I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[ok doser]

The poetry gambit. Evolutionists love it.

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


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

:chuckle:

from now on i'm going to claim that Darwin was a poet and that Origin of Species was not meant to be literal

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

What is time in relation to God and man? You might consider ten thousand years a long time but not necessarily for God, right?

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.

Do you really think that an all powerful omnipotent deity would actually physically require rest?

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

Where does it stipulate in the Bible that a day equated to exactly 24 hours?

:AMR:

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

Okay, what does God say about thunderstorms in the Bible? Is there some scientific explanation as to what causes them and why they occur as we know how they do today? Of course there isn't just as there isn't any detailed explanation as to how an internal combustion engine works either. The Bible couldn't have explained science as to how we understand it now to the audience of the time because nobody would have understood it. It doesn't mean it couldn't employ symbolism and deeper understanding so that future generations could recognize that.

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?

Simply a history book? For most history books there needs to be corroborating evidence before any actual history can be considered a true depiction of past events. The Bible is a bit more than that wouldn't you say?

Is evolution really that much of a problem for you?

 

[7djengo7]

What challenge do you have to undermine the theory of evolution?

I do not know of any theory called "the theory of evolution"; as far as I'm aware, all that has ever been called "the theory of evolution" has been merely a cloud of pretentious nonsense. So, I do not understand what (if anything) you want me to do when you ask me to "challenge" or "undermine" nonsense.

I'm assuming you have an understanding of what a theory means in the world of science as opposed to its general vernacular as a term?

What I understand is that a theory is either true or false; what is neither true nor false is not a theory. I also understand that what is nonsense is neither true nor false, and thus, whatever is nonsense is not a theory. That's why what you call "the theory of evolution" is not a theory: what you call "the theory of evolution" is not only not true, but it does not even rise to the level of being false--it is sheer nonsense.

Essentially that it's supported by a plethora of evidence...

Are you telling me that, in order for something to be a theory, it must be "supported by a plethora of evidence..."? If so, just think of the stupidity inherent in entertaining such an idea: since a FALSE theory is a theory, you're saying that a FALSE theory is "supported by a plethora of evidence..." And, if you can take yourself seriously in saying that evidence can support a false theory, then your idea of the nature of evidence is ridiculously irrational and useless.

Or, would you prefer to tell me that NO theory is false, and that every theory is TRUE?

 

[ok doser]

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

no, he can't

 

[ok doser]

Do you really think that an all powerful omnipotent deity would actually physically require rest?

there's nothing in scripture to suggest that God required rest

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

There's no need, the evidence is already there. if there weren't there'd be no theory of evolution to start with.

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.

Scientific theory is always being tested and continually at that. The theory of evolution has undergone several modifications as it is in light of that. If your idea of "science" is to be able to ultimately falsify a theory itself then how is that science in itself? If something doesn't hold up to testing and the evidence no longer supports it then it's no longer a theory.

blah, blah... blah.

Very scientific.

lain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I do not know of any theory called "the theory of evolution"; as far as I'm aware, all that has ever been called "the theory of evolution" has been merely a cloud of pretentious nonsense. So, I do not understand what (if anything) you want me to do when you ask me to "challenge" or "undermine" nonsense.



What I understand is that a theory is either true or false; what is neither true nor false is not a theory. I also understand that what is nonsense is neither true nor false, and thus, whatever is nonsense is not a theory. That's why what you call "the theory of evolution" is not a theory: what you call "the theory of evolution" is not only not true, but it does not even rise to the level of being false--it is sheer nonsense.



Are you telling me that, in order for something to be a theory, it must be "supported by a plethora of evidence..."? If so, just think of the stupidity inherent in entertaining such an idea: since a FALSE theory is a theory, you're saying that a FALSE theory is "supported by a plethora of evidence..." And, if you can take yourself seriously in saying that evidence can support a false theory, then your idea of the nature of evidence is ridiculously irrational and useless.

