Creation vs. Evolution

[Famine]

Only God can do the impossible, like in modern day, change the course of the hundreds of rockets fired towards Israel.

Why is the Christian God supposedly saving Jews?

How is that even possible for a top terrorist group like hamas to miss everytime

They didn't... They've killed 50 people in Israel with their rockets.

I always heard that once apes came into being, they slowly started becoming like men.

The Great Apes and the Hominids both evolved from a common ancestor, just over 2 million years ago.

 

[dylansan]

You know, there are also thousands of scientists that know evolution is nonsense. I'm no whiz.

Maybe, but all the other scientists know it isn't nonsense, and that's many more than thousands. Although I don't think you actually know how many scientists agree with you and that you either made it up or are just repeating what someone told you. So please, give a source for that number.

My gratfullness is being blessed with a healthy family. If you want to know in great detail why there is always two sides to a story, please youtube it and see. Just as how you learnt evolution theory, you can, if you want to, learn creation.

You should probably learn about evolution before you start trying to teach us about creation.[

Not sure, maybe there are other sects and cults within evolution, and perhaps I'm watching the wrong PHDs on youtube.
Who would you recommend? I always heard that once apes came into being, they slowly started becoming like men.
I think it was also in the text books, unless the theories changed from then till now.

For one thing, wherever you learned that evolution said anything about frogs becoming roosters or whatever, that was total nonsense. That has never, ever been part of evolutionary theory, though it's something lots of people would like you to think is part of evolution.

Here's a good video explaining the basics of Evolution:


Edit: Here's another one about evidence for evolution:

 

[DCP]

Why is the Christian God supposedly saving Jews?
They didn't... They've killed 50 people in Israel with their rockets.The Great Apes and the Hominids both evolved from a common ancestor, just over 2 million years ago.

Jews play a fundemental role, bringing about the birth of God in flesh. Yes, they sinned and are stubborn like the rest of us, but it was them that God chose as a nation. Them that suffered the most as a nation. The bible says that God will gather them from all nations in the world, and bring them back to the land He gave them. Fittingly so, on a blood moon tetrad, 1948, that was fulfilled. Same in 1967 when they recaptured Jerusalem. If they made it their purpose to fullfill scripture, howcome they didn't fail?

Soldiers will die, like people die everyday, but He said He would protect them, and that was proof of it thus far.
Why is that small country always on the news? Always hated? Favoured by God perhaps?
Yes, orthodox Jews rejected Jesus, but you know that was prophesied in Isaiah, 700 years before Christ was born, yet the messianic jews believe in the Messiah, hence why they are being persecuted, which again, was already prophesied.

I don't know man, 2 million years is a massive past to predict such things. Maybe, maybe not, who knows.

 

[Scaff]

First verse in Genesis man. Genesis 1:1

You can't cite the Bible to prove the Bible.

Well he build the nuke, capable of destroying countries. Fittingly because the bible says at once, 1/3 of mankind will be destroyed. I suppose only a nuke or asteriod could do that much damage.

And that makes zero sense at all.

amazing picture there, but agian, thats all it shows us, what we can see. U don't know the distances, you don't know how many "exactly" and we don't know how many after that. Just think how amazing God is. He names all the stars, and He holds the universe in His hands. People cant imagine how Big this God is. It also says He built His home above the waters of the universe. Wonder what the scientists will say the day they discover water if they get to see the ends of the universe.

Actually yes we do know the distance. Once again that you don't understand it doesn't change that.

Well, it's not, because the bible does say many will be deceived.

Oh dear.

I know enough, that it doesn't make sense, and it is unproven. Thats all I need to know and move on. I believe others eventually will, including christians.

No you don't know enough, you don't even understand the basics.

Well substantiated theory, but by who's standards. Man, precisely.
That's all a calculated theory is, best guess.

Once again no its not.

I don't know man, 2 million years is a massive past to predict such things. Maybe, maybe not, who knows.

