Creation vs evolution

[Altfish]

If a Christian does not believe in the creation as described in the Bible, then they are not a true Christian according to the bible.

As Jesus said in Matthew 24:5--"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many"

Who else claims to come in the name of Christ other than Christians ?

Note Christ being abbreviated for Christian.
Christ = Christian.

Therefore Christians are the only people that I know of, that claims to come in the name of Christ = Christian

Therefore The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury (to name just two) are not true Christians

 

[Jean Valjean]

But why test the facts when it is facts??

That's considerably why the bible is true, it doesn't need to be tested!! (I am siding with the opening)

 

[SalixIncendium]

But why test the facts when it is facts??

This has been answered more than once ITT. Are you going continue to repeat the question until you get an answer you like?

 

[Polymath257]

But why test the facts when it is facts??

That's considerably why the bible is true, it doesn't need to be tested!! (I am siding with the opening)

Because we don't *know* they are facts until they are tested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Parhaps you misread... It was stated as a question siding with your illusion...
Evolution needs to be tested because according to you it is true, while the bible don't according to you!??

As for me I see the openings' point, I do not need to test the validity of the facts, ideas, informations, intelligence, in order to know its true.

I can tell you I sit before a computer. If we would run science class you need to figure out were i live, take the aeroplane all the way here, take the cab to my adress, and check the validity of my statement... or you could just trust in me!

Both need to be tested. The reason that we know that evolution is almost certainly correct is because it has been tested. Christians that are afraid to test the Bible cannot know if it is true.

 

[Jean Valjean]

So how are we going to test the information above? Shall I go back all five pages gather data and confirm it... or should I trust in you?

You saw my point, that is why you ignoring the questions once again

 

[shunyadragon]

I was not referring to the scientists, but referring to people in general, that when in a conversation with, that when they get caught, they go about trying to change the subject into something else, that is not the subject being talk about, Why is that ?

This is what the Thread is all about, for those people who believe in evolution why are they saying evolution being tested.

So I am asking them, why does evolution have to be tested. What's the reason?

I did not come with evolution being tested, but those who believe in evolution, came saying this morning, that evolution being tested. So I ask them, why does evolution have to be tested.

I believe I have answered the question. Evolution is a science and all science must be tested.

 

[Polymath257]

So how are we going to test the information above? Shall I go back all five pages gather data and confirm it... or should I trust in you?

You saw my point, that is why you ignoring the questions once again

I don't care enough about the truth of your statements to test them. Solely for that reason, I'll take your word that you are sitting by a computer. The fact that I am getting information typically produced by a computer *is* a type of test, however. But, as you pointed out, if I did care, your claims could be tested.

Now, how do I test the ideas in the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how are we going to test the information above? Shall I go back all five pages gather data and confirm it... or should I trust in you?

You saw my point, that is why you ignoring the questions once again

The Bible can be tested in many different ways since it makes many different claims. The stories of Genesis can be tested. They have been found to by myth. The Exodus can be tested, again, no such event ever seems to have happened.

The prophecies of the Bible can be tested. Those fail.


The morals of the Bible can be tested and those fail too.

It appears that you are resisting any attempt to test the Bible when there are so many different ways to test it. You seem to be suggesting testing the Bible with the Bible and that is mere circular logic at best. It is not a proper test.

 

[shunyadragon]

So how are we going to test the information above? Shall I go back all five pages gather data and confirm it... or should I trust in you?

You saw my point, that is why you ignoring the questions once again

Try getting a basic education in the sciences of Biology and Chemistry, and Geology to confirm it if you do not trust science.

 

[shunyadragon]

As a Christian, I do not need the bible to be tested, but if you feel that evolution needs to be tested, then by all means go test evolution.

Than, of course, you accept the Bible on the basis of 'faith' nothing else.

 

[Jean Valjean]

I got several chemistry books, and one in microbiology.

Let there be...

A rainbow, jay, jay, jay... why test such thing when it is a fact?

And I am siding with the other party now, the challenging party... I'll see were this leadas

 

[shunyadragon]

Because human understanding is at its best when it is put to the test. How else can we unlearn our childhood assumptions and become better adults? How else could someone come to the Lord when they had been raised against the Lord? How else can an individual know if what they understanding is of God or is of Satan?

This is what Jacob did and he was chosen by the Lord since before his birth.

Than why do you object to the Bible being tested?

 

[Skwim]

One fact to Refute evolution.

Hey, how about one fact, other than biblical scripture, that confirms creationism?

But I'll bite on your silly troll here.

For those who believe in the theory of evolution.
Why did evolution have to be tested, to know whether it's true or not.

Err . . .because that's what science does with all of its evidence: test it. Sorry that you were unaware of this fifth grade fact.

To test something, that means it's not true, until it's tested to show it's true.

No. It means it can't be confirmed to be true until tested. Boy! were you asleep through the whole grade?

This why Christians don't have to test the bible all because Christians already know the Bible is true

Well, Christian "knowing" hardly reaches the same level of fact as scientific confirmation.

Where as evolution had to be tested, to find if it's true or not true.

Is this suppose to mean that until the components of evolution were tested creationism was automatically true? Please say "no."

That's like going to take a test, you take a test to show if your qualified or not.

Therefore to test the theory of evolution, is to see if it's qualified or not.

That means evolution wasn't qualified, from the start.until it took the test.

In a sense you're right. But as it turns out evolution passes the test.

Where as the bible did not have to take any test to be qualified, The bible was qualified right from the start.

Only by bald assertion, much like the assertion that unicorns exist.

Therefore Christians do not have to test the bible to see if it's qualified, We already know that the Bible is qualified.

Of course, because the standard of qualification is so abysmally low. All it takes to qualify is a feeling that it's right. If it feels good it has to be true.


Hey, this was fun. How about another?

.

 

[Polymath257]

I got several chemistry books, and one in microbiology.

Let there be...

A rainbow, jay, jay, jay... why test such thing when it is a fact?

And I am siding with the other party now, the challenging party... I'll see were this leadas

We don't test if a rainbow is seen: that *is* the test. it is an observation.

We test to see if we properly understand the conditions under which rainbows form. We test to make sure we understand what it is the produces rainbows.

We test because we want to understand. We want to have knowledge, not just disconnected observations. And knowledge requires testing.

 

[shunyadragon]

I got several chemistry books, and one in microbiology.

Let there be...

A rainbow, jay, jay, jay... why test such thing when it is a fact?

And I am siding with the other party now, the challenging party... I'll see were this leadas

Wow! You have a couple of books. How much do they weigh?

You have not presented anything worthy of a challenge only assertions of 'faith.'

 

[Jean Valjean]

Been there done that, i done Don Quixiote and survived... a mujahedin..

 

[shunyadragon]

Been there done that, i done Don Quixiote and survived... a mujahedin..

Been there and done what?!?!?!

 

[Jean Valjean]

I observed it... Don Quixiote is one of my favorites. It has been observed by many others. But why try to make facts valid when they are facts?

It makes no sense why the truth needs to be tested when it's true...
I am not trolling, the opponent said and I am siding with the opponent here, to confirm the truth. That's how science work, gather data, testing and validate... so three kilometers from here there is a station, a gas station. The phone-number is there in the yellow pages, on the map I hold it is there, but you wouldn't argue someone removed the gas station, so if i want to test it I need to go 3 kilometers and confirm it.


Should I??

 

[`mud]

I think he means he fought the mujahidin's,
just like Don Quixote's windmills in the Afghanistan.
Maybe....with him, I'm never sure.
edit
Now I'm really not sure !!