Evolution My ToE

[dad]

So people worked to preserve Scripture .... great, I guess. I know about scribes, and I know they made errors from time to time, as all humans do.

Such as?

What does that have to do with you failing to meet your burden of proof on the claims you've made?

The bible made the claims. What does your failure to meet your burden of proof for claims you make that oppose the bible have to do with science?

Your post has nothing to do with the fundamental tenets of science.

Your claims that nature was the same and those same claims from so-called science have nothing to do with actual science or history of fact or reality or truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

So people worked to preserve Scripture .... great, I guess. I know about scribes, and I know they made errors from time to time, as all humans do.

What does that have to do with you failing to meet your burden of proof on the claims you've made?




You're projecting again, dad.

Your post has nothing to do with the fundamental tenets of science.

Yes, people (also scribes) worked to preserve the scriptures, that's true. While I know you probably don't believe this, holy spirit was at work, too, in keeping them. There is sooo much history in the scriptures. Couldn't possibly have been made up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of all the people against evolution "dad" is one of the most tenacious and irrational (well is one I cannot even understand the posts) . "dad" has a twisted imagination of science creating his own new laws of nature to suit his belief. Thus the radioactive decay of our time was "different" from the time creation. I personally found his timeline amusing but could not figure out if "dad" made it or there are others that follow that timeline. Unfortunately it is impossible to have a legitimate debate with someone like this because they change the rules of the universe to suit their argument instead of adapting their argument to the rules of the universe. At least you have the patience to respond to his posts. I still can't resist to answer some but dad is very prolific at posting as if he right enough of them someone will start to believe them.

I have seen nothing to indicate an understanding of science or rational grasp of the concepts. At best, what I have seen could be called fantasy speculation.

I consider such posts to be trolling and nothing more. I see no point in responding to them, but I understand the interest. I think you have it on this too. Post false or misleading information often enough and someone will buy it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, people (also scribes) worked to preserve the scriptures, that's true. While I know you probably don't believe this, holy spirit was at work, too, in keeping them. There is sooo much history in the scriptures. Couldn't possibly have been made up.

A non sequitur. Just because some is historically accurate does not make all of it historically accurate. Clearly, parts of it are not in alignment with the evidence of biology, physics, geology or history. Just because you want something to be so, does not make it so. But you are free to believe in things that are incorrect if you choose to.

 

[YoursTrue]

So people worked to preserve Scripture .... great, I guess. I know about scribes, and I know they made errors from time to time, as all humans do.

What does that have to do with you failing to meet your burden of proof on the claims you've made?




You're projecting again, dad.

Your post has nothing to do with the fundamental tenets of science.

You have an interesting sign-off about thinking for yourself. I have thought for myself. And that is why I choose scripture over the opinions of men that oppose scripture. I thought long and hard. (I also prayed.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of all the people against evolution "dad" is one of the most tenacious and irrational (well is one I cannot even understand the posts) . "dad" has a twisted imagination of science creating his own new laws of nature to suit his belief. Thus the radioactive decay of our time was "different" from the time creation. I personally found his timeline amusing but could not figure out if "dad" made it or there are others that follow that timeline. Unfortunately it is impossible to have a legitimate debate with someone like this because they change the rules of the universe to suit their argument instead of adapting their argument to the rules of the universe. At least you have the patience to respond to his posts. I still can't resist to answer some but dad is very prolific at posting as if he right enough of them someone will start to believe them.

I couldn't agree more.

My patience comes and goes ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Such as?


The bible made the claims. What does your failure to meet your burden of proof for claims you make that oppose the bible have to do with science?

Your claims that nature was the same and those same claims from so-called science have nothing to do with actual science or history of fact or reality or truth.

Oh and here we are at the point where you try to shift your burden of proof again and pretend that I'm the one making claims.

Just another day in dad land ....

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, people (also scribes) worked to preserve the scriptures, that's true. While I know you probably don't believe this, holy spirit was at work, too, in keeping them. There is sooo much history in the scriptures. Couldn't possibly have been made up.

Oh okay! Can you demonstrate that the "holy spirit was at work" among the scribes who copied the books of the Bible?
I'm not sure how you can make such claims about "keeping them", given that we don't even have the original manuscripts to compare to.


