"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Enoch07]

Don't worry, we'll do it for you

It's already been done.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Bible has been tested. It has failed. Believers are too afraid to test it because they know that it will fail. The theory of evolution has been tested and it has passed those tests. People that are not afraid have tested the Bible and it has failed. Believers are too afraid to test the Bible because they know it will fail.. That is why the Bible cannot stand up against reality.

Your not making any sense, why would I need to test the bible, when I believe the bible to be reality.

Evolutionist test the theory of evolution, because you do not trust it. So you test evolution because you do not trust the reality of evolution.

If you trusted evolution there would be use in testing it.

You will not find a Christian saying, we test the bible.
Christians don't have to test the bible because we know the Bible is reality

Your right about people have tested the bible, But these people are not Christians, if they were, they would know that the Bible doesn't need to be tested. Because the bible is reality.

 

[ChristineM]

It's already been done.

No problem.

 

[Enoch07]

No problem.

Awesome I'm glad you made peace with it!

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

You ask, What age? You only show, that you as well as others, know nothing about the first earth age of the dinosaurs.

And you don't understand that ages and time scales are all arbitrary and mean nothing outside of our own frame of reference. That is why in scifi there are things like "basic languages" and "galactic standard times" because it'd be hell to try to reference all possible means of defining units of time.

"Other defenders noted that Bechly had a number of species named after him

Gary Larson has a species named after him. He was a cartoonist.

And then there are species named after fictional characters.

The only problem your having, is that I will not lay down my faith and belief in God, for your ideology of what you think, which are nothing more than myths, to me.

But God isn't the bible.

But did you know that Charles Darwin daughter wrote, that her father in his personal life, was studying to be minister of the bible and her grandfather was a minister of the bible. You probably didn't know that.

I also know he never became one. Wonder why. Let's take a peek at wiki:

Darwin's family tradition was nonconformist Unitarianism, while his father and grandfather were freethinkers, and his baptism and boarding schoolwere Church of England.[26] When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[32] He learned John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptationof species as evidence of design.[34][35] On board HMS Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.[184]He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution,[58] and related the antlion found near kangaroos to distinct "periods of Creation".[60]

By his return, he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid.[184] In the next few years, while intensively speculating on geology and the transmutation of species, he gave much thought to religion and openly discussed this with his wife Emma, whose beliefs also came from intensive study and questioning.[95] The theodicy of Paley and Thomas Malthus vindicated evils such as starvation as a result of a benevolent creator's laws, which had an overall good effect. To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,[185] and he could not see the work of an omnipotent deity in all the pain and suffering, such as the ichneumon wasp paralysing caterpillars as live food for its eggs.[145] He still viewed organisms as perfectly adapted, and On the Origin of Species reflects theological views. Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy, Darwin was reluctant to give up the idea of God as an ultimate lawgiver. He was increasingly troubled by the problem of evil.[186][187]

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Brodie Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church,[188]but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church.[183] He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"[189][190] and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind".[95][189]

The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[191]

The Bible has been tested. It has failed. Believers are too afraid to test it because they know that it will fail.

Yes. Jesus told me to judge a tree by its fruit and if my arm causes me to sin, I should cut it off. I turned that advice on the bible and ... well ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your not making any sense, why would I need to test the bible, when I believe the bible to be reality.

Beliefs by themselves are worthless. One tests ideas to see if they are right or wrong. When the Bible is tested it fails on many different levels.

Evolutionist test the theory of evolution, because you do not trust it. So you test evolution because you do not trust the reality of evolution.

Wrong, scientists test the theory of evolution. There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" it is a made up dishonest creationist term. And we test the theory of evolution to see if it is correct or not. That is done with all of the sciences. The constant testing of the sciences is how we learn new things.

If you trusted evolution there would be use in testing it.

There is always use in testing all of the sciences. Do you see the computer, tablet, or phone that you are using? It is the product of constant testing of scientific concepts. By denying the sciences and yet relying on them to communicate here you are being more than just a little bit hypocritical.

You will not find a Christian saying, we test the bible.
Christians don't have to test the bible because we know the Bible is reality

That is wrong. Testing is how one knows if an idea is correct or not. When you do not test an idea all you have is belief. And that puts your beliefs on the same level of that as the religion of the most primitive peoples one can find on the Earth. They believe in their gods too and they do not test them. You might as well believe in voodoo.

Your<sic> right about people have tested the bible, But these people are not Christians, if they were, they would know that the Bible doesn't need to be tested. Because the bible is reality.

Yes, people that tend to test the Bible honestly find that the Bible fails. The writers of the Bible knew that it would not hold up to scrutiny and that is why you are told not to test it. Why would you trust someone that tells you not to test his claims to see if they are valid? You are basing your beliefs upon fear, not upon reason. And no, the Bible is clearly not reality. Even you know that. Your fear of testing it tells us that you know it is false.

Scientists are not afraid of being shown to be wrong. They know that is the way one learns. You are afraid to learn because you know that you are wrong.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Gary Larson has a species named after him. He was a cartoonist.

"a species" as opposed to "a number of species"... I see a difference.

(Gary Larson is on Wikipedia.)

Here is the version of Bechly's Wikipedia article that was deleted, now nowhere to be found online (scroll down):

A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You cannot, and will not, find an incontrovertible argument against Her Pinkness.

Sure I can.

A Pink and Invisible Unicorn is a paradox.

How do you know it's pink if it is invisible?

How do you know it's a unicorn if it is invisible?

How do you know it is a pink unicorn if it is invisible?

