Does Evolution Really Contradict the Bible?

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.04.2020 02:20AM

-->

@zedvictor4

I just watched a Nova program on PBS that speculated that plant life may have sprouted on some planet long before any suns lit up.

They said that soon after the big bang, the universe was hot, even before suns became luminescent. The energy of some planets coming from friction caused by gravitational changes in its shape. And some plants could have lived off that energy like the ones on Earth that do not need sunlight but can live off of chemical and heat energy.

The bible does not say life first, it says sun first, but most atheists get their information about the bible from other atheists, and not the bible itself.

Science even has to catch up sometimes with the bible. For example, for years science said there wasn't enough water on Earth to cover every peak in the world. Recently science found out that in fact, there is MORE than enough water in the Earth's mantle. More than 3 times all the world's oceans!

Or the atheists who did calculations noting that no matter how hard it rained, the resulting precipitation could not cover the Earth's peaks in 40 days. More than 2,000 years ago, the bible noted that the flood was augmented by water from inside the Earth. It was not just rain.

There are many other examples like this, where the bible says something, scientific atheists giggle at it, until science shows that the bible was right all along. But its currently cool to be darwinist, so the faddish PC crowd falls over themselves trying to parade their evolution credentials, most of them knowing nothing about evolution or even science in general.

#122

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.04.2020 02:26AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Humans were created good - not perfect.

Well, it depends on their creator doesn't it?

A perfect design is one that fits the purpose of the designer.

Reminds me of the movie, the matrix. The perfect society did not work. But one with built in "flaws" worked perfectly. Which design was "perfect"? The " flawed" one that fit the designers purpose? Or the "perfect" one that broke down?

This is why I say the "flawed" argument is just silly. It's far to subjective to carry any real useful information. It's someone's opinion on a speculation.

#123

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.04.2020 02:41AM

-->

@ethang5

As always - you make "perfect" sense.

#124

zedvictor4

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,269

zedvictor4

12.04.2020 07:33AM

-->

@ethang5

As I always say....The Bible is a naive hypothesis....That's not to say that I do not credit scientists of the day with their derived levels of understanding....Though what may or may not have occurred billions of years ago has always been speculated about, but has never be pinned down.

Darwin concerned himself with species evolution and development....In terms of universal evolution just one short chunk of comparatively recent events.....The Bible however plucks from thin air the notion that a speculative GOD figure created everything as is, just a few thousand years ago.

In terms of contradiction, you contradict yourself by acquiescing to the speculation of a pre sun/star universe, to use as evidence for a very recent creation hypothesis.

Flood events occur and regional flood events can be catastrophic....But catastrophic flood events that occur in the southern U.S. for example do not effect the U.K.

As I often say....A guy with a boat rescued a few goats....And the story tellers and scientists had a field day....And so Noah et al, saved a breeding pair of every species that existed at the time, in a vast boat that they were able quickly knock together....Not to mention all the dietary needs and associated food stuffs that it would have been necessary to acquire and store.....Come on Mr Ethan your cleverer than that.....And as this all happened just a few thousand years ago, how come humans are not all Middle Eastern in appearance.....Where did all the Chinese suddenly pop up from.....Perhaps when 30,000 feet of water oozed up out of the Earth's mantle, the clever Chinese hid underground.

Nope... The Bible and other associated naive hypotheses are just as much a product of material evolution as everything else is.

#125

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

12.04.2020 10:42AM

-->

@Tradesecret

Humans were created good - not perfect.

So that would be created imperfect, then, which means to be flawed ?

But then you tell us that;

God did not make flawed beings. A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being.

They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself.
But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made?

That may well have to do with after making many request by me for you to start a thread of your own showing god in a more positive and tolerant light and love, you have simply have failed to do so. So are you going to do that?

What about the good in the world?

I have never been asked to discuss "all the good in the world" of which there is much.

Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist.

You came onto this thread at post #54 , you didn't "engage seriously" the OP's question with your first post, or your second, which was to do with "flawed beings" #77 which also doesn't "engage seriously" the OP's question. Your next post was criticizing - " the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" #85 and 25 posts later at post #110 (the post I am now responding to) you begin by criticizing me for not "engaging seriously with the topic. And I have made no ridicule on this thread whatsoever.

Tell me, where have you once "engaged seriously" OP's questions in this thread. I see, that will be nowhere, then. So I hope now that you feel as incompetent and as stupid as you have clearly shown yourself to be with your glaring double standards.

God made humans. He gave them free will.

How is that "engaged seriously" the OP's question.

A person cannot love without free will.

Nope that doesn't "engaged seriously" OP's question, either.

Humanity is and was made in God's image.

