Proof of evolution -at last-

[shunyadragon]

Did this happen? Was it said to be a good thing?

Yes

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yes

Then how can you say the Bible isn’t reliable?

 

[shunyadragon]

Apparently the mustard seed that Jesus was referencing was the smallest seed that the people he was talking in that part of the world would’ve planted at the time.

"At the time . . ." is the main issue of how the entire Bible should be understood. It is an ancient edited, amended, compiled and redacted set of texts reflecting the beliefs of ancient tribal cultures without any knowledge of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Then how can you say the Bible isn’t reliable?

Again . . .

"At the time . . ." is the main issue of how the entire Bible should be understood. It is an ancient edited, amended, compiled and redacted set of texts reflecting the beliefs of ancient tribal cultures without any knowledge of science.

To add there are no original reliable texts of the Tanakh and the NT. The closest is some of the letters of Paul are reliable, but not first hand witness of the life of Jesus. The gospels are evolved edited texts by the evidence with no originals.

 

[ElishaElijah]

"At the time . . ." is the main issue of how the entire Bible should be understood. It is an ancient edited, amended, compiled and redacted set of texts reflecting the beliefs of ancient tribal cultures without any knowledge of science.

Part of properly interpreting Scripture is to consider the context of what is written. The original manuscripts were in Hebrew and Greek, these words have been translated, not edited into different languages by different methods.
The truths of scripture are still applicable today.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Again . . .

"At the time . . ." is the main issue of how the entire Bible should be understood. It is an ancient edited, amended, compiled and redacted set of texts reflecting the beliefs of ancient tribal cultures without any knowledge of science.

To add there are no original reliable texts of the Tanakh and the NT. The closest is some of the letters of Paul are reliable, but not first hand witness of the life of Jesus. The gospels are evolved edited texts by the evidence with no originals.

The whole NT is reliable, science would’ve been wise to consider Genesis before going off on the “there is no God” theory of Creation. God has a lot to say about our Science in that area Psalm 14

 

[shunyadragon]

Part of properly interpreting Scripture is to consider the context of what is written. The original manuscripts were in Hebrew and Greek, these words have been translated, not edited into different languages by different methods.
The truths of scripture are still applicable today.

Proper interpretation is a view held by many diverse conflicting and contradictory churches and sects of Christianity. These are the facts where any claims of 'proper interpretation claims are subjective and impossible

Absolutely no iriginal tezts are know to exist for any book of the Bible, and by the evidence of the earliest known texts they vary in content and again no known first person authorship of the Tanakh and the gospels.

"At the time . . ." is the main issue of how the entire Bible should be understood. It is an ancient edited, amended, compiled and redacted set of texts reflecting the beliefs of ancient tribal cultures without any knowledge of science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The whole NT is reliable,

Empty undocumentable claim. Absolutely no original texts of the gospels exist. The known oldest variations show evidence of editing and compilation over time, and there is absolutely no known texts or even scraps datable within one hundred years of the life of Jesus. No historian nor Roman records during the life of Jesus recorded his existence,

Please present verifiable evidence of your claims.

science would’ve been wise to consider Genesis before going off on the “there is no God” theory of Creation. God has a lot to say about our Science in that area Psalm 14

Science is based on 'objective verifiable facts, and makes absolutely no claim as to whether God exists or not. These are facts.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Please present verifiable evidence of your claims.

The Bible is the reliable text, you just saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so. Can you prove it’s false, no it’s your opinion. I read scholars say this and that, some say this some say that. So to cite scholars when they don’t know, I will take the writers and what they said, especially the Author’s word God himself who inspired the Word, spoken and written by godly men.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Science is based on 'objective verifiable facts, and makes absolutely no claim as to whether God exists or not. These are facts.

Science said in the 70’s we were entering an ice age.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

'proper interpretation claims are subjective and impossible

I would retort that there is no impossibility. Then assert proper interpretations are only proper if they are properly subjective.
But then, I think reverence should be properly subjective as well. Your relationship with Godship if you choose to have one, is YOURS and subjectively yours alone.
(In my exaggerative use of 'subjective' what's meant is 'alone or secretly' as well as 'in the fashion your heart tells you'.)

Go not inside a manmade structure and shut Spirit out from nature!
Boast naught of your relationship with Spirit, rather rejoice in it and let your joy rebound!

 

[ElishaElijah]

No historian nor Roman records during the life of Jesus recorded his existence,

You sure about this?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just asking if all your thoughts are just chemical reactions? Where do they come from?

They are a product of my brain, which are a result of chemical (e.g neurotransmitters, sodium-potassium pump, etc.) reactions taking place there. I can name all the chemicals involved in different brain states, if you'd like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From what I have read, bones of some sort attributed to dinosaurs were found and there were vestiges of feathers. THEREFORE -- you figure it out, what conclusions some have come to. In other words, according to some, that means that -- the "early ancestors" of birds were - dinosaurs. I no longer believe that dinosaurs EVOLVED by natural selection to eventually become -- birds. Since, again, there are no genetic links proving without doubt that dinosaurs evolved to become birds, I no longer accept the surmises of some scientists who believe and promote the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you have any other information showing that they definitely evolved to become birds, please do present it. (Thanks.)

I gave you a ton of information. Not surprised you didn't read any of it. Reading is for people who are interested in learning, which you clearly aren't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don’t even think there is a concrete definition and understanding of what is meant by evolution. It seems like an every changing definition and interpretation.
I will say this though, there is no true believer in Christ who doesn’t trust that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. No I don’t believe any person who is born again denies the Genesis account of Creation as written.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time. That was easy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is that right? Male or female? What form does it take when it teaches you? Tell us more.


Ah, the "I hit bottom and I found Jesus" conversion story. There are many of these. It's amazing how many very fervent true believers have a story about hitting bottom and then found religion. Psychology explains this phenomenon.

I never hit bottom or did drugs, so could my problem be that I just had better judgment and discipline in my life and never needed an emotional crutch that religion offers?

My Dad was an alcoholic and a drug addict for most of his life . My uncle got him involved at his "born again" church, trying to "save" him and all that.
What happened to my dad was that he didn't get the help he needed, and he ended up feeling terrible about himself and thought he was going to rot in hell while the rest of his family was up in heaven. He died feeling this way and there's not a day that goes by that I don't wish he hadn't gotten involved in that terrible church.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Differences between human and chimpanzee genomes and their implications in gene expression, protein functions and biochemical properties of the two species | BMC Genomics | Full Text (A lot of conjectures but facts, too.)

You didn't even read the first line of the abstract, did ya?

"Chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. The divergence between human and chimpanzee ancestors dates to approximately 6,5–7,5 million years ago. Genetic features distinguishing us from chimpanzees and making us humans are still of a great interest. After divergence of their ancestor lineages, human and chimpanzee genomes underwent multiple changes including single nucleotide substitutions, deletions and duplications of DNA fragments of different size, insertion of transposable elements and chromosomal rearrangements ... "

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey, I am the only "Creationist" that likes his claims.
Even though he is an Evolutionist.
Stop the personal attacks and look at his findings.
Dont be so close minded man!

If his findings were of any significance, they would have been accepted by the scientific community.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Did this happen? Was it said to be a good thing?

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."
Psalm 137:9

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Bible is the reliable text, you just saying it isn’t doesn’t make it so. Can you prove it’s false, no it’s your opinion. I read scholars say this and that, some say this some say that. So to cite scholars when they don’t know, I will take the writers and what they said, especially the Author’s word God himself who inspired the Word, spoken and written by godly men.

Ah, another area where you claim to know more than the experts. You must be some kind of genius!