Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

If there are no contradictions in the bible that "changes any doctrine or belief", why there are 30,000+ (and growing) sects of christianity all with differing doctrines and beliefs?

You keep trying to move the goalposts.
It is becoming obvious you are unable to back up your beliefs with evidence.
There is not a single contradiction in God's Word that effects doctrine. Use any of the top twenty non- denominational Bibles.
Hunter.... You believe without evidence.

 

[Silent Hunter]

And you, of course, are an elitist "biblical scholar" which is qualified to determine who else counts as a "biblical scholar" and who does not?

Straw man?

The reason I only gave three hundred is because it is so easy. Three hundred out of Chicago at that one place and time, many more besides in other cities and other times. You issued an absolute that "not one living or dead."

Again, these people are APOLOGISTS, they know that there are contradictions in the bible and their vocation is to explain away the contradictions.

I think that you don't actually care about this topic at all, but just want to argue about something. Which is why you are inventing positions and hoping someone will rush to fill them, so you will have something new to argue about. But, if you are legitimately concerned about discerning between English translations of scripture, please say so, plainly and clearly, and state what research you've done to date that you're bringing to the table. Perhaps a biblical scholar on this thread will talk to you then.

Straw man? Pull the other one Rosenritter, pull the other one.

Show that picture to a child, and he will say "Stegosaurus." Show it to an evolutionist, and he says "Not Stegosaurus its a hippo!" I rest my case.

You avoided the question. Did all the other fantastical creatures exist or not?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Cross Reference]

Self proving? Er, OK. Why don't you just carry on with that, and, um, I'll start walking away slowly ….

What part do you believe I have wrong or maybe I should reconsider as not being factual or needs to be tested as I have proposed you do with any or all of what can only be a creative act of God?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You keep trying to move the goalposts.

Well, actually, no, I didn't do that, you did. You basically said, "There are contradictions but there aren't any contradictions that affect doctrine so now show that there are contradictions that affect doctrine". That's classic moving the goalposts.

It is becoming obvious you are unable to back up your beliefs with evidence.

Only in your world of delusion is 30,000 diffent sects of christianity all having differing beliefs and doctrines is not evidence.

There is not a single contradiction in God's Word that effects doctrine.

30,000 differing sects of christianity can't be all right but they can all be wrong.

Use any of the top twenty non- denominational Bibles.
Hunter.... You believe without evidence.

... you ignore the evidence.

 

[Rosenritter]

Straw man?Again, these people are APOLOGISTS, they know that there are contradictions in the bible and their vocation is to explain away the contradictions.Straw man? Pull the other one Rosenritter, pull the other one.You avoided the question. Did all the other fantastical creatures exist or not?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

You should really look up Apologist in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You should really look up Apologist in a dictionary. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

Apologetics means EXACTLY what I KNOW it means. Defending obvious contradictions in the bible is just part of it.

There are a variety of christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of christian apologetics include: historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics. - wiki

Even the so called "early christian fathers", such as Augustine of Hippo, Origen, Justin Martyr and Tertullian knew of contradictions in THEIR manuscripts.

 

[gcthomas]

Show that picture to a child, and he will say "Stegosaurus." Show it to an evolutionist, and he says "Not Stegosaurus its a hippo!" I rest my case.

So your standard of evidence is the critical faculties of a child?

Sounds about right. :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

What part do you believe I have wrong or maybe I should reconsider as not being factual or needs to be tested as I have proposed you do with any or all of what can only be a creative act of God?

How can I identify which party you got wrong when you didn't explain your rationale like I asked? Your only answer by way of explanation was to declare your conclusions as true and self proving.

DO you have a rationale, so that I can try to answer your question as to which part I feel you have got wrong?

 

[6days]

I do not consider mutations to be a hero in a plot.

However, it seems you do consider them the hero of the plot.
Natural selection does not create....you agreed.

I have traits and abilities my parents don't have. They have traits and abilities I don't have. Those traits and abilities originate from pre-existing genetic information.

What does "pre-existing genetic information" mean?

Pre-existing = existed earlier
Genetic information = coded information in DNA / specified complexity / instruction manual

Does your genome differ from your parents'?

Yes of course. We have a DNA strand from each parent. Our phenotype may be as much as 3,000,000 Nucleotides different from either parent.

If so, how did you acquire different genetic sequences, if not via mutation?

Mutations account for a few thousand nucleotide difference.

Wow... progress. You partially agreed!! But, you forgot to mention that mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

What do you mean "destroy"? Are you referring to deletions?

Harmful....deleterious, or from Merriam-Webster "to cause (something) to end or no longer exist : to cause the destruction of (something) : to damage (something) so badly that it cannot be repaired"

And no, I'm mot just referring to deletions. There are also inversions, duplications, substitutions and even mitochondrial mutations. While most of these are consider neutral, geneticists would classify many of these as mildly deleterious. Geneticists would also agree that several deleterious mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation, that selection is incapable of removing.