Well OP's question aside AGAIN, that is exactly what I have said above at post #100..... Only I was technically wrong. We were made in the image of THE gods, plural, is what I should have said. And as the scripture itself tell us. Genesis 1:26.

I have addressed your posts here #103 and here too #13

That is probably too profound for you to get your brain around.

I will if you can explain how it all relates to you "engage seriously" the OP's question.

#126

Debates: 2

Posts: 3,343

12.04.2020 11:47PM

-->

@Stephen

Humans were created good - not perfect.

So that would be created imperfect, then, which means to be flawed ?
But then you tell us that;

Good does not mean perfect. But nor does it mean flawed. Good is good. Good is not very good. Yet Good is not flawed. Flawed is a different thing altogether. But you know that and are just stirring the pot.

God did not make flawed beings. A being with the potential to make choices is not a flawed being.

They just make flawed choices. Probably because they are made in the image of god himself.
But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made?

That may well have to do with after making many request by me for you to start a thread of your own showing god in a more positive and tolerant light and love, you have simply have failed to do so. So are you going to do that?

Just because you ask me to start a thread, does not mean that I am obligated to do so. In any event you started your own thread Wonderful Examples of God's Love and Grace. (debateart.com)which only serves to demonstrate that you have not got a clue about how to show God in a positive light. You can only see evil. This is a refection of your own darkness in your heart. Still, even with you, there is hope because God is not evil. And if he can save Paul and he can save me, then he can save even you.

What about the good in the world?
I have never been asked to discuss "all the good in the world" of which there is much.

I know I have asked the question in relation to other posters including the Brother and since you love to answer for other people when I talk to them - then using your own logic I have asked you. In other words, because you make the assumption of answering other questions - then I can assume that I have asked you every question I have asked everyone else.

Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist.

You came onto this thread at post #54 , you didn't "engage seriously" the OP's question with your first post, or your second, which was to do with "flawed beings" #77 which also doesn't "engage seriously" the OP's question. Your next post was criticizing - " the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" #85 and 25 posts later at post #110 (the post I am now responding to) you begin by criticizing me for not "engaging seriously with the topic. And I have made no ridicule on this thread whatsoever.

Tell me, where have you once "engaged seriously" OP's questions in this thread. I see, that will be nowhere, then. So I hope now that you feel as incompetent and as stupid as you have clearly shown yourself to be with your glaring double standards.

Just about every post you post is one of non-engagement. You ridicule. That is not engagement. You mock. That is not engagement. You attack the person with ad hominin attacks - that is not engagement. When someone asks you to look at the context. You throw out ridiculous comments like "that old hairy chestnut" - which is nothing but avoidance. Again that is not engagement. When someone says - check out the underlying language whether it be Greek or Hebrew, you just want to look at the English in your own preferred text. That is evasion. Again not engagement. When someone points out that you are in error - you attack them. That is not engagement. If some one asks you a question to clarify what you are saying - you get all snotty and say you wont answer a question. That is not engagement - it is an intention not to engage because you are not seriously wanting an answer. You just want to tell people what you think the Bible says and when people don't agree with you - you get snotty. I don't think you have the capacity to engage with a subject - so I should not be surprised.

God made humans. He gave them free will.
How is that "engaged seriously" the OP's question.

As you are aware every forum topic is more than just the opening poser and post. Very often - along the way - different topics arise and evolve. This is part of engaging with different aspects of the topic. My sentence above was providing a response to another poster's comments. It was a comment which invited another comment in response to it. Engaging seriously is more than one sentence it is a discussion with responses that invite further response.

A person cannot love without free will.
Nope that doesn't "engaged seriously" OP's question, either.

It is also an invitation to respond. Seriously engaging with a topic is more than one line or comment. Or perhaps - hmmm - is that what you think is seriously engaging?

Humanity is and was made in God's image.

Well OP's question aside AGAIN, that is exactly what I have said above at post #100..... Only I was technically wrong. We were made in the image of THE gods, plural, is what I should have said. And as the scripture itself tell us. Genesis 1:26.

Well actually the Hebrew indicates we humanity was made in the image of God. Although the word elohim has a plural ending- and in some occasions - in the OT is does refer to gods, or angels, or even humans, the context clearly provides that it is God, singular in this place. Now you can attempt to put a spin on that - I don't really care. Ask our resident Jew - Rosends - perhaps she can enlighten you further. But it is incorrect to say we were made in the image of the gods.

#127

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

12.05.2020 03:05AM

As I always say....

Psssst, Z-man, your saying it doesn't make anything true. Honest.

The Bible is a naive hypothesis....That's not to say that I do not credit scientists of the day with their derived levels of understanding....Though what may or may not have occurred billions of years ago has always been speculated about, but has never be pinned down.

