Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[PostmodernProph]

The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

Are we willingly ignorant

well, now that you ask....I have noticed that in you.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Yes. Just as we use the biological process of evolution to breed domestic animals.

so slow....waiting for the environment to kill off the bulls we don't want.....Herefords alone took fifty million years.....

I see. I suppose I should not have expected more. Have a nice day.

I'm not sure what you expected but it is obvious ignorance to compare animal husbandry with random evolution instead of comparing it to intelligent design......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Ya... Christians totally embrace the science of talking snakes..

And the science of the walking dead..

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

do you at all acknowledge the fact that when you claim something is proven by science you incur an obligation to prove it scientifically.....do you not see that there is a different standard when someone simply chooses to believe something?......your problem stems from the fact you refuse to admit your faith......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Before grass evolved herbivores were eating the leaves of shrubs and trees.

are you certain that shrubs and trees evolved before grass?.....

 

[BillyP]

There are Christians who reject science. There are Buddhists who reject science. There are Atheists who reject science. Christianity, however, does not. What you are doing is assuming something is true solely because you believe it is true rather than examining the facts and coming to a conclusion based upon those facts. Which essentially means you are rejecting science.

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

do you at all acknowledge the fact that when you claim something is proven by science you incur an obligation to prove it scientifically.....do you not see that there is a different standard when someone simply chooses to believe something?......your problem stems from the fact you refuse to admit your faith......

I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for a god. That's not faith that's reality. Faith is believing in the tooth fairy, or that the world was made in 6 days by some invisible superbeing.

 

[PostmodernProph]

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

Are you a biblical literalist? If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish. Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts. Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic. The balance either didn't care or refused to respond. So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science. There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true. You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

yes, in this instance you are pretty simple.....I am a Christian, I don't believe the world was made in six days, I don't believe Noah was 600 years old, actually I do believe there was a flood although not literally as described in Genesis.....what I DO believe is that Jesus was God incarnate who died for my sins and that therefore I will spend eternity in heaven.....and THAT is what makes me a Christian.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

do you at all acknowledge the fact that when you claim something is proven by science you incur an obligation to prove it scientifically.....do you not see that there is a different standard when someone simply chooses to believe something?......your problem stems from the fact you refuse to admit your faith......

I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for a god. That's not faith that's reality. Faith is believing in the tooth fairy, or that the world was made in 6 days by some invisible superbeing.

well tell you what....when it comes to the claim that man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud, I'm an agnostic......I see no proof for it......and that isn't faith, that's reality.....believing in macro evolution is believing in the toothfairy......believing in abiogenesis is no different than believing in Santa Claus......you expect me to believe it, you come up with some proof......

 

[alang1216]

The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 3:5:

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:"

Are we willingly ignorant

well, now that you ask....I have noticed that in you.....

If you're looking for examples of willful ignorance look no further:

"man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud"

 

[PostmodernProph]

Are we willingly ignorant

well, now that you ask....I have noticed that in you.....

If you're looking for examples of willful ignorance look no further:

"man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud"

well imagine that.....we agree on something......I only consider myself an agnostic regarding that claim...would you consider yourself an atheist when it comes to macro-evolution and abiogenesis?......

 

[PratchettFan]

So which scientist discovered that the world was made in 6 days? What was his scientific proof? And what about making Eve out of a man's rib? Has that been proven in a laboratory? By whom? ...

Are you a biblical literalist? If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish. Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts. Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic. The balance either didn't care or refused to respond. So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science. There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true. You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

 

[BillyP]

Are you a biblical literalist? If so, then I suppose you will believe what you wish. Or are simply taking the position that every Christian is a biblical literalist because that is what you wish to believe, rather than examining the facts. Again... rejecting science.

According to the Pew research in 2009, 48% of professional scientists identified belonging to one religion or another, primarily Christianity, while 27% identified as either Atheist or Agnostic. The balance either didn't care or refused to respond. So, according to you, 48% of professional scientists reject science.

There is nothing in Christianity which conflicts with science. There are just people who refuse to look at reality and insist what they believe must be true. You don't have to be a Christian to fall into that category.

