Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[KalMart]

If their is no other logical explanation for the Bible other then it is the True word of God (which is my theory), then a sound scientific explanation doesn't matter.

This is a major fallacy in considering ANY scripture as a default explanation, and again, it was written before the ability to scientifically understand these things was even developed. Today, rationally and practically, the alleged 'word of God' does not explain how these things happen, it only offers an excuse for not asking. Evolution, and science in general on the other hand, does.

A sound scientific explanation certainly does matter...because we know better now and require things for science and knowledge. If one proposes religion as an 'answer' to this, there remains an immense burden of provability on it. This just isn't its game, sorry.

Because if it can be proven that God gave the Bible, then evolution must not be true, because the Bible says it's not.

Firstly, it can't be. Secondly, it still wouldn't disprove evolution...it doesn't disprove that fossils exist, or that they can be dated to many millions of years back, or that mutations in species can be witnessed and analyzed, or that distances of millions of light years can be calculated and determined. That is here...now...and real...right in front of us. It won't suddenly disappear from sight and memory if some author, mortal or otherwise, is somehow identified. So sorry, but that's a pretty glaring error of thinking on your part. What you're after is misdirection, not proof.

 

[Shemtov]

This is a major fallacy in considering ANY scripture as a default explanation, and again, it was written before the ability to scientifically understand these things was even developed. Rationally and practically, the alleged 'word of God' does not explain how these things happen, it only offers an excuse for not asking.

A sound scientific explanation certainly does matter...because we know better now and require things for science and knowledge. If one proposes religion as an 'answer' to this, there remains an immense burden of provability o nit.

I have explained at least 3 times that the proof lies in the fact that it is illogical that the Bible to have been written in any other way. I am not saying that people beleive in it because there is a preconceived notion it is true, but rather because it is illogical that the Bible to have been written in any other way.
I don' want to convert you I just wanna make you understand.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Can we just recap here?

So, the world is 6,000 years old (presumably). And... all those fossils are fake? Or did all those animals live in those 6,000 years?

T. Rexes, humans, dogs, mammoths.... Must have been quite crowded.

So... was there an ice age? Or is that just a load of sciencey bull hockey too?

 

[rodhulk]

Well, that seems odd if you're trying to say the Bible is truth. So, just some of the Bible is accurate? Do I get to pick and choose which parts I believe to be true?

As you probably know, the Bible is in two parts, the majority of Jews accept only the first part (Old Covenant or Testament) while believers in Jesus accept the Old Covenant and also the New Covenant. The Old Covenant contains many "messianic" prophecies that the New Covenant shows were fulfilled in Jesus (or Yeshua which was his actual name). The Messiah had to come before 70 AD as the promised Messiah had his physical lineage prophecied in the old Covenant and since the records were destroyed in 70 AD, that means the Messiah must have come before 70 AD or else he will never come now because no Messiah can prove the Messianic physical line that needs to be proven in from the Old Covenant. Jesus or Yeshua fulfilled that line (written in New Covenant) and it was never debated from any records that I know of. This is why I would recommend the whole Bible, New and Old Covenants alike.

 

[Shemtov]

So, the world is 6,000 years old (presumably). And... all those fossils are fake?

There is nothing about creationism that inherently means a species cannot go extinct.

 

[Shemtov]

As you probably know, the Bible is in two parts, the majority of Jews accept only the first part (Old Covenant or Testament) while believers in Jesus accept the Old Covenant and also the New Covenant. The Old Covenant contains many "messianic" prophecies that the New Covenant shows were fulfilled in Jesus (or Yeshua which was his actual name). The Messiah had to come before 70 AD as the promised Messiah had his physical lineage prophecied in the old Covenant and since the records were destroyed in 70 AD, that means the Messiah must have come before 70 AD or else he will never come now because no Messiah can prove the Messianic physical line that needs to be proven in from the Old Covenant. Jesus or Yeshua fulfilled that line (written in New Covenant) and it was never debated from any records that I know of. This is why I would recommend the whole Bible, New and Old Covenants alike.

Everything in the Bold part is OT.

 

[rodhulk]

Everything in the Bold part is OT.

The fulfillment is in the NT. The prophecies came from the OT.

 

[KalMart]

I have explained at least 3 times that the proof lies in the fact that it is illogical that the Bible to have been written in any other way. I am not saying that people beleive in it because there is a preconceived notion it is true, but rather because it is illogical that the Bible to have been written in any other way.
I don' want to convert you I just wanna make you understand.

HELLO? Read what I said below. Proving or disproving a bible's author does nothing to the existing evidence and proof we have of evolution. It won't make fossils or aging or geology and cosmology, etc. cease to exist. That exists and works completely independent of scripture or no scripture. Nothing in any scripture has any influence or affect on it be it hypothetically true or untrue.

