Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Hmm....

Bullshit

You're correct my questions are not simple because there is no evidence for what I asked for.

Your goofy conspiracy theories are a poor excuse for maintaining such stupidity.

Yet you can't provide what was requested.

 

[Youwerecreated]

they are out of context as the storylines have no relation to each other.
the line the four winds does not link them...it's like the oft heard movie line " I gotta bad feeling about this"...it's a descriptor used for dramatic effect.
it's the same for the four winds line..in the bible.

also that description of the earth did not exist until the 16th century : Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the world—Europe in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.
The four corners of the world refers to the America (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia (the "east"), and Africa (the "south").
it's also further proof rewriting the bible.

one more thing slapdick, mormons spend an equal amount time" studying" the bible as they do the BOM.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S TWICE AS EASY TO REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT.

Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.

Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

I have no problem with the word of God.

 

[dblack]

Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.

Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

I have no problem with the word of God.

Which one?

 

[daws101]

You're correct my questions are not simple because there is no evidence for what I asked for.

Your goofy conspiracy theories are a poor excuse for maintaining such stupidity.

Yet you can't provide what was requested.

yes "we" have many times ....do you have this much trouble with memory all the time.?

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit you've asked the same questions in every thread you've posted...the variations on a theme ploy ..is bullshit.

I am asking you for the evidence that Darwin asked for himself. Yes, all evolutionist can point to are small changes within a family that neither side deny. They extrapolate from this evidence for the theory of macro evolution.

from you answer you seems to have the evidence ..why ask me or any of "us" for it.

Because if this evidence exists that answers the question of macro evolution then we would just have to answer if it happened naturally or was there a designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you must be as your evidence is filled to the rafters with them...your denial is proof!

By your reasoning you think all scientists are in complete agreement with all scientific theories.

Daws my questions are simple, please provide the evidence and we can go from there.

an overwhelming majority of them are...
the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what..

Daws they can't even agree on the correct definition for a species you don't see that as a problem ?

 

[daws101]

Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.

Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

I have no problem with the word of God.

would that be the ones that don't contradict each other or the ones that have been added?
just a reminder god did not write any of the books in the bible neither did the people that books name bear..

 

[Youwerecreated]

they are out of context as the storylines have no relation to each other.
the line the four winds does not link them...it's like the oft heard movie line " I gotta bad feeling about this"...it's a descriptor used for dramatic effect.
it's the same for the four winds line..in the bible.

also that description of the earth did not exist until the 16th century : Europeans in the 16th century divided the world into four continents: Africa, America, Asia and Europe.[1] Each of the four continents was seen to represent its quadrant of the world—Europe in the north, Asia in the east, Africa in the south, and America in the west. This division fit the Renaissance sensibilities of the time, which also divided the world into four seasons, four classical elements, four cardinal directions, four classical virtues, etc.
The four corners of the world refers to the America (the "west"), Europe (the "north"), Asia (the "east"), and Africa (the "south").
it's also further proof rewriting the bible.

one more thing slapdick, mormons spend an equal amount time" studying" the bible as they do the BOM.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS IT'S TWICE AS EASY TO REFUTE YOUR BULLSHIT.

Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.

now that's a nice fairy tale!
you have no evidence whatsoever that god did any such thing.
you have folktales not evidence.
that's the problem.
it's also not an answer.

I responded to your response. North,south,east,and west cover the entire planet correct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

I have no problem with the word of God.

Which one?

The only book that can stand up to scrutiny and the God it describes.

 

[daws101]

I am asking you for the evidence that Darwin asked for himself. Yes, all evolutionist can point to are small changes within a family that neither side deny. They extrapolate from this evidence for the theory of macro evolution.

from you answer you seems to have the evidence ..why ask me or any of "us" for it.

Because if this evidence exists that answers the question of macro evolution then we would just have to answer if it happened naturally or was there a designer.

well if that all you need I'll make it easy, :there is no evidence for a designer or design.
nature does however give the appearance of design..and that what fucks with your mind..

you now never have to bring up the designer fantasy again..
good thing we cleared that up!

