I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Stripe]

The poetry gambit. Evolutionists love it.

The thread has been deleted, but here is the funniest example:

Genesis 1 is a POEM. You wouldn't try to convince someone that The Raven (Poe) or Auspex (James Lowell) are literal accounts of events.

Or The Charge of the Light Brigade.

He seemed to Buzz off never to return after that. :idunno:

:chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Christianity is founded upon the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and saviour. Nothing else matters.

Then why does this particular subject obviously mean so much to you?

Ah, the poetry gambit. Will the Darwinists ever explain why "poetry" dictates that "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says?

People have done, time and again. Don't you teach English also? A 24 hour day requires the sun for one thing but there was no way the bible, written at the time it was and translated as it was was ever going into scientific detail where nobody would have been able to understand it. What do you suppose people in the bronze age thought of thunderstorms? Meteorological phenomena?

And what she did in OP and what you do here is assert the truth of your theory — the essence of anti-science bigotry.

It's had to be explained to you numerous times just what a "theory" means where it comes to its use in science.

1. There is no such thing as "established" science. If it is not actively being disestablished, it's not science.

You reckon gravity is going to be "disestablished" anytime soon?

https://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law

2. YEC is a scientific theory. The sooner the Darwinists allow a seat at the table for the ideas they hate, the sooner a sensible dialogue can begin.

It's a hypothesis. In order for it to become a theory it has to undergo the sane stringent testing and processes for it to reach that status.

 

[Right Divider]

People have done, time and again. Don't you teach English also? A 24 hour day requires the sun for one thing but there was no way the bible, written at the time it was and translated as it was was ever going into scientific detail where nobody would have been able to understand it. What do you suppose people in the bronze age thought of thunderstorms? Meteorological phenomena?

No, it does not.... It simply requires 24 hours.

Please remember that LIGHT was created at the very beginning. Genesis 1:3

 

[Stripe]

Then why does this particular subject obviously mean so much to you?

What? :AMR:

Don't you teach English also?

No. :idunno:

A 24 hour day requires the sun.

No, it doesn't.

It's had to be explained to you numerous times just what a "theory" means where it comes to its use in science.

One hundred percent of the time by people who assert that evolution is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

You reckon gravity is going to be "disestablished" anytime soon?

Newton's law of gravitational attraction?

Nope. That's a fact. We don't work to overthrow those.

It's a hypothesis. In order for it to become a theory it has to undergo the sane stringent testing and processes for it to reach that status.

Nope.

That's just you demanding that your idea be elevated.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Indeed, the "theory of evolution" is unfalsifiable, making it an unscientific belief system.

Theories come about in science because of evidence. From a previous link:

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded because of new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, it does not.... It simply requires 24 hours.

Please remember that LIGHT was created at the very beginning. Genesis 1:3

So was there still night? How would people of the time know when exactly 24 hours had passed?

 

[Right Divider]

Theories come about in science because of evidence.

Please describe how the theory that all life is descended from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR is falsifiable.

Please do not include all of the usual equivocal ideas, like genetic similarity.

 

[Right Divider]

So was there still night? How would people of the time know when exactly 24 hours had passed?

That is irrelevant to whether the day was 24 hours.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What? :AMR:

Seriously? Every time this subject or similar comes up you're one of the first to jump on it with "Darwinist" this or that...

:AMR:

No. :idunno:

Oh, my mistake.

No, it doesn't.

So how was an exact 24 hour day determined then?

One hundred percent of the time by people who assert that evolution is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

A theory in science becomes a theory because of the amount of tested and supportive evidence that corroborates hypotheses. It isn't just an unsupported notion or idea at that point. Doesn't mean to say it can't be modified or in some cases even discarded.

Newton's law of gravitational attraction?

Nope. That's a fact. We don't work to overthrow those.

Supposing new evidence came to light whereby the theory explaining gravity needed to be modified?

Nope.

That's just you demanding that your idea be elevated.

It's not "my idea". If YEC has something to bring to the table whereby hypotheses could be supported by testable and stringent processing that stood up to scrutiny then it has as much right to be subject to such in order for it to become an actual theory.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So was there still night? How would people of the time know when exactly 24 hours had passed?

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:3-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:3-5&version=NKJV

:think:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Please describe how the theory that all life is descended from a SINGLE COMMON ANCESTOR is falsifiable.

