Evolution.. fact or not?

[PLAYER57832]

The short answer is that Genesis was never meant to convey an exact timeline in the way that some Conservative Christians assert. .

Again, you have yet to reply to the fact that in Genesis 1 and 2 He specifically states after each of the 6 days that "the evening and the morning were the _ day".
There is only one evening and one morning in a 24 hr. day. How do you reconcile this with your statement that these were not 24 hr. days?

God's day is not 24 hours.

Also, this was a way of putting things into terms that humans then could understand.

Also you have not replied to the question of the geneologies. You say there is no exact timeline given in the Bible - this is not true at all. He gives the names and ages of the descendents from Adam to Jesus, which you can use to easily determine a timeline to within a thousand years or less.

I once added them up and got to 6000 before I even hit Noah.

However, I will accept that my math might have been in error. I did not even bother to recheck.

The shortest answer is that I don't know... The longer answer is that this is a history of the Jewish people.

Beyond that.. I am too tired to do better right now. Will come back if I think of a better answer later.

How do you reconcile these 2 facts with your statement that there is "no exact timeline" in the Bible? Please respond.

The Bible has a timeline alright. Some of Genesis, however, is inexact.

[jonesthecurl]

OK here's a question:
There are people out there (and in here) listening to and believing what the Creation Science people put out.
But, as Player often points out, the people making this stuff know that they are spreading misinformation. I don't mean that they think their position is wrong, but they DO know that they are slanting the evidence, omitting highly relevant facts, misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying, and sometimes outright lying. Obvious their purpose is to convince others of the "truth" of creationism.
My question is: what do they get out of that? once they start using dodgy tactics, haven't they lost the argument, in their own heads?

[owheelj]

God's day is not 24 hours.

Also, this was a way of putting things into terms that humans then could understand.

How do you know this? Is there any evidence that God's day is not 24 hours, or are you merely making that assertion because otherwise it wouldn't be consistent with reality?

It seems to me that the history of the relationship between Christianity (and other religions) and science goes like this;

Christianity; "This is how the world is."
Science; "Actually it's like this."
Christianity (after denying it for a while); "That's what our book says too, we just didn't understand it properly before."


It seems to me that it doesn't matter what science discovers about the world and how it contradicts with current religious beliefs because the religious followers will construct explanations out of thin air as to why their beliefs are actually supported by this new information.

There's been some great studies of doomsday cults that supports this.

[b.k. barunt]

Just got back on 3 or 4 pages later and i see that Player has opted to ignore my post. My argument remains unanswered. The Bible speaks of each of the six days having "an evening and a morning". You can postulate and theorize all you want about what a day "could be", and ignore what the Bible clearly says was meant by each "day", or you can accept it for what it says. If you decide to ignore what it says and make up your own interpretation you can get the Bible to say anything you want it to, and you can therefore reconcile it with evolution. But if you accept it for what it says you'll see that the Biblical account of creation leaves no room for evolution whatsoever.

The Bible says clearly that Adam was the first man, and we are all descended from him. It gives the names of his male descendents in the lineage of Jesus, all the way to Jesus. How does this leave room for our descending from apes? Adam was not born, but created. He, according to the Bible could not possibly have come from an ape or any other animal as he wasn't born. How can you possibly construe it otherwise?

I can't prove or disprove evolution. But i can prove that it cannot possibly be correlated with the Biblical account. Perhaps this is why Player has opted to ignore my questions?


Honibaz

[TheProwler]

A "morning" is the beginning of a period of global warming....it is thought to take place over several million years. So not just a short period of global warming, like Al Gore talks about. That's equivalent to the sun peeking out from the clouds for a few minutes.

An "evening" is the beginning of a period of global cooling....etc.

It is all so simple.

Adam had a little device that would combine dirt and water and amino acids into people. In this way, he was the father of all other people. The first version of the bible listed all these people, but the list was over 7634 pages long (in real tiny print). There was no way to market it and some people in a focus group decided it was better to just pick a couple of names and use them. A book ain't nothing if it doesn't get on the Bestsellers List.

