• 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!

Does Evolution Make Jesus A Liar?

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Humans have always asked, did Jesus arise from the dead, as a human being.

Then science reading science data has science data......actualized by human scientists, as descriptions of changes to gases and the fusion of planet Earth.

Which is 2 varied statements in one detailed historic review.

Therefore as you have to be a living human, in natural self presence, then do not give self away...which you do as a scientist.

You talk as if you do not exist.

Now I would wonder at your consciousness and idealize that science talks about its own human death in the DATA about a cell existing and then not existing.

For if a cell did not exist, then to a human studier it would mean, so you are deceased.

Yet in science you actually do not relate that form of thinking to self...being one of the biggest mistakes a human owns in the sciences.

Therefore if you read scientific journals as medical testimonials about self...a long time ago the human DNA of a male self, a Father was mutated and removed out of Genetics because he did UFO pyramid radiation science.

The theme history and visionary information says the pyramid was used to de materialize form, inside of its machination...what it was built for...to remove form.

The same as what science does today. Why science in vision told me that the nuclear power plant model is an updated version of the pyramid that caused by a non interactive cooling method life to be nuked in Nature.....as a fact of history.

So DNA says miraculously the same male reappeared in life...a miracle.

As the story/theme Jesus...for it is real.....it was like his own Father of the past was reborn...so you would ask how could that be possible.

For dinosaurs are and were a mutation that lived and died by atmospheric circumstance.

ICE as medically stated every year in December a MIRACLE. The HOLY BABY DNA life returned.

What the medical journals documented.

Which would come to a situation where humans ask, did a human named Jesus actually die. When he was living liquid, chemicals, oils and cell losses his stigmata...so his body was oozing liquids quite a lot. As seen in modern irradiation attacks also.

Therefore humans say, no medical documents of the old claim he was oozing liquid out of his body, had to have been dead. Really!

He had been oozing liquids the whole time as evidence in his FORUMS for public speaking against radiation science.

So he did not die.

Medical journals said he was being crucified on the cross of wood.....Russia forest flattened...burning bush history, UFO landing on the ground is the medical accounting.

Science in olden times used very different science language and symbolism to what you use today.

Science said that the gas/spirit inside of the stone mass, entombed Saints he said, meaning of which is ZERO or AIN held/formed stone gases got removed as evidence...said it went missing. Was their science version of you made SINK HOLES.

Exactly as it was stated in old science symbolism.

Now you have to ask a male human scientist....male self do you not own a personal human being male problem of thinking about natural states..giving it a name and then claim HE/HIM/HIS as a male scientist?

The answer is, of course I did.

You were the spirit entombed in stone?

No....yet He identifies that males as a brotherhood had agreed upon those terms....that is why.

Today science says I changed my male he, him and his claim to being stone, for I reasoned what a true idiot I was in the past....the ONLY reason why science change its male science symbolism.

So please excuse my female self for trying to bring your male science self to his own self conclusions...….you were not telling the truth about stone/planet and self.

All you personally own in God medical status is a skeleton bones like stone when you are deceased.

That actual claim the bones men said, to be God you have to be a skeleton...so do you want to be DEAD?

How it was rationalized.

Therefore if you say the spirit of a human is miraculous in its recovery against attack, then surely it proved that it is.

Just as an FYI: I don't read your posts. They are long, boring, chaotic, weird and undecipherable.
It will remain so until you clean up your monster posts and actually start making a bit of sense for a change.

Your posts look like they were written by a chinese AI bot and then translated to english by google translate.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I
Sure, science must make predictions. But in this case it's Genesis which made predictions about
science

This is simply not true.
Not a single person went out to find evidence of these things to test these supposed "predictions" of genesis.

I know of no instance at all where science said one thing while theists claimed the science was wrong because scripture said something else, after which science then made progress and found out that scripture was actually correct. And some isolated lucky guess in extremely vague and ambiguous terms, doesn't really count.

That's what I'm saying... we only ever get such "explanations" after the fact.

