Interesting revelation

Temujin

Well-known member
No, in modern days, evolution prevents most from trusting in God.
What prevents people from trusting God is his failure to exist. What prevents people from trusting those who claim to speak for or know God, are the absurd things they say. Denying evolution would be an example.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
I disagree. There is no necessary conflict between evolution and God.
Atheists disagree. God is not necessary? You left that out.
Just ask Francis Collins or Ken Miller.
Why?
What prevents people trusting in God is the obvious disconnect between what science shows
Science does not show anything since it is a field of study.
and the woodenly literal interpretation of the Bible by Ken Ham style Christians.

Wooden and literal is factually incorrect. Example, ''I am the door'' is not taken literally or wooden.
There are many different interpretations of the Bible.
That is for Theists who study the Bible, not illiterate unbelievers. Most of your unbelievers who study the Bible can deduce certain facts from the Bible.

A 6,000 year old planet is scientifically ludicrous even before the evidence of evolution is taken into account.
No it is not and on would have to do their homework and study the actual material put forth by YECs. They were not there and they do not know and they were proven wrong on a multitude of previous claims. Like the formation of coal, diamonds, rubies and oil. Taking millions of yrs. All falsified. The historical accounts contradict old earth where the source of humans was nonhuman ape/human hybrid type creatures. This is all conjecturing based on Darwin. They had front-loaded mandates of common descent which dictated the interpretation of facts/remains. Like Lucy as a prehuman.
 

rossum

Well-known member
That is for Theists who study the Bible, not illiterate unbelievers.
Again, not relevant to me. I am literate and I believe in the Four Noble Truths:
  • Suffering
  • Origin
  • Cessation
  • Path
If your only method of of argument is to make incorrect and irrelevant statements, then you will not convince many here.

They were not there
And you were there when Moses wrote Genesis? Do you not realise how weak this argument is? Were you there when Noah married his wife? Do you even know what her name was?
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Again, not relevant to me. I am literate
In the Bible? No you are not. Not only are you illiterate in the Bible you are also illiterate in the case for YEC.

If your only method of of argument is to make incorrect and irrelevant statements, then you will not convince many here.
You need more than unverified indictments and opinions to prove guilt.
And you were there when Moses wrote Genesis?
No. If you have a problem with the Moses accounts then prove them wrong. They are written history and that is the way they were understood.
Do you not realise how weak this argument is?
It is not an argument it is a fact. Science requires observation and experiment. It forfeits exactness when abandoned. History uses different methods.
Were you there when Noah married his wife?
No and that is why we have written history from credible sources proximate to the time period not thousands of yrs removed and in contradiction to earlier written accounts. Old Earth is from the 1800s.
Do you even know what her name was?
There is always google. ;)

Book of Jubilees​

In the Book of Jubilees (160–150 BC) the names of the wives of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth are as follows:


  • Wife of Noah – Emzara
  • Wife of Shem – Sedeqetelebab
  • Wife of Ham – Na'eltama'uk
  • Wife of Japheth – 'Adataneses

It adds that the three sons each built a city named after their wives.
 

rossum

Well-known member
No. If you have a problem with the Moses accounts then prove them wrong.
Certainly. Show me a fossil bird (day 5) from before a fossil land animal (day 6). Just to make is easier for you, I will accept a bat as well as a bird since Moses does not seem to know the difference (Leviticus 11:19).
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Yes. As I said, either design or evolution can produce matches from 0% to 100%. That means that the degree of matching is useless for deciding between design or evolution. We need other tests to decide.

You are not a scientist and do not know how to do tests.

You have never tested your Buddhist monkey deities. Buddhism is great for people with a strong desire for ignorance.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The main goal of a Christian is to help deceived people to reject their deception and accept the truth.

For instance, it is hard to help evolution promoters to understand that it is possible for an intelligent designer to have the ability to create beings that are 90%, 92%, 95%, 98%, or even 99% similar in their genetic structure.

Thus, why is it so hard for evolutionists to understand such a concept?
The rag tag band of evos will not mention there are 15 million protein differences found in a human never found in a chimp or primate.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
You are not a scientist and do not know how to do tests.
Neither are you a scientist, since you clearly haven't a clue about how science is performed.