The overwhelming body of evidence that you chose to ignore.

 

[Touring Mars]

Yip, and where is the proof of the slow process?
Again, those fossils could be anybodies. No body knows. It's just theories and guesses. That is the point.

The fossil record and other geological evidence puts the history of life on Earth into a time frame and into a certain sequence of events - they show unequivocally that certain species lived at certain times and not at other times; by the same token it shows that certain species did not co-exist, such as humans and dinosaurs. It shows that mass extinction events have happened many times, and shows how entire branches of the tree of life have come and gone. But that is just part of the story.

Today, genetic evidence allows us to quantify in exquisite detail the patterns of relatedness seen across the entire living world - we have barely scratched the surface, yet already the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the hypothesis that all extant life on Earth originated from a common source. Bear in mind that evolution theory has been around alot longer than the field of genetics - the discovery of genes and the advancement of science has allowed genetics to be used as an acid test for the theory of evolution as it used to be, and it has thrown up many surprises and forced alot of people to rethink what they held to be true. But, by and large, genetics has resoundingly endorsed the core concepts of the theory of evolution by common descent. The patterns of genetic similarities (and differences) observed throughout the natural world could not have happened by chance - it can only be explained by a) a concerted natural process whereby all species share common ancestry; or b) some unknown supernatural force or process that has contrived to make it look like life evolved. That is what the evidence says - there are no other options. OK, there is one other option - ignore the evidence and make up your own story. But science doesn't really work that way.

It is the polar opposite of "guesses" - and your use of the word "theories" is about as wrong as it could be in a proper scientific discussion at any rate. Evolution theory is an explanation of the facts as they stand today - it will change, but probably not by much. To say it is based on guesswork and speculation is to demonstrate that you either don't know what the evidence is, or you are wilfully ignoring it. I trust it is the former, and I'd be happy to help point you in the right direction if you want to learn more - and you never know, the truth might just be more amazing and stranger than any fiction you might have heard previously.

 

[Scaff]

You know, there are also thousands of scientists that know evolution is nonsense. I'm no whiz.

And how many of them have produced peer reviewed evidence to support any alternate hypothesis?

I do however suspect that you came to this (either directly or indirectly) via the Answers in Genesis sites list of scientists that support Creation, which doesn't number thousands at all, its 241 and the criteria is very low for inclusion....

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_li...y_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation

...with a very low percentage of Biologists on it.

To counter that we have Project Steve, which asks for scientists that support the Theory of Evolution, which has much narrower criteria (you can only be called Steve) and despite which has 1,359 on its list, 51% of which are Biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

As such not only is your claim not able to be substantiated, but its also irrelevant.

 

[Dennisch]

DCP shows us, like many before him, just how much wrong religion can do.

 

[DK]

Especially when it comes to understanding how sunsets work:

What does theories and proof mean...? Nothing to me. It's not the answer. Nothing doesn't create that beautiful sunset.

 

[Dennisch]

That's exactly it. Most of the stuff discussed here is at high school levels of intelligence. And yet, he and all those before him show that they have no clue how science actually works. All it takes is a bit of Google, or paying more attention in school.

If I don't understand something I go to the Internet and figure it out. Not take the easy road of 'God did it' or 'He works in mysterious ways' .

 

[Spurgy 777]

Especially when it comes to understanding how sunsets work:

Reminds me of "tide goes in, tide goes out".

 

[Exorcet]

I don't know man, 2 million years is a massive past to predict such things. Maybe, maybe not, who knows.

There is nothing wrong with claiming to know what happened over such time scales. That no one was around to record first hand is not a problem, because that is neither a requirement for knowledge or necessarily an accurate way to gain knowledge.

You can deduce how things must have happened with logic, even if you were not there. We can take a fossil and determine what elements it contains, study of the elements allows us to learn how they interact with each other and how they change over time. Simply applying this knowledge (more detailed in reality of course, but this is just an example) lets us fill in what we missed with our own eyes.

