• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
If the flood is a myth, then Moses is a myth, the entire history of the Jews is mythical in the Hebrew scriptures.
First reasonable statement you have made in millennia, though there is a confirmed history of the Hebrews, based on archeology and history as a Canaanite tribe in the Levant.

The problem remains the Pentateuch lakes provenance and written after 600 BCE, The Noah flood is well documented as an evolved Sumerian myth, and absolutely no evidence it took place as recorded in the Pentateuch. Yes, there is absolutely no independent verifiable evidence Exodus took place and Moses existed as recorded in the Bible. There is evidence that the Exodus account is possibly loosely based on the Canaanite Hyksos of Northern Egypt being driven out of Egypt.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Of course it virtually negates what comes next and before in the Torah. Jesus spoke of the floodso even if some believe he was "God in the flesh" his reference to the days of Noah places him less than "God in the flesh" because he was not telling the truth.

No, it doesn't, and Biblical scholars well know this. If you've been told by your church that your Bible is 100% accurate then you've been lied to.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
This is mainly a gish gallop of loaded questions in my view.

As for the questions you asked that were legitimate: answers to them are not required to know that evolution is true. You appear to simply assume a false dichotomy of not being able to know anything if we don't know everything.

But I would bet that you do not know everything about your alleged creation story (unless your making it up as you go along), for example how did God form Adam's cells out of clay? Can you follow those instructions and make human cells out of clay?
One of the bottlenecks in Abiogenesis, which comes before Evolution, is that proteins do not want to form, within water, even though cells are mostly water. The reason is, when protein form from amino acids, water is given off as a by-product of these reactions. When done in water, the proteins tend to reverse, immediately, back to amino acids.

One technique used to over come this, is to use clay. The dry clay will want to hydrate and pull the water away from the reaction and chemically bind it, so the protein reaction can go forward. The Genesis scenario of Adam from dust from the earth, could be animo acids in water that evaporates, toward dry clay, until the hydration and proteins reactions both goes forward. That symbolism of Adam from the dust; clay, may be a hint on how to get past that bottleneck, needed for Evolution. It has been done in the lab, using water, clay and amino acids and then evaporate the water. The rest of the steps are not in Genesis, just the main bottleneck.

The way I bridge science and religion, when it comes to the different time scales of evolution and creation, is creation is talking about the brain and the ego center of consciousness. Evolution is more geared to the DNA; entire critter. You can have humans, with human DNA, but without the ego, one million years ago. Modern humans have two centers of consciousness, with the inner self the original center common to all animals and directly connect to the DNA; first human 2 million years ago. The inner defines the natural behavioral propensities of each species.

The ego, is common to only humans and appears to more connected to the brain, than the DNA, since it evolves in real time via learning. It is empty at birth and builds from a seed. The idea of will and choice; living soul, implies separation from the inner self. The ego is not natural and instinctive like the inner self in the rest of the animals. The two trees in the garden look like neurons, and are the inner self; life and the ego; knowledge.

When the ego appears about 6-10k years ago, it opened the mind to a new way of looking at reality. For example, many animals have good sight, and therefore they should be able to see all the stars and constellations in the night sky. This is very easy for the hawk. What do you think their theory is for outer space? Or do they even think about that? They do not have the ego, to have that requirement. They can see the data even better than humans, but no way or need to organize it into a theory.

If you only had an inner self, you would be integrated with nature; paradise, with instinct helping to make your choices. One is like a natural child with nature and instinct your parents. Say all of a sudden, the ego is flickering and it finally switches on. The amount of detail you would notice, would make you think you were teleported to a parallel universe. The same data was always there, but now the brain is switch on in a way to organize it differently, to add new meaning and connections. Adam was asked to name the animals. Animals do not need a name in the wild, but humans like to label and catalog.

