toldailytopic: Theistic evolution: best arguments for, or against.

[eameece]

There is evidence, and the evidence is in Scripture and in that Egypt is not going to waste ample time recording how God dismissed their gods and pillaged their land. The age of information is today, not then. There is no evidence that the Mayans ever existed except through their very limited literature. But you do not deny that because it has nothing to with God.

I guess only in a forum like this could you get to read such childish illogic as this.

Scripture is not evidence for scripture.

The Mayans built many monuments that describe their history. I guess your "God" only has to do with his "chosen people." Such a "god" is not the "creator of the universe."

 

[eameece]

Which means you're inventing your own definitions for words. :idunno:

Where did Genesis define "morning and evening" or "day"?

 

[eameece]

Not going anywhere It matters to you, or you wouldnt have felt the need to tell me that.

You just don't like feelings very much. do you?

 

[Stripe]

Where did Genesis define "morning and evening" or "day"?

Right at the start. :thumb:

Genesis 1
3*Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4*And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5*God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.​

 

[genuineoriginal]

There is no evidence that the exodus even existed.

Sure there is. The evidence was not found earlier because people were looking for it in the wrong place. It was found recently when a couple of researchers discovered that Mount Sinai from the Bible was actually in Arabia (not in the Sinai Peninsula) and that the Israelies had crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I guess only in a forum like this could you get to read such childish illogic as this.

Scripture is not evidence for scripture.

I wager that if the Plagues in Egypt were recorded in any other book, atheists would be much more content with it, if not through a 'scientific explanation'.
That is what is really illogical. Atheists are all about 'evidence' but then turn into near solipsists when looking at these things.

 

[eameece]

Sure there is. The evidence was not found earlier because people were looking for it in the wrong place. It was found recently when a couple of researchers discovered that Mount Sinai from the Bible was actually in Arabia (not in the Sinai Peninsula) and that the Israelies had crossed the Red Sea at the Gulf of Aqaba.

Do you have any more info or sources on this?

 

[eameece]

I wager that if the Plagues in Egypt were recorded in any other book, atheists would be much more content with it, if not through a 'scientific explanation'.
That is what is really illogical. Atheists are all about 'evidence' but then turn into near solipsists when looking at these things.

When you have evidence that events occured, "atheists" or any other historian would look at it. But to quote scripture to prove scripture is not evidence.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Do you have any more info or sources on this?

The Exodus Case by Dr. Lennart Moller is one source.

 

[Stripe]

Do you have any more info or sources on this?

He's not quoting scripture to prove scripture. You asked for evidence of the Exodus and scripture is the best source of that.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

When you have evidence that events occured, "atheists" or any other historian would look at it. But to quote scripture to prove scripture is not evidence.

It's safe to say that the events of Moses are the most grand of any endeavor in the Old Testament. Moses freed slaves from what was one of the most powerful nations in the world single-handedly. This is not something to be taken lightly. There is ample evidence that the Levites were slaves, and somehow they were freed. This no doubt would not have happened without something extreme occurring.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Galatians 4:25a For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia​

Even Paul knew that mount Sinai was in Arabia.

 

[alwight]

I wager that if the Plagues in Egypt were recorded in any other book, atheists would be much more content with it, if not through a 'scientific explanation'.
That is what is really illogical. Atheists are all about 'evidence' but then turn into near solipsists when looking at these things.

Well, I've just written a book, and in it, it clearly states that the Exodus is simply nothing but a fictitious story which never actually happened.

So are you convinced now that the Exodus never happened?

 

[kalliste]

Evolution by natural selection does not require any interference by any supernatural event or being.

Theistic evolution is as specious as intelligent design; it includes an admission that evolution as a process does happen, but pretends that it requires a supernatural cause.

 

[bybee]

Evolution by natural selection does not require any interference by any supernatural event or being.

Theistic evolution is as specious as intelligent design; it includes an admission that evolution as a process does happen, but pretends that it requires a supernatural cause.

It could be said that, some pretend, that it doesn't?

 

[kalliste]

Hardly, since evolution by natural selection does exist - and doesn't need supernatural intervention.

The evidence for it is overwhelming, unless of course you are a "denyer" - in which case nothing is evidence, just an inconvenient truth.

 

[Stripe]

Hardly, since evolution by natural selection does exist - and doesn't need supernatural intervention.

The evidence for it is overwhelming, unless of course you are a "denyer" - in which case nothing is evidence, just an inconvenient truth.

Now would be a good time to present that evidence. :thumb:

Unless you're not going to defend theistic evolution. :think:

 

[kalliste]

Why would I defend "theistic evolution"?

I think it's a load of nonsense dreamed up by people who feel the need to insert god into everything, know that evolution does exist, and can't bear to think it could exist without their supernatural interpretation.

Do I have any evidence for evolution by natural selection?

There are whole libraries full of books devoted to it. Every living thing we have identified so far demonstrates it. If that isn't enough evidence for you - why would I bother?

 

[Stripe]

Why would I defend "theistic evolution"? I think it's a load of nonsense dreamed up by people who feel the need to insert god into everything, know that evolution does exist, and can't bear to think it could exist without their supernatural interpretation. Do I have any evidence for evolution by natural selection? There are whole libraries full of books devoted to it. Every living thing we have identified so far demonstrates it. If that isn't enough evidence for you - why would I bother?

So your best argument against theistic evolution would be equivalent to your evidence that God did not exist, right?

What evidence would that be?

 

[kalliste]

No, there is no more evidence for theistic evolution than there is for intelligent design - i.e. - none, because there is proof that both are false.


There is evidence for evolution by natural selection - reams of it.

Belief is a matter of faith - and if you don't have it, you don't have it.