Math, who has more faith than evolutionist?

[rusra02]

Exactly

Yet, what it does say about scientific matters is absolutely accurate. Can't say that about any biology textbook written by men.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Yet, what it does say about scientific matters is absolutely accurate. Can't say that about any biology textbook written by men.

A book written by men vs. a book written by men claiming to be written by God.

Not that much difference.

I'd also like to know how you know it's "absolutely accurate", given its constant lack of internal and external consistency.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Yet, what it does say about scientific matters is absolutely accurate.

According to a huge majority of all scientists, no it isn't scientifically accurate.

 

[rusra02]

A book written by men vs. a book written by men claiming to be written by God.

Not that much difference.

I'd also like to know how you know it's "absolutely accurate", given its constant lack of internal and external consistency.

Why do you say the Bible lacks consistency? To the contrary, though written over a period of 16 centuries by over 40 men, the Bible displays remarkable consistency in it's message and theme.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Why do you say the Bible lacks consistency? To the contrary, though written over a period of 16 centuries by over 40 men, the Bible displays remarkable consistency in it's message and theme.

Would you be willing to drink poison to prove it?

 

[rusra02]

According to a huge majority of all scientists, no it isn't scientifically accurate.

And yet, these scientists must constantly change their theories. The Bible, completed almost 20 centuries ago, does not not change and has not successfully been proven inaccurate, despite centuries of efforts to do so.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And yet, these scientists must constantly change their theories. The Bible, completed almost 20 centuries ago, does not not change and has not successfully been proven inaccurate, despite centuries of efforts to do so.

The Bible doesn't change and that is exactly why is has been inaccurate for centuries. Your denial of the evidence doesn't make it true.

 

[rusra02]

Would you be willing to drink poison to prove it?

Are you referring to the spurious verses in Mark 16:18? As mentioned in another topic in this forum, that verse and several others at the end of Mark were added centuries after Mark's gospel was written, and these verses are almost universally rejected by Bible scholars as an uninspired appendage. There were other attempts to add spurious verses to the Bible, and these also have been discovered and rejected. 1 John 5:7, often used to support the false Trinity doctrine, is an example.

 

[rusra02]

The Bible doesn't change and that is exactly why is has been inaccurate for centuries. Your denial of the evidence doesn't make it true.

What evidence?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What evidence?

For starters, plants rely on the sun for photosynthesis. How can plants be created before the sun and survive?

 

[`mud]

90 Plus posts already ???
Without totally reading the entire thread, and I will eventually,
the question was asked: "....who has more faith than evolutionist?", with an "s" at the end,
the answer must be: "..any common maggot."
Or: "...people with an inward sense of rationality."
And I might and: "....a lack of fear of an imaginary god."
~
`mud

 

[mycorrhiza]

And yet, these scientists must constantly change their theories. The Bible, completed almost 20 centuries ago, does not not change and has not successfully been proven inaccurate, despite centuries of efforts to do so.

I wouldn't say constantly, but that science changes is something good. How would our view on evolution look if we had stayed with Lamarck's mechanisms? The Bible stays the same, despite all the evidence against it.

Flowering plants came after the animals, yet the Bible wasn't changed to say this. We also know now that the sun existed long before plants did, yet the Bible hasn't changed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you say the Bible lacks consistency? To the contrary, though written over a period of 16 centuries by over 40 men, the Bible displays remarkable consistency in it's message and theme.

Should you answer a fool according to his folly?

Edit: do unicorns actually exist?

 

[painted wolf]

Are you referring to the spurious verses in Mark 16:18? As mentioned in another topic in this forum, that verse and several others at the end of Mark were added centuries after Mark's gospel was written, and these verses are almost universally rejected by Bible scholars as an uninspired appendage. There were other attempts to add spurious verses to the Bible, and these also have been discovered and rejected. 1 John 5:7, often used to support the false Trinity doctrine, is an example.

I thought you said the Bible never changes? Which is it?

Have people altered the Bible or is the Bible unchanging?

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

And yet, these scientists must constantly change their theories. The Bible, completed almost 20 centuries ago, does not not change and has not successfully been proven inaccurate, despite centuries of efforts to do so.

the bible has never been accurate, it contains much well known mythology :slap:


your also passing on copmplete misinformation based on severe ignorance

the bible changed dramatically on EVERY PAGE WRITTTEN there has never been a book changed so much as the bible.

the book evolved for a thousand years, copies and redactions in the billions.



even what you call god evolved from pagan deities worshipped prior to Israelites existance.


you sir could be called out for purposely promoting misinformation :slap:

 

[secret2]

And yet, these scientists must constantly change their theories. The Bible, completed almost 20 centuries ago, does not not change and has not successfully been proven inaccurate, despite centuries of efforts to do so.

"A broken clock is right twice a day."

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Well let me go over a few mathematical calculations and you tell me this isn't faith or agenda based. I really want your explanation to explain these, Please.

1. According to known historical records the world's population doubles every 100 yrs.

source please.

2.The coded instructions in DNA of a human cell would fill 4,000 encyclopedia books of information. Lets even assume evolution were true, the probabilities of mutations and natural selection to produce that much info is zero. Why you ask?