Or, would you prefer to tell me that NO theory is false, and that every theory is TRUE?

I'd prefer you to acquaint yourself with what the term "theory" pertains to where it comes to science and having understood that engage a bit more rationally. Otherwise, I'm not seeing there being much point in continuing to be quite frank. If evolution causes you a severe hangup then just disregard it and carry on believing as you will. For others there's no problem with it and still having faith.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What is time in relation to God and man?

Are you referring to 2 Peter 3:8?

Because that has nothing to do with time, but rather it's describing God's longsuffering and patience.

You might consider ten thousand years a long time but not necessarily for God, right?

10,000 years is still 10,000 years.

Don't confuse ratios.

Do you really think that an all powerful omnipotent deity would actually physically require rest?

Rest, in the context we're speaking of, is simply "cessation."

God stopped creating on the 7th day.

The Israelites were to stop working on the 7th day.

That is what is meant by rest.

Where does it stipulate in the Bible that a day equated to exactly 24 hours?

It's determined by the context in which the word is used.

Just like how we use "day" to mean different things, but one of those meanings is still a 24 hours period when used in that context, so too "yom" is used to mean different things, and still means a 24 hour period when used in that context.

Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and Mark 10:6 are the context of the word "yom" used at the end of each day of creation, and determine it's meaning to be that of 24 hours.

Okay, what does God say about thunderstorms in the Bible? Is there some scientific explanation as to what causes them and why they occur as we know how they do today? Of course there isn't just as there isn't any detailed explanation as to how an internal combustion engine works either. The Bible couldn't have explained science as to how we understand it now to the audience of the time because nobody would have understood it. It doesn't mean it couldn't employ symbolism and deeper understanding so that future generations could recognize that.

So what?

Simply a history book?

At it's roots, it's God's record of history from the time of creation all the way to the end of the world.

For most history books there needs to be corroborating evidence before any actual history can be considered a true depiction of past events. The Bible is a bit more than that wouldn't you say?

How many pieces of evidence have been found that can corroborate the story the Bible tells?

Is evolution really that much of a problem for you?

It's not a problem for me, per se. It's simply not compatible with what the Bible says, no matter how many people say otherwise.

 

[Right Divider]

There's no need, the evidence is already there. if there weren't there'd be no theory of evolution to start with.

And, once again, a big pile of EQUIVOCAL "evidence" does NOT validate a scientific theory.

Scientific theory is always being tested and continually at that.

We'd hope so... but the "theory of evolution" is quite immune to such scrutiny. You can tell by the fact that there no way to falsify the "theory".

The theory of evolution has undergone several modifications as it is in light of that.

Of course it has undergone several modifications... it's false and therefore real science is constantly challenging it.

If your idea of "science" is to be able to ultimately falsify a theory itself then how is that science in itself?

A REAL scientific theory must be able to be proven false... if there is NO way to falsify a theory, then it is BY DEFINITION not a scientific theory.

If something doesn't hold up to testing and the evidence no longer supports it then it's no longer a theory.

Red herring... if a theory CANNOT be falsified... it is NOT science.

Very scientific.

lain:

:juggle:

 

[ok doser]

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

he doesn't understand what it means

Scientific theory is always being tested and continually at that. The theory of evolution has undergone several modifications as it is in light of that. If your idea of "science" is to be able to ultimately falsify a theory itself then how is that science in itself? If something doesn't hold up to testing and the evidence no longer supports it then it's no longer a theory.

see?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Are you referring to 2 Peter 3:8?

Because that has nothing to do with time, but rather it's describing God's longsuffering and patience.

Is God limited to our understanding of linear time? Else, this is just your subjective view of a passage where many others consider it to be God outside of time as we can understand it.

10,000 years is still 10,000 years.

Don't confuse ratios.

Sure, but our understanding of time isn't something one can place on a Deity who exists outside of it? Or do you think He is subject to it?

