|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Would Evolutionists accept evidence for Creation? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
Vacate writes: Your kidding right? I mean, I suspect your not, but if you thought for half a second you would not have written that. What would cause you to write that when it is so ridiculously childish... unless it was a joke. No, it wasn't a joke. I really meant it. That's what the Bible says/is. It's like Jesus, both human and divine. You can't seperate the human parts from the divine parts. They're together, welded into one thing. So no, I wasn't joking. If either all of the Bible's true, or all of it's false, if you prove one thing is true, it all has to be true. Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Soter Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Interesting, so lets review:
quote: That is your theory. Apply the theory and see if this works out for you.
Outside of most science fiction books what exactly should be contained in your fiction section of the library?
If either all of the Bible's true, or all of it's false, if you prove one thing is true, it all has to be true. That must be a tough way to view the world. All the contradictions it must introduce with each and every book you read. In some cases ignorance is bliss, I must decline from your worldview given that I read way too many horror novels in my days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
[qs=Codegate]Unfortunately Jar is no longer here to raise this, but I have to ask, which bible are you referring to? There are dozens of different bibles and canons used by different Christian churches around the world.[qs]
I am a Protestant, so I believe that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. If you want me to list the books, I will.
Iesous Christos H Theos H Uios Soter Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Crooked to what standard Member (Idle past 5874 days) Posts: 109 From: Bozeman, Montana, USA Joined: |
The problem with yours is that again your using novels (or a nice idea, in the case of Origin of the Species, or a good play in Romeo and Juliet). And what I meant was that an event, not a place. The Exodus is an event, not a place. The Exodus took place from Egypt, down the Sinai, across the sea, up the Arabian Peninsula, and across the Jordan River.
If you prove an event (especially one as unlikely as the Exodus) is true, you prove the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
The problem with yours is that again your using novels So are you. Your just calling it something else.
And what I meant was that an event, not a place. You mean like Darwins journey on the H.M.S. Beagle. Ok, I may have to read up on Harry Potter, and Romeo and Juliet; but thankfully two of my examples hold up to your criterea - the Koran is definitly true.
The Exodus took place from Egypt, down the Sinai, across the sea, up the Arabian Peninsula, and across the Jordan River. Links please.
If you prove an event (especially one as unlikely as the Exodus) is true, you prove the Bible. So if I show that something historical happened (like say the cold war), then the book that contains such facts becomes true (Tom Clancies - Hunt for Red Octoboer)? With some review of my books I am sure I can prove much of my Stephen Kings to be historical documents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
However, the Iliad is never said to be true, and we found out that it was. ... a fantastical tale based upon a far more mundane real event? Yes.
With the Bible, however, either it is true or it isn't. You can't take only part of the Bible as divine and the other parts human. If you did that, you might as well take the entire Bible only the work of humans, not inspired by God. So, theoretically, if you prove one part of the Bible is true (the Exodus, for example), you thereby prove the entire Bible... technically. So what if we prove one part, just one, false? Does it work in reverse? What if J. K. Rowling claims that the Harry Potter books were inspired by god, or that Harry himself related the whole story to her personally over tea? Does the existence of London prove Harry Potter true?
So your way of grading different parts of the Bible as plausible or fake is wrong, because the Bible is simply either plausible or fake. You can't say 'Well, Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong because they have God directly interacting with humans. Then, until Genesis 5, it is correct, or plausible. But then, you have the Flood, which is God directly affecting the earth, so that's fake, then you get to...' The Bible has to be 'graded' as a whole. Completely false. The destruction of Jericho, for instance, seems to have happened (though not the way the bible describes - the walls have collapsed incorrectly for the story to be true). This does not mean there was a worldwide Flood. The Romans did rule Jerusalem in the appropriate time period as described in the Bible, and that does not prove Exodus. They are compeltely disconnected events and seperate claims made by a single comnglomerated text, and each can be verified or falsified individually. Your literalism is easy to disprove: various events in the Bible should have left a great deal of evidence, which is conspicuously missing. The Flood, for example, has no evidence, and there is a mountain of evidence contradicting a global Flood. Exodus should have left a massive amount of evidence from 40 years of being nomads across the desert (we find evidence of small nomadic groups in similar deserts), but there is nothing left of the Hebrews leaving Egypt, a number that should be in the hundreds of thousands or even millions from what I recall of the numbers in the Bible. There is nothing in Egyptian history concerning a mass exodus of Hebrew slaves (or even the presence of Hebrew slaves), or the plagues, or the killing of the firstborn. Since we can show several claims in the Bible to be false or at least grossly exaggerated (far more likely), does that mean the whole thing is bollocks? If the evidence was there, I'd believe in the Bible. If all of its claims were consistently verified, I would accept it as an authoritative book regarding history, and even accept it as evidence of a deity. But since that's not the case... When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Everyone agrees that the Bible is collection of works. Why would proving an event in one correct prove all the events in another ? And then there are the contradictions. If we prove that there was a census of Judaea under Quirinius how could it prove that Jesus was born then - AND that he was born more than ten years earlier ?