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

 

[Gadawg73]

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

We are talking science and not the Bible, religion or Christianity.

It has NEVER been the goal of science to prove the Bible wrong.
It is the religious, YOU, who's faith is so weak and shallow that believes that science is a threat to YOU.

 

[BillyP]

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

We are talking science and not the Bible, religion or Christianity.

It has NEVER been the goal of science to prove the Bible wrong.
It is the religious, YOU, who's faith is so weak and shallow that believes that science is a threat to YOU.

I have no faith, I'm agnostic, as I don't see any proof either way for a god or not. Science in fact disproves pretty much anything the bible says.

 

[Steven_R]

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

Maybe you should consider the following:

A Spelling Lesson
The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
In the Hebrew Bible, the scribes did not alter any text which they felt had been copied incorrectly. Rather, they noted in the margin what they thought the written text should be. The written variation is called a kethiv; and the marginal annotation is called the qere.
To the ancient scribes, this was also regarded as a remez, a hint of something deeper. This appears to be the clue to treat the word as a mathematical formula.
Numerical Values
The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.
The q has a value of 100; the v has a value of 6; thus, the normal spelling would yield a numerical value of 106. The addition of the h, with a value of 5, increases the numerical value to 111. This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft.,3 this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch! (This error is 15 times better than the 22/7 estimate that we were accustomed to using in school!) How did they accomplish this? This accuracy would seem to vastly exceed the precision of their instrumentation. How would they know this? How was it encoded into the text?

Hidden Codes in the Bible: The Value of Pi - Chuck Missler - Koinonia House

So the Bible has to be corrected.

No, no, no, you got it all wrong man, because it was just a mistranslation that nobody had bothered to fix in any of the countless versions of the Bible that have been published in the last 2000 years. I mean, why would they fix something that minor considering it's only the inherent, ineffable, and infallible Word of God? You don't really need to get it right when good enough will do.

 

[pinqy]

So Christians believe that the world wasn't made in 6 days, that Noah wasn't 600 years old, that the flood never happened... Which means you're not a Christian. Pretty simple really.

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

There's a difference between true and literally true. Most denominations teach that the truth in Genesis is that God created everything but humans created a separation between us and God (the Fall). That does not require the literal creation or a world-wide flood to be true.

 

[BillyP]

I would say most Christians believe those were allegories rather than factual descriptions. But, of course, that means they are not Christians because a Christian is what you say it is regardless of what the facts might say. As I said, you don't have to be a Christian to fall into the category of insisting what you believe is true regardless of the facts.

If you were referring to me specifically, I'm not a Christian and have never been one.

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

There's a difference between true and literally true. Most denominations teach that the truth in Genesis is that God created everything but humans created a separation between us and God (the Fall). That does not require the literal creation or a world-wide flood to be true.

Well, if you don't believe in Noah and his boat, then you're not a Christian. You can think you are, but you'd be wrong. You can even make up a new religion (denomination), but you'd still not be a real Christian, just a faker.

 

[Steven_R]

wiser than the average atheist, I've been told......

Remember geometry in 9th grade? You might have been exposed to the formula for circumference of a circle. C=2πr

Turns out that math in the Bible is slightly different. Seems Solomon was building some stuff for God's Temple, including big bowl thing. The Bible very clearly says the diameter of this bowl thing was "ten cubits from the one brim to the other" but the circumference of this big bowl thing was "and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." (1 Kings 7:23)

If the diameter is 10 cubits, that means the radius is 5 cubits (because 1 diameter is equal to 2 radii. 10/2=5). So using our formula, we can plug in the values we have. So

C=2*π*5
So our answer is 31.416 cubits

Wait a minute. Our answer is 31.416 cubits, but the Bible answer is 30.0 cubits exactly.

What gives? Is the Bible wrong or is math? If it's the literal truth, is rounding down consistent with every word being the Inherent and Ineffable Word of God?

So maybe a talking ass is wiser than me, but at least I can still do junior high math.

yes, but you can't do junior high debate......let me ask you this, do you think the average Christian gives a fuck about whether Solomon's blueprints were accurate?.....in this instance, I think its obvious the ass was wiser, though perhaps not as precise.....

It was so insignificant that you spent the time and effort to give me a negative reputation thing AND this comment "seriously?.....math accuracy?.....that's the best you got?...." Allow me to quote the great philosopher Han Solo "must of hit pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that..."

Riddle me this, if the scientific accuracy of the Bible, (inherent, ineffable, infallible Word of God and all that) can't be trusted to get junior high math right, why in the world should I be expected to just throw away the four centuries of scientific work we've done in favor of said Bible?

 

[alang1216]

well, now that you ask....I have noticed that in you.....

If you're looking for examples of willful ignorance look no further:

"man evolved from some original single celled organism that spontaneously erupted from a puddle of mud"

well imagine that.....we agree on something......I only consider myself an agnostic regarding that claim...would you consider yourself an atheist when it comes to macro-evolution and abiogenesis?......

We are here. The only mechanism to get us where we are today I can see any evidence for is evolution. Abiogenesis is another thing we both agree on. I think it most likely that it was a natural phenomenon but the exact mechanism is unknown to me. If that makes me agnostic so be it. It was probably natural but it could have been God, ET, or the Flying Spagetti Monster. We don't know for sure.

 

[pinqy]

In general, not just referring to you, if you don't believe that the bible is true and is god's words, then you're not a Christian. You can believe that you still are, but you'd be wrong.

There's a difference between true and literally true. Most denominations teach that the truth in Genesis is that God created everything but humans created a separation between us and God (the Fall). That does not require the literal creation or a world-wide flood to be true.

Well, if you don't believe in Noah and his boat, then you're not a Christian. You can think you are, but you'd be wrong. You can even make up a new religion (denomination), but you'd still not be a real Christian, just a faker.

You do realize that neither the Catholic, Orthodox nor most mainstream Protestant churches require or advocate a literal reading of Genesis? Lot of people you're saying aren't Christians. What is your authority to define Christianity again? I missed it.

But let's look. You must have missed it earlier in this thread when I posted it:
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?

If you take the Bible literally, then that passage must be true with the specified cause and effect. And yet we know that will not work.

Next let's turn to our good friend Joshua.
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day

and then in 2 Kings
20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?

20:9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

20:10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

But we now know that the sun does not move around the Earth as both those stories state.

So, unless you're one of the few geo-centrists (and yes, they still exist) then you cannot take those two stories literally.

And unless you're deluded beyond belief, you can't believe that offspring are affected by what their parents look at while breeding.

 

[BillyP]

There's a difference between true and literally true. Most denominations teach that the truth in Genesis is that God created everything but humans created a separation between us and God (the Fall). That does not require the literal creation or a world-wide flood to be true.

Well, if you don't believe in Noah and his boat, then you're not a Christian. You can think you are, but you'd be wrong. You can even make up a new religion (denomination), but you'd still not be a real Christian, just a faker.

You do realize that neither the Catholic, Orthodox nor most mainstream Protestant churches require or advocate a literal reading of Genesis? Lot of people you're saying aren't Christians. What is your authority to define Christianity again? I missed it.

But let's look. You must have missed it earlier in this thread when I posted it:
Genesis 30:37-41
37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.

41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.

But according to Evolution and Genetics, the rods would have no effect on the offspring.

So all we have to do is copy Jacob and see which prediction is correct: Will trees stripped of bark cause similar patterns as the Bible states, or will there be no effect as science states?

If you take the Bible literally, then that passage must be true with the specified cause and effect. And yet we know that will not work.

Next let's turn to our good friend Joshua.
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.

10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day

and then in 2 Kings
20:8 And Hezekiah said unto Isaiah, What shall be the sign that the LORD will heal me, and that I shall go up into the house of the LORD the third day?

20:9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?

20:10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.

20:11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

But we now know that the sun does not move around the Earth as both those stories state.

So, unless you're one of the few geo-centrists (and yes, they still exist) then you cannot take those two stories literally.

And unless you're deluded beyond belief, you can't believe that offspring are affected by what their parents look at while breeding.

What this shows is a) science has disproved the bible, so it can't be the word of god, and b) there are for sure tons and tons of fakers who think they follow the bible, but don't, and just pick and choose what they want to believe in.