The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

He doesn't make mistakes Even when we break contract... He hold to His end of the document.

You should read the Bible some day.

 

[Astrophile]

No... since science hasn't discovered all things, nor has it delineated all epochs of time, it cannot determine if there was never a time where all things were never perfect. It would be a statement of faith.

What would you expect to find (for example, geologically, palaeontologically and archaeologically) if there was a time when all things were perfect?

In certain epochs, you are correct.

In 60 millenniums, it would be hard pressed to have all information to determine if there was a time when things were different.

For an example:

Scientists stunned to discover plants beneath mile-deep Greenland ice

Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history -- like the one we are now creating with human-caused...

www.sciencedaily.com

Scientists found frozen plant fossils, preserved under a mile of ice on Greenland. The discovery helps confirm a new and troubling understanding that the Greenland Ice Sheet has melted entirely during recent warm periods in Earth's history

Could that be the time when all was well? I wouldn't know...

However, what it does exemplify is that you really don't have all the information on the history of the earth. Basically, you are taking your faith belief and imposing it on what is not known... a religion of sorts since you are basing in on perfect facts.

According to Greenland melted recently: High risk of sea level rise today: Long-lost ice core reveals that most of Greenland was green 416,000 years ago , 'A large proportion of Greenland was an ice-free tundra landscape - perhaps covered by trees and roaming woolly mammoths - in the recent geological past.' According to the same website, this ice-free episode occurred between 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, before the evolution of Homo sapiens and far beyond the time-scale of the book of Genesis.

1) Religion is based on folklore. I'm sure some may be, but that doesn't mean all are. Yes, you can find where there are religions based on folklore or exaggerated stories on some things that happened. There are many folklores on Daniel Boone, but there is a real history of Daniel Boone. I view the TaNaKh based on real history.
2) Factual evidence is lacking. We know, of course, absence of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exists.

There is folklore about King Arthur and about Romulus and Remus, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a real history of King Arthur or of Romulus and Remus.

 

[Kenny]

What would you expect to find (for example, geologically, palaeontologically and archaeologically) if there was a time when all things were perfect?

According to Greenland melted recently: High risk of sea level rise today: Long-lost ice core reveals that most of Greenland was green 416,000 years ago , 'A large proportion of Greenland was an ice-free tundra landscape - perhaps covered by trees and roaming woolly mammoths - in the recent geological past.' According to the same website, this ice-free episode occurred between 424,000 and 374,000 years ago, before the evolution of Homo sapiens and far beyond the time-scale of the book of Genesis.

There is folklore about King Arthur and about Romulus and Remus, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there is a real history of King Arthur or of Romulus and Remus.

then again... there is folklore of Daniel Boone and David Crocket but there is a real history of the two of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

then again... there is folklore of Daniel Boone and David Crocket but there is a real history of the two of them.

Yes, there is. But you probably could not separate the myths from the reality. No one has said that all of the Bible is false. No one has said that it is all myths. But quite a bit is.

 

[Heyo]

I agree... there are laws that the universe are governed by such as cause and effect et al. Don't disagree there.

... except ...

Jesus died and resurrected and that is not looked at as a "scientific possibility"





Yes, science is limited. But, I wouldn't agree that it has explained all phenomena. Yes, it is uncovered that which was "magical" when it was "natural" but surely hasn't explained all phenomena

Yes, science isn't perfect, far from it. It is just the best tool we have today - and that with such a wide margin that it is practically the only tool we have to learn about the real world. And together with engineering, science is what our modern world is build upon.

My friend who had a broken back, (ski accident) and treated at John Hopkins about 4 decades ago - they tried to bridge the break twice and both failed.

After a meeting with Kathryn Kuhlman - in her hotel... healed completely. Went back to John Hopkins who reported - paraphrased - "There is no evidence of a break in your vertebrae and the only explanation we have is that it is a miracle"

We have other such reports.

Can't predict that, reproduce that and definitely "non science" - it is supernatural.

It is anecdotal. And there are many such anecdotes in medicine. I could add some from personal experience. But I wouldn't call that supernatural. It is just that the human body and especially the human mind is very complex and it is still impossible to control for all variables to systematically examine rare phenomena.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, science isn't perfect, far from it. It is just the best tool we have today - and that with such a wide margin that it is practically the only tool we have to learn about the real world. And together with engineering, science is what our modern world is build upon.

YES, YES AND YES! It is the best tool that humans with the logical, empirical and verifiable positions, to grow in understanding. We need science.

It is anecdotal. And there are many such anecdotes in medicine. I could add some from personal experience. But I wouldn't call that supernatural. It is just that the human body and especially the human mind is very complex and it is still impossible to control for all variables to systematically examine rare phenomena.

But... maybe it isn't anecdotal? How many times does in need to happen for it to cease being anecdotal and it becoming a potential factor?

 

[Eli G]

I think "supernatural" is a good description of something for which there is no known explanation within the knowledge acquired by humans. If it cannot be explained as a "natural" phenomenon, then it is the opposite.

It seems that atheists are afraid of that word.

 

[ChristineM]

It seems that atheists are afraid of that word.

Hell no, all an atheist wants is evidence. Provide that and an atheist will review it an possibly change his view. Which is totally the opposite of a believer who won't change their view with or without evidence.

And super isn't the opposite, what is the opposite of natural is unnatural

 

[Subduction Zone]

But... maybe it isn't anecdotal? How many times does in need to happen for it to cease being anecdotal and it becoming a potential factor?

For medicine? That would depend upon what went wrong. For example, if one grew back an entire limb after a series of documented prayers or some other appeal to the unknown you might have something. If it was recovery from an accident where recovery is merely an event that people do recover from at times it would take many many times.