Even Adam and Eve, and the fall, was not due to being mean or rebellious, but their expanding mind/brains, were seeking more data and information; knowledge of good and evil. But the consequence was they lost their natural instincts Death comes into their new world view, since the ego is not always the brightest bulb, compared to eons of instinct and the inner self. The inner self or tree of life is taken away and sealed; repressed. It is still inside the brain but harder to access. But it can be done.

Next time you are out camping, bring a book on astronomy and read it to your dog. After you finish, have a discussion to see if that expanded his mind, or whether his mind is not yet programed to be expanded.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, it doesn't, and Biblical scholars well know this. If you've been told by your church that your Bible is 100% accurate then you've been lied to.
I've been checking out what the Catholic church teaches. I believe it proclaims certain things about the eternal suffering of those sent to burn in hellfire. Want to talk about it because perhaps you say that's a myth too.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
First reasonable statement you have made in millennia, though there is a confirmed history of the Hebrews, based on archeology and history as a Canaanite tribe in the Levant.
I am speaking logically, of course, and I notice how quiet certain ones are who I believe dare not come forward and talk about hellfire, those here who speak to the dead -- whether that's "magic" according to you or them. So now that you're talking about logic, how do you feel about the possibility that someone can connect with dead persons and/or in another set of reason, go along with the idea that Mary was seen ascending to heaven (as taught by some)? I mean if you're going to be logical and say the Bible is not true, then what about the following regarding what some churchgoers believe and celebrate? The Assumption of Mary is considered a holy day of obligation by many, and it is celebrated on August 15. The belief is that Mary was taken up into heaven to be reunited with her soul, rather than experiencing the natural process of physical decay. How do you feel about that teaching?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I've been checking out what the Catholic church teaches. I believe it proclaims certain things about the eternal suffering of those sent to burn in hellfire. Want to talk about it because perhaps you say that's a myth too.

Yes, the church teaches that, but personally I find no reason to believe it.

BTW, "myth", used in theological terms, does not mean falsehood but means there's a teaching implicit within the story. Jesus' parables, for example, are generally taken as "myths" theologically.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I am speaking logically, of course, and I notice how quiet certain ones are who I believe dare not come forward and talk about hellfire, those here who speak to the dead -- whether that's "magic" according to you or them.
Not remotely the topic of the thread, but start a thread and I am willing to discuss your ancient mythological religious beliefs. The topic here is evolution and science.
So now that you're talking about logic,
Nothing in this post involves logic,
how do you feel about the possibility that someone can connect with dead persons and/or in another set of reason, go along with the idea that Mary was seen ascending to heaven (as taught by some)? I mean if you're going to be logical and say the Bible is not true, then what about the following regarding what some churchgoers believe and celebrate? The Assumption of Mary is considered a holy day of obligation by many, and it is celebrated on August 15. The belief is that Mary was taken up into heaven to be reunited with her soul, rather than experiencing the natural process of physical decay. How do you feel about that teaching?
Again not related to the subject of the thread. See above.

You have failed to logically and based on objective verifiable evidence the subject of the thread. Your view of science is based on intentional ignorance, and clinging to an ancient world view.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not remotely the topic of the thread, but start a thread and I am willing to discuss your ancient mythological religious beliefs. The topic here is evolution and science.

Nothing in this post involves logic,

Again not related to the subject of the thread. See above.

You have failed to logically and based on objective verifiable evidence the subject of the thread. Your view of science is based on intentional ignorance, and clinging to an ancient world view.
Sure it's in harmony with the topic. Evolution is the topic and it's also involving logic about also the "eternal virginity" of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Would you say that is in line with the theory of evolution, especially since the Pope, a rather major figure, declared evolution to be ok, and also agrees that the eternal virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is true as well. Do you see that according to the theory of evolution she could have conceived a child and still e a virgin?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not remotely the topic of the thread, but start a thread and I am willing to discuss your ancient mythological religious beliefs. The topic here is evolution and science.

Nothing in this post involves logic,

Again not related to the subject of the thread. See above.