There is so much history in the Da Vinci code. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
There is so much history in the Iliad. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
Do you not see the error in this kind of thinking?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have an interesting sign-off about thinking for yourself. I have thought for myself. And that is why I choose scripture over the opinions of men that oppose scripture. I thought long and hard. (I also prayed.)

You "choose scripture over the opinions of men that oppose scripture."
Well that's a strange way to put it.
How about men that support scripture while also accepting the scientific realities of the world we live in?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have an interesting sign-off about thinking for yourself. I have thought for myself. And that is why I choose scripture over the opinions of men that oppose scripture. I thought long and hard. (I also prayed.)

I have thought long and hard and prayed on it too. My conclusions are different than yours.

The opinions of men are what you are choosing no matter what you say. It is the opinion of man about the scriptures too.

 

[dad]

Oh and here we are at the point where you try to shift your burden of proof again and pretend that I'm the one making claims.

Just another day in dad land ....

The only burden is for science claims. Why is it that you failed to prove that nature was the same as you claim here in a science thread, rather than cowardly avoidance?

You see, without the same nature in the past, we could not expect all creatures to fossilize, or people to have life spans like current world ones. We could not expect plants to grow at current rates, or continents to separate at current rates, etc, etc.

All the things science uses to model the past, including modern genetics and the assumption it is the same as it used to be, are ALL belief based. You MUST prove it was the same or all the models crumble.

TOE sits on beliefs and nothing else. You have tried to focus on other beliefs as some excuse for you fraudulently offering your own beliefs as science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh okay! Can you demonstrate that the "holy spirit was at work" among the scribes who copied the books of the Bible?
I'm not sure how you can make such claims about "keeping them", given that we don't even have the original manuscripts to compare to.


There is so much history in the Da Vinci code. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
There is so much history in the Iliad. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
Do you not see the error in this kind of thinking?

I didn't read the Da Vinci code. I assume there are other books outside of the Bible that you accept that are probably not the original manuscripts. As far as holy spirit goes, I don't speak for it. I believe and accept that the books were preserved for the many years they have been by "holy spirit." We DO know that the Catholic church for a lonnggg time did not want people to even read the Bible, putting them under severe penalty for differing with their viewpoint.

 

[YoursTrue]

You "choose scripture over the opinions of men that oppose scripture."
Well that's a strange way to put it.
How about men that support scripture while also accepting the scientific realities of the world we live in?

Again -- the fact that written history was only developed within the past 5,000 years or so demonstrates to me that the Bible is true regarding the creation of Adam and Eve. Meaning in that sense, human beings, different from other forms of life. On what basis would a person support scripture while saying at the same time that God did not create the heavens and the earth? If evolution is true in its fullest form (life emerging into and from a unicell which evolved into other forms without guidance from above), then it contradicts what the Bible says. So perhaps you might endeavor to explain how a person supports the Bible AND evolution at the same time?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh okay! Can you demonstrate that the "holy spirit was at work" among the scribes who copied the books of the Bible?
I'm not sure how you can make such claims about "keeping them", given that we don't even have the original manuscripts to compare to.


There is so much history in the Da Vinci code. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
There is so much history in the Iliad. Couldn't possibly have been made up.
Do you not see the error in this kind of thinking?

First of all, those 'original manuscripts' you are talking about were probably first written on papyrus, a substance that corrodes easily. Paper as we know it was not invented until much, much later. Yes, we do not know what was written on those original manuscripts. But we have a pretty good idea. So let me see if I understand you correctly: you believe nothing (?) in the Bible? There are some people who do not, so I've heard that before, meaning they don't even believe Jesus existed because frankly, outside of the Bible, there's not that much evidence he existed. Oh, and yes, because of the many names, dates, and places mentioned, including wars and kings, yes -- it is too detailed to have been made up, that is, in my opinion, of course.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't read the Da Vinci code. I assume there are other books outside of the Bible that you accept that are probably not the original manuscripts. As far as holy spirit goes, I don't speak for it. I believe and accept that the books were preserved for the many years they have been by "holy spirit." We DO know that the Catholic church for a lonnggg time did not want people to even read the Bible, putting them under severe penalty for differing with their viewpoint.