You're trying to propose an awe in the face of power that will somehow make us forget and disregard these truths, not a proof or evidence against it. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Shemtov]

HELLO? Read what I said below. Proving or disproving a bible's author does nothing to the existing evidence and proof we have of evolution. It won't make fossils or aging or geology and cosmology, etc. cease to exist. That exists and works completely independent of scripture or no scripture.

It would mean there's a contridiction in the evidence. Both can't be true.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So... they all coexisted?

All the mega-fauna, the hundreds of species of sauropods, carnosaurs, the countless prehistoric whales and sharks... The massive land mammals of the Pleistocene (mammoths, giant sloths, etc).

You'd think they would have mentioned all those amazing animals more in ancient accounts. I guess they all decided to agree to die fairly early... for no particular reason.

 

[Shemtov]

The fulfillment is in the NT. The prophecies came from the OT.

By OT I meant "Off topic".
"Old Testament" wouldn't make sense in that context.

 

[Marvolo]

Facts and data are facts and data. The bible can crow about whatever it wants to but it doesnt change the facts and data. If tomorrow the bible was proven entirely correct and truth then all it would prove is that the story of creation in genesis was written in allegorical form because the data and facts prove evolution. So either genesis is an allegory of creation or genesis is a straight up lie from god. Creation didnt happen.Evolution did.

 

[KalMart]

It would mean there's a contridiction in the evidence. Both can't be true.

There's no scientific contradiction, no. We already know one scientifically is true. The burden would be on religion to reassess what it's interpreted to mean. You can't make this scientific evidence disappear...unless it's by the same magic that it proposes life was somehow made with.

 

[Shemtov]

You know what?
I've explained my view the best I can.
I can't say anymore, so I'm done with this thread.

 

[Marvolo]

Actually shemtov you didnt. You gave no proof proving the bibles truth. You saying that it has to be true because you feel it must be is not scientific proof of anything.

 

[Shemtov]

Actually shemtov you didnt. You gave no proof proving the bibles truth. You saying that it has to be true because you feel it must be is not scientific proof of anything.

Where did I say that?

 

[rodhulk]

By OT I meant "Off topic".
"Old Testament" wouldn't make sense in that context.

Didn't catch the off-topic part.. but it wasn't off-topic as a poster asked a question about what part of the Bible to use and I was simply saying that when he looks at the Bible to check out creation/evolution, I was trying to make a case for him to use it all. So, I would say it was completely on-topic.

In regards to your second point, not sure what you meant by Old Testament not making sense in that context...

 

[KalMart]

edit

 

[Thundercrack85]

You know what?
I've explained my view the best I can.
I can't say anymore, so I'm done with this thread.

Well, when you ignore all the evidence what is there really to talk about?

 

[Shemtov]

In regards to your second point, not sure what you meant by Old Testament not making sense in that context...

The Sentence "Everything in the Bold part is Old Testament" Instead of "Everything in the Bold part is Off Topic" doesn't make sense in context.

 

[VictorCreed]

You know what?
I've explained my view the best I can.
I can't say anymore, so I'm done with this thread.

I just don't get how you can say that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, but all the stuff before that is totally true. If you claim that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, what's keeping other parts of it from being inaccurate?

 

[rodhulk]

The Sentence "Everything in the Bold part is Old Testament" Instead of "Everything in the Bold part is Off Topic" doesn't make sense in context.

OK, I think I gotcha.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I just don't get how you can say that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, but all the stuff before that is totally true. If you claim that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, what's keeping other parts of it from being inaccurate?

Well, the Jesus parts were added much later by different people.

That would be like a Mormon asking you (I assume you're Christian or of Christian background, forgive me if I'm being presumptive), why you believe in Jesus, but don't believe in what Joseph Smith wrote.

The Jews had their bible for a long time before the New Testament was written.

 

[Shemtov]

I just don't get how you can say that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, but all the stuff before that is totally true. If you claim that the Jesus part of the Bible is wrong, what's keeping other parts of it from being inaccurate?

......The Jewish bible was canonized around 500 BCE. Nobody believes that the Jewish Bible and the Gospels were written at the same time.
Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[KalMart]

You know what?
I've explained my view the best I can.
I can't say anymore, so I'm done with this thread.

You've exposed how your logic is flawed...rather simply, too. You've proposed something..the 'true word of God'...to be looked upon with such awe/fear/wonder that we would somehow abandon what we know to be rational without a second's thought....via a simple, ideological 'if/then, oh my!'. Sorry, but we're past that stage in our own evolution. But I sincerely appreciate your taking the time. Ciao.