Rest, in the context we're speaking of, is simply "cessation."

God stopped creating on the 7th day.

The Israelites were to stop working on the 7th day.

That is what is meant by rest.

So, rest would be a common word to denote cessation from work then, sure.

It's determined by the context in which the word is used.

Just like how we use "day" to mean different things, but one of those meanings is still a 24 hours period when used in that context, so too "yom" is used to mean different things, and still means a 24 hour period when used in that context.

Genesis 1, Exodus 20, and Mark 10:6 are the context of the word "yom" used at the end of each day of creation, and determine it's meaning to be that of 24 hours.

That still doesn't answer as to how a day equalled exactly 24 hours. You can argue context all you will, there's still no verifiable statistic (unless you can provide one) that a "yom" equalled this specific amount of measurement. There's plenty to suggest it could have been anything but.

So what?

So, it's okay with you if the Bible doesn't explain a whole load of what we can now understand through science and still employ deeper understanding and symbolic meanings? Okay then.

At it's roots, it's God's record of history from the time of creation all the way to the end of the world.

So it's not entirely a history book then is it? Well, it can't be from our linear perspective at least as some of it hasn't happened yet...

How many pieces of evidence have been found that can corroborate the story the Bible tells?

Story? What exactly are you referring to here as the Bible records many events.

It's not a problem for me, per se. It's simply not compatible with what the Bible says, no matter how many people say otherwise.

Have you even considered it's not so much a problem with what the Bible says but your understanding of it? Or are you even open to that?

 

[Arthur Brain]

And, once again, a big pile of EQUIVOCAL "evidence" does NOT validate a scientific theory.


We'd hope so... but the "theory of evolution" is quite immune to such scrutiny. You can tell by the fact that there no way to falsify the "theory".


Of course it has undergone several modifications... it's false and therefore real science is constantly challenging it.


A REAL scientific theory must be able to be proven false... if there is NO way to falsify a theory, then it is BY DEFINITION not a scientific theory.


Red herring... if a theory CANNOT be falsified... it is NOT science.


:juggle:

So, your argument seems to rest upon the idea that a "real" scientific theory must be able to be proven false then...

Yeah, that's how science works...

:rain:

 

[Arthur Brain]

God did not leave a bunch of false evidence around.
The evidence points to the truth of the Biblical global flood account.

Evolutionary scientists begin with rejecting that account and attempting to make the evidence fit their preconceptions.
That is not science.

Um, no. The theory of evolution came about because of the evidence as with any other scientific theory. There was no foregone conclusion where data needed to be shoehorned in to fit in with it.

With YEC, therein lies the problem. If at the outset, a religious belief predetermines the earth can be no older than 10,000 years, then what is left but to disregard any evidence, no matter how compelling or verified and just ignore it? Then just concentrate on anything that might support YEC no matter how tenuous or dubious?

That is not science.

 

[Right Divider]

So, your argument seems to rest upon the idea that a "real" scientific theory must be able to be proven false then...

Yeah, that's how science works...

Is this your confession that the "theory of evolution" is not a scientific theory?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Is God limited to our understanding of linear time?

See kgov.com/time.

Else, this is just your subjective view of a passage where many others consider it to be God outside of time as we can understand it.

The Bible does not teach that God is outside of time.

That comes from pagan teachings which were incorporated into the church by Augustine.

Again, see kgov.com/time.

Sure, but our understanding of time

You mean "your" understanding?

Because the Biblical understanding is that God has a past, exists in the present, and hopes for the future.

isn't something one can place on a Deity who exists outside of it? Or do you think He is subject to it?

God is not outside of time.

So, rest would be a common word to denote cessation from work then, sure.

That still doesn't answer as to how a day equalled exactly 24 hours. You can argue context all you will, there's still no verifiable statistic (unless you can provide one) that a "yom" equalled this specific amount of measurement.

It meant the time from sun-up to sun-up.

