The Bible errors, contradictions and villainy.

[Sky Dancer]

Somebody needs to clue Foxfyre in to how many Christian posters on this thread oppose evolution. Quite a few of you here.

Do they oppose evolution because they are Christians, or because they do not understand it?

I have no idea. I'm just noticing the phenomena.

 

[GStarz]

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence, much like the theory of gravity.

which theory of gravity are you talking about? The last time I checked no one had any idea how gravity actually works. All we really know is that it works, and we can define it. That does not mean we can explain it.

We disagree on evolution (I think) but you made an excellent distinction. No larger point, I just like to applaud what I feel is clear thinking, regardless of which side it comes from.

You're right, of course. We know that gravity is the result of mass, and even that the time/space connection between time and matter/gravity can be tested with atomic clocks at different altitudes (they fall out of sync at even small distances, proving that gravity distorts time, as Einstein predicted). But we have no idea as to why mass generates gravity. No clue.

That's a great point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

kONRADV,

YOUR INABILITY TO HANDLE THE BOARD'S BASICS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ANSWER YOU WITH QUOTES.


Why don't you try quoting one at a time per post so i can answer. the larger response is that every single response by you is extremely flawed. for example on the fossils of mutations that did not succeed, you left out the law of averages. We see no evolution by mutation today, so it's rare. if it's rare, there must have been many over time that did not succeed for one to beat the odds for survival, mate, have those offspring carry the trait and onward, unlike having mutations occur as a sudden, manifest group, otherwise evolution would not have moved forward, but laterally in every direction, and no special fine-tuning could have occurred through that process, hence the importance of the law of averages. A world full of birth defects does advance a species. have you studied evolution for long? No offense, but it seems not.

As far as the personal insults are concerned, let me make this quick; go **** yourself, asshole.

Happy, now?

I have to agree with most of what you are saying here, except for your final assertion. Evolution is not about advancing a species, it is about change. Evolution does not select for advantages, what happens is that truly adverse change tends to die out. this makes it seem that a species improves, but in reality it just changes.

That could be true, except that according to evolution, in the beginning there were only random particles of the building blocks of life. if what you say is true, then that's where we'd still be, more or less. Evolution could be about change currently, but in the beginning it must have been about advancing the development of life. See how it doesn't work? One big fairy tale. Astonishing that people still hold on to it, actually.

Was it?

Evolution is a multi-part process, and it is driven by random mutation. Change is inevitable in a random process. The fact that we have benefited from that change does not prove that the change is beneficial, all it proves is that we survived

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Im glad you agree that we didnt come from trees as some would lead you to believe. However, primordial soup is the only place we could have come from.

The only possibility? IF that were true there would be no debate at all, but there is. Just an FYI thing here, but evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. You can correctly point out that evolution is all but proven, but you cannot speak to the origins of life because evolution is true.

Respectfully, if i can butt in, your final point is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution cannot be said to be true because it has in no way been proven. As far as any hypothesis goes, it has more holes filled in with presumption and wishful thinking than just about any theory ever devised in the last 200 years. the fact that many people believe it is true. The concept as fact is not.

Wrong.

Evolution is an observed fact. What has not been proven is the mechanism by which evolution works. In many ways it is just like gravity, no one can deny that gravity exists, yet we have no idea how it works. we do not even have a solid theory or model to explain it.

On the other hand, evolutionary theory has been proven in models, and they have accurately described various parts of the process. We use evolutionary theory to study disease, track populations, and even manage fisheries. Evolution is real, it exists, and it is not going to go away. It is only a theory in the sense that we cannot describe, and test, the entire process from simple cells to complex organisms.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well neanderthal might be one step back in the chain.

Or they might not be.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors

I remember when this came on the scene. The general atheist public was shocked and disappointed beyond words. The scientific community already pretty much knew it.

Yeah. Most atheists who get up and try to defend evolution know next to nothing about it, which always makes for interesting debates when they try to prove it is not random.

 

[AllieBaba]

Somebody needs to clue Foxfyre in to how many Christian posters on this thread oppose evolution. Quite a few of you here.

Who? Name names.

I haven't seen any Christians who "oppose evolution".

I've seen Christians who say we didn't descend from apes; and there's no evidence that we did. Nor that we descended from a common ancestor of apes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Somebody needs to clue Foxfyre in to how many Christian posters on this thread oppose evolution. Quite a few of you here.

