|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes:
Good point, but I trust the judgement of Phillip Johnson. He's formidably intelligennt and, I believe, very honest.
So, you didn't quote from the original work? All hearsay? You quoted from a book you didn't read yourself? No wonder you're a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
qs writes:
I agree, to a certain extent: As I have already explained in a previous post, it would seem that demons, or Satan, are not capable of "speaking" to humans in an audible voice. However, they can "speak" to the human mind by some mysterious inaudible process and thereby influence their thoughts and actions. Hint: Talking snakes are not literal. It would also seem that demons cannot appear in their own from or in the form of a human being or any other creature (apparition) - the only way they can manisfest themselves visually is by possessing the body of a human or another creature. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
God arranged to have his Word recorded in written form to preserve its accuracy down through the centuries. An oral method wouldn't work as it would be very prone to mistakes when being passed from one person to the next. Plus there would be no way of checking if the contemporary version of the story is faithful to the original. Because everything is subject to human error - including and especially your view of the Bible.The Jews went to extreme lenghts to ensure that each and every word was accurately copied from one Bible copy to the next. The primary use of intelligence is for correcting errors.
Human intelligence is infallible? I didn't know that! Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
PaulK writes:
You were there so you would know.
And of course you are right to doubt the Exodus. The Book of Exodus was obviously written at a time when the story had become legend - whatever it's origins. Its implausibilities (and I don't mean the miracles!) give more cause to doubt as dies the fact that archaeology finds no trace of it.
Oh well, that proves it - it didn't happen. For all you know, the evidence could well be there but hasn't been discovered yet. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Oh, thank you for that. Someone told me the division can also be performed on a calculator, whatever that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NCE writes:
Religion requires faith, not proof. Besides that, it will be proven ... in time. That is to say, when one kicks-the-bucket one comes face to face with the God who wrote the Bible.
ringo writes:
Because everything is subject to human error ... Faith writes: Except writings inspired by God Himself. Prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Okay, what you seem to be saying is that
99,990,000/10,000 = 9999. Whaaaaaat? How did you work that out? I think you've just made that up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
HBD writes: Do you know what an internet troll is?An internet troll is someone who posts just to provoke an emotional response from other members. Is that what you are doing? If so... stop! It's nonsense, unproductive and unbecoming of a professing Christian. HBD, the party-pooper.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
herebedragons writes:
Evolution seriously undermines the authority of Scripture and makes a mockery of the concept of Original Sin. Hence, evolution nullifies man's need for a Redeemer - namely, Christ. Well then, I suppose you are just as much a "heretic" as you accuse theistic evolutionists as being.So, in my opinion, any professing Christian who accepts evolution easily qualifies as a heretic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
You're so gullible. I'm sure experts in the Greek Scriptures - from say, the Greek Orthodox Church - would laugh at the error-ridden rubbish you were taught.
I did study Greek, Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament. For two semesters. We used the Bruce Metzger New Testament. For each and every passage in the New Testament, all the various variations from the many source manuscripts were presented. And they showed your traditional interpretations to be a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Coyote writes:
The starting point of evolution is a primordial cell that reproduced ... billions of years ago. What evidence is there evidence for that? I suspect it is merely an assumption.
Dredge writes:
There is evidence for one "starting point" but not for the other. In fact, the evidence flatly contradicts a young earth. But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
herebedragons writes:
So, what are your qualifications in paleontology and how many years have you spent studying real fossils?
I put "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" in quotation marks because I don't agree that is really a valid description of our overall observation of the fossil record. Nor do I think that observations of "sudden appearance" or "stasis" in the fossil record are all that surprising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
dwise1 writes:
I don't recall "try(ing) to claim to have worked with the original". Refresh my memory.
Dredge writes:
Then why did you try to claim to have worked with the original? I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187.Read my page, Moon Dust.
I must decline your offer to read your article, Moon Dust, as I fear it will render me totally and permanently insane. As Tangle once pointed out, my mental state is already officially rated as RF ("real fruitcake"), so indulging the material on your website could push me over the edge into a bottomless pit of unspeakable madness and horror.
Do not be fooled.
How do know what's in the fossil record, for example? Do you have a Ph.d. in paleontology and have you spent several decades studying real fossils and the entire fossil record? Probably not, so you accept what a relatively tiny number of experts tell you is there. Have you verified for yourself that their conclusions are correct? I will assume not. You accept what they say, because, like you, paleontologists are Darwinists (I would imagine 99.99999% of them are, anyway), and they tell you want you want to hear.In other words, you preach to creationists to verify what they are told, but you don't apply the same standard to what Darwinists tell you. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
herebedragons writes: Most of the book of Genesis is obviously stories that were passed down orally for generations and generations. They are likely based on real events but then, over time, they developed into what has been recorded in Genesis. Just because they are not historically accurate doesn't mean they are allegory or even that they are false. They are stories that have a lesson, a lesson about God, humans and relationships. Just because the stories are not absolutely, literally, historically true doesn't mean they are absolutely false. That is a false dichotomy (unless the whole of the issue is historical accuracy - then they are either historically true or historically false). But I don't believe that is the central issue, nor what literalists insist on. You must have read a different book of Genesis to the one I've read. The one I've read is written in a style that makes it obvious that most of it is real, literal history. How did you come to the conclusion that the contents of Genesis are stories "obviously" passed down orally? How do you know Genesis isn't based on earlier written accounts - ie, pre-Bible? I suspect your reasoning is at least partly based on the evo'myth that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
Do you really expect to convince people of the truth by forcing them to accept untruth?
How would I go about "forcing" anyone to believe what I believe, exactly? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Oops. I've just read your post. I take your point.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024