ScuzManiac
Active Member
The Wright brothers also didn't go around making people think they were already flying either
-
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!
there is NO evidence AGAINST Evolution...
- Thread starter RedJamaX
- Start date
The Wright brothers also didn't go around making people think they were already flying either
Thief
Rogue Theologian
A lot of believers would disagree.
Theology is a form of logic....though not dealt carefully by all.
And science is a means to find how God did it (whatever).
ericoh2
******
Until one can understand the question as to why the possibility and actuality of what we call "life" exists in the first place, modern science is never going truly answer any questions of this nature. There is always going to be an element of the unknown, a mystery at the heart of existence. One must feel and experience this since the mind itself alone is not a sufficient tool to do so.
outhouse
Atheistically
The same exact thing can be said for imagination.
Not the best argument for you to try
outhouse
Atheistically
No it is not.
It is the study of religion which follows the supernatural, which in that aspect throws logic out the window, in favor of ancient men's mythology.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
The Wright brothers also didn't go around making people think they were already flying either
They did after they successfully built a machine that works.
ScuzManiac
Active Member
My point exactly. AFTER.....
Science HAS done this BEFORE something worked.
Everything has its flaws. Science, Religion, Chik-Fil-A, Morgan Freeman.
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
One thing I believe needs to be understood is that Creationism is NOT a science and does not meet ONE of the criteria required for a scientific theory.
Creationism is not OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE or REPEATABLE.
Creationism can not be proven "wrong", thus it is UNFALSIFIABLE. (In other words, other "real" theories can be presented as a viable alternative to Creationism, and these can be proven wrong, if they are indeed wrong, through various methods. Creationism can not be subjected to the processes by which a given claim can be proven wrong).
Finally, Creationism does not offer us, in any way, shape or form, a PREDICTIVE MODEL OF REALITY.
I could go on for another few paragraphs, but I'm tired and need to shut down for the night, so ...
It does not fit any criteria as a scientific theory and should not be regarded as anything except the pseudoscience and indoctrination instrument that it actually is.
Creationism is not OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE or REPEATABLE.
Creationism can not be proven "wrong", thus it is UNFALSIFIABLE. (In other words, other "real" theories can be presented as a viable alternative to Creationism, and these can be proven wrong, if they are indeed wrong, through various methods. Creationism can not be subjected to the processes by which a given claim can be proven wrong).
Finally, Creationism does not offer us, in any way, shape or form, a PREDICTIVE MODEL OF REALITY.
I could go on for another few paragraphs, but I'm tired and need to shut down for the night, so ...
It does not fit any criteria as a scientific theory and should not be regarded as anything except the pseudoscience and indoctrination instrument that it actually is.
Sir_Loin
Member
I will come out a little here. With updated details
The reason I 'agnosticised' myself was due to the fact that I wanted to have a proper discussion with someone without being shunned.
Anyways, as a mathematician and believer, I can know that Evolution is absolutely improbable and as a reasonable person, absolutely presently unobservable!
My basis for Evolutionary denial doesn't, however, come from the improbability of the theory (because improbability != impossibility), it, however, comes from the beginning of everything. And yes, this does disprove Evolution..
Where did matter come from in the beginning? Out of nothing? I know you guys are smarter than this.. Right??
The only other possibility is that of an Divine Creator. One who was there from the eternal beginning. The reason this disproves Evolution is because if people can realise that atheists and ultimately evolutionists will NEVER be able to account for an absolute beginning, then we can look to God who created beings NOT from evolution! This first step is ignored by atheists. AND WHY? Becauses they don't know.
But that's the problem- atheists discard any idea of a Creator and therefore must create a naturalist agenda.
The reason I 'agnosticised' myself was due to the fact that I wanted to have a proper discussion with someone without being shunned.
Anyways, as a mathematician and believer, I can know that Evolution is absolutely improbable and as a reasonable person, absolutely presently unobservable!
My basis for Evolutionary denial doesn't, however, come from the improbability of the theory (because improbability != impossibility), it, however, comes from the beginning of everything. And yes, this does disprove Evolution..
Where did matter come from in the beginning? Out of nothing? I know you guys are smarter than this.. Right??
The only other possibility is that of an Divine Creator. One who was there from the eternal beginning. The reason this disproves Evolution is because if people can realise that atheists and ultimately evolutionists will NEVER be able to account for an absolute beginning, then we can look to God who created beings NOT from evolution! This first step is ignored by atheists. AND WHY? Becauses they don't know.
But that's the problem- atheists discard any idea of a Creator and therefore must create a naturalist agenda.
outhouse
Atheistically
Self proclaimed
False.