Evolutionist assume that, and I have been told this on here many times also, given enough time all things are possible. Well lets analyze that for a second. Evolutionist have stated that given that much length of time, in the millions or billions of yrs a monkey could type the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica. Ironically it has been calculated that by random trials just to type the TITLE "Encyclopedia Brittanica would happen only once in 10 to the 39th power. For comparison sake this is like saying it is the same as one monkey sitting on every square foot of the earth's surface stacked 10 miles deep and being able to with only one attempt every second for 10 billion years. Do you realize we are only talking about the TITLE not even the whole series of the Encyclopedia.

The odds of natural process producing the information on a SINGLE strand of DNA exceeds the total no. of subatomic particles within the entire known universe.

[youtube]5sUQIpFajsg[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker - 2/5 - YouTube

start at 4 minutes into the video. and continue watching the rest of the 5 parts.

3. At one time living cells were considered no more complex than empty table tennis balls. As knowledge has increased is has become apparent that thousands of SPECIFIC and COMPLEX chemicals are required for any form of life to exist and survive.

EVOLUTIONIST Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism to be 10 to the 340,000,000 power! This is equivalent to having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand. There isn't enough time for this to occur and that is just for the simplest not counting more complex and evolving to higher forms. 5 Billion years doesn't give you enough time and in reality all of eternity wouldn't give it enough time by random process to form the enormous complexity of life.

Source Please

4. The simplest conceivable form of life is bacteria. Did you realize it contains at least 600 protein molecules? Each one performs a specific function by fitting into other molecules shaped in exact 3 dimensional spacial arrangements. They work like a key fitting into a lock-only specifically shaped protein. Yet, there are multiple trillion possible combinations of protein molecules and shapes. How did this happen by random chance and multiple times as evolution became more complex along the way?

Did you also know that most scientist agree and acknowledge that probability odds of 10 to the 50th power to be impossible?

So who uses faith with this type of mathematics probability! Yet taught as "fact" and esp for so many in present generation without telling about this. What could that mean?

You are not talking about evolution here at all. Evolution is progressive. It builds upon what is already there.

5. The SCIENCE, yes I said SCIENCE of stats proves evolution is not possible. For example for life to form all things must happen in exactly correct sequence and amounts and exact correct way.

If you only took 6 components needing to be combined in specific order, the six factorial no. of possibilities is 720. (6x5x4x3x2x1).

The simplest form of life requires thousands of specific chemicals in correct sequence. Lets for arguments sake say it only takes 200 the factorial is (200x199x198 so on until you get to one). This means by natural random chance this process can occur only once every 10 to the 375th power. Problem is only the right combination can result in a living cell.

Compare that to the total no. of electrons that could be placed into the space available within the entire universe is only 10 to the 130th power, which statistically by scientist is IMPOSSIBLE. All this happens by random chance?
Yet despite the math it is taught as fact. I find that interesting don't you?

Again this is not what evolution addresses. It seems to me that you have copied and pasted this block of text from some anti evolutionist website.

Mathematics tells us evolution is impossible yet taught as fact even using the scientific proven math models.

We are taught and told this is fact, despite all odds making evolution an impossibility,which I doubt you were ever exposed to were you? Why not?

Which particular 'scientific proven math models' are you talking about? Did you know that probability changes as time progresses? Would you like to discuss this in greater detail or have you just heard this from someone and are unable to verify this on your own?

6. Tell me honestly if you can? Which one uses more faith, esp despite the odds not making it possible.

Sounds like the only way possible is ID or God using only math.

For you fellow mathematicians, please do your own calculations and show me the errors, if any were made, but still they can't be greater than 10 to the 50th power for evolution to occur or is impossible!

How do you explain your god, given that the odds of even the simplest bacteria appearing is 10 to the 50th power? Surely god is infinitely more complex? Where did god come from? Why should you worship this god? How do you know this god is good?

 

[camanintx]

Why do you say the Bible lacks consistency? To the contrary, though written over a period of 16 centuries by over 40 men, the Bible displays remarkable consistency in it's message and theme.

Maybe because it does.

Inconsistencies of the New Testament

 

[jasonwill2]

I am well aware of "abiogenesis", the parking place for evolution's unanswered question of where life came from.

The Theory of Evolution does not answer that question because it's not called "The Theory of the origins of life"

That would be like trying to tie in the Big Bang theory and the stellar evolution into the same theory, it's not needed and adds to many layers to couple to different questions together.

The Theory of evolution is supposed to answer the question "why are there many different species?" not "where did life come from?"

That is why Darwin's book was called "On the Origins of Species".

 

[Skwim]

The Theory of Evolution does not answer that question because it's not called "The Theory of the origins of life"

That would be like trying to tie in the Big Bang theory and the stellar evolution into the same theory, it's not needed and adds to many layers to couple to different questions together.

The Theory of evolution is supposed to answer the question "why are there many different species?" not "where did life come from?"

That is why Darwin's book was called "On the Origins of Species".

Your explanation, true as it is, doesn't matter because creationists don't really care about the facts of the matter, (they've been told the same thing many times before) only how they can be twisted to make an argument. But a good response anyway.