Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavisBJ

New member
Actually, the Bible tells us "we know". It's like sitting on your sofa, you are convinced without a doubt it will hold you.
For decades I parroted that same mindless allegiance to that iron-age tribal legend called the Bible. Thankfully, some people finally realize that mindless devotion to falsehood does not make it one iota more correct. I just wish I had been more honest with myself years earlier than I was.

Because of my own personal history of dogged belief, I am not in a position to condemn others, but I fervently hope others will not be as resistant as I was to admitting the Old Testament is mostly just a particular rendition of a popular legend passed down from a scientifically ignorant culture.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Admit it, you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point.

You can take a Cadry-esque approach and make a claim like that, and then plug your ears and rely on denial after denial to maintain your position. Or you can man up and walk into the world of science with its thousands of documented studies crossing numerous disciplines that show the world is vastly more ancient than a literal Genesis says. Which will it be – hide within the pages of a collection of some ancient nomadic stories, or have the integrity to see what the evidence external to that legend actually says?
 

Tyrathca

New member
Admit it, you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point.
You think marine biology hasn't proven you can't survive being swallowed by a whale? Next you'll tell me that farmers and vets haven't shown that what goats see while mating (like striped sticks...) doesn't affect their offspring's coat? Or that Jesus second coming has been and gone? (the whole "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things are fulfilled" thing...)

Oh right, nothing is ever wrong in the bible... suuuuuuure.......
 

6days

New member
Tyrathca said:
You think marine biology hasn't proven you can't survive being swallowed by a whale?
True..... but PJ is correct when he said "you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point".
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Also
Matt.12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Tyrathca said:
Next you'll tell me that farmers and vets haven't shown that what goats see while mating (like striped sticks...) doesn't affect their offspring's coat?
Next you will tell us that everything cam from nothing?.... or that life came from non life?...or that a monkey can evolve into a human? :)

The evidence is that the Bible is God's Holy inspired and infallible Word.
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
For decades I parroted that same mindless allegiance to that iron-age tribal legend called the Bible.
What are you parroting now? :)
DavisBJ said:
Thankfully, some people finally realize that mindless devotion to falsehood does not make it one iota more correct.
And that is why Anthony Flew realized his life long 'mindless allegiance' to atheism was a mistake.
DavisBJ said:
I just wish I had been more honest with myself years earlier than I was.
I certainly wish you had too. People who parrot beliefs without understanding have no roots....no depth... no foundation.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I have made the point previously that a God who is so remote from us that we will miss Him if we don’t seek long and diligently is a God who is hiding
See where you are at? You don't care if He exists, whether He is hard to find or not. I don't believe He is. In point of fact, only one who understands the way their universe necessarily has to work would seek Him. By default, you either have to be not too contemplative with truth, or 'purposefully' going the other way (Einstein calls the formal dismal, and the latter 'dead').

What you said about Spinoza makes me wonder if I have been mistaken in assuming your views were essentially in line with most creationists. When you said
This is because you don't get progression. Start with a basic something, build off of it. Logic ever and only works this way. You start with a premise and build off of truths that necessarily must follow. A philosophy class or two would not hurt you a bit and would, in fact, keep you from being myopic. Think 'Renaissance man."

Doesn’t that force God to be a product of, not a cause of, the universe?
Your mind automatically obfuscates. You cannot reason nor logic if you miss what is pertinent and cannot anticipate the next set of proofs. Nobody will ever be able to prove God exists to you and it will be/is your own fault. :(