 

[daws101]

By your reasoning you think all scientists are in complete agreement with all scientific theories.

Daws my questions are simple, please provide the evidence and we can go from there.

an overwhelming majority of them are...
the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what..

Daws they can't even agree on the correct definition for a species you don't see that as a problem ?

bullshit ! most all of them
agree that when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
again" the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what.."

 

[Youwerecreated]

Problem is, how is it that the gawds got it wrong?

Have the gawds played a cruel joke on you?

I have no problem with the word of God.

would that be the ones that don't contradict each other or the ones that have been added?
just a reminder god did not write any of the books in the bible neither did the people that books name bear..

Yes there are many different versions but with a little reasoning I don't see them contradicting themselves.

Nor do I see the NT contradicting the OT. You can see through prophecy that there would be a messiah and he would be rejected,and that Israel would be destroyed and the people scattered but gathered back in the end time.

It was also foretold that God would turn to the gentiles as well.

 

[daws101]

Nice story who is the source ? but you're wrong.

Problem is God described the earth 3,500 yeas ago to man.

now that's a nice fairy tale!
you have no evidence whatsoever that god did any such thing.
you have folktales not evidence.
that's the problem.
it's also not an answer.

I responded to your response. North,south,east,and west cover the entire planet correct ?

only a tiny part..you ask me to point what was out of context ..I did.
judging from your non response I must be correct.

 

[daws101]

I have no problem with the word of God.

Which one?

The only book that can stand up to scrutiny and the God it describes.

that's the lie you tell yourself the bible disintegrates under analytical scrutiny.
that's because it's a statement of faith not fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

from you answer you seems to have the evidence ..why ask me or any of "us" for it.

Because if this evidence exists that answers the question of macro evolution then we would just have to answer if it happened naturally or was there a designer.

well if that all you need I'll make it easy, :there is no evidence for a designer or design.
nature does however give the appearance of design..and that what fucks with your mind..

you now never have to bring up the designer fantasy again..
good thing we cleared that up!

You see I feel you're wrong.

I have seen nothing with it's origins tied to naturalistic processes.

Atoms,amino acids,proteins,Dna code,matter,and all the necessary chemicals. They are all pieces of the puzzle but it took someone to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

 

[daws101]

I have no problem with the word of God.

would that be the ones that don't contradict each other or the ones that have been added?
just a reminder god did not write any of the books in the bible neither did the people that books name bear..

Yes there are many different versions but with a little reasoning I don't see them contradicting themselves.

Nor do I see the NT contradicting the OT. You can see through prophecy that there would be a messiah and he would be rejected,and that Israel would be destroyed and the people scattered but gathered back in the end time.

It was also foretold that God would turn to the gentiles as well.

rationalizing and reiterating your belief is not an answer!

A List of Biblical Contradictions (1992)

Jim Meritt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Editor's note: Not everyone will agree that all of the listed "contradictions" are, in fact, contradictions. It is therefore up to the reader to use his/her own intelligence and decide for himself/herself what s/he can and will accept as a contradiction. In other words, you need not agree with what Meritt sees as a problem or contradiction. It should be kept in mind, however, that a perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient god would reasonably be expected to have done a better job of it than the Bible had such a god inspired a book. In any case, lists such as this can be useful in serving as a springboard for further study. For more, see also: Biblical Errancy and Biblical Criticism.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of my statements, past, present and future express solely my opinions and/or beliefs and do not in any way represent those of any of my employer's unless such is specifically stated in the content of the text. (Jim Merrit)

Table of Contents
•Introduction to Contradictions
•Contradictions
•References

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


God good to all, or just a few?

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.

JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.



War or Peace?

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the father of Joseph?

MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.

JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which first--beasts or man?

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many stalls and horsemen?

1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it folly to be wise or not?

PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1CO 1 "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human vs. ghostly impregnation

ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sins of the father

ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fowl from waters or ground?

GEN 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
GEN 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Odd genetics

GEN 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The shape of the earth

ISA 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

MAT 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Astronomical bodies are spherical, and you cannot see the entire exterior surface from anyplace. The kingdoms of Egypt, China, Greece, Crete, sections of Asia Minor, India, Maya (in Mexico), Carthage (North Africa), Rome (Italy), Korea, and other settlements from these kingdoms of the world were widely distributed.

A List Of Biblical Contradictions

 

[daws101]

Because if this evidence exists that answers the question of macro evolution then we would just have to answer if it happened naturally or was there a designer.

well if that all you need I'll make it easy, :there is no evidence for a designer or design.
nature does however give the appearance of design..and that what fucks with your mind..

you now never have to bring up the designer fantasy again..
good thing we cleared that up!

You see I feel you're wrong.

I have seen nothing with it's origins tied to naturalistic processes.

Atoms,amino acids,proteins,Dna code,matter,and all the necessary chemicals. They are all pieces of the puzzle but it took someone to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.

what you feel or believe is irrelevant.... there is no evidence that a somebody is /was involved.
it's not a tough concept.

 

[Youwerecreated]

an overwhelming majority of them are...
the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what..

Daws they can't even agree on the correct definition for a species you don't see that as a problem ?

bullshit ! most all of them
agree that when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
again" the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what.."

If you did more research you will see the difficulty in defining a species.

What are biological species? At first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer. Homo sapiens is a species, and so is Canis familaris. Many species can be easily distinguished. When we turn to the technical literature on species, the nature of species becomes much less clear. Biologists offer over twenty definitions of the term ‘species’ (Hey 2001). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the biological literature. Philosophers also disagree on the nature of species. Here the concern is the ontological status of species. Some philosophers believe that species are natural kinds. Others maintain that species are particulars or individuals.


6. Summary

This encyclopedia entry started with the observation that at an intuitive level the nature of species seems fairly obvious. But a review of the technical literature reveals that our theoretical understanding of species is far from settled. The debate over the nature of species involves a number of issues. One issue is their ontological status: are species natural kinds or individuals? A second issue concerns pluralism: should we adopt species monism or species pluralism? A third issue, and perhaps the most fundamental issue, is whether the term ‘species’ refers to a real category in nature. Even Darwin, it seems, doubted that ‘species’ refers to a real category in nature.

Species (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[daws101]

Daws they can't even agree on the correct definition for a species you don't see that as a problem ?

bullshit ! most all of them
agree that when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
again" the tiny few who you take as messiahs are by the laws of probability in the percentile that is wrong no matter what.."

If you did more research you will see the difficulty in defining a species.

What are biological species? At first glance, this seems like an easy question to answer. Homo sapiens is a species, and so is Canis familaris. Many species can be easily distinguished. When we turn to the technical literature on species, the nature of species becomes much less clear. Biologists offer over twenty definitions of the term ‘species’ (Hey 2001). These definitions are not fringe accounts of species but prominent definitions in the biological literature. Philosophers also disagree on the nature of species. Here the concern is the ontological status of species. Some philosophers believe that species are natural kinds. Others maintain that species are particulars or individuals.


6. Summary

This encyclopedia entry started with the observation that at an intuitive level the nature of species seems fairly obvious. But a review of the technical literature reveals that our theoretical understanding of species is far from settled. The debate over the nature of species involves a number of issues. One issue is their ontological status: are species natural kinds or individuals? A second issue concerns pluralism: should we adopt species monism or species pluralism? A third issue, and perhaps the most fundamental issue, is whether the term ‘species’ refers to a real category in nature. Even Darwin, it seems, doubted that ‘species’ refers to a real category in nature.

Species (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

as i STATED BEFORE :when a part of a species evolves away from the parent species and can no longer breed with them they are a new species.
YOU CAN'T WISH THAT FACT AWAY...

 

[Youwerecreated]

now that's a nice fairy tale!
you have no evidence whatsoever that god did any such thing.
you have folktales not evidence.
that's the problem.
it's also not an answer.

I responded to your response. North,south,east,and west cover the entire planet correct ?

only a tiny part..you ask me to point what was out of context ..I did.
judging from your non response I must be correct.

The point of those verses were to point out the four directions which are the four winds. They still represent the entire planet or heavens or winds.

The entire planet is is covered by the four directions.