Also note that if you don't believe anything you haven't seen with your own eyes, following the Bible does not make sense unless you were there when the original was written, and the next edition, and all the following editions up to the modern one lest any errors creep in and make the book false.

 

[GBO Possum]

Science is great, I love it. It has shown us a lot, but that doesn't mean it knows everything

Correct. Science doesn't know everything, and doesn't pretend to, unlike religions.

Unlike religions, science wants and needs to be questioned, since that's the way to truth.

Science doesn't base its facts on some outdated, antiquated, ignorant, inconsistent collation of texts which are so easily proven to be rubbish. (Except to those who have been brainwashed from childhood to "believe".)

Science doesn't rely on "belief". That's for the uneducated.

And talking about "educated", try this Youtube video

 

[DCP]

There is nothing wrong with claiming to know what happened over such time scales. That no one was around to record first hand is not a problem, because that is neither a requirement for knowledge or necessarily an accurate way to gain knowledge.

You can deduce how things must have happened with logic, even if you were not there. We can take a fossil and determine what elements it contains, study of the elements allows us to learn how they interact with each other and how they change over time. Simply applying this knowledge (more detailed in reality of course, but this is just an example) lets us fill in what we missed with our own eyes.

Also note that if you don't believe anything you haven't seen with your own eyes, following the Bible does not make sense unless you were there when the original was written, and the next edition, and all the following editions up to the modern one lest any errors creep in and make the book false.

Again, without understanding, it's not facts. It's guessing. As you say "claiming to know".
It's not logic to know what happened if no one was there.
Proof of the bible is the archaeological findings.

http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

Two sides to a story. One side doesn't want the other side to be true. In the end when ALL is revealed, one side will fall forever. The bible side, all is told and answered, and the other side is still looking for all the answers. The heart gets what the heart desires.

Correct. Science doesn't know everything, and doesn't pretend to, unlike religions.

Unlike religions, science wants and needs to be questioned, since that's the way to truth.

Science doesn't base its facts on some outdated, antiquated, ignorant, inconsistent collation of texts which are so easily proven to be rubbish. (Except to those who have been brainwashed from childhood to "believe".)

Science doesn't rely on "belief". That's for the uneducated.

And talking about "educated", try this Youtube video

You'd be surprised the bible knew scientific answers long before science even came to know about it. The heart gets what the heart seeks. Science is based on what man has observed and tested, and not what he cannot see and cannot understand. You cannot see 14billion years away, so it is not science. It's a claim. There are all kinds of things in space unseen, affecting the light, so it can never be measured from earth accurately.

Fittingly though, the bible says God stretched out the heavens. My Lord is fully capable of creating a mature universe.
He did after all create Adam fully mature at the age of zero...

 

[dylansan]

Just going to skip over several posts which give quite a large bit of evidence, then?

 

[DK]

Somehow I doubt DCP is going to look at this.

 

[DCP]

Somehow I doubt DCP is going to look at this.

Evidence, evidence evidence is all I see there. No "truth" and "fact" words.

Guys, really sorry for the double posting and that.
Telkom lines in South Africa is just as bad as Eskom. Very slow in loading pages. I'll get it right though...

 

[Touring Mars]

Evidence, evidence evidence is all I see there. No "truth" and "fact" words.

Evidence is king in this (or indeed any) debate. Evidence is the raw material upon which facts are established.

 

[Exorcet]

Again, without understanding, it's not facts. It's guessing.

The example I presented is deep rooted in facts.

Material composition - fact
Chemical interactions - fact

It is these facts that rule out certain explanations, ie the Earth is far older than 6000 years because 6000 years is not enough time for Earth to form as it is now.

As you say "claiming to know".
It's not logic to know what happened if no one was there.
Proof of the bible is the archaeological findings.

http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm

http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
Again, if you must be there to verify what is truth, then the Bible isn't a source. You would need to have been present at the events it describes. The claim in your link that no finding contradicts the Bible is also wrong:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/

All of Geneis is wrong, and quite a bit non sensical (like Earth coming before stars).