Some things have been pinned down. You just don't know the science yet.

Darwin concerned himself with species evolution and development....In terms of universal evolution just one short chunk of comparatively recent events.....The Bible however plucks from thin air the notion that a speculative GOD figure created everything as is, just a few thousand years ago.

Untrue. That is the view of what the bible says that you've gotten from equally ignorant atheists. The bible does not pluck from thin air, which explains why it often knows before science, the bible does not say everything was created everything as is, or that everything was created a few thousand years ago. You have been misled.

In terms of contradiction, you contradict yourself by acquiescing to the speculation of a pre sun/star universe, to use as evidence for a very recent creation hypothesis.

I did not use it. I simply mentioned it as one of the atheists favorite claims used to be that plants could not grow without the sun. It is science that has caused them to move closer to the bible.

Flood events occur and regional flood events can be catastrophic....But catastrophic flood events that occur in the southern U.S. for example do not effect the U.K.

First thing is, both the southern US and the UK were not always where they are now. The bible takes that into consideration. Science now agrees. Second, it depends on the size of the flooding doesn't it? Today, climate change hysterics insist that every continent will feel the effects of the world flooding.

As I often say....

Anyone can say anything Z. Most people are not as enamored with what they say as you seem to be.

A guy with a boat rescued a few goats....And the story tellers and scientists had a field day....

Is this supposed to be convincing to us because it's your opinion?

And so Noah et al, saved a breeding pair of every species that existed at the time,

Noah did not save every species that existed at the time. And the bible does not say "species". Species is a man made concoction dreamed up thousands of years later.

in a vast boat that they were able quickly knock together....

You don't know how long it took Noah to build the ark do you? Go ahead, look it up so you can pretend later that you knew all along.

Not to mention all the dietary needs and associated food stuffs that it would have been necessary to acquire and store.....Come on Mr Ethan your cleverer than that

Right. A worldwide flood, lasting 40 days, predicted and caused by God, who then gets all these animals to come to Noah and get on his ark, never attacking each other, and you can swallow that but strain on, " where did the food come from"? I AM more cleaver than that.

.....And as this all happened just a few thousand years ago, how come humans are not all Middle Eastern in appearance.....Where did all the Chinese suddenly pop up from.....

The bible does not say a few thousand years ago. Your washed brain does not hold the text of the bible. You have been hoodwinked.

Perhaps when 30,000 feet of water oozed up out of the Earth's mantle, the clever Chinese hid underground.

Three oceans worth. But error will be your girlfriend as long as you get your information from biased ignorants.

Nope... The Bible and other associated naive hypotheses are just as much a product of material evolution as everything else is.

It is completely unsurprising that your conclusion is as bogus as your error filled hypotheses.

A masterclass in illogical argumentation!

#128

Debates: 0

Posts: 8,321

12.05.2020 08:25AM

-->

@Tradesecret

@Tradesecret wrote Humans were created good - not perfect.

So that would be created imperfect, then, which means to be flawed ?

But then you tell us that;

@Tradesecret wrote; and God did not make flawed beings.
@Tradesecret wrote; Good does not mean perfect.

I know, that is my point. It means - imperfect in line with your "not perfect".

But then you typically contradict yourself by saying

@Tradesecret wrote But nor does it mean flawed.

Play semantics all day Reverend. But is does.

not perfect; faulty or incomplete.
"an imperfect grasp of English" Similar: faulty flawed defective unsound.

But the problem - and one which you never seriously engage with is - what about the all the non-flawed choices that are made?
That may well have to do with after making many request by me for you to start a thread of your own showing god in a more positive and tolerant light and love, you have simply have failed to do so. So are you going to do that?

Just because you ask me to start a thread, does not mean that I am obligated to do so.

I know. And I totally agree with you. I am not forcing you in any way , Reverend. But then it hasn't stopped YOU persistently reminding & telling ME that I never speak of gods good or discuss the " all the non-flawed choices that are made?" by god . The thing is, is that I don't know anything about gods " good", I really don't. That is why I am asking you in your qualified capacity as Pastor & Chaplin to create a thread. It cannot be too difficult for you can it? I mean you must have papers prepared for your university students when requested to go along to the University and lecture them on religious subjects such as all the " no flawed and good" that god has done?

So will you be starting a thread, for this student?

