Evolution? How?

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:
BZZZZZZ

Sorry Farmerman,

You were supposed to give us a contradiction from the Bible.

Claiming that the Bible somehow conflicts with scientific evidence and/or theory is not a contradiction in the Bible (although I will be very glad to discuss it)

A contradiction in the Bible would be, for instance, if the Bible said in one passage that Jesus was born in Nazareth, and in another passage it stated He was born in Bethlehem. That would be a Bible contradiction.

Well okay I'll bite the bait simply because you will otherwise think you have foiled us or something. I want you to bear in mind this has been brought forth many times by theists, do you not think there is an answer? Also I'm feeling lazy so I'll post links rather than type them all out. The danger in doing this is you might have a tendency to not read them or read 5 and refute them thus feeling a sense of pride which is otherwise false. Frankly I don't care. I admit there are some condradictions listed in these sites that aren't even contradrictions but misinterpretations. But then again I didn't type them out so they may not ALL be valid. However theres plenty to keep you busy.
site #1
Site #2
More of a Satanist site but it gave me a chuckle.
Shows all the cruelties and vices of EVERY book in the Bible.
I also once had a great site of contradictions but I forget the URL. O well this is good enough for now.

So you attempt to refute the bible by citing misrepresentations of the bible. Clever. Do some of your own work.

0 Replies

Neologist

Quote:

Speaking of the order of creation:

Genesis lists the following major stages:
Beginning;
Earth in darkness, shrouded in heavy gases and water;
Light (now reaching earth's surface);
An expanse (atmosphere);
Land areas;
Vegetation;
Sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse; seasons;
Sea creatures and flying creatures;
Animals, mammals;
Humans;

(That the creative day is not a literal 24 hours is first evident in Genesis 2:4.)

Most scientists agree this order is generally correct.

Wrong; Wrong; WRONG.

How can there be light on the earth without the sun? According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth.

Since when does science recognize the earth being older then the stars. If light already existed where did it come from if there were no sun, stars or moon?

How can vegetation live without the light from the sun?

Flying creatures developed long after land animals.

I should also point out that there is a second creation, in Genesis 2.

The order of creation was;
Earth and Heaven void of vegetation
Water which rose up from the earth
Man
Plants
Animals and birds
Woman

So, there you have it; woman was created after man, plants and animals.

I suppose science agrees this is the generally correct order of creation as well.

0 Replies

Quote:

So you attempt to refute the bible by citing misrepresentations of the bible. Clever. Do some of your own work.

nice try. As I said not all are misrepresentations but some are. It's nice to see offer any counter arguments to any of them though.

Do some of my own work eh? Do you not think I've read the Bible? I've had to read the whole thing front to back. My father was a pastor (not anymore he's a teacher now) and I go to Church every Sunday. I don't want to, but I do anyway either from parent's pressuring or for entertainment. I have done plenty of my own work. I have wrote a 10,000 word essay for a comparative religion class (teacher did not like the essay since he was Christian but he still gave me a good grade) on the cruelty of the Bible focusing mostly on the books of Deuteronomy and Judges both of which, if you have ever sat back and read them, are atrocious books to be held as holy. Frankly I like them more for the sheer drama and violence of them but to hold these as holy books when they go against seemingly most that is held up by the Ten commandments and ideas of God, etc...? That is absurd. However I do not care to sit here and write a complex thesis refuting the Bible in my eyes for YOUR viewing pleasure when I get nothing out of it. It's not like you or I will change positions based on an internet debate. The reason I post links is because others have done such work. Do I agree entirely with their ideas? No. In fact many of the sources I posted had several holes and were very biased. However there are still core contradictions and disputes raised.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

How can there be light on the earth without the sun? According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth.

You never read the whole thing. The sun was there but not discernable. I assume it was because of the thickness of the atmosphere. But don't hold me to that. I'm not a scientist and I wasn't there.

Edited to highlight quote.

0 Replies

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:
So you attempt to refute the bible by citing misrepresentations of the bible. Clever. Do some of your own work.

nice try. As I said not all are misrepresentations but some are. It's nice to see offer any counter arguments to any of them though.

Let me see if I get this straight: You want me to offer counter arguments to the misrepresentations? Or do you want me to offer counter arguments to the propositions you believe are correct, but are, in fact, misrepresentations?
Why should I bother? Why don't I simply argue against your misrepresentations? You think, like my good friend Frank, that the bible shows God to be vindictive and cruel. I'll give you the short answer which anyone who understands the bible will have no trouble with:

If Adam and Eve had not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death.

If God had not allowed them to bear children, we would not be here having this discussion. End of God's purpose for the earth to be inhabited by Adam and Eve's descendants and so much for the concept of an all powerful God.

So God allowed for the human race to exist and promised in Genesis 3:15 to set matters straight by means of a seed.

All of the misery of the last 6000 or so years can directly be traced to Satan and his recruits.

The judgements against individuals and nations, while harsh, clearly educate us as to God's understanding of sin. And the law, by being impossible for imperfect humans to follow, provided a means to identify the messiah.