Sort of like how you penalize people for differing from your viewpoint. Ironic ain't it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First of all, those 'original manuscripts' you are talking about were probably first written on papyrus, a substance that corrodes easily. Paper as we know it was not invented until much, much later. Yes, we do not know what was written on those original manuscripts. But we have a pretty good idea. So let me see if I understand you correctly: you believe nothing (?) in the Bible? There are some people who do not, so I've heard that before, meaning they don't even believe Jesus existed because frankly, outside of the Bible, there's not that much evidence he existed. Oh, and yes, because of the many names, dates, and places mentioned, including wars and kings, yes -- it is too detailed to have been made up, that is, in my opinion, of course.

The originals were oral traditions that were later written down. That is the reason that there are places in Genesis that appear to be two different stories in one. They are. Two different oral traditions that were combined into one story.

 

[Astrophile]

There is sooo much history in the scriptures. Couldn't possibly have been made up.

Do you think that the lost continent of Atlantis was a real place, or could Plato have made it up?
Do you think that King Arthur and his knights were real people, or could they have been made up?

Of course parts of the Bible are historical. The kings of Israel from Omri and Ahab onward were real people; the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians; Jerusalem was besieged by Sennacherib; and the kingdom of Judah was conquered by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, etc. However, that doesn't mean that the stories of the plagues of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the collapse of the walls of Jericho, Elijah's calling down fire from heaven to burn up 102 men, and the killing of 185,000 Assyrians in a single night, were historical. Also, the fact that some of the events described in the Bible really happened doesn't necessarily mean that the Biblical interpretation, that these events were acts of God, is valid.

 

[Jedster]

@Astrophile ..we get lots of pilgrims here every year...myth or not...it is a money maker still



The site of King Arthur and Guinevere's grave. The grave was brought into the abbey just a few years after the place burned down and the monks were desperate for money to rebuild.

Medieval monks invented King Arthur’s grave as an attraction to raise money

 

[SkepticThinker]

The only burden is for science claims. Why is it that you failed to prove that nature was the same as you claim here in a science thread, rather than cowardly avoidance?

You see, without the same nature in the past, we could not expect all creatures to fossilize, or people to have life spans like current world ones. We could not expect plants to grow at current rates, or continents to separate at current rates, etc, etc.

All the things science uses to model the past, including modern genetics and the assumption it is the same as it used to be, are ALL belief based. You MUST prove it was the same or all the models crumble.

TOE sits on beliefs and nothing else. You have tried to focus on other beliefs as some excuse for you fraudulently offering your own beliefs as science.

If you think you can just say whatever crazy thing you want and that you don't have to back it up because you think "it's not science," you're more far gone that I could have ever thought.

I'm done addressing insincere and silly arguments like these. What a waste of time. I'm interested in discovering true things about the world we live in and discarding false beliefs. We'll never get there with the kind of thinking you espouse here.

Good luck with your life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, those 'original manuscripts' you are talking about were probably first written on papyrus, a substance that corrodes easily. Paper as we know it was not invented until much, much later. Yes, we do not know what was written on those original manuscripts. But we have a pretty good idea. So let me see if I understand you correctly: you believe nothing (?) in the Bible? There are some people who do not, so I've heard that before, meaning they don't even believe Jesus existed because frankly, outside of the Bible, there's not that much evidence he existed. Oh, and yes, because of the many names, dates, and places mentioned, including wars and kings, yes -- it is too detailed to have been made up, that is, in my opinion, of course.

I don't care what they were written on or why they no longer exist, as it is not pertinent to my point. It doesn't change the fact that originals do not exist. You do bring up an interesting point though ... why didn't God bother to preserve these ancient documents? I mean, they're supposed to be pretty important, right? Why are none of them in existence any longer?

You really have a knack for avoiding the point. And here, you've just repeated your belief that I was actually responding to and making the point about. That being that the Bible is "too detailed to have been made up." You mean, like, the Iliad or the DaVinci code? The Iliad contains all kinds of historical information and details so that means we must believe that Apollo, Zeus, Achilles actually lived and existed exactly as described? Please address this point.