Do they oppose evolution because they are Christians, or because they do not understand it?

I have no idea. I'm just noticing the phenomena.

the simple fact is that most people do not understand evolution at all, they simply take it on faith. A prime example of that phenomena is JScott, yet he defends it faithfully. Christians, like most people, are pretty reasonable if you set down and educate them. In fact, my experience is they tend to be more open minded than most atheists. Show them that evolution is not what they are taught in school, and that understanding it has direct benefits in their lives, and they can admit they are wrong. There are exceptions to that rule, but I bet I could find some Buddhists who do not believe in evolution if I looked hard enough.

 

[AllieBaba]

Still waiting for the list of names of people who stood up and *oppose evolution*!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence, much like the theory of gravity.

which theory of gravity are you talking about? The last time I checked no one had any idea how gravity actually works. All we really know is that it works, and we can define it. That does not mean we can explain it.

We disagree on evolution (I think) but you made an excellent distinction. No larger point, I just like to applaud what I feel is clear thinking, regardless of which side it comes from.

You're right, of course. We know that gravity is the result of mass, and even that the time/space connection between time and matter/gravity can be tested with atomic clocks at different altitudes (they fall out of sync at even small distances, proving that gravity distorts time, as Einstein predicted). But we have no idea as to why mass generates gravity. No clue.

That's a great point.

I think we just have different understandings of evolution. I look at most science through math, and the math behind evolution is fascinating. It gives me insights that people who look at evolution through biology miss. To be fair, they have different perspectives that I miss, and the truth is a lot more complex than any of us really know, but that does not make me right and you wrong. It is not always about right and wrong when I point out that someone is missing something I see.

 

[JScott]

I don't know for sure how he'll answer, but I would answer that a bird is still a bird (from chikadee to eagle), a cat is still a cat (from domestic house cat to cheetah), a fish is still a fish, (from minnow to tuna), a horse is still a horse (from pony to zebra), grass is grass, trees are trees, and so on.

I will add that Darwins finches may have had different shaped beaks however they were all still birds. They never changed from being birds.

I will also add that many verses in Genesis 1 mentions this order. The Lord created the order of species and it's still the order for today - nothing has changed. Everything was made "after it's kind"....including humans. We did not come from some primordal soup.





.

Im glad you agree that we didnt come from trees as some would lead you to believe. However, primordial soup is the only place we could have come from.

An interesting, absolute statement. How can you say that conclusively?

Because I dont believe in magic.

 

[JScott]

Anti-God advocates?!?! There are many theistic believers in evolution. That's just a dodge to try and bolster your argument, but it's completely untrue. As a matter of fact, most Christian sects don't even require that one believe creationism as a matter of faith. It's a minority position even in the theistic community.

The entire premise of the Bible falls flat if its foundation (creation as described in Genesis) is not true. The primary proponents of evolution know this. Certain "Christian sects" are fooled into believing that the two can co-exist. These people either;
1: don't know enough about the evolutionists belief.
2: don't know enough about the Bible.
3: don't know anything about either.

The primary proponents of evolution see these people as "useful idiots". They use them to fool people into compromising their beliefs and ultimately hinder the spread of the Gospel. See this video from the documentary Expelled. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y9mvUIzDfM"]From "Expelled" by Ben Stein[/ame] From 4:50-6:05, Richard Dawkins explains how evolution lobbyists want to "be friendly" to religious people by telling them that there is no incompatibility between evolution and religion, but he admits that they are incompatible. Regardless of what you think of the rest of the film, this segment by Richard Dawkins is pretty clear. A belief in evolution is incompatible with a Biblical belief in God.

You go ahead and believe that. If you turn your back on the evidence that is evolution then you are lost.

 

[JScott]

Typical.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:

Num 33:51,52

So Deuteronomy isnt a true book of the bible then....

Where did I say that? I simply pointed out, using the Bible, that God did not call for all the inhabitants of Canaan to be killed. Since, as you are quite willing to point out, the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, my point is just as valid as yours.

Or, to put it in gotcha words, you cannot use the Bible to prove anything unless you accept that it is true. Since you reject the Bible, and I do not, the burden is on you to prove that God said what you claim He said from an extra biblical source.

My job is actually easier, because I believe the Bible is as accurate as any other history book. All I have to do is use the bible to prove He did not, and I did.

You asked a question, I answered, and I backed up my position with a reference I find valid. You backed up your position with a reference you reject. Which of us is actually being silly?

