Posted on 08/31/2011 12:37:18 PM PDT by Boogieman
BroJoe wrote: “Unconfirmed ... Intelligent Design”
Actually, God has demonstrated his singular ability to generate time reversals in the Bible, a feat which modern physics is baffled to reproduce or explain. See http://xwalk.ca/y3nf.html for the details.
BroJoe wrote: “The evolution theory (confirmed hypothesis) simply projects these facts backwards in time...”
Until you can explain the time reversals in the Bible (no other book, not even the Koran/Qur’an does this) apart from God existing, evolution is simply confusion taught as fact.
It then goes without saying that Genesis is history, and it makes claims about what happened in the past. Though the Bible could be defined as a spiritual book about the history of God’s people, the few naturalistic and scientific claims it makes do stand up to scrutiny.
BroJoeL wrote: “Evolution science never was and never will be a religious exercise”
Evolution by itself is a pillar in the religion of atheism. It is a “creation account” for atheists, the same way that Genesis is a creation account for Jews and Christians. Read the full details of why atheism is a religion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism#Central_thesis.
BroJoeK wrote: “where religion is entirely concerned with the spiritual”
The times I got jobs, and changed circumstances as a result of prayer, was that ALL spiritual, or did the spiritual manifest in the natural result because an uncaused, changeless, timeless Being answered my prayer?
Tell
Don’t know why “Tell” is a the end of my last post. :)
Sorry if I keep repeating myself: but the Bible is Revealed Truth, and science, by definition has nothing to do with revealed, or spiritual claims.
Science, again by definition, exists strictly in the material world and builds its theories beginning with confirmed observations = facts.
Since there are virtually no scientifically confirmed observations (in other words, facts) regarding many Biblical claims, science simply can't respond to them.
And that would include the example you cite here.
ROTB: "Until you can explain the time reversals in the Bible (no other book, not even the Koran/Qur’an does this) apart from God existing..."
Until you can produce physical scientific evidence, that such an event actually happened, science can't even begin to respond to it.
ROTB: ..."evolution is simply confusion taught as fact."
As I explained in a post above, the word "evolution" refers to facts (confirmed observations), theory (confirmed hypotheses) and unconfirmed hypotheses (aka "informed speculation").
The only confusion I've seen is in the minds of folks such as yourself who are dead-set and determined, no matter what, to deny the reality that the word "evolution" represents.
ROTB: "It then goes without saying that Genesis is history, and it makes claims about what happened in the past."
By definition, the Bible is history and many of its statements can be verified scientifically, or by confirmation from other contemporary sources.
But not all.
ROTB: "Though the Bible could be defined as a spiritual book about the history of God’s people, the few naturalistic and scientific claims it makes do stand up to scrutiny."
Some of its naturalistic and scientific claims can be confirmed scientifically.
But I will repeat myself: the Bible's purpose is not to provide its readers with a scientific text-book.
The Bible's purpose is to provide believers with a guide for spiritual salvation and immortality.
For that purpose, the Bible's scientific or even historical confirmability is irrelevant.
ROTB: "Evolution by itself is a pillar in the religion of atheism."
Many otherwise reasonable ideas have been mis-used by people claiming to believe them.
But in the specific case of Evolution theory, most large Christian denominations teach what's called theistic evolutionism, meaning God planned and directed evolution from the beginning in order to create us.
And that is my belief too, so your insistence that Evolution is nothing more than a tool for atheists is just factually wrong.
ROTB: "The times I got jobs, and changed circumstances as a result of prayer, was that ALL spiritual, or did the spiritual manifest in the natural result because an uncaused, changeless, timeless Being answered my prayer? Tell"
Obvious spiritual intervention, but about which science by definition can say nothing.
Once you begin to understand the separation of spiritual and physical, and the fact that science only deals with the material world, then most of your problems with Evolution theory can yield to explanation, imho.
You said: Since there are virtually no scientifically confirmed observations (in other words, facts) regarding many Biblical claims, science simply can’t respond to them.And that would include the example you cite here.
You would do well to read “The Signature of God” by Grant Jeffrey. You are under-informed.
You said: Since there are virtually no scientifically confirmed observations (in other words, facts) regarding many Biblical claims, science simply can’t respond to them.
You obviously didn’t read the link I posted for you. “Science” will not respond. The link is there for you to read about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TIME REVERSALS. Empirical. You can measure it. You.
You said: The only confusion I’ve seen is in the minds of folks such as yourself who are dead-set and determined
Until you disprove the claim of empirical evidence of time reversals in the link I posted, it is you sir, who is “dead-set and determined” in your ways and beliefs, and Genesis is not mistaken about special creation. “Scientists” who support evolution are.
You said: “most large Christian denominations teach what’s called theistic evolutionism”
They’re wrong. The church in America is shot. Divorce, porn, lack of witnessing, sin, corruption, idolatry are rampant among Christians. That they would make such a giant error in something so basic, is about right. Jesus said we “will know them by their fruits”, and their fruits are rotted.
My normal rule here is to deal only with arguments and data that are actually presented, and to ignore "arguments by link".
It think it's unproductive trying to chase chimera down some Internet rabbit hole.
So, if you want to select data and arguments from your links, and present them here, then I can explain to you if, or why, they are wrong.
ROTB: "You are under-informed."
I understand there is a whole anti-evolution industry out there, producing books & web sites, supplying speakers for meetings, and that some even build their careers on arguing the case against Evolution to friendly audiences.
I understand that arguing with such people is like trying to convince a Ford salesman that Chevy builds better trucks.
No way is he ever going to admit such a thing!
There are also folks -- harder to find -- who fight the good fight, putting out real data in response to anti-evolutionists claims.
But you know how they say it, "a lie can get half way around the world before the truth even gets its pants on."
So it's not at all clear to me if the defenders of science have developed cogent responses to every anti-evolutionist claim.
All that said, I don't do "arguments by link".
If you want to argue some point here on Free Republic, then bring out your data and make your case.
ROTB: "You obviously didn’t read the link I posted for you."
I don't do "arguments by link".
ROTB: "“Science” will not respond. The link is there for you to read about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TIME REVERSALS. Empirical. You can measure it. You."
Bring out your data. Make your case. Here, on Free Republic. You can do it. You, pal.
ROTB: "Until you disprove the claim of empirical evidence of time reversals in the link I posted, it is you sir, who is “dead-set and determined” in your ways and beliefs"
There is nothing here to disprove.
You've presented no data, and made no argument.
I am only "dead-set and determined" not to waste my time chasing chimeras down Internet rabbit holes.
ROTB: "Genesis is not mistaken about special creation.
“Scientists” who support evolution are."
Science, by definition does not "support" special creation or special anything else.
Science requires data / facts / confirmed observations before it can even begin to work on some natural phenomenon.
The claim by some anti-evolutionists in support of their interpretation of the Bible, that they have "found" some new data which science has "mysteriously" overlooked, strikes me as no more scientifically credible than some other assertions.
ROTB: "They’re wrong. The church in America is shot. Divorce, porn, lack of witnessing, sin, corruption, idolatry are rampant among Christians."
Any church can eliminate 100% of those problems if it simply expels all its members who have them.
And that's just what some churches do.
Others take a more welcoming approach, and try to work with real people's real problems.
But none of that has anything to do with the validity, or lack of validity, of the theory of evolution.
So your argument is just a red herring.
>So your argument[s] is just a red herring.
Whatever. Have a nice day.
Seems like a very, very major cop out is in progress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.