You have never tested your Buddhist monkey deities. Buddhism is great for people with a strong desire for ignorance.
All religion is great for people with a strong desire for ignorance. Buddhism has at least the merit of not slagging off other religions, unlike Christians, who insult each other as often as they insult others.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Certainly. Show me a fossil bird (day 5) from before a fossil land animal (day 6). Just to make is easier for you, I will accept a bat as well as a bird since Moses does not seem to know the difference (Leviticus 11:19).
Buddhists have a very strong desire for ignorance and are not sharp enough to understand probability theory nor abiogenesis which could not happen.
Where is the human primate common ancestor?

Why is lying important Buddhist teaching?

God commanded Adam to name animals. Not the heathen

He can choose whatever name he wanted. Like the spammers who fall for cladistic labeling stunts.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Then there was this guy called Paul, who went around killing early Jewish Christians - pretending the sanhedrin made him do it. Then he said he had a vision, and that meant he was right to start attacking them for a different reason, because he knew more about it than Jesus's brother. Then the church picked him to be more believable than Jesus, and then the whole thing was legislated onto Romans in 350AD, and anyone who didn't believe it had all their libraries burned.
So that is how atheistas justify torture and killing 200 million.

Your narrative is packed with error.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Certainly. Show me a fossil bird (day 5) from before a fossil land animal (day 6). Just to make is easier for you, I will accept a bat as well as a bird since Moses does not seem to know the difference (Leviticus 11:19).
Does not falsify anything since you was not there. That means you do not know what happened. Have not one observable clue. :)
 

rossum

Well-known member
Does not falsify anything since you was not there. That means you do not know what happened.
You were not there when (as you claim) Moses wrote Genesis. That means you do not know what happened.

Have not one observable clue.
Indeed you do not. I asked for a fossil bird from before the first fossil land animal, and you have nothing. On the other hand, I have fossil birds (and bats) from well after the first fossil land animals.

I have the evidence that birds came after land animals; you have nothing. In science the evidence wins.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
You were not there when (as you claim) Moses wrote Genesis. That means you do not know what happened.
God was there and directed Moses to write it down. The fact being you was not there and neither was your counterpart.
. I asked for a fossil bird from before the first fossil land animal, and you have nothing.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Like i said you were not there and do not know what happened. These are the facts.
On the other hand, I have fossil birds (and bats) from well after the first fossil land animals.

I have the evidence that birds came after land animals; you have nothing. In science the evidence wins.
You have no observable evidence because you were not there and do not know what happened. These are the facts. So stop acting like you do know what happened. You don't know your behind from a hole in the ground.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
Science no more requires observation **of the phenomenon in question** than a detective needs to have observed a murder to solve the crime.
The further back in time they go the less likely it will be solved with murder. So time is of the essence since it all gets more theoretical and less exact with the passage of time. Crime-solving is an inexact softer science relative to the other type of hard sciences. So don't conflate the two. With crime investigations, the resolution of the matter is in courts where non-science evidence is allowed like testimony.
 

rossum

Well-known member
God was there and directed Moses to write it down.
How do you know? You were not there.

You are assuming facts not in evidence.
This is science, not the law. In science we work from the facts currently in evidence. The facts currently in evidence show that land animals appeared well before birds, contrary to the order given in Genesis. As and when new evidence is found then science will adjust its findings. Until then the order given in Genesis is contrary to the available evidence. If you want to change science, then find a Devonian, or earlier, bird fossil.
 

Harry Leggs

Well-known member
This is science, not the law.
It is not science.
In science we work from the facts currently in evidence.
It is not science and you are no scientist.
The facts currently in evidence show that land animals appeared well before birds, contrary to the order given in Genesis.
You are entitled to your opinion. Not your facts and the facts being you were not there. Even in court, your testimony would be impeached.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You are entitled to your opinion. Not your facts and the facts being you were not there.
Is it really your opinion that not personally being at a given time and place prevents one from ever knowing what happened then and there? If so, then you can no longer claim any Biblical knowledge. If not, then the fact that Rossum wasn't personally there isn't really relevant to the validity of his statements.
 
Top