Though I know rather little about Spinoza, I am somewhat familiar with Einstein’s views on God and Christianity and the Bible. And unless your information is wildly at variance with mine, if Einstein really “nailed it”, then Christianity is dead in the water.
Sure, if you want to mine quote instead of being aware of all of his writings. His own theology changed over course, but his letters to seminaries were powerful enough to declare Judeo/Christianity as proper, regardless of his struggle over a personal God involved with us. Probably the encapsulation of your one-sided view is found here However, try as vanity might, it is second-hand clips that an entire letter by Einstein to Princeton Seminary completely washes away. In his Creed, for instance, he calls the atheist dead or blind. Indeed, whenever you might see Einstein say something against a theist, he is right there calling down the atheist as dead or worse, insincere. When you read these scathing reprimands, Einstein always sides on deism, and therefore, God, if not organized religion nor a literal interpretation of the scriptures, but in that camp fall liberal theologians, and not, in fact, agnostics nor atheists. Think more of Spinoza as panentheism, than pantheism, as well. Both he and Einstein expressed a belief in an intelligence behind creation. In the 30's Einstein wrote more from a pantheistic viewpoint and against organized religion as fearful or morality focused. However, just 9 years later he wrote to Princeton Theological Seminary that a detachment from the spiritual, of which education and specifically science was moving toward, was, in his words "crass" and "one-sided." Einstein's Ideas and Opinions

In fact, Einstein was adamant that a purely scientific material mind was inadequate:
Einstein said:
The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence.
He then says religion is of 'utmost' importance to mankind:
Einstein said:
To make clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most important function which religion has to perform in the social life of man.
Make no 'academic' slight-of-hand mistake here. Einstein was simply and clearly decrying the dismal scientific mind without religion, God, and purpose, and also calling the 'religious' to guide as first-import. This, dear Davis B, is no atheist. In fact, he has strong words against agnosticism and atheism here and in many other places. Strong words for theists? Yes, but ONLY in regards to whatever is antiquated in his mind. I pray your mind is enlightened and adequately corrected. There is absolutely no sense that Einstein was ever an atheist. That mistruth/lie is obfuscation of the highest order. No rational mind would entertain it specifically because Einstein himself said no rational mind would. Irrational? Yep.
 

Jose Fly

New member
Explain the kangaroos and Koala bears of Australia.

Why? We've seen how the Christians have rigged this. They say "You can't prove the Bible wrong on a single thing" and whenever anyone thinks they have something (e.g., getting kangaroos and koalas back and forth between ark and Australia), the Christian just answers "Oh, well God did it".

The funny thing is, by the same set of rules the Koran and Book of Mormon are also perfect and without error. But then, we also know that in Christian world only Christians are allowed to invoke this special rule.

Pretty convenient, eh? :chuckle:
 

6days

New member
Tyrathca said:
Could you be more specific as to why chimps can't sin?
Great question! Sin is really a rejection of God, where we reject His love, and His authority over us. Sin is a transgression of His law. The law of course was given to man.... not to chimps. God tells us how He created man to have a relationship with Himself. We all have sinned, rejecting Him. "But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." Rom. 5:8
 

DavisBJ

New member
True..... but PJ is correct when he said "you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point".
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Also
Matt.12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I am not sure of what your point is relative to PJ’s challenge. Are you saying that the two Biblical passages you offer prove the story of Jonah is true? I hope you haven’t stooped to that sort of incestuous logic.
Next you will tell us that everything came from nothing?
I am not aware that cosmologists have agreed on how the universe came into existence. I know there is little argument over the vast span of time since the universe as we know it started.
.... or that life came from non life?
Why not? Is there something in living organisms that could not come from non-living matter?
...or that a monkey can evolve into a human? :)
Not quite what evolution says, but yeah, evolution of species is pooh-poohed mostly by people who have an allegiance to a dogma they want to protect. So, in the case of creationists, they claim they are all descendants of a mud-man.
The evidence is that the Bible is God's Holy inspired and infallible Word.
The evidence is much of the Bible is a collection of manuscripts based on tales circulating within a scientifically ignorant iron-age nomadic culture.
 

Hedshaker

New member
Admit it, you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point.

Surly you know that the burden of proof lies entirely on those who make a positive claim? Not those who present scepticism, right? Just imagine how many propositions we would all have to accept as true if the opposite were the case. No one can prove that fairies and leprechauns aren't real yet I doubt even you and Michael believe they are...... or do you?

Maybe you do since you cannot prove they're not.
 