It has been observed.
It does not.
Nothing disproves facts.
Its why it is a fact.
This is perversion of the word nothing.
It did not come out of nothing.
YOu are smarter then this... Right?
No. There is not a single thing in nature that can be attribute to any mythology, and yet want to attributi it all through ignorance to a deity of choice, not knowing why the singularity expanded.
All this when ancient man has a clear track record of creating deities, and then attributing nature to that mythology.
The only question is why do modern people with all we know, keep making ancient mens mistakes.
Sir_Loin
Member
...reasonable. Meaning that I can be reasoned with.
Learn2English.
With a couple of examples that are disputed..
Ha ha! Please explain what happened!
*You
*than
Also, to your last quote:
Because the Bible isn't wrong. Nothing is scientifically wrong with the Bible.
Also most religions are variations on the Bible (humans did this because of their nature). For example, Islam.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Too tired to bother with this myself, so . . .
Sir_Loin
Member
Too tired to bother with this myself, so . . .
I'm sorry.
Apart from the Creation story..
outhouse
Atheistically
Thank you! for the grammar lessons, it is a weakness on my part.
The bible depending on how the interpretation is perverted, is wrong.
There was no global flood.
There was no creation in a week.
It was not a science book, and it was not a history book.
let me ask you this since you seem reasonable. How do people that dd not even know their own origins, have any credibility when dictating the origins of everything????
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
I will come out a little here. With updated details
The reason I 'agnosticised' myself was due to the fact that I wanted to have a proper discussion with someone without being shunned.
Anyways, as a mathematician and believer, I can know that Evolution is absolutely improbable and as a reasonable person, absolutely presently unobservable!
Evolution is observable today; the problem is, most people don't see it because they refuse to accept that adaption and "micro evolution IS evolution; and that the only difference between Micro and Macro is time scale.
Apologist hype. Evolution is the study of the diversity of life. The study of Evolution begins with the advent of life.
The origin of matter is unimportant in the study of the diversity of matter. It's like me trying to deny the accuracy of math by demanding to know how where our intelligence comes from. Regardless if we are intelligent or not, it does not change the fact that math works; and irregardless of where matter came from, Evolution happens.
No. Science has far to go in determining where everything came from. And no, such does not disprove evolution once we understand the definition of Evolution. And, we do not know that scientists will "never be able to account for an absolute beginning"; it wasn't that long ago when others cried that we will never be able to fly. And the steps are not being ignored by Evolution; those steps (the advent of life and the advent of matter) are different scientific disciplines.
Scientist != Atheist
That is more apologist hype.
Many Christians accept the Theory of Evolution. Many scientists; including Evolutionary Biologists and Cosmologists; are Christian.
I recommend the video series below that goes through some of the basics of Evolutionary theory and directly addresses some of the misunderstandings you are expressing:
[youtube]KnJX68ELbAY[/youtube]
1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube
Sir_Loin
Member
And what evidence do you have from your Old Earth that this didn't happen? Or is it because it's in the Bible that you don't BELEIEVE there was? Or are you all-knowing?
I don't think we should go here..
Because the Bible was inspired by God. It was written by humans, but inspired by God!
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degress Farenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitoes, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....
outhouse
Atheistically
Then why did god inspire so many errors. ?
It is mythology, you obviously dont know much about.
We know when the regional flood happened that spawned the flood mythology. We even have thousands of years of tracking the flood mythology into its current form.
My friend. Thisis a matter of education and nothing more.
I can explain it in detail verbatim
No there is some good history in many places in the bible NT and OT. But we just dont blindly accept thinsg without study.
The first five books can just about be thrown out, as they are not real history or science.
Nope.
Just educated in the ethnogenesis of Israelites.
You do know they fatually formed from displaced Canaanites and other semitic people after 1200 BC, and that there was no mass exodus from Egypt ever?
You do understand that abraham and moses have no historicity as ever existing?
NewGuyOnTheBlock
Cult Survivor/Fundamentalist Pentecostal Apostate
You're a mathematician. Do the math. You're far better at it than I am. How much could the Ark hold and how much was it required to hold and does it work out mathematically?
outhouse
Atheistically
Would not be good for you.
I can provide you with quite a lot of credible lectures from credible scholars at Yale on the NT. A complete NT course by Dale B Martin if you wanted to expand your knowledge base.
As well I could help you with Paul from classes at Harvard. I can copy resources and post them if you wanted.
To know the bible is something you must go through scholars to understand, apologetics do no teach you what happened so long ago, and the bible is not a complete accurate snapshot of the past.