Creation vs evolution

[Polymath257]

Wait a second .. . . More than one wife? Perhaps I should take another look at Christianity.

Well, it tends to be male dominated non-monogamy. I think men and women should have the benefits.

 

[Jean Valjean]

I would side up with science...

But i have a theory right now

Ph D's needs diciples to make their ideas work... As a goldsmith, I could say that gold is found in a mine. But alone without people searching for the Gold, I will not have it.

So were is my gold bar, can someone find it for me??

I got 6.000~ on the shelf too...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it tends to be male dominated non-monogamy. I think men and women should have the benefits.

Sorry, but I am just not that liberal in that regard. Did a little more research and it sounds pretty good to me:

 

[Jean Valjean]

Let go up with the point, if you already know the answer why test it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let go up with the point, if you already know the answer why test it?

The point is that without testing one's beliefs one does not really know.

Why is the difference between knowledge and belief so hard for some to understand?

 

[Jean Valjean]

So you know that evolution is true?

should I go and dig up some fossils?

I need help, I don't know were to start?

I can prospect and mine...

But were do I prospect fossils?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let go up with the point, if you already know the answer why test it?

Know what answer? You are most definitely not clear in your propositions. In fact a clear as the muddy Mississippi.

Again all science is tested, and the knowledge continually evolves through repeated testing as new knowledge becomes available.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you know that evolution is true?

should I go and dig up some fossils?

I need help, I don't know were to start?

I can prospect and mine...

But were do I prospect fossils?

One must at least have enough knowledge to think of and perform a reasonable test. You do not appear to have this knowledge.

You need to ask yourself what you are looking for and why. Random digging will not prove anything.

 

[Jean Valjean]

I need to say that I am not a enemy of science... Still I take the bible literally. So along with the theology I sneak peak in some science books. But for the evidence all you need is a word and a picture connoting with the word. That's all I need...

 

[Faithofchristian]

Correction, one does not have to have knowledge of all aspects of the Bible to test it. One merely needs to understand parts of the Bible.



And again, the person only needs to have understanding of the specific science that he is using to test the theory of evolution. A paleontologist can test the theory in a totally different manner than an expert on genetics would.



That is because the person that wrote it was likely insane.



Nope, if you want to claim this you need more than just your say so. And you definitely do not need a Christian. Why would you make such a gross error?





Sorry, if you want to claim there is a "Spirit" the burden of proof is upon you. Until that is proven it is just another bogus claim.



Sorry, just reread Mark 13 and it appears that you are merely reinterpreting the Bible to suit your needs. Nothing there that supports this claim of yours.

You just proved my point, that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible.

Everything I given about Jesus fortold what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is
And when it will happen
And by who can commit it
In the book of Mark 13, it's there alright, you just don't have the knowledge or understanding what the Bible confirms

That's why I said unless that Christian understands the Spiritual aspects of the bible they will never come to the knowledge or understanding of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just proved my point, that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible.

You have no point and you have a poorer understanding of the Bible than I do. You could not support your claim with proper quotes and links. You handwaved in an argument and all that it takes to refute such an argument is a handwave in return.

Everything I given about Jesus fortold what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is
And when it will happen
And by who can commit it
In the book of Mark 13, it's there alright, you just don't have the knowledge or understanding what the Bible confirms

Try again in English please. This makes no sense as written. Too much time with You have you been spending?

That's why I said unless that Christian understands the Spiritual aspects of the bible they will never come to the knowledge or understanding of the Bible.

Wrong, once again if you want to claim that there is some "Spiritual aspect" to the Bible the burden of proof is upon you. Until you prove that your claims regarding this Spiritual aspect are of no value at all.

 

[Jean Valjean]

I wouldn't go into this debate... but it doesn't say that!

Priest all over the world are debating this issue in theology class and what it means to them... Eternal with money for an eternity for people condemned for such transgression...

If we read leviticus we see that the bulls and rams had a value in their offerings to remove debt inquired from the transgression made. All transgressions gives the transgressor guilt and guilt is valued in debt. So as we read sacrificial laws we read that one ram offering is worth gold and a bulls offering is worth gold.

Eventually the idea for such heresy gave rich preist and money grabbing pricks to inquire eternal with money for an eternity from people whom they seduced to commit sinful acts over and over again...

For the torah and the prophets, no one transgress it, and if they do, they are mislead by and lost and not sinners.

But let's speak science...

Should I buy a telescope to see the stars?