It is all so simple.

[b.k. barunt]

Well hell, that convinces me. How could i have been so wrong?


Honibaz

[TheProwler]

Well hell, that convinces me. How could i have been so wrong?

Probably your upbringing.

Daily beatings to the head.





And a lack of proper nutrition.

[b.k. barunt]

OK here's a question:
There are people out there (and in here) listening to and believing what the Creation Science people put out.
But, as Player often points out, the people making this stuff know that they are spreading misinformation. I don't mean that they think their position is wrong, but they DO know that they are slanting the evidence, omitting highly relevant facts, misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying, and sometimes outright lying. Obvious their purpose is to convince others of the "truth" of creationism.
My question is: what do they get out of that? once they start using dodgy tactics, haven't they lost the argument, in their own heads?

Pretty strong allegations there, and pretty vague. Got any specifics? We've already seen the "scientists" do this with Piltdown Man, a proven hoax, but i've yet to see a hoax on the side of the creationists. Player referred to some dinosaur footprints, but didn't provide a link of any kind. Like i said, you've made some strong allegations here - is it idle chatter or do you have facts to back it up?


Honibaz

[TheProwler]

OK here's a question:
There are people out there (and in here) listening to and believing what the Creation Science people put out.
But, as Player often points out, the people making this stuff know that they are spreading misinformation. I don't mean that they think their position is wrong, but they DO know that they are slanting the evidence, omitting highly relevant facts, misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying, and sometimes outright lying. Obvious their purpose is to convince others of the "truth" of creationism.
My question is: what do they get out of that? once they start using dodgy tactics, haven't they lost the argument, in their own heads?

Pretty strong allegations there, and pretty vague. Got any specifics? We've already seen the "scientists" do this with Piltdown Man, a proven hoax, but i've yet to see a hoax on the side of the creationists. Player referred to some dinosaur footprints, but didn't provide a link of any kind. Like i said, you've made some strong allegations here - is it idle chatter or do you have facts to back it up?

Yeah, right on! If there was evidence of dinosaurs, they make a museum or something!! Show me the museum!!!

[b.k. barunt]

Also you have not replied to the question of the geneologies. You say there is no exact timeline given in the Bible - this is not true at all. He gives the names and ages of the descendents from Adam to Jesus, which you can use to easily determine a timeline to within a thousand years or less.

I once added them up and got to 6000 before I even hit Noah.

However, I will accept that my math might have been in error. I did not even bother to recheck.

I'll make it easy for you:

Adam to Seth -130 years
Seth to Enos - 105 yrs.
Enos to Cainan - 90 yrs.
Cainan to Mahalaleel - 70 yrs.
Mahalaleel to Jared - 65 yrs.
Jared to Enoch - 162 yrs.
Enoch to Methuselah - 65 yrs.
Methuselah to Lamech - 187 yrs.
Lamech to Noah - 182 yrs.

That's in Genesis 5 if you or anyone else would like to check for yourself. As you can see it falls far short of 6,000 yrs. You have to go from Noah to Jesus to get that.

I apologize for the troll - he follows me around from time to time.


Honibaz

[xelabale]

Creationists said God created the world in 6 days - that's one hell of a hoax.
Teaching creationism in school is a definite punkd moment.

As for these scientists with these so-called evolutionary theories. They come round here with their books, citations, peer-review, repeatable experiments and requirement of proof and just expect us to believe them? For God's sake...

[TheProwler]

I apologize for the troll - he follows me around from time to time.

You know, you step up with this big challenge for PLAYER to post a link to some information about a dinosaur footprint.

So if PLAYER provides this link, will you concede? No, you won't. So what's your point then? When you make these references to the Bible, does everyone demand that you provide a link to the information?

My point was simple. There has been a lot of evidence gathered that would indicate the existence of dinosaurs. And I'm not gonna spend 2 minutes Googling it if you won't.