Two sides to a story. One side doesn't want the other side to be true.

Science only wants the truth, and that is what it is most likely to find. There isn't an interest in making religion untrue, if religion looked like the truth, science would support it.

In the end when ALL is revealed, one side will fall forever. The bible side, all is told and answered, and the other side is still looking for all the answers. The heart gets what the heart desires.

This is why science is better for seeking the truth. It will discard what is incorrect and it will not answer questions that it can't answer. The Bible is all too happy to do this, and all too reluctant to correct itself.

Fittingly though, the bible says God stretched out the heavens. My Lord is fully capable of creating a mature universe.
He did after all create Adam fully mature at the age of zero...

Were you there to see any of this?

 

[DCP]

The example I presented is deep rooted in facts.

Material composition - fact
Chemical interactions - fact

It is these facts that rule out certain explanations, ie the Earth is far older than 6000 years because 6000 years is not enough time for Earth to form as it is now.

Again, if you must be there to verify what is truth, then the Bible isn't a source. You would need to have been present at the events it describes. The claim in your link that no finding contradicts the Bible is also wrong:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/

All of Geneis is wrong, and quite a bit non sensical (like Earth coming before stars).


Science only wants the truth, and that is what it is most likely to find. There isn't an interest in making religion untrue, if religion looked like the truth, science would support it.


This is why science is better for seeking the truth. It will discard what is incorrect and it will not answer questions that it can't answer. The Bible is all too happy to do this, and all too reluctant to correct itself.




Were you there to see any of this?

That's the problem, everything has to go the route man makes for mankind, when it really doesn't.
If we going with the seeing is believing route, then I have more grounds to stand on, with that website I posted.

You just cannot grasp how powerful the Creator is. Off course He can create the Earth first, and a mature universe in 6 literal days. As you say, no one was there, so no one knows. I believe it because it's the only clear description of why the world is in turmoil, and why there is hope.

Why must the bible be corrected? Why mustn't man be corrected. These are the questions man never wants to face, simply because he doesn't want to live under Gods moral laws of love and compassion. Jesus taught us how to, yet man doesn't care, simple. Just choose the side you want to live by good friend. It's everyone's free will.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why must the bible be corrected? Why mustn't man be corrected.

You should read your own links. As I pointed out earlier your link states that archaeological evidence that some Biblical events may be rooted in fact is no proof that the Bible is God's word.

 

[Jet Badger]

That's the problem, everything has to go the route man makes for mankind, when it really doesn't.
If we going with the seeing is believing route, then I have more grounds to stand on, with that website I posted.

You just cannot grasp how powerful the Creator is. Off course He can create the Earth first, and a mature universe in 6 literal days. As you say, no one was there, so no one knows. I believe it because it's the only clear description of why the world is in turmoil, and why there is hope.

Why must the bible be corrected? Why mustn't man be corrected. These are the questions man never wants to face, simply because he doesn't want to live under Gods moral laws of love and compassion. Jesus taught us how to, yet man doesn't care, simple. Just choose the side you want to live by good friend. It's everyone's free will.

And you just cannot grasp how deep your head is up your ass.

So far you've only been preaching same thing over and over with the assumption that you're undoubtedly right and that absolutely everything countering your claims is automatically false. You ignore facts, evidence and solid arguments that were presented to you over and over by a number of members here. You seem to be here only to preach, not to discuss. At the end you take the piss of the people who have thoroughly studied their surroundings, effects and nature throughout the history to give you the man-made machine that you're using for this very argument today and claim that a several millenia old book and a fictional creature has had it all down. That's disrespectful and offensive at the very least.

 

[DCP]

Hope you feeling better now... JetBadger
We love it when you fulfil prophecy...

Forgive me if you feel I was disrespectful. It is not my intention.

 

[Imari]

Forgive me if you feel I was disrespectful. It is not my intention.