But the promise of the seed and his explanation of the resurrection promised in John 5: 28,29 gives all who never knew God the hope of living the life that Adam and Eve lost. That hope extends to all no matter how they died.
The Egyptian firstborn
The Canaanite children sacrificed to Moloch
Nearly everyone with the exception, perhaps, of Cain and his parents, Judas and the priests who condemned Jesus. A few others? Maybe.

Have a nice day.

0 Replies

Neologist

Quote:

You never read the whole thing. The sun was there but not discernable. I assume it was because of the thickness of the atmosphere. But don't hold me to that. I'm not a scientist and I wasn't there.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 1:16

The key word here is made, not take the clouds away.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Having evidence of a sea at one time in geologic history doesnt imply that such inundation occured at the SAME TIME.

And it doesn't mean it wasn't. It means that at one time or other that many parts of the earth that are now hundreds or even thousands of miles from ocean were once under it. That's all I said.

Since all of these various areas have been under the sea, it makes far more likely (not less) the concept of a worldwide flood.

You can postulate, if you like, that these all occurred at different times. And I can propose that they may have occurred at the same time.

What you cannot say is that it could not have happened at any time.

But how did a group of "illiterate" Hebrews correctly guess that scientific evidence would show thousands of years later that these areas had all been under the sea? If we had no areas of land that showed this evidence, then clearly things would be looking a lot less favorable for Genesis at this time. But the opposite is the case. Were they just lucky?

0 Replies

El-Diablo wrote:

Quote:
So you attempt to refute the bible by citing misrepresentations of the bible. Clever. Do some of your own work.

nice try. As I said not all are misrepresentations but some are. It's nice to see offer any counter arguments to any of them though.

Do some of my own work eh? Do you not think I've read the Bible? I've had to read the whole thing front to back. My father was a pastor (not anymore he's a teacher now) and I go to Church every Sunday. I don't want to, but I do anyway either from parent's pressuring or for entertainment. I have done plenty of my own work. I have wrote a 10,000 word essay for a comparative religion class (teacher did not like the essay since he was Christian but he still gave me a good grade) on the cruelty of the Bible focusing mostly on the books of Deuteronomy and Judges both of which, if you have ever sat back and read them, are atrocious books to be held as holy. Frankly I like them more for the sheer drama and violence of them but to hold these as holy books when they go against seemingly most that is held up by the Ten commandments and ideas of God, etc...? That is absurd. However I do not care to sit here and write a complex thesis refuting the Bible in my eyes for YOUR viewing pleasure when I get nothing out of it. It's not like you or I will change positions based on an internet debate. The reason I post links is because others have done such work. Do I agree entirely with their ideas? No. In fact many of the sources I posted had several holes and were very biased. However there are still core contradictions and disputes raised.

Fine, so pick one that you think is the best representation of a contradiction in the Bible and we'll discuss it.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

How can vegetation live without the light from the sun?

Are you stating that new vegetation from the 3rd day could not survive until the 4th day since there was no sun til the 4th day?

Seems like it could last a day.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Why would they not be?

Many geologists do not believe that the mountains as we see them today have always been the same height.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Neologist

Quote:
You never read the whole thing. The sun was there but not discernable. I assume it was because of the thickness of the atmosphere. But don't hold me to that. I'm not a scientist and I wasn't there.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 1:16

The key word here is made, not take the clouds away.

Joe Sixpack understands it. But you are a lot smarter than he is. (He told me it was OK to say that.)

0 Replies

Quote:

That Jesus believed in the flood is sufficient for me.

OK GUYS, ;ets wrap it up and undo the tents. Its another "Jesus said it so its good enough for me WJ Bryant arguments".

Just for grins, where did JC mention a flood?

You gotta give me some slack here . Im stuck with all these bothersome facts and evidence that gets in the way of becoming a true believer.

0 Replies

A blank slate is a happy slate!

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
That Jesus believed in the flood is sufficient for me.

OK GUYS, ;ets wrap it up and undo the tents. Its another "Jesus said it so its good enough for me WJ Bryant arguments".

Just for grins, where did JC mention a flood?

You gotta give me some slack here . Im stuck with all these bothersome facts and evidence that gets in the way of becoming a true believer.

Jesus was very clear regarding the flood:

Matt 24:37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Now as to facts, I have no problem agreeing with facts. However facts and evidence are open to a variety of interpretation as you well know. So just saying "I am sticking with facts" is sort of a denial that you are interpreting and drawing conclusions from those facts that may or may not actually be warranted.

So, bring on the facts. But don't be too disappointed if everyone doesn't automatically go along with the conclusions you try to draw.

0 Replies

First, your "evidence" is not evidence that the alleged Hey-zeus ever mentioned a flood. You've just got the crapola which was vetted as the authorized canon more than three hundred years after the joker lived, if he ever lived at all, so you have once again failed to support your argument from your silly scripture.

In the second place, you have never provided a shred of reliable evidence that there was ever a world-wide flood. You're just whistlin' past the grave yard.

real life . . . hehehehehehehe

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! !

okallbetternow

0 Replies

Evolution is too complex to be real, but some invisible force (called God) can make it happen instantly, from nothing. At least, with evolution you got something going for you.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Having evidence of a sea at one time in geologic history doesnt imply that such inundation occured at the SAME TIME.