You used the word "vague". So how about you come out and say something with conviction? Make a statement like "If you provide a link to evidence that has been gathered that would indicate that dinosaurs did exist on Earth millions of years ago, I will concede that the Bible may not be entirely accurate if taken literally."

Shit, you demand proof, and you offer none. Just a book that was written by men.

[b.k. barunt]

Creationists said God created the world in 6 days - that's one hell of a hoax.

Evidently you're unfamiliar with the word "hoax". The Piltdown Man, foisted upon us by your scientists "with their books, citations, peer-review, requirement of proof", etc., was a hoax. To say that the world was created in 6 days is not a hoax, but an opinion, unless they drum up their own Piltdown Man to back up their opinion. Maybe you could look up "hoax" in the dictionary.

As for these scientists with these so-called evolutionary theories. They come round here with their books, citations, peer-review, repeatable experiments and requirement of proof and just expect us to believe them? For God's sake...

"Requirement of proof"? News flash for you - according to proper scientific methodology, evolution is still a theory - maybe you've heard the term, you know, "Theory of Evolution" - and has not been proven yet as a fact, yet it's taught as a proven fact in many of our schools. This is not scientific at all, but purposely misleading. I'm not here to tell anyone that Creationism is a proven fact, but simply to debunk the argument that Evolution is compatible with the Bible - that in itself is ridiculous and can be easily disproved by reading what the Bible says.

[TheProwler]

Yeah, if one scientist tries to deceive the public, all scientists do it, all the time.

It's that kind of logic that keeps Fundamentalist Christianity going strong.

Good work, Blunt. Stay on the offense. Because you have no defense.

[xelabale]

I agree.

By the way who found out that the Piltdown man was a hoax? Was it by any chance scientists using scientific methods who discredited another scientist for being unscientific and twatly?

Evolution is a theory.
There are currently no other credible competing theories.
Creationism is a hypothesis.

[b.k. barunt]

I apologize for the troll - he follows me around from time to time.

You know, you step up with this big challenge for PLAYER to post a link to some information about a dinosaur footprint.

So if PLAYER provides this link, will you concede? No, you won't. So what's your point then? When you make these references to the Bible, does everyone demand that you provide a link to the information?

My point was simple. There has been a lot of evidence gathered that would indicate the existence of dinosaurs. And I'm not gonna spend 2 minutes Googling it if you won't.

You used the word "vague". So how about you come out and say something with conviction? Make a statement like "If you provide a link to evidence that has been gathered that would indicate that dinosaurs did exist on Earth millions of years ago, I will concede that the Bible may not be entirely accurate if taken literally."

Shit, you demand proof, and you offer none. Just a book that was written by men.

If i refer you to the post about the dinosaur footprint, will you feel stoopid for ranting about something we weren't even discussing? Maybe. Will it shut you up? No, so go back and find it yourself. Player was referring to an alleged phony dinosaur print of some kind - i never disputed the existence of dinosaurs. You just shoved your foot halfway down your throat. Enjoy.


Honibaz

[b.k. barunt]

I agree.

By the way who found out that the Piltdown man was a hoax? Was it by any chance scientists using scientific methods who discredited another scientist for being unscientific and twatly?

Evolution is a theory.
There are currently no other credible competing theories.
Creationism is a hypothesis.

Ok so you admit Creationism is not a hoax but a hypothesis. Good, and i will concede that it was scientists using scientific methods who discredited another scientist for being unscientific and twatly on the Piltdown Man.


Honibaz

[TheProwler]

If i refer you to the post about the dinosaur footprint, will you feel stoopid for ranting about something we weren't even discussing? Maybe. Will it shut you up? No, so go back and find it yourself. Player was referring to an alleged phony dinosaur print of some kind - i never disputed the existence of dinosaurs. You just shoved your foot halfway down your throat. Enjoy.