Last I checked, that was about 24 hours.

There's plenty to suggest it could have been anything but.

As I said, context ALWAYS determines the meaning of the word yom. Some places it's used it means other than "24 hours." And in Genesis 1, and Exodus 20, it means 24 hours.

So, it's okay with you if the Bible doesn't explain a whole load of what we can now understand through science and still employ deeper understanding and symbolic meanings? Okay then.

I have never claimed the Bible is a science text-book, if that's what you're asking.

So it's not entirely a history book then is it? Well, it can't be from our linear perspective at least as some of it hasn't happened yet...

The history provided in the Bible contains prophecy of what is to come.

Story? What exactly are you referring to here as the Bible records many events.

This is why I usually ask when discussing things like this if the person I'm talking with has ever read the Bible cover to cover without stopping at least once, if not multiple times cover to cover.

I strongly suggest you read "The Plot" by Bob Enyart (if you haven't already).

But if not, the Bible can be summed up into four words:

Creation
Fall
Reconciliation
Reward

It tells the story of God, His people, and how He reconciled the world to Himself, a plot twist, and a conclusion.

Have you even considered it's not so much a problem with what the Bible says but your understanding of it?

I have considered it. And I've been convinced that the problem is evolution, not what the Bible says.

Or are you even open to that?

I'm open to being shown to be wrong, but so far, I have yet to be convinced.

 

[The Barbarian]

And, once again, a big pile of EQUIVOCAL "evidence" does NOT validate a scientific theory.


We'd hope so... but the "theory of evolution" is quite immune to such scrutiny. You can tell by the fact that there no way to falsify the "theory".


Of course it has undergone several modifications... it's false and therefore real science is constantly challenging it.


A REAL scientific theory must be able to be proven false... if there is NO way to falsify a theory, then it is BY DEFINITION not a scientific theory.


Red herring... if a theory CANNOT be falsified... it is NOT science.

So, your argument seems to rest upon the idea that a "real" scientific theory must be able to be proven false then...

Yeah, that's how science works...

:rain:

It's too bad. He was close. This is correct:

if a theory CANNOT be falsified... it is NOT science.

This, however, is unrefined hooey:

A REAL scientific theory must be able to be proven false...

Falsification in science is not a matter of proof. Science, being inductive (which is has to be, because we don't know all the rules of the universe) means that theories cannot be proven or disproven. All we can do is gather enough evidence that it becomes perverse to deny what the evidence says. It can either confirm or it can falsify a hypothesis. If confirmed, the hypothesis becomes a theory. If falsified, it is one more thing we know that isn't part of the way the universe works.

Most of what we know in this world is not logically certain. That's how it is.

BTW, evolutionary theory is quite easy (in principle) to falsify. The simplest means is to show that one or more of Darwin's four points is not true. The problem there is that all of them have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. This is why most creationists organizations admit the evolution of new species and even higher taxa.

On the other hand, many consequences of evolution could be falsified in principle. As Haldane remarked a fossil of a rabbit in undisturbed Cambrian strata would do it. The demonstration that any reptile is genetically closer to any mammal than one or the other is to other members of their class would do it.

And so on.

 

[The Barbarian]

I suppose it would be a waste of time to bring up epistemology (how we know what we know).

Anyone want to talk about it?

 

[Right Divider]

Falsification in science is not a matter of proof. Science, being inductive (which is has to be, because we don't know all the rules of the universe) means that theories cannot be proven or disproven.

You still don't get it, but I'm not surprised.

A theory that cannot be falsified is NOT a scientific theory.

 

[Cntrysner]

How does DNA get manipulated? Is it by environment? What scientific evidence do we have that DNA simply was manipulated over time past? That's a big bang for sure.

 

[Cntrysner]

I suppose it would be a waste of time to bring up epistemology (how we know what we know).

Anyone want to talk about it?

Fill us in. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge, they say.