Another good example of this, is big bang theory.
Before Lemaitre and Hubble, when science considered a static universe, not a single theist ever talked about expanding space or whatever, in an attempt to correct the science. Never.

Then Lemaitre, a physicist who also was a catholic priest, came up with big bang theory. After this got accepted by consensus, suddenly theist proclammation popped up saying that "the bible knew this already!!!" while pointing at the verses talking about "stretching out the heavens" or alike. This again, is just a post-hoc rationalisation attempt. A re-interpretation to make it match the new scientific knowledge. Before big bang theory, no theist ever read those verson to mean anything remotely similar to big bang theory.

In fact, even the pope himself jumped on it in 1951 to claim "see? the bible was correct! the universe had a beginning and the 'heavens are stretching out'!!". As the story goes, Lemaitre loathed such behaviour and actually wrote to the vatican telling them exactly that.

Again, I know of no instance where science said X while religion said Y and where religion in the end turned out to be correct.


And, my Genesis.doc which I copied here was mostly written ten years ago. I am just
adding science references to what I had already written, even though 10 years ago life was still
of oceanic origin.

The origins of life are unknown and the jury is still out on it.
However, it's almost certain it happened in water. I don't see how it matters much if that water was a sea, a river, a pond or a puddle.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
This is simply not true.
Not a single person went out to find evidence of these things to test these supposed "predictions" of genesis.

I know of no instance at all where science said one thing while theists claimed the science was wrong because scripture said something else, after which science then made progress and found out that scripture was actually correct. And some isolated lucky guess in extremely vague and ambiguous terms, doesn't really count.

That's what I'm saying... we only ever get such "explanations" after the fact.

Another good example of this, is big bang theory.
Before Lemaitre and Hubble, when science considered a static universe, not a single theist ever talked about expanding space or whatever, in an attempt to correct the science. Never.

Then Lemaitre, a physicist who also was a catholic priest, came up with big bang theory. After this got accepted by consensus, suddenly theist proclammation popped up saying that "the bible knew this already!!!" while pointing at the verses talking about "stretching out the heavens" or alike. This again, is just a post-hoc rationalisation attempt. A re-interpretation to make it match the new scientific knowledge. Before big bang theory, no theist ever read those verson to mean anything remotely similar to big bang theory.

In fact, even the pope himself jumped on it in 1951 to claim "see? the bible was correct! the universe had a beginning and the 'heavens are stretching out'!!". As the story goes, Lemaitre loathed such behaviour and actually wrote to the vatican telling them exactly that.

Again, I know of no instance where science said X while religion said Y and where religion in the end turned out to be correct.




The origins of life are unknown and the jury is still out on it.
However, it's almost certain it happened in water. I don't see how it matters much if that water was a sea, a river, a pond or a puddle.

It matters Big Time where life originated. It's now understood that it can't form in
the ocean due to dilution and interruption of the chemical process by the saline
environment - furthermore DRYING is required to aid in concentrating organics
to form lipids, nucleotides etc..
The bible did not predict the Big Bang. But prior to this Big Bang scientists felt
that the universe had no beginning. Genesis states that the universe DID have
a beginning. Makes no difference if we find that colliding hyperspace membranes
created the Big Bang.

I am not saying that people tested Genesis. But over the past 12-15 years our
whole understanding of the origin of the earth has made Genesis look more
plausible, ie the oceanic state, the atmospheric opacity, rise of the continents,
life on land first etc..
For sure, science said X for all these things, and now accepts Genesis' Y.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It matters Big Time where life originated. It's now understood that it can't form in
the ocean due to dilution and interruption of the chemical process by the saline
environment - furthermore DRYING is required to aid in concentrating organics
to form lipids, nucleotides etc..
The bible did not predict the Big Bang. But prior to this Big Bang scientists felt
that the universe had no beginning. Genesis states that the universe DID have
a beginning. Makes no difference if we find that colliding hyperspace membranes
created the Big Bang.

I am not saying that people tested Genesis. But over the past 12-15 years our
whole understanding of the origin of the earth has made Genesis look more
plausible, ie the oceanic state, the atmospheric opacity, rise of the continents,
life on land first etc..
For sure, science said X for all these things, and now accepts Genesis' Y.

