• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Q. What do Christians and Darwinists have in common with one another?

Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Arthur Brain said:
I remember some[one] making such a claim that he couldn't substantiate though.
Click to expand...
But you won't tell anyone what the claim was. :idunno:

Of course, the scientific method involves eliminating ideas if they don't hold up to scrutiny in light of the evidence.
Click to expand...
Great. So retract this:


The scientific method involves formulating theories that fit with the evidence.



:up:

The reason why the theory of evolution came about is because of the evidence.
Click to expand...

Back to the scientific illiteracy. Also, moving the goalposts.

The manner in which an idea arises is irrelevant. To be scientific, it has to be falsifiable.

You do realize that when something becomes a theory in science, it's not just a theory in general usage of the term, right?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Otherwise, young earth creationism starts off with a belief and that ain't how science works Stripe.
Click to expand...
You've shown time and again that you are scientifically illiterate. It is irrelevant how an idea comes about.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
Not really but hey, you just believe that the universe is only so many thousands of years old or whatever.
Click to expand...

Attempting to "shutdown" your opponent through ridicule. How childish.

Again we have TWO DETAILED genealogies showing FAMILIAL relations that you attempt to label as "ethnography".

Each and every one of them show descendency from ONE SPECIFIC man to the next.

Luk 3:23-38 KJV And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, (24) Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph, (25) Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge, (26) Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda, (27) Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri, (28) Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er, (29) Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, (30) Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim, (31) Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David, (32) Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson, (33) Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda, (34) Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor, (35) Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, (36) Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech, (37) Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan, (38) Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Click to expand...

And yet you want to call this "ethnography", which is defined as:
Definition of ethnography
: the study and systematic recording of human cultures
Click to expand...

That genealogy is CLEARLY not recording "human cultures" but a SPECIFIC DESCENDANT relationship from FATHER to SON from ADAM to JESUS.

That is CLEARLY A GENEALOGY and NOT an "ethnography"
Definition of genealogy
: an account of the descent of a person, family, or group from an ancestor or from older forms
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Right Divider said:
Attempting to "shutdown" your opponent through ridicule.
Click to expand...

Like that's never been done by anyone ever here before...

How childish.
Click to expand...

🙄

Again we have TWO DETAILED genealogies showing FAMILIAL relations that you attempt to label as "ethnography".

Each and every one of them show descendency from ONE SPECIFIC man to the next.
Click to expand...

With no way to prove their reliability. You have to use the Bible to prove the Bible. What's that called again?
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
annabenedetti said:
You don't know that. You have to take it on faith.
Click to expand...
And you don't believe the Bible at all.

You take "evolution" on faith.

You prefer man-made faith to God-made faith.

The people in those genealogies are REAL PEOPLE, otherwise they serve no point whatsoever. It appears that you think that most of the things in the Bible serve no point whatsoever. Is this appearance incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Right Divider said:
The people in those genealogies are REAL PEOPLE, otherwise thee serve no point whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You don't know they're all real people, otherwise you'd be able to supply proof.

They HAVE to be real people to you, to support your faith. Do you understand that? When you're a biblical literalist, there is no other option available to you.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
annabenedetti said:
You don't know they're all real people, otherwise you'd be able to supply proof.
Click to expand...
Was Jesus a real person? Was Joseph a real person?

When do the "not real people" in the list begin?

According to your rejection of the Bible, there is no God that speaks at all.

annabenedetti said:
They HAVE to be real people to you, to support your faith. Do you understand that? When you're a biblical literalist, there is no other option available to you.
Click to expand...
As one that rejects and ridicules the Bible, you've shown yourself what what you really are. Thanks for that.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
A reasoned explanation and it makes sense.
Click to expand...
You only say that because you reject the Bible to start with.... oh.. except for that pretty love thing.

Arthur Brain said:
A bit of a problem for a Biblical literalist if the two accounts contradict each other...
Click to expand...
No, it's not a "problem" at all.

This supposed "contradiction" is just a smoke screen for you to try to distract from the FACT that the people in the genealogies are REAL PEOPLE.

You blow that off with your classic "you can't take that literally". The Bible is mere putty in your hands.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Stripe said:
But you won't tell anyone what the claim was. :idunno:
Click to expand...

Um, who do you think I was referring to with the word "dope"? Do you even follow your own posts?


Great. So retract this:


The scientific method involves formulating theories that fit with the evidence.



:up:
Click to expand...

Of course not.

Back to the scientific illiteracy. Also, moving the goalposts.

The manner in which an idea arises is irrelevant. To be scientific, it has to be falsifiable.
Click to expand...

That's your remit. You don't get to declare what counts as "scientific" by any stretch.

Irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Of course it's relevant. A theory in science is far removed from general usage of the term.

You've shown time and again that you are scientifically illiterate. It is irrelevant how an idea comes about.
Click to expand...

It's entirely relevant. Young earth creationism is simply not science. It's based on a fundamental belief that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years old so it starts with a determined conclusion. It then tries to find "evidence" to support this determination while ignoring/discarding the abundance of evidence that refutes it. The scientific method works the opposite. You are in no position to talk about scientific illiteracy.
 
Arthur Brain

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Right Divider said:
You only say that because you reject the Bible to start with.... oh.. except for that pretty love thing.
Click to expand...

"Pretty love thing"?! Is that all that passage in Corinthians is to you? No wonder there's precious little of it in fundamentalism.


This supposed "contradiction" is just a smoke screen for you to try to distract from the FACT that the people in the genealogies are REAL PEOPLE.

You blow that off with your classic "you can't take that literally". The Bible is mere putty in your hands.
Click to expand...

If they contradict each other, then they can't both be real, can they? One of them has to be wrong. Explain that.
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
Arthur Brain said:
"Pretty love thing"?! Is that all that passage in Corinthians is to you? No wonder there's precious little of it in fundamentalism.
Click to expand...
No, I respect 100% of the Bible. I was mocking your for only accepting the "pretty" parts of the Bible and rejecting the rest.

Arthur Brain said:
If they contradict each other, then they can't both be real, can they? One of them has to be wrong. Explain that.
Click to expand...
I gave you a link that explains why there might be differences.

You don't seem to think that God can communicate without error.

AND, ONCE AGAIN.... the point is NOT that there are differences in the genealogies but that they talk about REAL PEOPLE.

Is you think that there are numerous "errors" in God's Word, then you have a false "god".
  • Is there a Creator God?
  • Is He able to communicate with His created beings?
According to you, both of those are in question.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Arthur Brain said:
A reasoned explanation and it makes sense. A bit of a problem for a Biblical literalist if the two accounts contradict each other...
Click to expand...

He can't prove they're all real people, or that the two geneologies are in the right chronological order, he has to take it on faith. That's where his defense lives, there is no proof, only faith. He could just accept that and say "I know there's no way to prove they're all real people, but I take it on faith that they're all real people" and I could at least respect his belief even if I didn't share it - and conversely, he could accept that not all people will take a "flexible" and "fluid" genealogy as a historically accurate account.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top