 

[Cross Reference]

How can I identify which party you got wrong when you didn't explain your rationale like I asked? Your only answer by way of explanation was to declare your conclusions as true and self proving.

DO you have a rationale, so that I can try to answer your question as to which part I feel you have got wrong?

You didn't ask me, I asked you. You are obfuscating because you have no option left you. Take what I said to your lab and demonstrate how something can come into being from something that can't reproduce without being complete in itself, assuming that it was meant to reproduce, and that it survive on its own irrespective of how complete you believe it is without the assistnace of all other plant and animal life. Go fer it...

 

[Jonahdog]

Show that picture to a child, and he will say "Stegosaurus." Show it to an evolutionist, and he says "Not Stegosaurus its a hippo!" I rest my case.

Nothing like basing your understanding of the real world on the understanding of children.

 

[gcthomas]

You didn't ask me, I asked you.

Nope — loko back at the posts. You stated to no-one in particular that life had to have arrived fully formed, and I asked you for your rationale. If you don't want to justify your assertion, that's fine.

 

[Cross Reference]

Nope — loko back at the posts. You stated to no-one in particular that life had to have arrived fully formed, and I asked you for your rationale. If you don't want to justify your assertion, that's fine.

And let you off the hook? No way.

Show me where my "assertion is/are wrong. Retire to your 21 century lab and begin by first bringing into existence, from nothing, all the laboratory helps you think you need to prove that I am wrong?

My "rationale' is, it can't done. What more you need to be convinced evolution didn't ever happen. Evolution as you wish it to be believed is NOT as something that came into existence from nothing; from something that needed to first be created for it to properly fully function as intended from its immediate entrance. If that wwere possible, evolution would still lend itself to entropy.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Show me where my "assertion is/are wrong. Retire to your 21 century lab and begin by first bringing into existence, from nothing, all the laboratory helps you think you need to prove that I am wrong?

Burden of proof*(or*onus probandi*in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide*evidence*to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden*until*evidence is presented for the claim. - wiki

My "rationale' is, it can't done. What more you need to be convinced evolution didn't ever happen. Evolution as you wish it to be believed is NOT as something that came into existence from nothing; from something that needed to first be created for it to properly fully function as intended from its immediate entrance. If that wwere possible, evolution would still lend itself to entropy.

The*argument from incredulity*is a*logical fallacy*that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an*argument from ignorance*and an*informal fallacy. - wiki





Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Cross Reference]

Burden of proof*(or*onus probandi*in Latin) is the obligation on somebody presenting a new idea (a claim) to provide*evidence*to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to prove the evidence presented is not adequate. Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

Fallacious shifting of the burden of proof occurs if someone makes a claim that needs justification, then demands that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. The opponent has no such burden*until*evidence is presented for the claim. - wikiThe*argument from incredulity*is a*logical fallacy*that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen. The fallacy is an*argument from ignorance*and an*informal fallacy. - wiki

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Burden of proof is on me!!! LOL!!!

You live the proof. Get undressed and look at yourself in the mirror, LOL!! Why is more needed in addition to that? Maybe you would like to disprove yourself? LOL!!!

Who are you except a created being that you should require additional proof that you are? OMT: Everyone looks like you, give or take a little because of appetites; they eat plant and animal for their subsistence. How come?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Burden of proof is on me!!!

Absolutely!!!!!!!

You live the proof. Get undressed and look at yourself in the mirror, LOL!! Why is more needed in addition to that? Maybe you would like to disprove yourself? LOL!!!

You missed this part:

"Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true."

Who are you except a created being that you should require additional proof that you are? OMT: Everyone looks like you, give or take a little because of appetites; they eat plant and animal for their subsistence. How come?

Creationists think evolution requires instantaneous change. Nothing could be more misunderstood than this about evolution. You should read up on the actual theory instead of the misinformation you've found on creationist web sites.

 

[Cross Reference]

Absolutely!!!!!!!You missed this part:

"Burdens of proof are key to having logically valid statements: if claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true."Creationists think evolution requires instantaneous change. Nothing could be more misunderstood than this about evolution. You should read up on the actual theory instead of the misinformation you've found on creationist web sites.

Deal with it, silly man! I'm not going to chase your rabbits.

 

[patrick jane]

Creationists think evolution requires instantaneous change.

Whereas, you think it's a multi billion year process -

 

[Rosenritter]

Apologetics means EXACTLY what I KNOW it means. Defending obvious contradictions in the bible is just part of it.

There are a variety of christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of christian apologetics include: historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics. - wiki

Even the so called "early christian fathers", such as Augustine of Hippo, Origen, Justin Martyr and Tertullian knew of contradictions in THEIR manuscripts.

Really? Where did you see Justin "apologizing" for these alleged errors in scripture? He didn't say anything like that when I was reading...

 

[Rosenritter]

So your standard of evidence is the critical faculties of a child?

Sounds about right. :chuckle:

The sad part is that it's not about mental faculty, it's about honesty. You disqualified yourself.