Let's not start lying now as well.

Your intention is absolutely to come in here and tell anyone who thinks that the evidence for evolution is compelling that they're wrong. And in doing so you're not willing to listen to any of their arguments or evidence, but you've got your fingers in your ears and you're reciting your propaganda as loud as you can.

That's disrespectful right there. If you're going to come in here and have a discussion, at least have the respect not to ignore the people that you're talking to when they attempt to explain their own positions and how they arrived at them.

You don't have to abandon your beliefs, but you clearly have absolutely no understanding of evolution at all. People have tried to provide you with the tools to educate yourself, and you've ignored them. You're not going to get anywhere as long as you're arguing against a form of evolution that exists only in your mind. Try understanding at least roughly where the other side is coming from, and then maybe you can actually form a coherent argument.

 

[DCP]

Who are you to say I haven't looked at what they are providing and evidence?
Does that mean I must just agree because you think I should?

I've come from that back round of agreeing with and believing in billions of years too, but you assume otherwise.
It was a chat none the less. If people feel offended or frustrated, them they only have themselves to blame for that. Not everyone is right, and not everyone knows there are two sides to a story, especially if they were only taught one in school.
So yeah, please forgive me if you misunderstood, peace.

 

[Scaff]

Who are you to say I haven't looked at what they are providing and evidence?

If you have then you have failed to understand it, as you have repeatedly and consistently shown a lack of knowledge of even the basic concepts of both evolution and the scientific method.

Does that mean I must just agree because you think I should?

No it means you are either unwilling or unable to understand the evidence.

I've come from that back round of agreeing with and believing in billions of years too, but you assume otherwise.
It was a chat none the less. If people feel offended or frustrated, them they only have themselves to blame for that. Not everyone is right, and not everyone knows there are two sides to a story, especially if they were only taught one in school.
So yeah, please forgive me if you misunderstood, peace.

Only one side of the 'story' is able to provide independently verifiable, peer reviewed evidence and its not the one you are claiming to be true.

 

[Denur]

Who are you to say I haven't looked at what they are providing and evidence?
Does that mean I must just agree because you think I should?

I've come from that back round of agreeing with and believing in billions of years too, but you assume otherwise.
It was a chat none the less. If people feel offended or frustrated, them they only have themselves to blame for that. Not everyone is right, and not everyone knows there are two sides to a story, especially if they were only taught one in school.
So yeah, please forgive me if you misunderstood, peace.

The reason that some appear to be frustrated is not so much because you disagree with them, it is more because you disagree with them for the wrong reasons. Many people have only limited knowledge about the theory of evolution and do not understand how it is all supposed to be working. But in some cases, this knowledge is not only limited, it is also not correct. It's like me trying to convince you that it is impossible to create a world in 5 days and that I would fail to notice your repeating statement that it actually took as many as 6 days. Likewise, I am convinced that your knowledge about evolution is not only limited, but that it is also not correct. Evolution theory does not claim that man evolved from apes, it does not claim that one species can give birth to offspring of another kind of species simply by chance. It does claim however, that mates from one species always, always gives birth to a member of the same species. Always. But they don't produce clones, there is always that little bit of difference (identical twins aside). And that little bit of difference can add up and in time lead to a big enough difference with the original parents to have become a different species (i.e. not being able to reproduce: cats and dogs cannot make dogcat).

I hope I got it right and that I make a little bit of sense. Maybe it helps if you explain what you think are the basics of Evolutionary Theory. Also, I don't expect you to agree with Evolution, even when you understand what it is really all about. Because that would mean abandoning Creation and with that your faith.

 

[dylansan]

School is in session.

@DCP

Today's lesson is about theories, hypotheses, and guesses, very different but related concepts. We should cover why the evidence we have so far provided is not as useless as a guess, but is actually meaningful and useful.

Let's start with guesses. A guess is... well, a guess. It may or may not be based on current evidence, but in this case you admit it is (you claim science is guessing explanations for current phenomena, which would of course be useless if all guesses were valid.