And it doesn't mean it wasn't. It means that at one time or other that many parts of the earth that are now hundreds or even thousands of miles from ocean were once under it. That's all I said.

Since all of these various areas have been under the sea, it makes far more likely (not less) the concept of a worldwide flood.

You can postulate, if you like, that these all occurred at different times. And I can propose that they may have occurred at the same time.

What you cannot say is that it could not have happened at any time.

But how did a group of "illiterate" Hebrews correctly guess that scientific evidence would show thousands of years later that these areas had all been under the sea? If we had no areas of land that showed this evidence, then clearly things would be looking a lot less favorable for Genesis at this time. But the opposite is the case. Were they just lucky?

I don't know what you're on, but I'd love some of it myself. Laughing

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:

Having evidence of a sea at one time in geologic history doesnt imply that such inundation occured at the SAME TIME.

And it doesn't mean it wasn't. It means that at one time or other that many parts of the earth that are now hundreds or even thousands of miles from ocean were once under it. That's all I said.

Since all of these various areas have been under the sea, it makes far more likely (not less) the concept of a worldwide flood.

You can postulate, if you like, that these all occurred at different times. And I can propose that they may have occurred at the same time.

What you cannot say is that it could not have happened at any time.

But how did a group of "illiterate" Hebrews correctly guess that scientific evidence would show thousands of years later that these areas had all been under the sea? If we had no areas of land that showed this evidence, then clearly things would be looking a lot less favorable for Genesis at this time. But the opposite is the case. Were they just lucky?

I don't know what you're on, but I'd love some of it myself.

Too bad you couldn't take a shot at trying to answer the question.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Just for grins, where did JC mention a flood?

You gotta give me some slack here . Im stuck with all these bothersome facts and evidence that gets in the way of becoming a true believer.

I'm sorry for bothering you with impediments to your gathering of facts. I like your facts; I really do. Also, I am willing to accept the possibility that the flood covered the then known world of mankind and not the entire globe just as the destruction of the heavens and earth mentioned in the NT does not refer to the whole planet.

BTW, Jesus mentioned the flood here: "For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away." (Matthew 24: 37-39).

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

neo said
Quote:
Most scientists agree this order is generally correct. How did Moses know that? Did he learn it from the Egyptians?

Thats silly. Why should we agree with a proposal that has animal groups occur out of order when we have evidence. There was an atmosphere from the beginning. Your "cloud of mists, is a grand illusory reference to the "water vapor theory" which allows the "flood " to occur without wrecking too many laws of Physics.. Genesis has birds before fish. Somebody get the correct order of occurence , neos trying to have it as many ways as he wishes without being too concerened about accruracy.
Quote:
Were you aware, Farmerman, that very many areas of the earth show some evidence of being under seawater at some point? (My favorite is the shark's teeth on the plains of Kansas. How do you suppose they got there?)

Having evidence of a sea at one time in geologic history doesnt imply that such inundation occured at the SAME TIME. In fact, the Continents drift, basins occur and seas come and go. The Genesis flood was a(supposed) worldwide incident . The work That Ryan et al came up with, that set refers to was a local occurence in Post pleistocene times. It could reasonably be the origin of a number of the "flood legends" Im somewhat aghast that you try to come in here and spout the "If it was covered by water once in Kansas, that means the entire world was flooded" It only means that , since the early 1960s work by some good structural geologists have been deciphering basin locations and structures as a means to find oil. These geologists were smart enough to extract the data that showed "when" these basins occured and"why"

If you wish to discuss science reasonably, please try to understand what the evidence shows before you stick your foot into your maw.

And what a sea !!

Here is an interesting link, detailing some geological formations in the Boulder, CO area. Now this link is NOT by a "creation scientist" so maybe some of you can relax and even look at it.

I don't agree with the interpretations, I'll tell you what I think about it. But either way I think you'll agree the facts are fascinating.

http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/nature/geology.htm

So here are some of the facts, draw your own conclusions.

--The Boulder CO area undersea at some point in history proven by the "ripple marks" in the rock. Cool.

--Layers of sediment 9000 feet deep. (Tell me this was produced by a "local flood" or even an "inland sea"! What "inland sea" today is producing sediment 9000 feet thick? It doesn't happen.

Either the sea would have to be 9000 feet deep, in which case we are talking about a sea that would cover much of the continent; or if the sea was shallow then the rising sedimentary layers would push the water level still higher and the sea would drain away somewhere else long before it raised the sea level 9000 feet.

Also, you have to have an area where 9000 feet of sediment can erode FROM in order to be deposited INTO your sedimentary formation. By the site's own admission, the "Ancestral Rockies" which had supposedly existed in the area had already eroded and formed a DIFFERENT underlying strata of sedimentary rock. This was BEFORE the 9000 layers were deposited. So if the nearby mountains were already eroded, what source produced 9000 feet of sedimentary material for this layer? )

You may remove your foot from your maw if you wish to try to tackle this.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know