What about the good in the world?
I have never been asked to discuss "all the good in the world" of which there is much.
I know I have asked the question in relation to other posters including the Brother and since you love to answer for other people when I talk to them -

Yes well, I am glad you have brought that up. You see as a rule I stay out of others peoples discussions and arguments and will only drop on another thread when I read something that I think may further explaining or evidence or proof. This is because I have many threads of my own to contend with. You on the other hand make sporadic threads of you own leaving YOU time to get yourself involved with other peoples threads and discussions and arguments and seem to welcome the fact that others interfere and butt on your behalf especially when you dug a great hole for yourself. At times it is as if you are almost being fed what to say. I don't see you complaining then , Reverend. One recent example can be seen here>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5123-the-bible-can-t-cause-anything

And lets not forget who it was that created a whole thread dedicated to the Brother with the sole intention to ridicule him.

Rather than seriously engage with this topic, you ignore it, ridicule it, and pretend it does not exist.

You came onto this thread at post #54 , you didn't "engage seriously" the OP's question with your first post, or your second, which was to do with "flawed beings" #77 which also doesn't "engage seriously" the OP's question. Your next post was criticizing - " the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" #85 and 25 posts later at post #110 (the post I am now responding to) you begin by criticizing me for not "engaging seriously with the topic. And I have made no ridicule on this thread whatsoever. Just about every post you post is one of non-engagement. You ridicule. Tell me, where have you once "engaged seriously" OP's questions in this thread. I see, that will be nowhere, then. So I hope now that you feel as incompetent and as stupid as you have clearly shown yourself to be with your glaring double standards.

Just about every post you post is one of non-engagement. You ridicule.

You are not reading that quote at all are you. YOU have made four posts on this thread before I joined it and not a single one engaging the OP and his topic, not one?

At least I engaged your point of "flawed beings", when I joined the conversation. YOU, it appears joined simply to have a laugh and joke with your new found buddy that attempts to dig you out of holes of your own creation but just makes you look stupid and incompetent and retarded.

I have shown YOU a perfect example of how YOU have done EXACTLY what it is that you had the nerve to accuse me of doing and not doing.

i.e. I have shown your hypocrisy AND your double standards. Just on this thread. You accused me of not engaging the OP, but neither have you.#77 you brought "flawed beings" into the thread <<< which has nothing to do with OP and is no way "engaging" the OP.

So stop with your bullshit double standards and hypocrisy , Reverend. At post you "ridiculed" every poster on this thread if not the forum when you wrote at post #85 this " Totally amazing the self-delusion of people like some of the posters on here" ........ HOW IS THAT ENGAGING THE OP? !!! I at least engaged YOUR post on this thread that YOU brought the subject of "flawed beings" into.

Humanity is and was made in God's image.

Well OP's question aside AGAIN, that is exactly what I have said above at post #100..... Only I was technically wrong. We were made in the image of THE gods, plural, is what I should have said. And as the scripture itself tell us. Genesis 1:26.
Well actually the Hebrew indicates we humanity was made in the image of God.

Do they? What about the Christian bible, what does it have to say?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image,Genesis 1:26.

Well now I know that you find the English dictionary doesn't sit well with you especially when it contradicts your own personal definitions of words.

But "US" and "OUR" indicate the plural.

#129

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,897

12.05.2020 07:41PM

-->

@fauxlaw

The design was never intended to be perfect as first produced. Perfection is a process of continuous improvement, not perfectin at the outset.

While in conventional system design I'll wholly agree with you, but not when trying to conclude thosed frequent mistakes are the work of an all knowing, all powerful being, and lastly all good being.

If we assume a creator who is not all knowing, the frequent mistakes on the path to continual improvement holds up... Or if we assume one who is not all powerful, since the seeming mistakes could be unavoidable within those limits... or if we assume one who is not all good, since all good logically contradicts frequently bad... Remove any of those three key attributes from God, and sure intelligent but flawed or uncaring design; with those attributes in place, ID doesn't make sense.

#130

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565

12.06.2020 01:11AM

-->

@Barney

with those attributes in place, ID doesn't make sense.

So, who placed those attributed at God's door? Man? Not yet right for the part. There's a reason we're born without the ability to walk, or talk, let alone manage any representation of coordination and dexterity. It is a growth process; all in good time. Just as perfection is a growth process. To allow that God creates imperfect things that can, in time, become perfect is not a sleight against God, it is acceptation that to become like God, which is our potential [not compelled, but dependent on our recognition of the possibility, and then working toward that goal] was in the plan of creation all along. We have not learned enough, done enough, made enough mistakes, or demonstrated the capacity to be perfect, yet. "Yet" is the separation we impose on ourselves because it certainly is not an imposition of God. We will become perfect on our own timeline, if we are to accomplish it at all.

#131

Debates: 50

Posts: 2,897

12.07.2020 02:34PM

-->

@fauxlaw

So, who placed those attributed at God's door?

The bible.

#132

Debates: 77

Posts: 3,565