Last edited:

DavisBJ

New member
What are you parroting now? :)
Not.
And that is why Anthony Flew realized his life long 'mindless allegiance' to atheism was a mistake.
And that is also why a large portion of those scientists who have dedicated their lives to science walked away from Christianity.
I certainly wish you had too.
Hmm, that means you wish I had concluded Christianity was false years earlier than I did. Thank you.
People who parrot beliefs without understanding have no roots....no depth... no foundation.
A high part of the population on both sides are poorly versed in the supporting arguments for their beliefs. That is why most people conform to the beliefs they were brought up with, even when those beliefs are held only by their particular denomination.
 

Tyrathca

New member
True..... but PJ is correct when he said "you can't prove the Bible wrong on one single point".
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD provided a huge fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Also
Matt.12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
So is your defence that Jonah got swallowed by a giant fish and not a whale? Or that it is a metaphor?

Neither really helps. And I notice this is the only one you even attempt to defend.
Next you will tell us that everything cam from nothing?....
Actually I don't know where everything came from. Perhaps it came from nothing perhaps it is eternal in some sense or perhaps there is something for it came from which we are yet to discover or understand.

Pretending we have answers, like God did it, doesn't help. We may never know the answer to this question.
or that life came from non life?...
Unless life has eternally existed then by definition life at some point came from non-linear one way or another. Even if God is the source then this is true (Since God does not fit the scientific definition of life)
or that a monkey can evolve into a human? :)
Yes, we have lots of evidence which you always dismiss as to why we likely came from monkey-like ancestors.
The evidence is that the Bible is God's Holy inspired and infallible Word.
Except except when it's not infallible.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Why? We've seen how the Christians have rigged this. They say "You can't prove the Bible wrong on a single thing" and whenever anyone thinks they have something (e.g., getting kangaroos and koalas back and forth between ark and Australia), the Christian just answers "Oh, well God did it".

The funny thing is, by the same set of rules the Koran and Book of Mormon are also perfect and without error. But then, we also know that in Christian world only Christians are allowed to invoke this special rule.

Pretty convenient, eh? :chuckle:

Ok so you cannot explain them.

I can. almost none can do so but I will give you a clue--

Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The land rests on water.

Water finds its own level under calm conditions, but not when the fountains of the deep were broken up.

The land can rise and fall.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

LA
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Scientists just confirmed there's a second layer of information hidden in our DNA

Fiona MacDonald, Science Alert


Theoretical physicists have confirmed that it's not just the information coded into our DNA that shapes who we are - it's also the way DNA folds itself that controls which genes are expressed inside our bodies.

That's something biologists have known for years, and they've even been able to figure out some of the proteins responsible for folding up DNA. But now a group of physicists have been able to demonstrate for the first time through simulations how this hidden information controls our evolution.

Let's back up for a second here, because although it's not necessarily news to many scientists, this second level of DNA information might not be something you're familiar with.

As you probably learned in high school, Watson and Crick discovered in 1953 that the DNA code that determines who we are is made up of a sequence of the letters G, A, C, and T.

The order of these letters determines which proteins are made in our cells. So, if you have brown eyes, it's because your DNA contains a particular series of letters that encodes for a protein that makes the dark pigment inside your iris.

But that's not the whole story, because all the cells in your body start out with the exact same DNA code, but every organ has a very different function - your stomach cells don't need to produce the brown eye protein, but they do need to produce digestive enzymes. So how does that work?

Since the '80s, scientists have found that the way DNA is folded up inside our cells actually controls this process. Environmental factors can play a big role in this process too, with things like stress known to turn certain genes on and off through something known as epigenetics.

But the mechanics of the DNA folding is the original control mechanism. That's because every single cell in our body contains around 2 meters of DNA, so to fit inside us, it has to be tightly wrapped up into a bundle called a nucleosome - like a thread around a spool.

And the way the DNA is wrapped up controls which genes are 'read' by the rest of the cell - genes that are all wrapped on the inside won't be expressed as proteins, but those on the outside will. This explains why different cells have the same DNA but different functions.

In recent years, biologists have even started to isolate the mechanical cues that determine the way DNA is folded, by 'grabbing onto' certain parts of the genetic code or changing the shape of the 'spool' the DNA is wrapped around.

So far, so good, but what do theoretical physicists have to do with all this?