This type of stuff is exactly what I meant when I said "vague and ambiguous terms" not counting.

Following that kind of "logic", you could say the exact same thing about pretty much ANY creation myth.
As for example ALL creation myths imply a beginning by necessity of the concept of "creation".

On top of that, you are focussing on an insignificant vague and ambiguous pixel, while seemingly completely ignoring the bigger picture, which includes all the rest that genesis claims and talks about, most of which is completely absurd in light of scientific knowledge and progress.

It's called cherry picking (on top of post hoc attempts at rationalisation through re-interpretation).

As I said, this is extremely underwhelming and unimpressive to me.
So far you haven't said anything to change my mind about that.


I'll also go a step further still...
Even if (pretty big IF) there would be a remarkable single fact found in such scriptures... that doesn't actually say anything about the rest of scripture. Nore does it say anything about how that 1 fact ended up in the scripture. Each claim falls and stands on their own merrits.

If you can show 0.01% of the book to be accurate - you still have 99.99% to go.
The other 99.99% isn't accurate simply because that 0.01% was accurate.

As the meme goes, Manhattan / New York city exists and surely at least one of its millions of citizens is a Peter Parker that lives there. But that doesn't make him spiderman.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
You really do not understand. Some future taxa can diverge out of cat stock, but cats will not suddenly and magically become dogs or man-bear-pig. A cat species will not jump across taxa and become a bird, a horse or whatever it is you literalists believe in place of science and reason.

I do understand, of course. A cat will not suddenly give birth to a new taxa, but many at RF say given much time and many generations, this will never occur, giving us a common ground to talk about "kinds" and when evolution is "finished".
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No "skeptic" post here has a working definition for the word "kind" in context of evolutionary theory, because folks like you never give one.

Felines are felines, yes.
Just like mammals are mammals.
Mammals will produce more mammals and felines will produce more felines, yes.

That's kind of a given...

Just like you can only produce off-spring of yourself.
You can't produce off-spring of somebody else.

When you have kids, you pass on YOUR genes, not the genes of some other guy.

If that is what you call "finished", then you are using that word in a REALLY weird way.

How about taxa/taxon?
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
I do understand, of course. A cat will not suddenly give birth to a new taxa, but many at RF say given much time and many generations, this will never occur, giving us a common ground to talk about "kinds" and when evolution is "finished".
Kinds means whatever you want it to mean. How can people have common ground if there are so many different definitions used by some participants, while others recognize no scientific definition for the word? What you claim many at RF say is unknown to me. What you mean by evolution being finished is unclear and makes no sense. Evolution will continue as long as there is heritable variation in the genes and natural selection.

New taxa could evolve out of cats or not depending on heritable variation, natural selection and time.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Secret operative snideness...…….a radiating feed back channel has gone into the sink hole or pit of space.

Snide comment referencing feed back...and the fact in AI a male recorded voice told me that he was teaching my Healer spiritual female psyche science so he could study me.

And fruit...relative to Adam and Eve and the Tree of life and sine signals of fruit images...like the apple shaped sine...as another snide secret shared comment.
Now it all makes sense.
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
Just as an FYI: I don't read your posts. They are long, boring, chaotic, weird and undecipherable.
It will remain so until you clean up your monster posts and actually start making a bit of sense for a change.

Your posts look like they were written by a chinese AI bot and then translated to english by google translate.
I wondered if they might involve the use of a random paragraph generator.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Kinds means whatever you want it to mean. How can people have common ground if there are so many different definitions used by some participants, while others recognize no scientific definition for the word? What you claim many at RF say is unknown to me. What you mean by evolution being finished is unclear and makes no sense. Evolution will continue as long as there is heritable variation in the genes and natural selection.

New taxa could evolve out of cats or not depending on heritable variation, natural selection and time.
x

Based on my understanding I would agree with you. That's why I was surprised so many skeptics at RF claim cats and dogs are finished as taxa. I challenge them to explain how evolutionary theory predicts that--and then said it's a just so story--I can NOT say that in your case. Thank you for keeping it intellectually honest!
 

