Are scientists any closer

[Dan From Smithville]

Excuse me, but even according to the theory of evolution, how do you know there never were 'only two people' that started the human race? Please explain in your own words, using scientific "proof." Thank you.
(OK, reasoning and logic and evidence that there were never "only two people" that started the human race?)

Running around making claims without backing them up and then demanding that others support what they write to rebut what you keep claiming is another creationist tactic seen everywhere in discussions about evolution.

Can't you come up with anything to show that two people started the human race? It is your claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my!!! Now you are claiming that Christianity is false.

The one true doctrine is the one that she chose to follow. Every other Christian is a false Christian. So says the followers of every doctrine.

 

[metis]

Moses writings have been there for many years -- detailed accounts with names of places and circumstances.

Most theologians that I've read do not believe that Moses actually wrote what we read in Torah as there's not one shred of Jewish writings uncovered prior to about 1000 bce, and Moses is believed to have lived somewhere between 1400-1200 bce. Chances are, assuming there actually was a Moses like we read, that these concepts were carried orally for a couple of centuries or so.

Now, what I am not saying nor implying is that the Torah is somehow unreliable and worthless.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Jesus quoted Moses, so if a person thinks Jesus is the savior then how is it he doesn't believe what Jesus said? Jesus also said God created the first man and woman. So might a person also think Jesus was misled and didn't know what he was talking about? Furthermore, the Bible says the following regarding creation by God, regardless of Darwin's imagination and the reality of genes, which does not prove the Darwinian concept of evolution -- Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
In reference to that thought at Romans 1:20, I agree absolutely.
So frankly, my dear (Gone with the Wind phrase), if a person claims to gain salvation or something like that from a person like Jesus or anyone else, but doesnt believe what he says, it leaves a big gap in that person's reasoning. Thanks to you and others here, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever about the concept of (Darwinian type) evolution. (That is, **it's not true.** And thanks again. )

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus quoted Moses, so if a person thinks Jesus is the savior then how is it he doesn't believe what Jesus said? Jesus also said God created the first man and woman. So might a person also think Jesus was misled and didn't know what he was talking about? Furthermore, the Bible says the following regarding creation by God, regardless of Darwin's imagination and the reality of genes, which does not prove the Darwinian concept of evolution -- Romans 1:20 - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
In reference to that thought at Romans 1:20, I agree absolutely.
So frankly, my dear (Gone with the Wind phrase), if a person claims to gain salvation or something like that from a person like Jesus or anyone else, but doesnt believe what he says, it leaves a big gap in that person's reasoning. Thanks to you and others here, there is no longer any doubt whatsoever about the concept of (Darwinian type) evolution. (That is, **it's not true.** And thanks again. )

Please provide quotes, in context, and I will explain how.

 

[YoursTrue]

Most theologians that I've read do not believe that Moses actually wrote what we read in Torah as there's not one shred of Jewish writings uncovered prior to about 1000 bce, and Moses is believed to have lived somewhere between 1400-1200 bce. Chances are, assuming there actually was a Moses like we read, that these concepts were carried orally for a couple of centuries or so.

Now, what I am not saying nor implying is that the Torah is somehow unreliable and worthless.

I understand what you're saying and I thank you for your comment. Although I do read from non-religious sources about excavation and archeological digs. Wonderful reading. But let's go back to Jesus, who spoke of what Moses wrote. That is what the gospel accounts say, and there is no real point to get into if they are true as passed on right now, because that is what most accept as the word of God. Even though yes, there are opinions are the transmitting of them as canon. So the question is does someone who declares salvation by Jesus think maybe he didn't really know what he was talking about? I mean, if people rely upon him for salvation -- but he is supposed to fall for certain myths about creation and the flood, while it is written that he says he is the truth -- the way -- and the LIFE -- did Jesus in his genetic makeup start from an ape-like type of being wayyy back when? (Or before that?) (I think you understand my question.) And it's an interesting point as far as I'm concerned. I'll try to tell you later more of my understanding regarding that. Thank you.

 

[metis]

Although I do read from non-religious sources about excavation and archeological digs.

Yep, same here, and as a matter of fact I worked on a "dig" just west of Jerusalem back on 1998, and it involved excavating a cistern believed to be used by some Zealots a few decades before Jesus' time that the Romans had filled in with sand.