A team from Leiden University in the Netherlands has now been able to step back and look at the process on a whole-genome scale, and confirm through computer simulations that these mechanical cues are actually coded into our DNA.

The physicists, led by Helmut Schiessel, did this by simulating the genomes of both baker's yeast and fission yeast, and then randomly assigning them a second level of DNA information, complete with mechanical cues.

They were able to show that these cues affected how the DNA was folded and which proteins are expressed - further evidence that the mechanics of DNA are written into our DNA, and they're just as important in our evolution as the code itself.

This means the researchers have shown that there's more than one way that DNA mutations can affect us: by changing the letters in our DNA, or simply by changing the mechanical cues that arrange the way a strand is folded.

"The mechanics of the DNA structure can change, resulting in different packaging and levels of DNA accessibility," they explain, "and therefore differing frequency of production of that protein."

Again, this is confirming what many biologists already knew, but what's really exciting is the fact that the computer simulations open up the possibility for scientists manipulate the mechanical cues that shape DNA - which means they might one day be able to fold DNA to hide unwanted genes, like the ones that trigger disease.

We're a long way off doing that, but the more scientists understand about how our DNA is controlled and folded, the closer we get to being able to improve upon it.



The research has been published in PLOS ONE.
Read the original article on Science Alert. Copyright 2016.
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
I am not sure of what your point is relative to PJ’s challenge. Are you saying that the two Biblical passages you offer prove the story of Jonah is true?
Sure. The evidence is that the Bible is historically accurate and divinely inspired.
DavisBJ said:
I am not aware that cosmologists have agreed on how the universe came into existence.
But you are aware that many believe in pseudoscientific beliefs such as everything came into existence from nothing. Atheists and many others reject sound science.
DavisBJ said:
6days said:
.... or that life came from non life?
Why not?
Because it's a rejection of sound science. We know life comes from life. The Bible tells us who that life giver is.
DavisBJ said:
....evolution of species is pooh-poohed mostly by people who have an allegiance to a dogma they want to protect.
That a microbe can evolve into a microbiologist is believed by people who have an allegiance they want to protect.
 

6days

New member
Tyrathca said:
Actually I don't know where everything came from. Perhaps it came from nothing
No.... things don't come from nothing. Science and logic are not your friend.
Tyrathca said:
perhaps it is eternal .....
Perhaps the universe is the result of an eternal God..... The evidence is there.
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Michael, in this post, as in almost every post you have ever made, you do no more than make assertions of what you believe. We all can do that, and waste everybody’s time. But unfortunately multiple attempts were made early in this thread to try to get you to actually engage the evidence, but you were (and are) simply dismissive of anything you didn’t want to accept.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Until you show a sincere willingness to see if your beliefs can stand up to critical examination, then my fence post out back (which I have also named Michael Cadry) is more receptive to facts than you are.


Dear DavisBJ,

You really are full, aren't you?? You've got to be kidding me with these two paragraphs, eh? If you want to critically examine my beliefs, then go for it. And I'm not simply dismissive about anything. You are writing words with no essence or substance. It is like filler or fodder for a post. You are the intellectual one, not the wise one. If you are hurting or need someone's shoulder to cry on, I am here. If you are too burdened, perhaps I can help. But don't dismiss me as someone who doesn't care. Like I said, I've been trying to be your friend for years, but instead you want to argue with EVERYTHING I say!! So it's all wrong of me to get upset?? I am not used to having ANY enemies or adversaries except Satan and his minions. So what are you trying to do to me?? Leave me alone or be friends. I'm not going to keep saying it much longer.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael



Michael
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
MichaelCadry,
re: "Do you want more?"


Yes. I'd like for you, right now, while you are reading this, to choose to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that leprechauns are real and actually exist. If you can consciously choose to believe things, then you should have no difficulty in doing that.


Dear rstrats,

I don't believe in leprechauns. So quit trying to talk me into it. If your beliefs include that you are gay or bi, or depressed, or atheist, I suppose you have a tough time having a choice in the matter. You would have beliefs that you cannot be free of easily. What are you trying to tell me?

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top