Dan From Smithville

Recently discovered my planet of origin.
Staff member
Premium Member
x

Based on my understanding I would agree with you. That's why I was surprised so many skeptics at RF claim cats and dogs are finished as taxa. I challenge them to explain how evolutionary theory predicts that--and then said it's a just so story--I can NOT say that in your case. Thank you for keeping it intellectually honest!
You keep claiming many on RF claim something about evolution, but I have no idea who those people are or what they are claiming. Are you talking about creationists? Most often they claim things that are at odds with evidence and understanding. Sometimes their claims are completely fabricated and beyond reason. It makes sense that group would be the ones claiming evolution stops. Most of them refuse to acknowledge the evidence that evolution even takes place.

I have noted that many of the people relying on valid science are keeping it intellectually honest as well. I am not the only one.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
x

Based on my understanding I would agree with you. That's why I was surprised so many skeptics at RF claim cats and dogs are finished as taxa. I challenge them to explain how evolutionary theory predicts that--and then said it's a just so story--I can NOT say that in your case. Thank you for keeping it intellectually honest!
I've never seen anybody say anything to you about cats and dogs being "finished."
What do you mean, and who do you think told you this?
 

GardenLady

Active Member
I will freely admit I did not read the entire thread; a serious crime in social media, but there it is. What I want to say is that this concept of "making God a liar" or "making Jesus a liar" is, IMHO a gross misunderstanding of Scripture. The allegory of Genesis tells a true story -- not a history story, not a science story, but a story of the relationship between God and humanity. From the beginning of humanity, we chose our own will over His will, and he has been trying to bring us back to him every since. The details of creation -- method, timeline, etc., are not really germane to this true story. Because salvation is not the story of history or science; it is the story of each individual human soul. Investment in being sure about the pre-historical details is a distraction from the central meaning.
 
Last edited:

XAHCEH

New Member
Evolution means various things.

If you mean a wolf can become other types of dogs, that is true and in know way contradicts anythign Jesus said

If you mean goo to you via the zoo? no.... didn't happen.
and Jesus' words are true

Jesus does appear to be a creationist
which appears the plain interpretation of the Bible;s claims
and is true

Response:
The Bible states that God created “the heavens and the earth.” This statement makes zero reference to the length of time involved in creating the universe or the methods used to build it. The account in the first chapter of Genesis is a writing to get acquainted with the creation only. There wouldn't be a building large enough to contain the intimate details of the creation and would detract from the real purpose of the bible. Creationist believe that God created the universe in six literal 24-hour days which is widely rejected by scientists and is based on a gross misunderstanding of the Bible account. Here some bullet points to consider:
• The Bible does not support fundamentalists and creationists who claim that the creative days were literal 24-hour days.
• The Bible uses the term “day” to designate a period of time not a 24 hour period. In many cases the time span of a bible day is unspecified. A period of time is a human concept as part of our physical world only. To give some understanding of God's time frame He uses the illustration that one of his days is equal to 1000 man years.
• In the Bible account, each of the six creative days could have lasted for thousands of years.
• By the first creative day God had already created the universe and a lifeless planet earth and the age of 4.5billion years could be correct
• The six creative days in Genesis were long periods of time during which the true God prepared the earth for human habitation.
• The Bible account of creation does not conflict with scientific conclusions about the age of the universe or the earth.
• According to the Bible, the true God created all the basic "KINDS" of plant and animal life that included man and woman who were capable of self-awareness, love, wisdom, and justice.
• The "KINDS" of animals and plants created by God have obviously undergone changes and have produced variations within the kinds. In many cases, the resulting life-forms are remarkably different from one another.
• The Bible account of creation does not conflict with the scientific observation that variations occur within a kind.
Another issue that needs to stated is that Genesis 1:26 says: "let us make man in our image, after our likness............" This verse is talking about more than one person. Proverbs 8:22-31 speaks of a Master Worker. That master worker was later identified as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ prehuman name was Michael as found in the book of Revelation.
 
Top