Take an example like "I think that when I flip this coin, it will be heads." Now, if you then proceded to not flip a coin, it would be a totally meaningless guess with no way of knowing if you are right. This is what you accuse evolution of being. But let's say you flip a coin. If it's tails, well of course. It was only a guess after all, and not based on any evidence. If it's heads, oh, you got lucky. This is a pretty stupid guess. Let's try something more interesting. "I think that when I flip a coin twenty times, it will be heads about ten times."

Again, if you don't flip a coin who cares? But go ahead and flip a coin. Really. What was the result? Maybe you got exactly ten, maybe you got two (as I did). This guess was based on our intuition that coins are heads half the time, but we also know (or just found out) that coins don't follow a nice balanced pattern. Sometimes you get 7 heads in a row, sometimes they alternate. The thing about this "guess" is that it wasn't "just as valid as any other". It made a prediction, so we could test it, simply by flipping a coin. Because it makes predictions, it is a hypothesis.

Let's try another hypothesis. "I predict that when I flip a coin 1000 times, about 500 will be heads." I don't expect you to try this but is certainly possible to test, and it's something that's been done over and over i order to test hypotheses like these. In general, the result is usually about 500 heads. So what does that mean? Is the hypothesis fact now? Well, since the hypothesis was really just about single set of flips, whether it's true depends on your exact sequence. But we can make more general predictions. Someone once guessed that, as you continue flipping (fair) coins, the number of heads will tend to be somewhere near half. It's a hypothesis that has been tested more than anyone could count, and because it allows us to make predictions, it is far more useful than any guess.

What about something like "I think that there is an invisible force making sure coins always give heads about half the time." Okay, interesting. This statement is based on current understanding, and tries to explain the phenomena we observe. But it's not a hypothesis. Why? Because we can't test it. There's no way to check if there is a force because there's no way to measure it except by flipping coins, and we don't know if coins are actually behaving the way they do because of this force. It's a useless thought, a guess.

So what about theories? Well, some hypotheses are so good, every single test has agreed with it. Every time we flip a bunch of coin, they tend towards about half. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but no one has ever flipped a sequence of 50,000 heads in a row. Until someone does, the original hypothesis becomes a theory. This means not only does it make predictions, every test ever conducted so far agrees with the predictions.

There are better examples of theories. Gravity, for example, predicted that objects fall towards Earth when released. It started off simple. Sometimes there are exceptions, like helium balloons, which force us to create new hypotheses which explain all the old facts and the new ones. Once we get something new that does, it becomes the new theory. Often it doesn't change much but includes exceptions. For example, in a vacuum on Earth, we know all matter would fall towards the ground at the same rate. It gets more complicated but every complication allows new predictions and every prediction has so far been supported by every test. And if not, it gets changed to something that does.

Do you think that gravity is just a guess, and just as likely as any other guess? Do you think it's just luck that none of the observations we've ever made go against the predictions made by the theory? Yes, I do expect an actual answer to these questions.

How does this relate to evolution? Well, that will be in part two...

Edit: Science/math types feel free to make corrections or give better examples. This was very simplified but I think it gets the point across.

 

[GBO Possum]

You'd be surprised the bible knew scientific answers long before science even came to know about it.

I think you might be surprised about just how many things the bible got wrong. A single Googling brought up this link with over 400 errors listed:- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

If that's too much reading, consider this. The bible told people that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo figured out the truth, but was threatened with torture by fanatic bible-readers. He wisely pretended to change his mind, however, that didn't change the reality. Today, it's only a strange fringe who still hold the geocentric belief.

Now, before you us the usual excuse that the bible was "misinterpreted" back then, consider this. How could a book written by the god who made the universe be so ambiguous that educated readers could get it so wrong?

It may be that the writer of the bible did know the occasional fact and managed to record them unambiguously. That doesn't cancel out the vast number of ignorant and incorrect statements.