Please do not include all of the usual equivocal ideas, like genetic similarity.

Alate has gone into admirable patient detail as to what evolution entails so I've no wish to add to what she's explained already. If you want to ignore her then that's up to you. She's the professor on here.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. - Genesis 1:3-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:3-5&version=NKJV

:think:

Okay, fair enough. Still smacking of the poetic here but fair enough. Still, there's nothing here about a "day" necessarily meaning 24 exact hours.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay, fair enough. Still smacking of the poetic here but fair enough. Still, there's nothing here about a "day" necessarily meaning 24 exact hours.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.Six days you shall labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:8-11&version=NKJV

:think:

Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“What did Moses command you?”[/JESUS]They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her. ”And Jesus answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/JESUS] - Mark 10:1-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:1-9&version=NKJV

:think::think:

 

[Right Divider]

Alate has gone into admirable patient detail as to what evolution entails so I've no wish to add to what she's explained already. If you want to ignore her then that's up to you. She's the professor on here.

You cannot just give one simple way in which the "theory" can be falsified?

 

[Arthur Brain]

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.Six days you shall labor and do all your work,but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. - Exodus 20:8-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:8-11&version=NKJV

:think:

Then He arose from there and came to the region of Judea by the other side of the Jordan. And multitudes gathered to Him again, and as He was accustomed, He taught them again.The Pharisees came and asked Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” testing Him.And He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“What did Moses command you?”[/JESUS]They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her. ”And Jesus answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”[/JESUS] - Mark 10:1-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:1-9&version=NKJV

:think::think:

I'm not sure what the second passage you quoted has to do with anything here? Once again, what does the first have to do in determining the actual length of a day? What do you suppose people in the bronze age thought when a thunderstorm happened? These days, through science, we know what causes them. The Bible was never going to be a scientific textbook as that was hardly its purpose was it?

 

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure what the second passage you quoted has to do with anything here? Once again, what does the first have to do in determining the actual length of a day? What do you suppose people in the bronze age thought when a thunderstorm happened?

That's a lovely red herring that you have there.

These days, through science, we know what causes them. The Bible was never going to be a scientific textbook as that was hardly its purpose was it?

:juggle:

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not sure what the second passage you quoted has to do with anything here?

Because Christ Himself affirmed that man was made at the beginning, not over a long period of time.

Once again, what does the first have to do in determining the actual length of a day?

God wrote on stone that because He created in six days, and rested on the seventh, He wanted His people to work for six days, and rest on the seventh.

You don't get that direct symbolism from something that didn't actually happen.

What do you suppose people in the bronze age thought when a thunderstorm happened?

:AMR:

What does what bronze age people thought about thunderstorms have to do with what God Himself says?

These days, through science, we know what causes them. The Bible was never going to be a scientific textbook as that was hardly its purpose was it?

No, if anything it's a history book. Accurately recording history is usually the goal of history books.

Genesis: Six days of work, resting on the seventh. (evening and morning, day 1...2...3...4...5...6... And God rested on the seventh day)
Israelites: Six days of work, resting on the seventh.
Jesus: Man was made at the beginning of creation.

How many more witnesses do you need?

 

[Arthur Brain]

You cannot just give one simple way in which the "theory" can be falsified?

It only became a theory to begin with because of the amount of evidence. That's how science works. There's no conclusions to begin with or pre-set notions or anything but evidence that's subject to continual review, stringent testing, analysis and scrutiny before it can even become a theory.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's a lovely red herring that you have there.


:juggle:

Well, I don't go in for fish that much but where it comes to science I don't see any cognitive dissonance between that and faith unless people want to apply their own red herrings. If faith for you relies on the earth being young then fair enough although it needn't apply to others. Alate has done a sterling job in explaining why there's no need for other people to have a stumbling block to belief while accepting globally accepted science and in enormous detail at that.

 

[Right Divider]

It only became a theory to begin with because of the amount of evidence.

Yes, yes, yes... I know that you have tons of equivocal "evidence" that your will, once again, elephant hurl at us.

That's how science works.

Continuing to avoid one thing that completely invalidates your "scientific" theory will not suffice.

If it's really a scientific theory there MUST, by definition, be a way to falsify the theory. That's how science works.

There's no conclusions to begin with or pre-set notions or anything but evidence that's subject to continual review, stringent testing, analysis and scrutiny before it can even become a theory.

blah, blah... blah.