So-called science has repeatedly erred in making false claims.

[SkyHigh]

On 9/4/2024 at 8:44 PM, User said:

This can't be a real question. Are you really this ignorant of The Bible or are you really trying this hard to be obtuse about it?

 

Real question.

You made the claim the bible is non-fiction, being that our current understanding of biology, genealogy, archeology, geology, paleontology , history, etc, etc, etc... clearly show the events in Genesis ,from creation to the flood (that being the book we've been speaking about)as well as Exodus , did not happen as told in the Bible.

Therefore the burden of proof falls to you, so again any evidence to support your assertion?

Edited September 6 by SkyHigh

[User]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Real question.

You made the claim the bible is non-fiction, being that our current understanding of biology, genealogy, archeology, geology, paleontology , history, etc, etc, etc... clearly show the events in Genesis ,from creation to the flood (that being the book we've been speaking about)as well as Exodus , did not happen as told in the Bible.

Therefore the burden of proof falls to you, so again any evidence to support your assertion?

The Bible is a conglomeration of works written by some 40+ authors spanning over 1000 years. It is full of parables, stories, and history. History written by real people, passed down as historical accounts. The New Testament is no different, actual authors and people from the time wrote it as history. They were real letters written by Paul to the churches at the time. Archeology also corroborates many accounts. 

The point again, is that you don't have to believe it, to at least be honest enough to know it is not a work of fiction like Harry Potter. 

[SkyHigh]

5 minutes ago, User said:

The Bible is a conglomeration of works written by some 40+ authors spanning over 1000 years. It is full of parables, stories, and history. History written by real people, passed down as historical accounts. The New Testament is no different, actual authors and people from the time wrote it as history. They were real letters written by Paul to the churches at the time. Archeology also corroborates many accounts. 

The point again, is that you don't have to believe it, to at least be honest enough to know it is not a work of fiction like Harry Potter. 

Again you make the claim it's non-fiction, support that 

You can believe in anything you want but if all you have is a book written by anonymous authors , translated from copies of copies of translations, that claims ridiculous things like the Genesis creation account or the even more ridiculous idea of the flood, then I'm sorry but your god is as believable as Voldemort.

P.S. you in no way addressed the mountains of evidence that completely contradict your "historical" , "holy" book

[User]

3 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Again you make the claim it's non-fiction, support that 

You can believe in anything you want but if all you have is a book written by anonymous authors , translated from copies of copies of translations, that claims ridiculous things like the Genesis creation account or the even more ridiculous idea of the flood, then I'm sorry but your god is as believable as Voldemort.

P.S. you in no way addressed the mountains of evidence that completely contradict your "historical" , "holy" book

No, not anonymous authors. Many are named and most have some inclination for who it was. You seem to have no clue what you are talking about here and are just regurgitating simpleton attacks you may have heard. 

That is not how the Bible has come to existence, through some kind of repeated translation of copies of copies as you assert. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls have helped to confirm the accuracy of The Bible as well. 

This is just you throwing mud in the water trying to make it seem as if The Bible can't possibly be accurate as if it were a bad game of telephone. 

You can not believe it, but its purpose was still one of historical account, which is not the same as Harry Potter whose purpose was fictional entertainment. 

 

[SkyHigh]

1 minute ago, User said:

No, not anonymous authors. Many are named and most have some inclination for who it was. You seem to have no clue what you are talking about here and are just regurgitating simpleton attacks you may have heard. 

That is not how the Bible has come to existence, through some kind of repeated translation of copies of copies as you assert. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls have helped to confirm the accuracy of The Bible as well. 

This is just you throwing mud in the water trying to make it seem as if The Bible can't possibly be accurate as if it were a bad game of telephone. 

You can not believe it, but its purpose was still one of historical account, which is not the same as Harry Potter whose purpose was fictional entertainment. 

 

So still just some book said a thing?

Nothing to support your assertion?

You should read up about how the bible came to be. You won't look so ignorant 

P.P.S still waiting for a response to all the evidence that proves Genesis false  You can pick any of the almost half dozen disciplines I listed above, science deniers choice.

 

[User]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

So still just some book said a thing?

Nothing to support your assertion?

You should read up about how the bible came to be. You won't look so ignorant 

P.P.S still waiting for a response to all the evidence that proves Genesis false  You can pick any of the almost half dozen disciplines I listed above, science deniers choice.

 

Yeah, just some book like any book on history is just some book. Sure. 

Nothing, if you want to ignore me. 

So far, you are the one making ignorant claims about it, not me. 

I am not here to argue about Genesis being false or not... so keep waiting. Also, you did not post anything that proves its false. You just listed off fields of study. 