 

[Exorcet]

That's the problem, everything has to go the route man makes for mankind, when it really doesn't.

This obsession with "man's way" that I see in some religious discussions is interesting, but not really something I can relate to. There are many people, each with their own ideas. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to lump all people into one group. It's also not a given that just because something claims to be from god(s), that it is. Religion is something that came from people, the facts about the universe don't. People simply discover those facts.

If we going with the seeing is believing route, then I have more grounds to stand on, with that website I posted.

First off, if you go by seeing is believing, you're fooling yourself. It's not necessarily reliable, nor is it the only way to come to a conclusion. I would not consider it a good stance to take. Secondly, you're convinced that God exists and the Bible is right, yet you're all too quick to admit that since no one was there to see some of the things in the Bible, that no one can be sure they happened. If that is how you think, why are you sure in your belief? It's not really a logical position to take.

You just cannot grasp how powerful the Creator is. Off course He can create the Earth first, and a mature universe in 6 literal days.

I don't have a problem imagining a very powerful being. What I have a problem with is that there is nothing indicating that such a being exists. The Earth could not predate stars because the early universe was essentially just hydrogen. Earth is more complex than that. For hydrogen to become heavier elements, you need fusion, which happens in stars. Even the largest stars take millions of years to die, so the Earth, at minimum would take millions of years from the start of the universe to form.

Your answer to that though, is to bring up that no one would have seen this happen. That's true, but we do see modern star/planet formation, the consistency of physics, the form of the early universe, and the end result of history up to now. As dylansan pointed out, information like this is complied into theories which let us not only understand the past but also fill in gaps in our knowledge. In cosmology, The Cosmic Microwave Background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

is a famous example of something discovered without it being "seen". Scienstists determined that it would be there just by eliminating possibilities through logic and facts.

In the case of evolution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik is a similar example. When your theory can make accurate predictions, you know you have something good. This is something science does all the time.

As you say, no one was there, so no one knows. I believe it because it's the only clear description of why the world is in turmoil, and why there is hope.

I don't see Genesis as an explanation of anything. It can't be verified, nor is it really relevant to anything today. If I wanted to explain the world as it is now, I'd look at Earth's history and natural processes along with the behavior of living organisms. I don't know what turmoil you're referring to, but the problems we face today don't require the Bible for explanation, and I strongly doubt they will be solved through religion of any kind.

Why must the bible be corrected?

It has been shown to be wrong. With that being the case, if it wants to be accepted as truth, it must change by definition.

Why mustn't man be corrected.

What makes the Bible something that didn't come from humanity? Even in the link you posted, it was made clear that proof of Bible divinity is lacking. In reference to science, it corrects itself when needed.

These are the questions man never wants to face, simply because he doesn't want to live under Gods moral laws of love and compassion.

Religion isn't necessary to have morality, and most religions, including Christianity, tend to have poor and arbitrary morals.

None of that has anything to do with evolution or science in general though. Evolution doesn't make moral claims, and it doesn't prevent people from showing love or compassion.

 

[DCP]

I think you might be surprised about just how many things the bible got wrong. A single Googling brought up this link with over 400 errors listed:- http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

If that's too much reading, consider this. The bible told people that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo figured out the truth, but was threatened with torture by fanatic bible-readers. He widely pretended to change his mind, however, that didn't change the reality. Today, it's only a strange fringe who still hold the geocentric belief.

Now, before you us the usual excuse that the bible was "misinterpreted" back then, consider this. How could a book written by the god who made the universe be so ambiguous that educated readers could get it so wrong?

It may be that the writer of the bible did know the occasional fact and managed to record them unambiguously. That doesn't cancel out the vast number of ignorant and incorrect statements.

We could go all day googling and posting who can smash the most contradictions, but that will not save our eternal souls unfortunately. It will not bring us to repentance. Two sides to a story, where the heart desires just the one side.
Would love to see where the bible said "the sun revolves around the eeearth" wow.