You have failed to logically and based on objective verifiable evidence the subject of the thread. Your view of science is based on intentional ignorance, and clinging to an ancient world view.
It might be interesting to start a thread and see how 'some' would answer as to the conjunction of evolution and the dogma of the Catholic Church that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is or is not in line with the theory of evolution, and -- miracle? myth? magic? what do you think?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It might be interesting to start a thread and see how 'some' would answer as to the conjunction of evolution and the dogma of the Catholic Church that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is or is not in line with the theory of evolution, and -- miracle? myth? magic? what do you think?
The sciences of evolution is a different subject than the topic of religious belief not based on objective verifiable evidence. Religious belief as above is based on faith and belief in ancient mythical texts without provenance. If one, like. believes the ancient texts without provenance as literally true in some way you live in a dishonest world of contradictions.
If you take ancient texts as reflecting the knowledge of the time, and the knowledge of humanity, both spiritual and physical evolves over time there is no conflict.

Example at the time the ancient text of the Bible was compiled people believed in a geocentric universe. Now we know there is a vast universe of billions of stars with planets like ours. By the Lucretius in the first century BCE roughly described this natural universe.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Sure it's in harmony with the topic. Evolution is the topic and it's also involving logic
No
about also the "eternal virginity" of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
No this is a religious belief based on faith and not logic.


Logical reasoning is a mental process that involves using a set of premises to draw a conclusion. It's a systematic approach to decision-making that can help you consider facts, make connections, and reach a sensible conclusion.

Religious belief is based on faith of the subjective and not known agreed to facts.
Would you say that is in line with the theory of evolution, especially since the Pope, a rather major figure, declared evolution to be ok, and also agrees that the eternal virginity of Mary, the mother of Jesus, is true as well. Do you see that according to the theory of evolution she could have conceived a child and still e a virgin?
The Pope does not equate the sciences of evolution with spiritual religious beliefs, He bases it on the objective reality of our physical universe found in science.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The sciences of evolution is a different subject than the topic of religious belief based on objective verifiable evidence.
The two intertwine to a large degree. Many people say evolution is true, yet belong to a religion they say that claims adherence to myths. Church dogma has it that Mary was unequivocally the "eternal" virgin. So on one hand they say evolution is true. And on the other hand they profess a belief that Mary was a virgin always. Recognizing that you do not believe Mary was the eternal virgin. Many do. Therefore while seemingly inconsistent they still say that Mary was the eternal virgin and that evolution is true as well.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No

No this is a religious belief based on faith and not logic.


Logical reasoning is a mental process that involves using a set of premises to draw a conclusion. It's a systematic approach to decision-making that can help you consider facts, make connections, and reach a sensible conclusion.

Religious belief is based on faith of the subjective and not known agreed to facts.

The Pope does not equate the sciences of evolution with spiritual religious beliefs, He bases it on the objective reality of our physical universe found in science.
So then seems you agree that saying evolution is true and factual but Mary said by many to be the eternal virgin clashes with the theory of evolution.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No

No this is a religious belief based on faith and not logic.


Logical reasoning is a mental process that involves using a set of premises to draw a conclusion. It's a systematic approach to decision-making that can help you consider facts, make connections, and reach a sensible conclusion.

Religious belief is based on faith of the subjective and not known agreed to facts.

The Pope does not equate the sciences of evolution with spiritual religious beliefs, He bases it on the objective reality of our physical universe found in science.
Either evolution is true for all or not.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
One of the bottlenecks in Abiogenesis, which comes before Evolution, is that proteins do not want to form, within water, even though cells are mostly water. The reason is, when protein form from amino acids, water is given off as a by-product of these reactions. When done in water, the proteins tend to reverse, immediately, back to amino acids.

Your opening of this rambling post reflects your intentional ignorance of science. you are presenting an anthropomorphic nonsense that "that proteins do not want to form. . ." and follow up with a false statement that does not make any sense at all in terms of the current science.
 
Top