And why isn't the Koran a good example ? The Koran even claims to be the direct word of God - unlike the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Paulk
Paulk writes: So no, it doesn't say that the land was just in one place) Maybe it wasn't in one place.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. My bad for not giving verse 9 also. I kinda believe if all the water was in one place all the land was in one place.
Paulk writes: And what makes you think that Genesis 11:17 comes chronologically after Genesis 11:9 ? They are mentioned in that order and Peleg lived to be 239 years old. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I kinda believe if all the water was in one place all the land was in one place. Look at the modern-day globe. All the water is in one place; ie, barring inland seas like the Caspian, all the seven seas are connected to each other. Now look at the land. Barring individual islands, there are 4 separate and distinct continental land-masses. 5 if we wished to promote Greenland. Clearly, if all the water is in one place, it does not follow that all the land would also be in one place. Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Codegate Member (Idle past 847 days) Posts: 84 From: The Great White North Joined: |
Ichthus writes: Codegate writes: Unfortunately Jar is no longer here to raise this, but I have to ask, which bible are you referring to? There are dozens of different bibles and canons used by different Christian churches around the world. I am a Protestant, so I believe that the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments. If you want me to list the books, I will. So for the Bibles out there that have additional books, only your 66 are divine - the others are all human creations. Similarly, for the bibles that have fewer books, they just don't have the complete picture? If I'm understanding this correctly, you believe that the people that chose those 66 books were all divinely guided in doing so to create the one 'true' bible. All of the other churches that went through the same process were 'faking' it and just picking any books they wanted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: There are just two problems with that. Firstly Peleg also appears BEFORE the Babel story in Chapter 10 - and that's the reference you're reading as referring to massively accelerated continental drift suddenly occuring (contrary to scientific understanding). Secondly you would have to say that Genesis 11:10 also comes after the Babel story:
These are the records of the generations of Shem. Shem was one hundred years old, and became the father of Arpachshad two years after the flood;
So by that thinking you would have to put the Babel story before Noah's Flood - which of course appears even earlier in Genesis. Your rule can't be consistently applied. What we really have is: Chapter 10 is a listing of descendants of Noah's sons, who separate to found the nations. It is not unreasonable to consider that the Babel story marks that separation and that is the event that Peleg is named for. This interpretation fits the text and doesn't require us to assume that the event Peleg was named for mysteriously got left out of the Bible. Chapter 11 is the Babel story and a more detailed listing of Shem's descendants. Which suggests that the Bebel story - which is not otherwise dated - took place in the lifetimes of at least some of those listed. There's nothing in the Bible that rules out the possibility that it is the event that Peleg is named for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Paulk,
Paulk writes: There's nothing in the Bible that rules out the possibility that it is the event that Peleg is named for. I went digging in some of my old school stuff and run across some notes where we studied that Peleg was about 50 years old when the tower of Babel was built which was around 2200 BC. That would have put him living about 189 years after Babel. Then I went online and found a timeline at:Amazing Bible Timeline with World History – Easily See 6017 Years of Biblical and World History Together! If he was named for the event he went along time without a name.The Hebrew word translated earth in Genesis 10:25 is the same as the one in Genesis 1:1. God Bless, PS check out my avatar "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: You mean that he would have DIED 189 years after Babel by that estimation. But what's the basis for it ? You yourself said that the Bible didn't provide a timeline and the Babel story doesn't contain anything to date it in relation to the genealogy.
quote:IF the estimate you refer to is correct. But you've offered no reason to think that it is. In fact you said that there ISN'T any way to know when Babel happened, other than sometime in the period covered in the genealogies. quote: IIRC that word has a wide usage (similar to the English "land") - it can refer to all of the land on the planet or just a single geographical area.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Paulk,
Paulk writes: IF the estimate you refer to is correct. But you've offered no reason to think that it is. In fact you said that there ISN'T any way to know when Babel happened, other than sometime in the period covered in the genealogies. No I think I said:
Message 35I am presenting no timeline as the Bible gives none. Message 37There is no timeline given and I gave none. Message 40The Bible gives no time frame for any of these events. I did not say events could not be figured out from the genealogies of the lifetime of the people that was involved. You mentioned time in several messages then in Message 56 You as much as said my understanding was competely off as the time was all messed up. I then went digging for notes as to why I believed what I did. I also went and found a Bible Timeline that is taken from the genealogies of the ages of the men in the Bible. There are historians who have spent their life compiling those genealogies. Just as there are those who spent their lifetime working on the tree of life. But I know you do not believe the Bible so it does not make any difference as you believe it is just a pack of lies anyway. You are welcome to your opinion. God Bless, Edited by ICANT, : fix link "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Grizz Member (Idle past 5500 days) Posts: 318 Joined: |
The question would be better phrased as: "Would the scientific community accept evidence for Creationism."
If by evidence, one means observable empirical evidence, then the answer is: absolutely. Science is not a popularity contest or a boxing match; nobody is trying to win anything. If the observed empirical evidence pointed to a 6,500 year old Earth etc., then the scientific community would have no choice but to accept Creationism as a fact. Barring such empirical evidence, the scientific community will naturally head where the evidence points. When looked at objectively, such evidence does not point to Creationism. With that being said, I would like to propose the following question to Creationists: Would a Creationist accept evidence for Evolution? If so, what evidence would be required?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024