This obsession with "man's way" that I see in some religious discussions is interesting, but not really something I can relate to. There are many people, each with their own ideas. Sometimes it doesn't make sense to lump all people into one group. It's also not a given that just because something claims to be from god(s), that it is. Religion is something that came from people, the facts about the universe don't. People simply discover those facts.

Yes true, except christianity is a relationship with Christ. The church is the body of Christ, not the building.


First off, if you go by seeing is believing, you're fooling yourself. It's not necessarily reliable, nor is it the only way to come to a conclusion. I would not consider it a good stance to take. Secondly, you're convinced that God exists and the Bible is right, yet you're all too quick to admit that since no one was there to see some of the things in the Bible, that no one can be sure they happened. If that is how you think, why are you sure in your belief? It's not really a logical position to take.

Seeing is, but it's fitting that God says for Him, believe and have faith that He is always there. You could only understand this if you actually repented and turned to Him. Till then, you will miss the Ark. "spirit"

I don't have a problem imagining a very powerful being. What I have a problem with is that there is nothing indicating that such a being exists. The Earth could not predate stars because the early universe was essentially just hydrogen. Earth is more complex than that. For hydrogen to become heavier elements, you need fusion, which happens in stars. Even the largest stars take millions of years to die, so the Earth, at minimum would take millions of years from the start of the universe to form.

It's again just a theory. No fact in that, and there will never be. I can't understand why this can't be grasped. No one has seen a star form. No one has seen a black hole or dark energy, yet they can gullibly believe the experiments. Wow
Why do we see a hand full of supanovas, because in a time span of billions of years, we should see millions right?
Where is this area of this big explosion from nothing, that made everything. Ironic it went to nothingness perhaps?

Your answer to that though, is to bring up that no one would have seen this happen. That's true, but we do see modern star/planet formation, the consistency of physics, the form of the early universe, and the end result of history up to now. As dylansan pointed out, information like this is complied into theories which let us not only understand the past but also fill in gaps in our knowledge. In cosmology, The Cosmic Microwave Background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

is a famous example of something discovered without it being "seen". Scienstists determined that it would be there just by eliminating possibilities through logic and facts.

In the case of evolution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik is a similar example. When your theory can make accurate predictions, you know you have something good. This is something science does all the time.

I don't predict that the next motorist might hit me. I understand that it will happen, and I understand that when it does, my heart must always be right. These links are all just theories again and again.


I don't see Genesis as an explanation of anything. It can't be verified, nor is it really relevant to anything today. If I wanted to explain the world as it is now, I'd look at Earth's history and natural processes along with the behavior of living organisms. I don't know what turmoil you're referring to, but the problems we face today don't require the Bible for explanation, and I strongly doubt they will be solved through religion of any kind.


It has been shown to be wrong. With that being the case, if it wants to be accepted as truth, it must change by definition.

Only shown by those who believe they know better. I believe the flood changed the face of the earth, and all wickedness that was destroyed, but there is another story, which others are very free to believe, or accept the evidence.


What makes the Bible something that didn't come from humanity? Even in the link you posted, it was made clear that proof of Bible divinity is lacking. In reference to science, it corrects itself when needed.

Everyone avoids Isaiah 53, written 700 years before Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah
It cracks me up when people say "ooh but that was a self fullfilling prophecy". Think of that, the Romans read the scriptures and planned to crucify Jesus in that exact way. Its a conspiracy and a Jew paid the Romans.


Religion isn't necessary to have morality, and most religions, including Christianity, tend to have poor and arbitrary morals.
How true, although the heart is what God sees, not the good works. Every religion fittingly teaches that good deeds will save you, but nope, not the God of the bible.

None of that has anything to do with evolution or science in general though. Evolution doesn't make moral claims, and it doesn't prevent people from showing love or compassion.

53 millions people killed in WW2. Hardly different from the rest hey?
I think God was really serious when he told Adam, "and surely you will die"