A reference is a reference.

 

[JScott]

Proven to your satisfaction? What a crock. What common ancestor and when did the divergence take place?

Well neanderthal might be one step back in the chain.

Or they might not be.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Neanderthals not human ancestors

Thats why I said "might".

Nakalipithecus is thought to be the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.

Ouranopithecus is another.

Sahelanthropus is controversial. It doesnt seem to fit into the correct time line. Additionally, the teeth, brow ridges, and facial structure differ markedly from those found in Homo sapiens.

There are lots of examples.

 

[JScott]

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence, much like the theory of gravity.

which theory of gravity are you talking about? The last time I checked no one had any idea how gravity actually works. All we really know is that it works, and we can define it. That does not mean we can explain it.

Thats why its still a theory.

 

[JScott]

Apparently you don't read well.

I can read above a 12th grade level, no problem reading what you posted.

I used to read above the 12th grade level too, when I was in fifth grade. Now I read above graduate level. You completely missed his point.

I think you missed the point I made. What I said was that the definition she gave specified that facts and evidence were needed. Read the definition.

 

[JScott]

Im glad you agree that we didnt come from trees as some would lead you to believe. However, primordial soup is the only place we could have come from.

The only possibility? IF that were true there would be no debate at all, but there is. Just an FYI thing here, but evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. You can correctly point out that evolution is all but proven, but you cannot speak to the origins of life because evolution is true.

Its ok, you dont have to FYI me.

Evolution is the process of which all living things adapt.

Abiogenesis is how all life began.

No one waved a wand and said,"BAM, you live!".

 

[JScott]

kONRADV,

YOUR INABILITY TO HANDLE THE BOARD'S BASICS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ANSWER YOU WITH QUOTES.


Why don't you try quoting one at a time per post so i can answer. the larger response is that every single response by you is extremely flawed. for example on the fossils of mutations that did not succeed, you left out the law of averages. We see no evolution by mutation today, so it's rare. if it's rare, there must have been many over time that did not succeed for one to beat the odds for survival, mate, have those offspring carry the trait and onward, unlike having mutations occur as a sudden, manifest group, otherwise evolution would not have moved forward, but laterally in every direction, and no special fine-tuning could have occurred through that process, hence the importance of the law of averages. A world full of birth defects does advance a species. have you studied evolution for long? No offense, but it seems not.

As far as the personal insults are concerned, let me make this quick; go **** yourself, asshole.

Happy, now?

I have to agree with most of what you are saying here, except for your final assertion. Evolution is not about advancing a species, it is about change. Evolution does not select for advantages, what happens is that truly adverse change tends to die out. this makes it seem that a species improves, but in reality it just changes.

Changes occur during adaptation.

 

[JScott]

Somebody needs to clue Foxfyre in to how many Christian posters on this thread oppose evolution. Quite a few of you here.

Do they oppose evolution because they are Christians, or because they do not understand it?

They oppose it based on fear.

 

[JScott]

Im glad you agree that we didnt come from trees as some would lead you to believe. However, primordial soup is the only place we could have come from.

The only possibility? IF that were true there would be no debate at all, but there is. Just an FYI thing here, but evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. You can correctly point out that evolution is all but proven, but you cannot speak to the origins of life because evolution is true.

Respectfully, if i can butt in, your final point is an opinion, not a fact. Evolution cannot be said to be true because it has in no way been proven. As far as any hypothesis goes, it has more holes filled in with presumption and wishful thinking than just about any theory ever devised in the last 200 years. the fact that many people believe it is true. The concept as fact is not.

You are correct evolution is just a theory but its a theory backed by tons of evidence. Lets discuss the holes. You start.

 

[JScott]

Evolution is a theory that is backed up by mountains of evidence, much like the theory of gravity.

which theory of gravity are you talking about? The last time I checked no one had any idea how gravity actually works. All we really know is that it works, and we can define it. That does not mean we can explain it.

We disagree on evolution (I think) but you made an excellent distinction. No larger point, I just like to applaud what I feel is clear thinking, regardless of which side it comes from.

You're right, of course. We know that gravity is the result of mass, and even that the time/space connection between time and matter/gravity can be tested with atomic clocks at different altitudes (they fall out of sync at even small distances, proving that gravity distorts time, as Einstein predicted). But we have no idea as to why mass generates gravity. No clue.

That's a great point.

So that too you is enough for you to legitimize gravity. Its still a theory, you know.