You're not taking into account the fact that the unicorn transcends reason and the laws of physics. Ordinary pink unicorns need to be pink and to be unicorns, but this one is omnipotent, and so need not be. The rules don't apply here.

That's the mystery, one which eludes our puny human minds the way calculus eludes ants, and why all of this should be believed by faith without question.

 

[Enoch07]

You're not taking into account the fact that the unicorn transcends reason and the laws of physics. Ordinary pink unicorns need to be pink and to be unicorns, but this one is omnipotent, and so need not be. The rules don't apply here.

That's the mystery, one which eludes our puny human minds the way calculus eludes ants, and why all of this should be believed by faith without question.

And you it is your right to believe that.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

You're not taking into account the fact that the unicorn transcends reason and the laws of physics. Ordinary pink unicorns need to be pink and to be unicorns, but this one is omnipotent, and so need not be. The rules don't apply here.

That's the mystery, one which eludes our puny human minds the way calculus eludes ants, and why all of this should be believed by faith without question.

What's in a name?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That's the mystery, one which eludes our puny human minds the way calculus eludes ants, and why all of this should be believed by faith without question.

Wait a minute. Z knew calculus. How do you think he formed that chain of ants to climb out before the flood destroyed the Antzs home underground? Sheesh, don't you know nuthin?

 

[ChristineM]

Awesome I'm glad you made peace with it!

I have always been at piece with you not knowing what you are talking about.

 

[Enoch07]

I have always been at piece with you not knowing what you are talking about.

Haha! That is real laughter btw. You just can't resist attacking can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your not making any sense, why would I need to test the bible, when I believe the bible to be reality.

Evolutionist test the theory of evolution, because you do not trust it. So you test evolution because you do not trust the reality of evolution.

If you trusted evolution there would be use in testing it.

You will not find a Christian saying, we test the bible.
Christians don't have to test the bible because we know the Bible is reality

Your right about people have tested the bible, But these people are not Christians, if they were, they would know that the Bible doesn't need to be tested. Because the bible is reality.

Okay, let's look at an analogy. There are two people selling cars. One tells you that his car gets 25 miles per gallon. The other says that his car gets 500 miles per gallon. The former tells you how his car was rated at 25 mpg and that you can test that claim using any reasonable test (an unreasonable test would be measuring the mileage with a dead elephant tied to the roof of the car, you could try it with a live elephant as long as you were the person that tied the elephant there). The others tells you that you can't do any tests. That you just have to trust him. And that includes measuring how much gas you got after you bought the car. Doing so would void the warranty. Which car are you going to buy? The one where the person not only tells you what the tests are but also allows you to run your own tests or the one that tells you that you have to take his claims on faith?

A person that knows what he believes is true is not afraid to have that belief tested. Those that fear that they are wrong will not test their beliefs. You appear to be in the latter group.

 

[ChristineM]

Haha! That is real laughter btw. You just can't resist attacking can you?

I am simply replying to the posts you address to me. You don't want me to reply then you know the answer.

Btw, it was not me who cited a cherry picked article then denied responsibility for citing it.

It was not me who does not know a thing about British politics.

 

[Enoch07]

I am simply replying to the posts you address to me. You don't want me to reply then you know the answer.

Btw, it was not me who cited a cherry picked article then denied responsibility for citing it.

It was not me who does not know a thing about British politics.

I never denied responsibility for citing it. I just denied responsibility for the articles content. That is what you still can't grasp.

 

[ChristineM]

I never denied responsibility for citing it. I just denied responsibility for the articles content. That is what you still can't grasp.

Ahh, another breakthrough because i was not the only one attempting to accept responsibility for making a citation

I stated... You cited the article, you are responsible for citing the article without first verifying its accuracy

You replied ...Nope, it is not my responsibility. It is the editors responsibility to do that,

You were clearly denying responsibility for citing the article.

 

[ChristineM]

I never denied responsibility for citing it. I just denied responsibility for the articles content. That is what you still can't grasp.

And i never made any claim that you were responsible for the article, that's just your shield to hide behind to help you feel better about being wrong

 

[Enoch07]

And i never made any claim that you were responsible for the article.

You are contradicting yourself now.

I stated... You cited the article, you are responsible for citing the article without first verifying its accuracy

I do not have to verify it's accuracy. Show me a rule or a law stating otherwise. It is an article publicly available on the internet.

The responsibility of it's accuracy is on the news organization that released the article. They are accountable for any incorrect information. Not everyone that reads it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you don't understand that ages and time scales are all arbitrary and mean nothing outside of our own frame of reference. That is why in scifi there are things like "basic languages" and "galactic standard times" because it'd be hell to try to reference all possible means of defining units of time.


Gary Larson has a species named after him. He was a cartoonist.

And then there are species named after fictional characters.


But God isn't the bible.


I also know he never became one. Wonder why. Let's take a peek at wiki:



Yes. Jesus told me to judge a tree by its fruit and if my arm causes me to sin, I should cut it off. I turned that advice on the bible and ... well ...

And you don't understand that ages and time scales are all arbitrary and mean nothing outside of our own frame of reference. That is why in scifi there are things like "basic languages" and "galactic standard times" because it'd be hell to try to reference all possible means of defining units of time.


Gary Larson has a species named after him. He was a cartoonist.

And then there are species named after fictional characters.


But God isn't the bible.


I also know he never became one. Wonder why. Let's take a peek at wiki:



Yes. Jesus told me to judge a tree by its fruit and if my arm causes me to sin, I should cut it off. I turned that advice on the bible and ... well ...

Your absolutely right, it does stand outside of your frame of reference of understanding.