Zosimus
Active Member
I have already refuted this argument twice.
I would like to move on to The Philosophical Problems with Darwinism, if you wouldn't mind.
-
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!
Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
I would like to move on to The Philosophical Problems with Darwinism, if you wouldn't mind.
Darwin is of historical interest, but biology has advanced way beyond his speculations on natural selection.
We don't bring up Galen in discussions of medicine, or Archimedes in discussions of engineering. Why does the religious community continue to obsess on "Darwinism?"
We don't bring up Galen in discussions of medicine, or Archimedes in discussions of engineering. Why does the religious community continue to obsess on "Darwinism?"
McBell
Unbound
You keep making this claim as though you are trying to convince yourself the truth of it...
McBell
Unbound
Really?
I must have missed it.
Please link to them.
of course you would.
McBell
Unbound
it is the closest they can get to match when their creation myths got started?
Now You are pulling my leg, right? Water forced through spacetime outside the Universe creates time dilation?
Are creationists so desperate to adapt the Bible to observations to come up with this level of nonsense? Isn't much easier that the Bible was simply wrong?
As it should be expected as it has been written by people who did not know anything of what we know today?
Ciao
- viole
Sorry Copernicus
New Member
Well
Evolution is not a theory, it is fact. No way around it. It's referred to as the Theory of Evolution because it's actual name couldn't be agreed on widely enough.
There are no different theories or types of Evolution. Plain and Simple. Ready? EVOLUTION IS A SUCCESSFUL MUTATION. That's it!!
Thank You.
it certainly annoys me when someone says they believe on evolution, as well. Because evolution is not something to believe or not, but whether someone accepts it or not. Like the Earth is round not flat.
Evolution is not a theory, it is fact. No way around it. It's referred to as the Theory of Evolution because it's actual name couldn't be agreed on widely enough.
There are no different theories or types of Evolution. Plain and Simple. Ready? EVOLUTION IS A SUCCESSFUL MUTATION. That's it!!
Thank You.
Sorry Copernicus
New Member
And please stop saying, "I didn't come from no Monkeys!"
That is not at all true or what evolution is.
Zosimus
Active Member
All right. Let's do this again.
It has been claimed that only Bible-thumping Christians use the word "Darwinism" to talk about Darwinism.
This statement can be proved false if we can find at least one non-Bible-thumping Christian who uses the word "Darwinism" to talk about Darwinism.
The word Darwinism is used to refer to Darwinism in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Since few (if any) Stanford philosophers are Bible-thumping Christians, the claim has been demonstrated false.
Q.E.D.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I'm curious why when you ask me what you claim is a serious question, and then I take precious time to answer you in a serious way, you defame me and others with statements like "pulling my leg" and "desperate"? Is that how you talk to your friends or even people you barely know, like me?
I don't hang my hat on current theories of any creationist science, because it is the Bible that is truth and 100%, however, someone decided, "Okay, hypothesis, take Genesis literally, and let's have waters encircling the universe that are separated." The results are intriguing and they put some physics into their research, too.
But, if this helps you steer a bit, consider real science--relativity--I know not everyone is "into it", but... If the Earth is relatively near the singularity "where" it first expanded (no, I'm not saying we live in an Earth-centric universe) then according to relativity, some thousands of years could have elapsed here while billions of years elapsed elsewhere--an old universe, a young Earth based on relativity. You are tying the Earth's age to more than geology and geologic dating, you are assuming what we know of solar and planetary formation is accurate, but again, we must extrapolate--100 years of radio telescope research or 1,000 years is still not observing stars and planets birthing over immense periods--and as important, if you Google "Is there evidence the Sun is young" and etc. you will find position papers everywhere from millions to--really--thousands of years old.
Actually, you are prompting what was my prior point. You are CORRECT above, except that:
1. The Bible has fulfilled prophecies proving its origin
2. The Bible has scientific accuracies proving its origin
That is, that it was written by people with some kind of prescient and divine knowledge!
McBell
Unbound
It has?
Please link to said post.