The problem with you, Blunt, is that you always expect people to go back and research things...I'm not going to go back and research it. I'm not interested in reading this entire thread to find some reference to a dinosaur footprint.

You are so vague that you go on and on and I can't see where you've taken a stance.

Explain your post where you complain about no link to the dinosaur footprint reference.

OK here's a question:
There are people out there (and in here) listening to and believing what the Creation Science people put out.
But, as Player often points out, the people making this stuff know that they are spreading misinformation. I don't mean that they think their position is wrong, but they DO know that they are slanting the evidence, omitting highly relevant facts, misrepresenting what scientists are actually saying, and sometimes outright lying. Obvious their purpose is to convince others of the "truth" of creationism.
My question is: what do they get out of that? once they start using dodgy tactics, haven't they lost the argument, in their own heads?

Pretty strong allegations there, and pretty vague. Got any specifics? We've already seen the "scientists" do this with Piltdown Man, a proven hoax, but i've yet to see a hoax on the side of the creationists. Player referred to some dinosaur footprints, but didn't provide a link of any kind. Like i said, you've made some strong allegations here - is it idle chatter or do you have facts to back it up?

So what is your point, exactly? That "Creation Science people" don't spread misinformation,present slanted evidence, omit highly relevant facts, etc.?

My point is, again, simple. You just simply try to ignore it. You haven't stated what you will concede if this evidence that you demand is presented. And I don't think you will concede anything.

This is an example of a tactic that you often use. You wait several posts, then reply to an earlier post in an attempt to cloud issues. But you never commit to being open-minded enough to change your opinion on anything.

So make a statement, Blunt. "I will concede <what> if you provide evidence of <this>." If you can't do that, then why send people off on fact-finding missions that you will just ignore or downplay later?

And look at that!! As I was writing that...

Ok so you admit Creationism is not a hoax but a hypothesis. Good, and i will concede that it was scientists using scientific methods who discredited another scientist for being unscientific and twatly on the Piltdown Man.

See that!! Progress!! Blunt conceded something...

So, let's further that by saying "and by giving an example of a scientist being unscientific and twatly does nothing to prove that any scientist is being unscientific and twatly in any other case. It just shows that scientists have the capability of being unscientific and twatly, which we all knew anyways. So I have no idea why I even mentioned it."

There, I finished it for you. You're welcome, Blunt. You are growing. Evolving, so to speak.

[xelabale]

If we agree that creationism is a hypothesis and evolution is a theory, we must examine the difference:

hypothesis:
1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

theory:
1 the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Summary:
A theory is based on fact and evidence. A hypothesis is something put out there in order to see what might come from it. Which do you think we should accept (for now, whilst we keep testing it to see if it's true, for as scientists we never blindly accept something but always question it)?

Those who seriously dispute evolution are basically disputing science itself, in which case they should get off the magic word machine before midnight or Cinderella's gonna be pissed off.

[jay_a2j]

Time to let you people live in your land of delusion. You believing in evolution does not effect me in any way. (Until you start stating it as FACT, which it is not. But I digress)


Good luck with your monkey worship.

[xelabale]

Time to let you people live in your land of delusion. You believing in evolution does not effect me in any way. (Until you start stating it as FACT, which it is not. But I digress)


Good luck with your monkey worship.

Do you have any facts we've missed?

[jay_a2j]

Time to let you people live in your land of delusion. You believing in evolution does not effect me in any way. (Until you start stating it as FACT, which it is not. But I digress)


Good luck with your monkey worship.

Do you have any facts we've missed?

Over in the other thread "Logic Dictates..." many, many pages.

[xelabale]

Not pages, facts...

[jay_a2j]

Not pages, facts...

Within the pages.

[joecoolfrog]

Time to let you people live in your land of delusion. You believing in evolution does not effect me in any way. (Until you start stating it as FACT, which it is not. But I digress)


Good luck with your monkey worship.

No luck needed
Your children will accept the inevitable as will their children, monkey worship is the future dear boy