What science am I here denying?

You speak of science as it were some religion that can't be questioned... that is not how it works.

[SkyHigh]

42 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, just some book like any book on history is just some book. Sure. 

Nothing, if you want to ignore me. 

So far, you are the one making ignorant claims about it, not me. 

I am not here to argue about Genesis being false or not... so keep waiting. Also, you did not post anything that proves its false. You just listed off fields of study. 

What science am I here denying?

You speak of science as it were some religion that can't be questioned... that is not how it works.

Reputable history books draw from tangible evidence and first hand , contemporary accounts, the bible has neither.

If you choose to believe in the God of the Bible for moral or spiritual support, I encourage that. Period.

Now claiming your chosen holy book, is a better representation of reality than any other holy book, or the combined cumulative understanding of virtually every field of academia, requires you to demonstrate that fact and all you've done is say the Bible is true because it says it's true and that is not logical 

Of course you're not going to argue about Genesis being false because you know it is.

So you're not aware of any of the fields I mentioned?

Let me drop a little ( grade 8 ) science on you. Note I have no formal science education but I am literate.

Biology: we could not have the diversity of species  based just on the timeline of the flood story, not to mention how did kangaroo's get from mont Ararat to Australia ?

Genealogy: if you believe in paternity tests, you believe in evolution therefore Genesis must be false 

Archeology : No trace of millions of Jews walking a few hundred kilometers over 40 years 

Geology: the geological column dates rocks to millenia before the Bible says the universe was created.

History: There was no mention of any part of the Exodus story in Egyptian writings a culture that kept very extensive records.

Could you please respond directly or simply admit you believe on faith alone.

 

[blackbird]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Now claiming your chosen holy book, is a better representation of reality than any other holy book, or the combined cumulative understanding of virtually every field of academia, requires you to demonstrate that fact and all you've done is say the Bible is true because it says it's true and that is not logical 

Why bring in a list of fields without any concrete evidence or detail of what you are saying about anything?   Wouldn't it make more sense to choose one particular subject that you claim proves something and discuss that.  That would make more sense than jumping all over the place and not really focusing on anything in particular.

I suggest focusing at least for now on evolution and creation.  We have to focus on one thing because of the complexity of the subject.  We can have a more useful conversation if we discuss one subject at a time because in order to reply, we need to read up about it in order to have something useful to say.  You may agree with that.

  I understand the Genesis account of creation as something that happened literally in six days.  That is the way the Bible tells it.  It is not given as some kind of metaphor or symbolic thing.  It is meant to be taken literally.  It is not something you can subject to some kind of scientific analysis or experiment.  The creation event was a supernatural event.  

When God created the universe and life of course it had to be supernatural because everything had to come from nothing.  That eliminates any possibility of trying to explain it from a scientific point of view.  Science is limited to the material universe with experiment and the natural.  The Bible deals with the supernatural.  The beginning or origin of the universe and life can only be rationally explained by God creating it out of nothing.  The complexity of everything points to God.  Complexity of the creation required a designer-Creator.  The kind of complexity that has been found in the past century for example is so great that it could not have happened by accident.  It required vast amounts of information in the formation of life for example.

That is one reason why it would make sense to learn a bit about things like DNA and the other terms in the basic building blocks of life to understand the complexity.  By knowing that you might understand how they could not have happened by chance.

When you deny that the supernatural is how it happened, you must have something rational to put in its place.  There is nothing that could explain how we got here that makes any real sense.

I came across a good video conversation on evolution between a highly qualified scientist and the interviewer.  You might find this interesting.  From what he says, most scientists who know anything about it have discarded Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of new theories, what some call Darwinism 2.0.  It has become very difficult for scientists for defend Darwin's original theory of evolution in light of the modern growth in knowledge of life, etc.

At the time of Darwin, scientists did not understand the complexity of things as they do today.  Scientific knowledge has increased exponentially.  He talks about that and was asked what Darwin would have thought if he had lived in today's world with all the knowledge we have.  He gives an interesting answer.  Now, we should probably look into the meaning of things like DNA and other terms to get a better appreciation of the complexity of the basic life forms.  But this video is a good way to start.  There are many more videos that delve into various aspects of this on the same website, creation.com.  Enjoy.

If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist? · Videos · Creation.com

 

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Of course you're not going to argue about Genesis being false because you know it is.

How could it be false?  It is talking about the supernatural and that is how everything was created out of nothing.  

I believe we need to be patient and give everyone a chance to consider this because not everyone has the faith to believe in the supernatural events recorded in Holy Scripture.  I apologize if I have not been as patient as I should have been.

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[blackbird]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Could you please respond directly or simply admit you believe on faith alone.

