Is the Bible 100% truth?

[hongkongfooey]

But, it was magic water.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But, it was magic water.

DOH!

I didn't think of that... ok I feel better now.. Thanks

 

[elder999]

Yes. God created the world. The man "Jesus" was God the Creator manifest in the flesh. God made a human body and put his Spirit in it. This has always been the foundation of Christian theology.

It is probably best to atleast the Bible and get a grasp of the basics before discussing it.

Your exegesis is faulty. I won't bother you with the long version of mine. This one should do you, and, while my Greek is better than his, Anthony Buzzard certainly can't be construed as having an "anti-Christian" agenda....short version: "the Word," is the mind of God the Creator. When Jesus was conceived, the Word became flesh, but he didn't exist before that-it's as though I were to say to someone about an invention that it was "in their head" before it was actually invented.

In the beginning was the idea/knowledge/knowing, and the idea/knowledge/knowing was with God, and the idea/knowledge/knowing was God.

 

[Beowulf]

But, it was magic water.

No, you rockheads! Everybody knows it was holy water.

There are actually 3 ways to make holy water, that is one of them.
The other 2 are: have a priest bless it or just burn the Hell out of it.

 

[Beowulf]

I have been staying out of this and I truly have no intension to get into it, I know when I am out classed. But this point that Heretic888 brought up, "the flood", and it was probably mentioned before in here somewhere in this post, is a real sticking point for me about the whole is the bible 100% true thing.

If you melt all of the ice on the planet, which would raise sea level quite a bit, it still is not enough to flood the world. There just is not enough water on the planet to do that.

Ok, I'm done, have at me.

This would be a problem if the earth's topography had always looked just as it does now, but we can tell from studying its surface that it has not. The bible tells us in many places that God altered the earths topography.

New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19


That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19

 

[Beowulf]

The catastrophic plate tectonics model gives a mechanism for the deepening of the oceans and the rising of mountains at the end of the flood.

 

[Beowulf]

New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19


That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19

Sorry, I forgot to cite this. It was a quote from Noah's Flood--what about all that water, by Don Batten, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Weiland.

 

[heretic888]

Wallace, eh?? I don't suppose they have any scientific citations more recent than, say, the 1850's, huh??

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This would be a problem if the earth's topography had always looked just as it does now, but we can tell from studying its surface that it has not. The bible tells us in many places that God altered the earths topography.

New continental land-masses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basins were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
Without mountains or seabasins, water would cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.7 km, or 1.7 miles (not to scale).19


That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth’s surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth’s surface to a depth of 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles).19

I know about plate tectonics and the argument still doesn't fly, sorry.

What was once Pangaea is now everything else. Water has risen and fallen due to warmer and cooler temperatures on Earth and that is generally where major changes in land mass come from. And volcanic activity does not add THAT much land nor does subduction the mass never change. Just the rocks on the surface change from time to time. Continental collision can raise mountains (Himalayas), but some where else it is going under another land mass (San Andreas Fault) And North America and Europe are moving further apart.

And there is simply not enough water to do what you say no matter how you slice it. Even without sea basins or mountains there is not enough water. And if that were they case then you would also have to say that there were nothing but shallow seas on the planet then. Sorry it doesn’t work no geological evidence for that at all.

Geologically there current land masses are close to the same size they were millions of years ago just separated and moved. Sorry there just is not enough water. And erosion removes land not adds it or in your example moves it. The planets mass stays the same as does the amount of on it water.

If I understand what you are saying here the only way this would work is if God made the planet bigger to make the flood water go down or removed water form the Earth. These are the only 2 possible ways I see it could have happened. And I see no evidence of this in Science or religion.

I wish the Bible was 100% true, really I do, but I do not think it is based on the flood if nothing else.

Could there have been a great flood, very likely, there are to many societies with flood stories to be certain that a great flood did not happen, but it was regional not global, simple not enough water.

If your entire existence and the existence of your ancestors was lived in say a 1000 square mile area and it floods, you would believe the world was flooded.

And I am already way to far into this than I want to be.

 

[DeLamar.J]

But, it was magic water.

:ultracool

 

[Beowulf]

I know about plate tectonics and the argument still doesn't fly, sorry.

What was once Pangaea is now everything else. Water has risen and fallen due to warmer and cooler temperatures on Earth and that is generally where major changes in land mass come from. And volcanic activity does not add THAT much land nor does subduction the mass never change. Just the rocks on the surface change from time to time. Continental collision can raise mountains (Himalayas), but some where else it is going under another land mass (San Andreas Fault) And North America and Europe are moving further apart.