So the question is does someone who declares salvation by Jesus think maybe he didn't really know what he was talking about? I mean, if people rely upon him for salvation -- but he is supposed to fall for certain myths about creation and the flood, while it is written that he says he is the truth -- the way -- and the LIFE --

There's a difference between Jesus and the scriptures as one can have faith in the former but not blind acceptance of everything that it's in the latter.

The Bible is about God but is not God, much like the NT is largely about Jesus and his basic teachings but is not actually Jesus. To put it another way, I do not believe in scriptural inerrancy, especially since that gets dangerously close to a form of idolatry.

Thus, whether Jesus believed in Moses as a person or was reflective of what that oral tradition taught is not that relevant to the conversation, imo. What is relevant is what is being taught on this basis, but we still have to realize that the scriptures certainly are not perfect, thus even some of the teachings we can questioned.

IMO, I believe the best that we can do is to read the Bible and then evaluate which seems sensible and which can be utilized by ourselves to enhance our faith and actions. Jesus' message VERY clear: love God and neighbor per his Two Commandments-- all the rest is elaboration and/or application.

and the LIFE -- did Jesus in his genetic makeup start from an ape-like type of being wayyy back when?

I have no problem with that, much like I have no problem with him being human. Some in the early Church could not accept Jesus' humanness and left the Church to form various "heresies".

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, same here, and as a matter of fact I worked on a "dig" just west of Jerusalem back on 1998, and it involved excavating a cistern believed to be used by some Zealots a few decades before Jesus' time that the Romans had filled in with sand.

That's very nice. I was just reading about some excavations in a book from National Geographic. Quite exciting. And I'm sure you were very excited in your dig. Fabulous. I'm sure as you probably know, there were places not discovered, possibly said to have never existed, that were 'discovered' during many of those digs.

There's a difference between Jesus and the scriptures as one can have faith in the former but not blind acceptance of everything that it's in the latter.

Since we're discussing what happened (more or less), right now, I'm not going to go into detail about what is taken literally, and/or on what is called blind faith. First of all, that is not the topic, and second, the word of God commonly known as the Bible, is a precious, precious document. Now while there are questions, legitimately so, there are some things that, while astounding to read about, are no longer questions in my mind. And, I must say, while I didn't "see" a resurrection, these discussions have helped me a lot to realize many things.

The Bible is about God but is not God, much like the NT is largely about Jesus and his basic teachings but is not actually Jesus. To put it another way, I do not believe in scriptural inerrancy, especially since that gets dangerously close to a form of idolatry.

Thus, whether Jesus believed in Moses as a person or was reflective of what that oral tradition taught is not that relevant to the conversation, imo. What is relevant is what is being taught on this basis, but we still have to realize that the scriptures certainly are not perfect, thus even some of the teachings we can questioned.

Actually, and not to become pedantic, to imply that Jesus fell prey, victim perhaps to mythology, is a dangerous concept. IMO.

I believe the best that we can do is to read the Bible and then evaluate which seems sensible and which can be utilized by ourselves to enhance our faith and actions. Jesus' message VERY clear: love God and neighbor per his Two Commandments-- all the rest is elaboration and/or application.

I have no problem with that, much like I have no problem with him being human. Some in the early Church could not accept Jesus' humanness and left the Church to form various "heresies".

I could ask how one would believe or know that Jesus really said those two commandments, if I want to be dogmatic about this. But I don't. Because it makes sense what Jesus said. (Hebrews 11:1)
Going back to the digs, they often give real-life, real-time substantiation to that which had sometimes been in doubt. (Even by scholars before the finds.) Now I seriously doubt whether a resurrection can be unearthed (only kidding with use of language there), but after these discussions I am more than inclined to recognize they must have happened. Yes, outstanding. Yes, unusual. Miraculous. But certainly indicative that Jesus was a very special person. Faith is that which is not beheld. OK, later... Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (NIV)

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think that a belief in Moses is important for a Bible believer? He is another mythical character of the Bible.

As to what I would call a creationist, Anyone that believes the myths of Genesis. We know that there never were only two people. That can be shown.

But let's get back to why there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There are creationists that can do science. Why can't they write a proper paper on the subject? I think it is because they know that they are wrong. To have evidence one must first have a testable hypothesis.

The hypothesis that they need to form does not have to explain how God did it. It only has to explain the evidence that we can observe. Why is that so difficult? It is because a reasonable test based on the merits of the idea must be part of the hypothesis. In other words:

What reasonable test could possibly refute the creation account? They appear to be afraid to come up with such a test. No test, means that by definition there is no scientific evidence for their beliefs.