 

[Faithofchristian]

I already told you some. Let's go over the Noah's Ark tale. Or any other worldwide flood. If such an event as the Noah's Ark story occurred there would be endless signs of it. In some cases absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If a friend claims that a herd of a thousand buffalo just stampeded through his kitchen and you go over and there is no sign of the stampede you can safely conclude that he was pulling your leg at best. Such an event would leave evidence. Since we can see evidence of much smaller local floods and older floods and yet we can see no evidence at all for the story as told in the Bible we can safely conclude that the flood never happened.

We can test various prophecies of the Bible. If they did not come true then the Bible fails. One of the worst failed prophecies is the Tyre prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to totally wipe out Tyre. It never happened. That is a failure of the Bible.

Do you need more?

In reality since you are the one claiming to know that the Bible is true you should have been able to come up with some valid tests. That you could not tells us that you only have belief.

You just proved that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible

That prophecy of Tyrus in the book of Ezekiel is still future from us.

Therefore you can not have a failed prophecy that hasn't happened yet.

You really need to get an understanding what the book of Ezekiel is about, before you go making accusations that you have no knowledge about.

The book of Ezekiel is about future advents, that hasn't happened yet. They are still future from us.

Then you wonder why, I am against someone testing the bible, that would have no knowledge or understanding about the bible.
At lease put things in their proper order of events.which are still future from us to day.

 

[Faithofchristian]

You have no point and you have a poorer understanding of the Bible than I do. You could not support your claim with proper quotes and links. You handwaved in an argument and all that it takes to refute such an argument is a handwave in return.



Try again in English please. This makes no sense as written. Too much time with You have you been spending?



Wrong, once again if you want to claim that there is some "Spiritual aspect" to the Bible the burden of proof is upon you. Until you prove that your claims regarding this Spiritual aspect are of no value at all.

I just did, when you said there is noting in the book of Mark 13,

You just proved my point, you have no knowledge or understanding what the Bible confirms.
If you did, you would be able to see,
Mark 13 does in fact give what the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is
And when it will happen.
And by who can commit it.

Hey your the one that claims to know the Bible, So prove yourself. By explaining that of Mark 13. What the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is
And when it will happen
And by who can commit it.

So by all means, you said you know the bible so by all means explain.

 

[Jean Valjean]

Then teach me...

For all I care - I point at something and ask what, someone gives me the answer, and I have been informed....

So what??

 

[shunyadragon]

I need to say that I am not a enemy of science... Still I take the bible literally. So along with the theology I sneak peak in some science books. But for the evidence all you need is a word and a picture connoting with the word. That's all I need...

Well, it is good at this point you made your view clear, and you clearly consider science nor relevant to your world view, but you do not mind having the benefits of science typing away on your computer. This view is a contrarian view of science.

A sneak peek in a few of those five pounders you mentioned is problematic. It is best not say anything.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, among other things, test to see if its descriptions of bronze age civilizations corresponds to what is seen in the archaeological record. We can also test to see if it is correct about things like the age of the Earth. Is there any independent evidence of a global flood? How about people living for thousands of years? Or, perhaps of the Exodus? Is the description of ancient Egypt consistent with other evidence?

And then we can test its moral assertions. It supports slavery. Do we think that is a good thing? How about 'sister wives'? Do we think it reasonable for a wife to have sex with her dead husband's brother to provide children for the husband?

The list goes on. And, when we *do* test these things, the Bible comes up short. So we can safely discard it as a reliable source for history and morality.

Look, it takes a person who is knowledgeable of the bible,
You can not just take anyone. And expect them to understand without knowledge about the bible. To explain the bible.

No more than you can take anyone without knowledge of science to have them explain the science of Evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

You just proved that you have no knowledge or understanding of the Bible

That prophecy of Tyrus in the book of Ezekiel is still future from us.

Therefore you can not have a failed prophecy that hasn't happened yet.

You really need to get an understanding what the book of Ezekiel is about, before you go making accusations that you have no knowledge about.

The book of Ezekiel is about future advents, that hasn't happened yet. They are still future from us.

Then you wonder why, I am against someone testing the bible, that would have no knowledge or understanding about the bible.
At lease put things in their proper order of events.which are still future from us to day.

This a flawed egocentric view on your part that those who do not share your view and belief concerning the interpretation of the Bible are not worthy to interpret the Bible including thousands of scholars who spent their adult lives studying the Bible and disagree with you.

 

[Jean Valjean]

Let there be a computer... a big blue...

We are still on genesis, creation...

 

[Faithofchristian]

This is litterally the lamest creationist argument I've ever seen. This makes Ray Comforts banana look like special relativity by comparison.

If you believe evolution is true, than why do have to test it. To know if it's true.

That's like saying, I know it's true, if i let the air out of the tire it will go flat, but let me test it by letting the air out. To see if it's true.
But why do you have to test it, you knowing it's true ?