And there is simply not enough water to do what you say no matter how you slice it. Even without sea basins or mountains there is not enough water. And if that were they case then you would also have to say that there were nothing but shallow seas on the planet then. Sorry it doesn’t work no geological evidence for that at all.

Geologically there current land masses are close to the same size they were millions of years ago just separated and moved. Sorry there just is not enough water. And erosion removes land not adds it or in your example moves it. The planets mass stays the same as does the amount of on it water.

If I understand what you are saying here the only way this would work is if God made the planet bigger to make the flood water go down or removed water form the Earth. These are the only 2 possible ways I see it could have happened. And I see no evidence of this in Science or religion.

I wish the Bible was 100% true, really I do, but I do not think it is based on the flood if nothing else.

Could there have been a great flood, very likely, there are to many societies with flood stories to be certain that a great flood did not happen, but it was regional not global, simple not enough water.

If your entire existence and the existence of your ancestors was lived in say a 1000 square mile area and it floods, you would believe the world was flooded.

And I am already way to far into this than I want to be.

I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths.

Some interesting models have been created on the subject at globalflood.org by phds. Of course it does go against the grain of the mainline scientific community which will not publish anything with a pro-creation interpretation, so that is really the only reason it is marginalized. But whether or not you buy into either sides ideas it is certainly thought-provoking.

 

[Beowulf]

All of which is completely irrelevant unless we are talking about the specific arguments in support of their "creation science".

That a certain scientist publishes articles on the migration patterns of sea turtles in a peer-reviewed journal and then goes around and publishes articles about the Flood in a pseudoscience journal dedicated to creationism has no bearing whatsoever.

I guess you missed the reason I posted the article:

I give you a smaller excerpt of the above article:

In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish creationist letters.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions received.’ e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones.

Creation articles will always be suppressed by the elite and thoroughly entrenched current power-structure of academia, that is why they do not publish.

I do find your references interesting, though, from a purely psychological perspective. It would be like me citing "evidence" for penis envy in a periodical called the Freudian Research Initiative. These journals are clearly designed to champion one theoretical point of view above all others, being characterized not by a field-specific research methodology, but by the universal acceptance of foregone conclusions.

Real scientific journals don't do that. They provide diverse points of view and do not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the field. If I opened up an issue of Psychology Bulletin, I would see no foregone assumptions that behaviorism has more merit than humanism, for example. I would simply see research articles arguing for either perspective.

This is why your "evidence" is not science, but apologism. Science uses a methodology to uncover evidence and form tentative conclusions or predictions based on that evidence. Apologism begins with the conclusions at the start, and then proceeds to selectively "find" the "evidence" that supports their conclusions.

That is precisely why everything you have cited in the past several posts has no scientific merit whatsoever. It is theology masquerading as science.

Laterz.

Lets start with the first part: Do real scientific journals really provide diverse points of view and not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the feild? The scientific community does not have its own dogma does it?

Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, biologists at Stanford and the University of Sydney, respectively, summarized the problem in Nature Magazine:
Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out inextremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

L. Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say:
The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

Hubert P. Yockey, writing for the Journal of Systematic Biology, has this to say about the whole question of origins:
Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth, whether life existed anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to our students, the agencies funding research, and the public.... It is new knowledge, not another clever scenario, that is needed to achieve an understanding of the origin of life.


“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

Charles Darwin

Regarding what is science, William Kilgore, in his research paper Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution writes:

Both sides in this debate have philosophical presuppositions. In the West, the non-evolutionist is typically a Christian theist (though this is not always the case; e.g., Michael Denton). But the evolutionists also have an underlying philosophy. As mentioned above, they are naturalists. Unfortunately, those who continually make statements like "Evolution is science; creation is religion/faith" do not seem to realize this. This is an odd situation. Especially so in light of the fact that prominent evolutionists have had honest moments when they have stated their unwavering commitment to naturalism in no uncertain terms. It is all there in their own writings for any who care enough to look.

Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are empirical science, nor can they be. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube. Neither theory is subject to repeatable experimentation or observable processes. However, both can be described as forensic science, in that they seek to reconstruct a theory about a past event based on empirical data presently observed. Origin science, whether evolutionism or creationism, is analogous to what forensic specialists do at a crime scene and what archaeologists do on a dig. Most importantly, both theories are first and foremost a philosophical framework for interpreting the data.

One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with data-interpretation. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith."

 

[heretic888]

I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths.

Well, "because the myths say so" is not a valid argument, especially in light of a lack of physical evidence. It is a rather convoluted Appeal To Tradition and nothing more.

 

[heretic888]

Creation articles will always be suppressed by the elite and thoroughly entrenched current power-structure of academia, that is why they do not publish.

So, now you're appealing to conspiracy theories, eh??

Lets start with the first part: Do real scientific journals really provide diverse points of view and not unilaterally support any given set of conclusions in the feild?

No, they don't. Although certain individuals can erect discrimination fantasies to try and convince misinformed others to the contrary.

However, it's pretty absurd to even remotely claim that a set of conclusions is "unilaterally" supported in, say, evolutionary science when there is controversy over things like niche selection, epigenetic inheritance, punctuated equilibria, and the Baldwin effect.

Of course, that's just the point. "Creation science" is constructed through the abdication of reason and evidence, not its exercise. They freely erect Straw Man arguments and will even outright lie to advance their pseudoscientific agenda (see the "quoting game" article in the Intelligent Design thread), which is really just religious proselytizing with a "scientific" veneer.

The scientific community does not have its own dogma does it?

Science proceeds from certain assumptions, if that's what you mean. But conclusions are never preformed, as opposed to religious dogma.

Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, biologists at Stanford and the University of Sydney, respectively, summarized the problem in Nature Magazine:

Our theory of evolution has become ... one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus ‘outside of empirical science' but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out inextremely simplified systems have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

More opinions with no arguments.

[L. Harrison Matthews, writer of the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's ORIGIN OF SPECIES has this to say:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded upon an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

More opinions with no arguments.

Hubert P. Yockey, writing for the Journal of Systematic Biology, has this to say about the whole question of origins:

Since science has not the vaguest idea of how life originated on earth, whether life existed anywhere else, or whether little green men pullulate in our galaxy, it would be honest to admit this to our students, the agencies funding research, and the public.... It is new knowledge, not another clever scenario, that is needed to achieve an understanding of the origin of life.

Wow, this is truly hilarious. It's like telling a statistics professor, "Gee, do you know that an extreme variance can skew a mean??"

“I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them.”

Charles Darwin

Yeah, context is nice, isn't it??

[Regarding what is science, William Kilgore, in his research paper Challenging the Naturalistic Philosophy of Evolution writes:

Both sides in this debate have philosophical presuppositions. In the West, the non-evolutionist is typically a Christian theist (though this is not always the case; e.g., Michael Denton). But the evolutionists also have an underlying philosophy. As mentioned above, they are naturalists. Unfortunately, those who continually make statements like "Evolution is science; creation is religion/faith" do not seem to realize this. This is an odd situation. Especially so in light of the fact that prominent evolutionists have had honest moments when they have stated their unwavering commitment to naturalism in no uncertain terms. It is all there in their own writings for any who care enough to look.

He must include the Roman Catholic Church in his assessment, then, since they officially accept the idea of theistic evolution.

Strictly speaking, neither evolution nor creation are empirical science, nor can they be. This is evident in that they both seek to address the question of life's origin, something that cannot be repeated nor put into a test tube.

Evolution is about the origin of life?? Um, okay.

He should inform the other 99.99% of the world's biologists, then. They'll be shocked to learn they're doing it all wrong.

One of the primary flaws with evolutionists is their stubborn propensity to confuse the data itself with data-interpretation. The very same data is viewed by both evolutionists and non-evolutionists, but because each is working within a different paradigm the interpretive conclusions are very different. Yet evolutionists call their own (naturalist) interpretation "science" and the non-evolutionist interpretation "faith."

Oh, this is unbelievably hilarious. It makes you think he's never even read Stephen Jay Gould before.

Yes, "evolutionists" know there is a difference between the facts (or data) and the theoretical explanation for said data. Gould was very clear on this point in his "Evolution as Fact and Theory" article. I suppose there are a very wacky ideologues out there, but by no means do they make up the majority or consensus of the world's scientists.

The real probelm is that, no matter how they try to B.S. like-minded "true believers", the "non-evolutionists" don't honestly and critically address the data. They erect Straw Man arguments, Red Herrings, and outright lie to advance their agendas. But at no point do they really deal with the relevant evidence.

The classic example is to point out the "holes" or "gaps" in the fossil record to therefore conclude that the fossil record doesn't exist or can't tell us anything about the planet's past. This is completely nonsensical, but it is typical "creation science" strategy.

What proponets of "intelligent design" and "creation science" do try to do is bring up minor disputes of details, such as how evolution works. Not everybody accepts universal Darwinism (as in, universal natural selection) and not everybody accepts universal gradualism. The "non-evolutionists" opportunistically capitalize on this to therefore conclude there is no "evidence" for evolution, which is entirely absurd. The debate between natural selection versus niche selection has nothing to do with common descent, no matter how unscrupulously certain apologists try to slice it.

And, again, I'm going to have to point out that until these guys publish their works in peer-reviewed academic journals, that what they're doing ain't science.

Laterz.

 

[qizmoduis]

I mostly agree with you Xue Sheng, and although I'm not a science major (are any of us?) I think its presumptuous to say a global flood is an impossibility, especially in light of the myths.

Actually no, it is not presumptuous to say this at all. Especially in light of the myths. It is simply a fact that there is no evidence that even remotely suggests a global flood. Period. The Grand Canyon doesn't suggest a global flood. Mt. St. Helens doesn't. Plate tectonics certainly doesn't. No amount of apologetic handwaving can mold centuries of scientific observations and measurements to fit the myth.

The Epic of Gilgamesh isn't evidence, nor is the Bible's semi-plagiarized version of it, just like the Odyssey isn't evidence of the existence of giant one-eyed cannibals on islands and the myth of Hercules isn't evidence a giant named Atlas is carrying the world on his shoulders. Presents under the tree on Christmas morning is not evidence of Santa Claus.

Here's a few links for you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

Oh, and since you seem to be carrying on the dishonest tradition of creationist quote-mining:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

I thought we had addressed quote-mining in the most recent ID thread.

 

[Beowulf]

I only quote because I am not a scientist. I feel that a scientist could better explain such ideas. If I was a science major and asked questions regarding business I would probably let a business person explain that as well. Are you a scientist?

 

[heretic888]

I only quote because I am not a scientist. I feel that a scientist could better explain such ideas.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and just assume that the scientists you quoted actually believe what you claim they believe and are arguing for a "non-evolutionist" position, as you called it.

Even so, all you have done is lobbed the opinions of a few random scientists at us. As such, so what?? I can counter-lob the opinions of reknowned scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, if you want, but what purpose would that serve??

In each case, we are given opinions without any arguments or evidence in support of them. They're "just-so" statements. Well, opinions are like, you know, in that everyone's got one. They're nothing special.

Then, of course, we're side-stepping the little issue of peer review and an absence of publications in academic journals. . . .

If I was a science major and asked questions regarding business I would probably let a business person explain that as well. Are you a scientist?

I'm a psychology grad student, actually.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

In each case, we are given opinions without any arguments or evidence in support of them. They're "just-so" statements. Well, opinions are like, you know, in that everyone's got one. They're nothing special.

Then, of course, we're side-stepping the little issue of peer review and an absence of publications in academic journals. . . .

You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.

So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.

1.Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since
this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?




Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms.

Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

You're right, we are sidestepping this issue.

So do you mind if I ask you a few questions? Please use peer review and academic journal publications only.

1.Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since
this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?




Don't forget to familiarize yourself with the burden of proof and only use science in its purest empirical forms.

Please no citing "overwhelming evidence", nor appeals to common practice, nor that which has not been published in academic journals and peer review.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you. If you don't think so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

I was happily out and then you had to go and pull me back in.

Well let me get together with an Astronomer, Physicist, Biologist, Geologist, Geneticist, Medical Doctor, Botanist, Bishop, and an Archeologist, throw in a Philosopher and a Psychologist and they can answer your questions

I see the tactic, when in doubt or up against the wall out shout them or fire so many questions at them that you know they can’t answer all of them so you can then say AHA!! I knew it, I was right. But the problem is I am not trying to prove that there is no God I am just saying the Bible is not 100% correct and the majority of your questions cannot be answered in the Bible either.

Nope, bad move, you can easily look it all up in a book and online. I am not going to do it for you.

Also I am sure you have just set yourself up for a barrage of answers.

I had a Science professor in College once that was talking about the beginning of the Universe and Evolution and after the talk he did say this.

“Although it is very likely that science is correct if you actual think about it evolving from Amino acids to single celled organisms to Humans is about as likely as a tornado hitting a junkyard and producing a Boeing 747”

So as to your questions, how does the Bible explain them beyond divine intervention?

And since I did warn you, I have another question, since you are asking if the others are scientists… are you a theology or Biblical Scholar?

And I was a Physical Geography Minor in College, basically Geology, Climatology and (thanks for giving me the chance to say this, I rarely do and I thnk it is so cool) Fluvial Geomorphology.

OK I'm not angry anymore I got to type Fluvial Geomorphology

 

[heretic888]

Good points, Xue Sheng.

As I said earlier in this thread, oversaturation does not trump logic. . . .

Although, it seems that Beowulf's account has been closed. I suppose this thread has just about run its course.

Have a good one.