That's ok for you if you believe or don't believe right now.
I have been checking out certain assertions you make, and so I see that an atheist website says, "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." I'm not asking any questions of you right now, thanks for the conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

Running around making claims without backing them up and then demanding that others support what they write to rebut what you keep claiming is another creationist tactic seen everywhere in discussions about evolution.

Can't you come up with anything to show that two people started the human race? It is your claim.

What I see is a bunch of confusion as to what did start the human race by evolutionists. Again -- no proof, no testing, and that's where I'm leaving it right now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's ok for you if you believe or don't believe right now.
I have been checking out certain assertions you make, and so I see that an atheist website says, "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." I'm not asking any questions of you right now, thanks for the conversation.

Do you realize your error now?

Not all atheists say "There is no god". Some do, but by no means do all of them make that claim.

Lacking a belief due to a lack of evidence is rational.. No justification is needed. If you want to convince that sort of person you must only supply reasonable evidence.

 

[metis]

Actually, and not to become pedantic, to imply that Jesus fell prey, victim perhaps to mythology, is a dangerous concept. IMO.

But that's not how scripture "works" in the Jewish context as various forms of symbolisms are typically dealt with as being real events, such as Jesus use of parables or numerous symbols used in the Book of Revelation. The problem we often tend to run into is when we forget that the Bible is subjective literature, not objective history.

I could ask how one would believe or know that Jesus really said those two commandments, if I want to be dogmatic about this. But I don't. Because it makes sense what Jesus said

IMO, I've long tried to look at this in the broad context of the "forest" so as to not get lost looking at just at individual "trees". In this sense, Jesus' Two Commandments make a ton of sense because so many other things he said and did relate to that approach.

IMO, he was a reformer who taught basic simplicity of faith and subsequent actions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I see is a bunch of confusion as to what did start the human race by evolutionists. Again -- no proof, no testing, and that's where I'm leaving it right now.

Once again, a clear reference that illustrates your failure to understand evolution and your confusion.

Once again, a claim that there is no 'proof', no testing and then run away.

The theory of evolution is sound science backed by evidence and testing. Maybe some of it conflicts with your version of Christian doctrine, but that does not make it failed. All it seems you are left with is to deny it and make up reasons to appease that denial in your mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I see is a bunch of confusion as to what did start the human race by evolutionists. Again -- no proof, no testing, and that's where I'm leaving it right now.

You see a bunch of confusion, but that does not mean it is confusion.

How can you demonstrate that confusion you see isn't just you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you realize your error now?

Not all atheists say "There is no god". Some do, but by no means do all of them make that claim.

Lacking a belief due to a lack of evidence is rational.. No justification is needed. If you want to convince that sort of person you must only supply reasonable evidence.

So regarding that, an atheist doesn't have to say there is no god, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

You see a bunch of confusion, but that does not mean it is confusion.

How can you demonstrate that confusion you see isn't just you?

I'm not the only one declaring the mess about this. Said a senior research scientist: "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.
And frankly, my dear, that's what I found when examining these posts declaring evolution as the reality. (Have a nice day.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

So regarding that, an atheist doesn't have to say there is no god, is that right?

All that is required is a lack of belief in a god. That is not the same as saying "there is no god".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not the only one declaring the mess about this. Said a senior research scientist: "When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it’s just a big mess—there’s no consensus whatsoever,” said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the Museum’s Division of Anthropology.
And frankly, my dear, that's what I found when examining these posts declaring evolution as the reality. (Have a nice day.)

Even if that was true so what?

 

[YoursTrue]

Even if that was true so what?

It depends which point of view a person takes. And, as stated, there are those classic Darwinians who will reject any ideas to the contrary. Again -- from my readings, it is apparent that there is no substantiation about evolution in reality. That is, scientitific reality, particularly regarding the theory as proposed by Darwin and supported by many. And, my friend, that's where I am going to stop with my analysis right now of "evolution." There is the classic kind of evolution as proposed by Darwin and obvious supporters of the theory, but that does not conclude or explain what happened for real. As I have examined it, the scientific 'evidence' is truly lacking to support the theory. Sorry, my friend, but it no longer works for me. BECAUSE I have examined as closely as possible, me not being a scientist, the findings and the theory proposed by scientists (many of them) AND trying to fit (throw, actually) the findings into the theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

All that is required is a lack of belief in a god. That is not the same as saying "there is no god".

Now that you mention it, I used to say I didn't believe in God. I didn't say there is no God.