One thing you may be amazed to learn from this very knowledgeable scientist on this video is this:

The complexity of the most basic life forms require a vast amount of information.  He explains how this works.  Every cell has a factory of processes that are taking place and each process is governed by a chain of information.

You don't get this information randomly or by chance.  It just doesn't happen that way.

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

From what he says, most scientists who know anything about it have discarded Darwin's theory of evolution in favour of new theories,

This is a blatant lie

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

This is a blatant lie

I admit that sentence was not correct.  I was not meaning to "lie" or mislead you.   I apologize. 

What I should have said was scientists have added to the theory since the 1960s.

 I should have said Darwin's theory was made without him having any knowledge of biology because there was practically no knowledge of biology at the time of his theory.  I apologize for that incorrect statement.  I will agree with you most scientists still hold to the basic belief of the theory of evolution based on natural selection as far as I know.

I think we really need to examine this very closely to understand what exactly it is saying.  I admit I have very limited knowledge.  But I do understand there is shocking complexity (as the scientist in the video calls it) in the most basic life forms such as a cell.

I am going to watch the video link I gave again and pay as close attention as I can.

 

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[French Patriot]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

How could it be false?  It is talking about the supernatural

That is what makes it false. 

The supernatural is for those who do not want to know the truth.

If there is one supernatural entity, that means it would be the proof of concept for many supernatural reals and Gods.

Too stupid a situation to put ones mind in. 

Do you not respect your mind?

 

Edited September 8 by French Patriot

[SkyHigh]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I admit that sentence was not correct.  I was not meaning to "lie" or mislead you.   I apologize. 

What I should have said was scientists have added to the theory since the 1960s.

 I should have said Darwin's theory was made without him having any knowledge of biology because there was practically no knowledge of biology at the time of his theory.  I apologize for that incorrect statement.  I will agree with you most scientists still hold to the basic belief of the theory of evolution based on natural selection as far as I know.

I think we really need to examine this very closely to understand what exactly it is saying.  I admit I have very limited knowledge.  But I do understand there is shocking complexity (as the scientist in the video calls it) in the most basic life forms such as a cell.

I am going to watch the video link I gave again and pay as close attention as I can.

 

Thank you for your honesty 

It is true that science does not presently have a definitive hypothesis on the origins of life it self and many scientists still hold to some version of evolutionary creation in that some deity ( let's use your god for the purpose of this conversation) was the "first mover" but that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection 

You are also correct that Darwin was unaware of modern scientific discoveries (which is why today only creationists still use the term Darwinism) ie; DNA but these more recent revelations only corroborate and support Darwins original hypothesis making evolution one of the best supported theories in science, being used to provide substantial progress in everything from medicine to the petrol industry.

[blackbird]

44 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

ou are also correct that Darwin was unaware of modern scientific discoveries (which is why today only creationists still use the term Darwinism) ie; DNA but these more recent revelations only corroborate and support Darwins original hypothesis making evolution one of the best supported theories in science, being used to provide substantial progress in everything from medicine to the petrol industry.

When you say Darwin's original hypothesis, I assume you mean his theory of evolution by natural selection.  In advocating natural selection, I don't think he had any evidence at all to back that up.  When you say evolution is one of the best supported theories in science, have you read or watched any videos that refute evolution from a rational or scientific point of view?   

You obviously believe science supports evolution.  Did you watch the 48 minute video I gave the link for?  What do you think of the subjects he addressed in the video?

He mentions irreducible complexity.  Do you understand there are very complex things in a cell for example that could not be reduced in complexity to a simpler cell?  So how could evolution produce something that complex?   Is there any information anywhere that describes how evolution could produce something as complex as the machinery in a cell?

 

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[blackbird]

 The fact is a living organism cannot even exist if it didn't have a complex structure to begin with.  So where did they come from?

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

these more recent revelations only corroborate and support Darwins original hypothesis making evolution one of the best supported theories in science,

This is where I would question that.

Take a look at this short 4-1/2 minute video clip on ATP synthase operating in a cell.  If one accept evolution as a fact, then how could all this kind of machinery come into existence?  I don't think there is any clear answer on that.

Also, where did the very molecules come from?  All of these things require vast amounts of information stored in parts of the cell to operate.  I don't think how all that came to be has been understood.

Bing Videos

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[French Patriot]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Also, where did the very molecules come from?

We do have many science questions that science has yet to answer well.

There are many voices offering advice and solutions.

If we have a supernatural creator, it is proving to be a pretty quiet one.

We are said to be created in God's image.

Are we all created to be deadbeat parents and never drop in and say hello? 

[blackbird]

When we start looking at the complexity of a single cell, we begin to see this is a vast manufacturing plant with various processes and structures which is controlled by a vast information system.

quote

This article is about the biological macromolecule. For other uses, see RNA (disambiguation).

A hairpin loop from a pre-mRNA. Highlighted are the nucleobases (green) and the ribose-phosphate backbone (blue). This is a single strand of RNA that folds back upon itself.

Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a polymeric molecule that is essential for most biological functions, either by performing the function itself (non-coding RNA) or by forming a template for the production of proteins (messenger RNA). RNA and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) are nucleic acids. The nucleic acids constitute one of the four major macromolecules essential for all known forms of life. RNA is assembled as a chain of nucleotides. Cellular organisms use messenger RNA (mRNA) to convey genetic information (using the nitrogenous bases of guanine, uracil, adenine, and cytosine, denoted by the letters G, U, A, and C) that directs synthesis of specific proteins. Many viruses encode their genetic information using an RNA genome.   unquote

This is just part of an article.

RNA - Wikipedia

At this point I think it is fair to believe this extreme complexity had to have a designer-Creator.  I don't believe there is any known mechanism that could be called evolution which would design and produce such an incredibly complex cell or basic life structure.

I believe this type of thing falls into the category of irreducible complexity.  I would conclude evolution had no part in this.

 

Edited September 8 by blackbird

[SkyHigh]

 

 

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

This is where I would question that.

Take a look at this short 4-1/2 minute video clip on ATP synthase operating in a cell.  If one accept evolution as a fact, then how could all this kind of machinery come into existence?  I don't think there is any clear answer on that.

Also, where did the very molecules come from?  All of these things require vast amounts of information stored in parts of the cell to operate.  I don't think how all that came to be has been understood.

Bing Videos

With all due respect, the videos you have provided in the past have never featured speakers that were qualified in the field they were pontificating on, so they should not be considered as educational tools and honestly not worth my time.

Here's why.

The goal of the scientific process and therefore scientists in general is to try and disprove everything we think we know. The websites you link to, such as creation.com admittedly do not use the scientific method, they approach to topic with a fixed conclusion and try to find evidence to support their presuppositions.

Do you know Professor Dave explains? It's a YouTube channel, take an honest look at him then we can continue this conversation 

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

With all due respect, the videos you have provided in the past have never featured speakers that were qualified in the field they were pontificating on, so they should not be considered as educational tools and honestly not worth my time.

"Dr Robert Carter, is a marine biologist and geneticist. He’s studied Darwin’s work, examined the Galapagos Islands firsthand, and debated the origins of life with skeptics."

If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist? · Videos · Creation.com

You are completely incorrect to say Dr. Carter is not qualified.  He is about as qualified as one can get on the subject of Darwin and evolution.

34 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

honestly not worth my time.

You simply don't want to watch or listen to anything contrary to your own personal view.  Very narrow-minded IMO

 

35 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Do you know Professor Dave explains? It's a YouTube channel, take an honest look at him then we can continue this conversation 

.So you want me to watch something on your tube that you recommend but say you won't watch anything I recommend.

Hardly reasonable or fair.  Only your opinion counts.

 

[User]

On 9/6/2024 at 4:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Reputable history books draw from tangible evidence and first hand , contemporary accounts, the bible has neither.

Pauls Letters, Gospels, Luke... Tacitus, Josephus... Pliny The Younger, Suetonius

On 9/6/2024 at 4:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Now claiming your chosen holy book, is a better representation of reality than any other holy book, or the combined cumulative understanding of virtually every field of academia, requires you to demonstrate that fact and all you've done is say the Bible is true because it says it's true and that is not logical 

Lovely strawman you have here. I never claimed The Bible was a better representation of reality. I merely pointed out what is an obvious truth, it was a work of non-fiction, unlike the fiction of Harry Potter. That your arguments trying to compare the two are little better than childish insults from someone clearly ignorant about The Bible. 

On 9/6/2024 at 4:45 PM, SkyHigh said:

Of course you're not going to argue about Genesis being false because you know it is.

So you're not aware of any of the fields I mentioned?

No, these arguments already get muddled enough (see your absurd strawman above) without getting drug into a completely different argument. 

I am aware of the fields you mentioned, merely mentioning them is not any kind of argument. 

You are also arguing against a very specific understanding of Genesis, not Genesis it's self, specifically that of Young Earth Creationism. 

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are also arguing against a very specific understanding of Genesis, not Genesis it's self, specifically that of Young Earth Creationism. 

You're arguing for it or just arguing?

[User]

20 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You're arguing for it or just arguing?

Neither. 

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, User said:

Neither. 

Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.