"Evolution isn't science"

switchtech said:
Do you really want us to start pointing out where the christian bible contradicts itself? ... By the way, that isn't to say the bible is wrong (unless you intend to take every word literally, but then you better be reading it in Hebrew and Greek first. I understand from those that can that the English version pales in comparison to the beauty and poetry in the original).
Click to expand...
Yes, he/she states (in first or so post of his/hers here) that the bibull is "litteral" and true.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
He's just another creationist who gets all his "scientific facts" from Discovery Institute and other non-scientific sources.
 
jesus_freak said:
OK my position is that the Bible is litteral and true, and that evolution should not be taught in public schools as fact and backed up with lies. I am willing to discuss this with anyone who has intelligent questions and I do not call people names and expect the same out of others, that gets us no where. I think it is possible to discuss without arguing and realize that I will probably change no minds but just like to have both sides represented fairly. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Been away so long I hardly knew the place, but gee its good to be back home!

JF:
Which particular version of the bible do you believe to be the literal truth?
And why would it be any 'truer' than the many other versions of the bible?
And why would it be any 'truer' than the Koran, L Ron Hubbles books, and my laundry list.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok here is my response. I BELIEVE IT IS TRUE! do you believe that slavery back then was different than say a few hundred years ago?
Click to expand...

Let's stick with this for a minute.

You say that the Bible is true. I assume that you find it to be God's law for humanity as well. I haven't noticed any recent edicts over the past 2,000 years from God regarding slavery. However, the New Testament reasonably supports Exodus 21 as God's law (e.g., Luke 12:47).

Therefore, God approves of slavery, and if we do not, then we violate God's law. How do you reconcile the ownership of other humans as property as being a superior law to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, as I'm certain you are aware, prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime?
 
Well, if it were up to me I'd stay away from the whole question of the mistakes in the Bible, the moral inadequacies of the Bible, the place of slavery in the Bible and the like. When you base your beliefs on some sort of faith based system you can easily interpret this sort of thing in any way you like. I've met people who think that the King James Version was written by God, and that God disapproves of polygamy, but he let the Jews get away with it, etc. There really is not an argument there.

I'd concentrate on science and how it works, as jesus_freak seems to lack an understanding of what science is and how it works. If the best argument he can come up with against evolution is that the gill-like structures human embryos share with fish embryos are not really all that gill-like, then he obviously doesn't understand evolution and common origin very well.
 
ChristineR said:
Well, if it were up to me I'd stay away from the whole question of the mistakes in the Bible, the moral inadequacies of the Bible, the place of slavery in the Bible and the like. When you base your beliefs on some sort of faith based system you can easily interpret this sort of thing in any way you like. I've met people who think that the King James Version was written by God, and that God disapproves of polygamy, but he let the Jews get away with it, etc. There really is not an argument there.

I'd concentrate on science and how it works, as jesus_freak seems to lack an understanding of what science is and how it works. If the best argument he can come up with against evolution is that the gill-like structures human embryos share with fish embryos are not really all that gill-like, then he obviously doesn't understand evolution and common origin very well.
Click to expand...

I respect your opinion. However, I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, so, for me, arguing law is the easier route. I see clear contradictions between what is supposed to be the literal word of the Almighty, which is supposedly morally superior to the law of humanity, which supposedly is the product of his free will, and is thus likely fraught with error.

If God's law can change with the times, then it's not God's law -- it's humanity's interpretation of God's law. And, if this is correct, then the Bible is not literally true.

Can't have it both ways.
 
CapelDodger said:
Screw the Greeks, who quite openly stood (scientifically speaking) on the shoulders of giants, the Babylonians and Egyptians were there first. And quite possibly the Chinese. Watch out for Eurocentrism, it's an insidious beast.
Click to expand...

Did the Babylonians, Egyptians and Chinese know of the spherical nature of the Earth prior to Aristotle? Had they made a determination of its diameter?
 
switchtech said:
Do you really want us to start pointing out where the christian bible contradicts itself? ... By the way, that isn't to say the bible is wrong (unless you intend to take every word literally, but then you better be reading it in Hebrew and Greek first. I understand from those that can that the English version pales in comparison to the beauty and poetry in the original).
Click to expand...

According to Bart Ehrman one also looses much of the context and meaning of the writings, sometimes subtly, sometimes significantly, when reading translations.
 
kjkent1 said:
I respect your opinion. However, I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, so, for me, arguing law is the easier route. I see clear contradictions between what is supposed to be the literal word of the Almighty, which is supposedly morally superior to the law of humanity, which supposedly is the product of his free will, and is thus likely fraught with error.

If God's law can change with the times, then it's not God's law -- it's humanity's interpretation of God's law. And, if this is correct, then the Bible is not literally true.

Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the thumbs up, kjkent, but I've had these conversations so many times with so many fundies. You see, it's men, not God, that have changed. God is simply being more (or less) tolerant with us than he did with the Old Testaament Jews. Oh, and you can't expect someone who creates the universe out of nothing and who is so perfect and pure that he/she/it has no choice but to condemn sinners to eternal pain and suffering to feel the same way as you and I do about slaughtering babies.:boggled:
 
jesus_freak said:
OK my position is that the Bible is litteral and true, and that evolution should not be taught in public schools as fact and backed up with lies. I am willing to discuss this with anyone who has intelligent questions and I do not call people names and expect the same out of others, that gets us no where. I think it is possible to discuss without arguing and realize that I will probably change no minds but just like to have both sides represented fairly. Thanks.
Click to expand...
When I look at the Bible, I see a document that was written with the understanding of people a few thousand years ago.
The Bible said:
God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning--the fourth day.
Click to expand...
That was written back in the time when a single person would see perhaps seven thousand individual stars in the sky.

In the time since the Bible was written the Earth has been steadliy demoted. First we were at the centre of the universe and everything went around it. Then we went around the Sun. Then the Sun turned out to be a star. Then the sun became a standard, run-of-the-mill star in a rather standard, run-of-the-mill galaxy. "Out on the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm," as Douglas Adams put it.

We now know there are about one hundred billion galaxies in the universe, each one containing from a few hundred thousand to a trillion or more stars, across distances so vast we can express them mathematically but are completely unable to comprehend them.

Show me a magnificent brick building and tell me, "One bricklayer laid all the bricks in this building," and I would be impressed--and perhaps try a quick mental computation on how long it might have taken him. Show me several of these buildings and tell me, "That bricklayer built all these, too, by himself," and I might start to wonder, "could he have lived long enough to have built all those himself?"

Then show me city after city after city filled with these huge brick buildings and tell me, "That bricklayer who made the building I first showed you, he built all these, too, by himself", and I will call you delusional or a liar. For I could quickly compute that one bricklayer could not have possibly layed all those bricks in a lifetime.

So too it is for me and the Biblical story of the creation. A night sky with seven thousand stars is plausible for one supreme being to construct over the course of a day--the length of the day before the creation of the Sun notwithstanding. A universe with about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1*10^21) stars in it is simply too vast to have been created by one supernatural being.

Or if it was, why should that being be so interested in our little planet?
 
God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi The people that wrote that silly story figured the moon was a light. The lame brains had no idea that the moon just reflected the sun's light. Why should anything in that book, written by buffoons who didn't even know what microbes were at the time, be taken seriously?

But, people still figure there is more "truth" in that book than in what we've discovered since it was written?

Hey, I heard muslims think evolution is part of a CHRISTIAN conspiracy to corrupt the muslim version of creationism. Darwin was a westerner afterall...
 
Ok. I must ask.


When did the Blue Girl get a flash added to her?



I think we've scared him off. Too bad, really.....
 
hellaeon said:
Does this guy really believe people lived for 600 years?
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but you must have missed this lecture in science class. People can indeed live for 600 years, but only if their appendix remains fully functioning.
 
I'm still trying to figure out what jesus_freak's stance and argument IS. I don't think it has been clearly stated.


I invite him to do so, as coherently as he/she/it is able.
Click to expand...
My stance and argument is that the Bible is 100% true and to be taken litteral. My argument is that MACRO evolution should not be taught in public schools.Oh and also yes the Christian Bible and I would say that the KJV is the most accurate. any other questions?
Does this guy really believe people lived for 600 years?
Click to expand...
Actually over 900 but close enough!
Well, it can't be too important because people born without appendixes don't show any symptoms of it.
Click to expand...
Ok and some people are born with out legs, just because you don't need them to live does't mean they don't play some sort of role.
This has no relationship to anything. There was no Noah. If you disagree, feel free to show proof - genetics would be good
Click to expand...
Ok if you can show me proof that there was a Christopher Columbus.
 
I have no problem with the following statement "It is impossible that the earth and/or the universe was created in six 24 hour periods." I hold this view regardless of whether or not a god exists. Am I limiting God? NO! He limits himself. There is a very definite way that things work in the universe and there is no process that can work on that scale with that speed. Look at geologic processes such as island formation, weathering, and tectonic plate movement, these processes take millions or thousands of years by the most generous of estimates. We have observed stars at birth stages in space and guess what, it takes longer than six days. Whether by natural law, the hand of a supreme being, or a combination of the two, this is how stuff works. To believe in God demands that every process in the universe was part of his design. So in a way God lover, to deny evolution is to deny God's intelligent design.
 
jesus_freak said:
Ok if you can show me proof that there was a Christopher Columbus.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. The person who asked you to prove Noah with genetics did not claim that Christopher Columbus fathered all of humanity. You've claimed that Noah fathered all of humanity. That should leave some unmistakable genetic evidence. It doesn't. And ironically, if you could find such evidence you'd be proving that evolution is a lot faster and more powerful than any claim science has made.
 
jesus_freak said:
My stance and argument is that the Bible is 100% true and to be taken litteral. My argument is that MACRO evolution should not be taught in public schools.Oh and also yes the Christian Bible and I would say that the KJV is the most accurate. any other questions?
Click to expand...
But microevolution is ok?(don't give away my ending...;) )
Actually over 900 but close enough!

Ok and some people are born with out legs, just because you don't need them to live does't mean they don't play some sort of role.
Click to expand...
Great.
What does that have to do with evolution?
Ok if you can show me proof that there was a Christopher Columbus.
Click to expand...
What, exactly, does Columbus have to do with genetics showing that there wasn't a huge genetic bottleneck 3-4 thousand years ago?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom