Matt 24:36-39) Only those who put faith in God fully, will survive the judgment. Noah tried to tell the people of his day what was going to happen, but the weight of public opinion was so strong that no one listened. Are we seeing the same situation again? Confidence can be misplaced.
There are only "sheep" and "goats" in this world.......nothing in between. God knows what we are.

No amound of bias can alter isotopic ratios, genetic sequences or the location of fossils. Only a conspiracy could do such a thing (in which case, I'd need to see evidence of such a conspiracy, like leaked documents, names of whistle-blowers, etc.).

Never underestimate the devil's ability to deceive......the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world is about to be uncovered. Even those who classify themselves as Christians in good standing are in for a shock! Absolutely nothing is as it appears to be. What humans have put their faith in will be exposed as a gross satanic lie.

As I've explained before, accepting evolution is not the same as selling out.

It may not seem that way.....but how does God see it....his opinion is all that matters at the end of the day.

 

[Bunyip]

Read the account again and tell me where you can see even a hint of evolution in the way God created living things.

Creatures arrived after God created the environments for them all to live in.....including man. Food supply was provided for each.....along with the right amount of oxygen in the mixture of gases that make up our atmosphere...enough to allow for a fire but not enough to explode if there was a flash of lightning, or if we lit a match.

Is the fact that our atmosphere is protected from objects from space by burning them up before they can eliminate life on this planet, just another fortunate co-incidence? When was the last time you heard about a mass extinction of human beings by a meteor?

And water....what an absolutely unique substance it is....where did it come from and why do all living things need it in order to exist? Can science artificially manufacture water?....or life for that matter?

Is it a co-incidence that our earth is just the right distance from the sun....and is just the right size and shape....and spins at precisely the right speed on the correct axis. Is it co-incidence that gravity just happens to anchor things to the earth so that everything doesn't fly off into outer space?

And another very fortunate accident is the fact that plant life breathes out what we breathe in and vice versa. The fact that there is no waste in nature because everything is brilliantly recycled, including the water that we drink. Without evaporation and precipitation extracting water out of a very salty ocean, no living thing could survive.

Are you beginning to see my problem with evolution being what science say it is? None of those things have anything to do with evolution, yet life could not exist without them. They are magnificently designed to support life.

Now can you tell me how any Christian can accept all that and still be true to their beliefs?
Doesn't it mean that you have to alter the meaning of Genesis to fit it into your chosen belief system?
Isn't that like science altering the meaning of a "theory" to promote it as a fact?
If God did all that, why would the purposeful design of all living things be a problem for him?



What if the evidence is not as "convincing" as you have been led to believe? What if it is a complete but clever sham?
If you believe in the existence of the devil, then nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19) The master deceiver is out to turn hearts away from God. What better way than to undermine his ability to create with design and purpose?



If I gave you a nice big glass of cold water on a hot day, but then told you it was only a little bit poisoned....would you still drink it? What would persuade you to drink it?....thirst?....the degree of poison?.....the size of the glass?
Our belief in God cannot be swayed by "the world" and what it teaches. If we sell out to them, we have defected from the teachings of our Creator and all that the scriptures say he is. (1 John 2:15-17) Being made in his image and likeness is not the result of evolution. There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionists"....it's a man made term describing those who want to have a foot in both camps. True Christians can't do that. There is no room for compromise.



I have examined the evidence for evolution very carefully....there is no proof. It is all supposition based on what a bunch of clever men believe "might have" or "could have" happened millions of years ago. There are no eyewitnesses except God and he has already told us what he he did. Make your choice...believe the word of God or the word of man.



What if the evidence was all just a clever illusion? Would you know?....can you trust worldly men under influence from God's adversary to tell you the truth? Can evidence be misinterpreted by those who are looking to confirm a pre-conceived belief?



I have heard this excuse so many times.....I understand evolution perfectly well.....what I don't understand is, that if they do not discount the existence of a Creator, and he arrives one day to clear up the issue, where is that going to leave all those who put faith in evolution? Jesus said it was going to be like the days of Noah when he returns to judge the world. (Matt 24:36-39) Only those who put faith in God fully, will survive the judgment. Noah tried to tell the people of his day what was going to happen, but the weight of public opinion was so strong that no one listened. Are we seeing the same situation again? Confidence can be misplaced.
There are only "sheep" and "goats" in this world.......nothing in between. God knows what we are.



Never underestimate the devil's ability to deceive......the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world is about to be uncovered. Even those who classify themselves as Christians in good standing are in for a shock! Absolutely nothing is as it appears to be. What humans have put their faith in will be exposed as a gross satanic lie.



It may not seem that way.....but how does God see it....his opinion is all that matters at the end of the day.

If you thought god even existed, you would not lie in his name.

 

[JayJayDee]

If you thought god even existed, you would not lie in his name.

Now that is a deep and meaningful comment no doubt....but what does it have to do with the topic?

Is Intelligent design testable? No not really....not by human testing methods anyway.

Is organic evolution (as opposed to adaptation) testable? NO again...because the conclusions drawn depend on the interpretation of the "evidence" being accurate. I contest the accuracy of the conclusions based on the admissions of the scientists themselves. They are biased and see what they want to see. There were no eyewitnesses to the events, so what do you really have as evidence......it's all circumstantial, as I have said many times.

You keep inferring that I am lying...show me where I am lying.
I am exposing your pet theory for the fraud that it is....and you don't like it. If all you can do is chuck tantrums instead of substantiating your accusations, then the readers here are going to start thinking that this is all you can do.

 

[Bunyip]

Now that is a deep and meaningful comment no doubt....but what does it have to do with the topic?

Is Intelligent design testable? No not really....not by human testing methods anyway.

Great! Well that resolves the question of the OP. ID is untestable.

Is organic evolution (as opposed to adaptation) testable? NO again..

Yes of course it is. It was proven by direct observation more than a century ago.

because the conclusions drawn depend on the interpretation of the "evidence" being accurate. I contest the accuracy of the conclusions based on the admissions of the scientists themselves. They are biased and see what they want to see. There were no eyewitnesses to the events, so what do you really have as evidence......it's all circumstantial, as I have said many times.

You keep inferring that I am lying...show me where I am lying.
I am exposing your pet theory for the fraud that it is....and you don't like it. If all you can do is chuck tantrums instead of substantiating your accusations, then the readers here are going to start thinking that this is all you can do.

When you say that organic evolution is not testable (as in this post) that is a lie. And you know it.

 

[JayJayDee]

Great! Well that resolves the question of the OP. ID is untestable.

LOL but so is organic evolution.

It was proven by direct observation more than a century ago.

What is seen by direct observation is adaptation...not organic evolution. You keep missing this vital point....adaptation is not proof of organic evolution....it never was. No one was around to observe anything millions of years ago.

Was it you who provided the horse as proof of evolution? Never mind....the point was after 55 million years, this creature (if it ever was a horse ancestor) was still a four legged furry animal....and small horses still exist. Bad example. Got any others that do not require vast amounts of imagination to fill in the gaps?

 

[Bunyip]

LOL but so is organic evolution.

You asked me to point out where you are lying. That was a lie.

What is seen by direct observation is adaptation...not organic evolution. You keep missing this vital point....adaptation is not proof of organic evolution....it never was. No one was around to observe anything millions of years ago.

Was it you who provided the horse as proof of evolution? Never mind....the point was after 55 million years, this creature (if it ever was a horse ancestor) was still a four legged furry animal....and small horses still exist. Bad example. Got any others that do not require vast amounts of imagination to fill in the gaps?

Sure, take the direct observation of macro-evolution in drusophila. That you can all see as it happens.
Allele frequency changes have been observed. A change in allele frequencies is the very definition of evolution in biology, allele frequency changes, speciation and so on have all been observed.

 

[Parsimony]

Read the account again and tell me where you can see even a hint of evolution in the way God created living things.

I really don't, but I conclude that either it must be a metaphor of sorts or it is just wrong. The evidence for evolution is too compelling.

Creatures arrived after God created the environments for them all to live in.....including man.

Evolutionary theory says the same: creatures came after their environments did.

Food supply was provided for each.....along with the right amount of oxygen in the mixture of gases that make up our atmosphere...enough to allow for a fire but not enough to explode if there was a flash of lightning, or if we lit a match.

The level of oxygen in the atmosphere is not relevant to whether evolutionary theory is correct or not.

Is the fact that our atmosphere is protected from objects from space by burning them up before they can eliminate life on this planet, just another fortunate co-incidence? When was the last time you heard about a mass extinction of human beings by a meteor?

Not relevant to evolution.

And water....what an absolutely unique substance it is....where did it come from and why do all living things need it in order to exist? Can science artificially manufacture water?

Not relevant to evolution, but water is very easy to make. Burn hydrogen in oxygen and you have it.

....or life for that matter?

Not relevant to evolution.

Is it a co-incidence that our earth is just the right distance from the sun....and is just the right size and shape....and spins at precisely the right speed on the correct axis. Is it co-incidence that gravity just happens to anchor things to the earth so that everything doesn't fly off into outer space?

Not relevant to evolution.

And another very fortunate accident is the fact that plant life breathes out what we breathe in and vice versa.

Evolutionary theory doesn't hold that to be an accident either.

The fact that there is no waste in nature because everything is brilliantly recycled, including the water that we drink. Without evaporation and precipitation extracting water out of a very salty ocean, no living thing could survive.

Not relevant to evolution.

Are you beginning to see my problem with evolution being what science say it is? None of those things have anything to do with evolution, yet life could not exist without them. They are magnificently designed to support life.

Most of the above is more relevant to the "fine-tuning argument" than to evolution. Evolution is not at odds with a fine-tuned Universe, Solar System, Earth, etc.

Now can you tell me how any Christian can accept all that and still be true to their beliefs?

Yes. By professing that the God of the Bible exists and that He used evolution to create as it is today.

Doesn't it mean that you have to alter the meaning of Genesis to fit it into your chosen belief system?

Only if you want it to match the existing evidence.

Isn't that like science altering the meaning of a "theory" to promote it as a fact?

Except that's not what it does. No scientist is going to tell you that giving something a new label makes it a fact. It's all about evidence.

If God did all that, why would the purposeful design of all living things be a problem for him?

It wouldn't be. He could have if He wanted to. It's just that the evidence doesn't support the idea of all living things being created as-is from the beginning. Dating techniques reveal that the oldest fossils are unicellular, then come simple, brainless animals, then invertebrates, then vertebrates, etc. The fossil record is at odds with the idea that all known kinds of living things were planted on Earth in a single week. There are no mammals, reptiles, amphibians or birds in the same layer as trilobites, for example. That's an awful lot of missing "kinds".

What if the evidence is not as "convincing" as you have been led to believe? What if it is a complete but clever sham?

Then I would need tangible evidence of there having been a conspiracy involved.

If you believe in the existence of the devil, then nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19) The master deceiver is out to turn hearts away from God. What better way than to undermine his ability to create with design and purpose?

I would need direct evidence that evolution is some Satanic conspiracy.

If I gave you a nice big glass of cold water on a hot day, but then told you it was only a little bit poisoned....would you still drink it? What would persuade you to drink it?....thirst?....the degree of poison?.....the size of the glass?
Our belief in God cannot be swayed by "the world" and what it teaches. If we sell out to them, we have defected from the teachings of our Creator and all that the scriptures say he is. (1 John 2:15-17) Being made in his image and likeness is not the result of evolution.

The more proper analogy would be to say that you put some substance X in the water which you believe is a poison and I believe is not a poison. In that case, yes, I would drink it.

There is no such thing as a "theistic evolutionists"....

Of course there are. There are only two requirements: belief in a deity and acceptance of evolution. They don't even have to believe in the God of the Bible: they can believe in a different god. Still makes them theists.

it's a man made term describing those who want to have a foot in both camps. True Christians can't do that. There is no room for compromise.

Except for those Christians who feel it to be intellectually dishonest of them to deny evolutionary evidence. Like me.

I have examined the evidence for evolution very carefully....there is no proof. It is all supposition based on what a bunch of clever men believe "might have" or "could have" happened millions of years ago. There are no eyewitnesses except God and he has already told us what he he did. Make your choice...believe the word of God or the word of man.

You didn't answer my question.

What if the evidence was all just a clever illusion? Would you know?....

Are you implying that Satan planted fossils or altered the isotope ratios in rocks? If so, I'd need some evidence for that. Otherwise, we'd have to be paranoid that absolutely anything we find in nature could be a Satanic deception.

can you trust worldly men under influence from God's adversary to tell you the truth?

Again, that would suggest conspiracy. I need evidence for this.

Can evidence be misinterpreted by those who are looking to confirm a pre-conceived belief?

That would depend on the kind of evidence. There are some things that would simply have to involve conscious deception, however. Dating techniques are one. Creationist websites make it sound like dating techniques on fossils and rocks give random results and geologists simply choose which one of the measured dates is the "right" one. That would require covering up the discordant dates and silencing all new hires to not speak of those "wrong" dates. That would also mean that they are lying when they report different dating techniques matching each other. So, where is the evidence for such a cover-up? Where are the whistle-blowers and the leaked documents? This wouldn't just be a matter of pre-conceived bias, but of intentional deception.

I have heard this excuse so many times.....I understand evolution perfectly well.....what I don't understand is, that if they do not discount the existence of a Creator, and he arrives one day to clear up the issue, where is that going to leave all those who put faith in evolution?

It won't matter because God's existence is not at odds with evolution.

Jesus said it was going to be like the days of Noah when he returns to judge the world. (Matt 24:36-39) Only those who put faith in God fully, will survive the judgment. Noah tried to tell the people of his day what was going to happen, but the weight of public opinion was so strong that no one listened. Are we seeing the same situation again? Confidence can be misplaced.
There are only "sheep" and "goats" in this world.......nothing in between. God knows what we are.

Then He also knows that there are Christians who genuinely believe in and worship Him and profess the accuracy of evolutionary theory.

Never underestimate the devil's ability to deceive......the greatest conspiracy in the history of the world is about to be uncovered. Even those who classify themselves as Christians in good standing are in for a shock! Absolutely nothing is as it appears to be. What humans have put their faith in will be exposed as a gross satanic lie.

So we're back to Satan planting fossils and altering isotope ratios? Again, I need evidence for this.

It may not seem that way.....but how does God see it....his opinion is all that matters at the end of the day.

"Selling out" implies an attempt to change oneself for the sake of conformity or personal benefit. That is not the same as being convinced by evidence.