 

[Eli G]

Hell no, all an atheist wants is evidence. Provide that and an atheist will review it an possibly change his view. Which is totally the opposite of a believer who won't change their view with or without evidence.

And super isn't the opposite, what is the opposite of natural is unnatural

Out of topic.

 

[ChristineM]

Out of topic.

It answered your post which was also off topic, sorry you don't like how things are. If you didn't want such a reply then perhaps you should have thought a little more about what you posted

 

[Eli G]

It answered your post, sorry you don't like how things are. If you didn't want such a reply then perhaps you should have thought a little more about what you posted

Out of topic again

... I wouldn't call that supernatural. It is just that the human body and especially the human mind is very complex and it is still impossible to control for all variables to systematically examine rare phenomena.

Got it? Supernatural ... or MIRACLES if preferred.

 

[ChristineM]

Out of topic again

Got it? Supernatural ... or MIRACLES if preferred.

Actually more like misrepresenting atheist with bs.

And the opposite of natural is unnatural. But if you can provide evidence of miracles please feel free to enlighten us

 

[Eli G]

Have a beutiful day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have a beutiful day.

And we run away again with unmerited snark.

Here is a clue: Snark does not work when one is obviously in the wrong.

 

[Eli G]

When I was young, we did not limit the term "education" to school studies. When we saw a child who was respectful of his parents and older than him, we would say "that child has been well educated by his parents." Now any miss-educated thinks that he is educated.

It is one of many human misfortunes that atheism has brought to humanity. It is as if they have set themselves the goal of destroying decency and human values. Why???

How terrifying!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

When I was young, we did not limit the term "education" to school studies. When we saw a child who was respectful of his parents and older than him, we would say "that child has been well educated by his parents." Now any miss-educated thinks that he is educated.

It is one of many human misfortunes that atheism has brought to humanity. It is as if they have set themselves the goal of destroying decency and human values. Why???

How terrifying!!!

What makes you think that? Why on Earth do you think that atheists cannot properly raise children? Not filling their heads with nonsense would seem to be a good thing.

 

[gnostic]

Yes on the science... Not quite right on the religions although there is a thread of truth. If one does experience a miracle, it is evidence to that believer.

There are no CONTEMPORARY recordings of any of the miracles, not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament.

In the gospels, Jesus was said said to perform many miracles, especially the healing, and yet, not single person healed by Jesus himself, immediately recorded what had happened to that person…not ever.

All you have are the gospels, composed more than 25 years after the event. The gospel of Mark, in between 65 and 75 CE; that of Matthew & Luke, between 80 and 90 CE; with that of John, anywhere between 90 and 110 CE.

Plus, those names - Mark, Matthew, Luke & John - were only applied, or to be more precise “attributed” - attributed to these respective gospels by the church of 2nd century CE, their names were unknown in the 1st century. For example, it was Papias who assigned the names “Mark” & “Matthew” who assigned those names to the respective gospels, while it was Irenaeus who had assigned the names (“Luke” & “John”) to other respective gospels.

Given that how many years between Jesus’ ministry and when each gospels were composed, I highly doubt the gospels were “eyewitness“ accounts.

plus, just because these books such as Genesis & Exodus narrated events that took places in the Bronze Age, doesn’t mean Genesis, Exodus and other books attributed to Moses, were composed by Moses. We have no evidence that any of these books were written in the Late Bronze Age (c 1550 - c 1050 BCE); there are no stone, clay or bronze tablets of the original books, nor that written on any papyrus or parchment. The only evidence are they were during and after the 6th century BCE Exile in Babylon.

Homer, who have been attributed to the Iliad & Odyssey (eg the Trojan War), narrated events centuries before his time, doesn’t mean they were historical accounts.

but getting back to my points, you wrote:

Not quite right although their foolishness and presumption propped up as faith which it is not.

There were recorded eye-witnesses to the resurrection. And when receives a miracle... it is hard data that is verifiable.

Where are the hundreds of people, who supposedly healed by Jesus? If they were eyewitnesses of their own healing, then why do you not have hundreds of accounts of healing, dated to the early 30s CE? There are none.

where are the early 30s CE eyewitnesses’ accounts of the resurrection? There are none.

there were supposedly hundreds of saints rising from their graves (at the time of Jesus’ death), and walking the streets of Jerusalem, and yet no one in that decade wrote a single thing about the walking dead saints.

 

[John53]

When I was young, we did not limit the term "education" to school studies. When we saw a child who was respectful of his parents and older than him, we would say "that child has been well educated by his parents." Now any miss-educated thinks that he is educated.

It is one of many human misfortunes that atheism has brought to humanity. It is as if they have set themselves the goal of destroying decency and human values. Why???

How terrifying!!!

You give a sermon about respect as you insult an entire group of people for not believing what you believe. What's next? Threaten them with eternal torture if they won't believe what you believe?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When I was young, we did not limit the term "education" to school studies. When we saw a child who was respectful of his parents and older than him, we would say "that child has been well educated by his parents." Now any miss-educated thinks that he is educated.

It is one of many human misfortunes that atheism has brought to humanity. It is as if they have set themselves the goal of destroying decency and human values. Why???

How terrifying!!!

What is it about seeking simple truth that you find terrifying?

When I was born, my mother wasn't yet married (this would be 1948, when that was a bad thing), and my father was long gone. She married a man later who nearly killed me twice, while she did nothing. How "respectful" of them do you think I should have been?

How is that you suppose that asking a Christian to justify is demand that gay people be disparaged, punished, forbidden to live their lives in "the pursuit of happiness?" What is the TRUTH that permits anyone to do that? Why do you suppose that I should obey your beliefs when I don't believe them at all?? Would you agree to believe what I do, just because I demand it?

Or are you just terrified by your own shadow, because you can't open your mind to the reality of the world around you?