McBell
Unbound
repeating bold empty claims does not make them any less empty than the last (several) times you made them.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
very true, back then people still though the gaps were just due to an incomplete record
the irreducible complexity problem only had to deal with the superficial appearance of a single cell, not the staggering intricacies of DNA
Both of which Darwin would see as fundamentally problematic to the theory
But the most prominent atheists like Dawkins still cling explicitly to Darwinism
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
You must have forgotten some of my prior posts. For prophecy, let's start with this one. No one has yet refuted it in my experience, perhaps you'll be the first:
The OT says the Jewish people, if they reject the Messiah, will be scattered to a wide diaspora among many nations, and that in each of those nations they will be the cream, the intelligentsia, a light to those nations AND hated and persecuted in those nations, and then restored to their ancestral home.
Fulfillment:
* 1/4 of 1% of people on Earth are Jews, we win 12% of Nobel prizes, a rate outscoring our per capita at 48:1
* Jewish people have achieved remarkable gains in each of the nations in diaspora, despite most frequently living in shtetls and being killed, raped, pogrommed on and off again--even America which has benefited immeasurably from Jewish citizens was responsible for policies that led to many Jewish deaths at Hitler's hands
You can claim it's a self-fulfilled prophecy for Jews to study, learn and shine--but if you claim we made a self-fulfilled Bible prophecy by invoking tormentors in dozens of nations--that would be somewhere between an ignorant and anti-Semitic statement at best.
Modern Israel is leading the world in many technology and research and agrarian aspects, and Israel since 1948 has fulfilled over 40 Bible prophecies written down 2,000 years prior. There is NO other comparable people in terms of extension through diaspora. In other words, Italian-Americans stop speaking Italian about one generation in, and Jewish people have kept the scriptures, Hebrew, culture and tradition and got back there country after 2,500 years of scattering. They are unique and history. Many have said, like British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, "If you want proof of the Bible look no further than the Jewish people."
If these are insufficient for you, I can provide other prophecies and fulfillments that make the odds of their coincidence indeed astronomical. Only God could have successfully predicted being in many nations, blessing each, being hated in each, and returning to take an entire country!
McBell
Unbound
Thank you for the link.
McBell
Unbound
Your rejection and or ignoring refutations does not make them disappear from existence.
That you are so readily able to flat out lie about it is most revealing.
gnostic
The Lost One
Most of the prophecies said to be fulfilled by Christian interpreters, weren't prophecies at all. An example of this, the gospel (Matthew) says that verse 14 from Isaiah 7 is about the birth of Jesus, a messianic prophecy, when upon reading the next 3 verses (in Isaiah 7, thus verses 15, 16 & 17) showed that it had nothing to do with the messiah.
While the very few that describe events or have actual historicity, were written after the fact, or were interpolations (added and written by someone else). Hence they are not prophecies, if the passages were written after events had occurred.
And others still, where Christians have reinterpreted the alleged prophecies to events that have nothing to do with the original context. Examples of these, again are the gospel of Matthew (1 & 2) reinterpreting verses of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea; the gospel claiming they relate to Jesus when reading the surrounding passages of quoted verses show they don't relate to Jesus at all.
When any of the above occurred, I wouldn't call it prescient or divine knowledge. I would say that the author(s), interpolator(s) and Christians making such claims, to honesty and integrity.
Last edited:
Do you have any numbers for other ethnicities, just out of curiosity?
gnostic
The Lost One
Citizen Kane is over-rated, and it has nothing to do with it being black-and-white. I like a lot of black-and-white movies, Citizen Kane is simply a movie I don't care if I never see again, and I certainly wouldn't want to buy on DVD, simply because it is not me.
Tell me, do you agree with every movies that have won the oscar "Best Film of the Year"? Most of those movies are not for me, so I don't watch it. And those that I have seen, I have to wonder what's all the fuss about.
The movie that win film of the year, may not necessarily be the one you would enjoy. Lots of it has to do with taste, and saying which film is the best, is a matter of opinion.
If you were to go to the UK or Australia, they will give you a different movie as being the best ever. In the past 20 years, at the Oscar, how many non-US film won the awards for best film? I think the Oscar is very biased when it come to handing out awards.
I don't think film or movie is a good example for your argument, BilliardsBall. Try something else.
Last edited: