Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 355 of 359 FirstFirst ... 255 305 345 353 354 355 356 357 ... LastLast
Results 3,541 to 3,550 of 3582

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #3541
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,182
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    05:45 AM
    Points
    5,316

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Pahu I've already explained the so called fulfilled prophesies. The ancient Israeli people after their experience of Jesus Nazareth decided that this man was the Messiah. So they return to the OT and search out passages that seem to support their view even if they have to make changes. They thought that Jesus was the messiah so in their sear they find out that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. However Jesus "of Nazareth" was born in Nazareth, thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth" It did not matter where he was born generally but some of them took it very seriously. No matter where Jesus was really born the scriptures had to fulfill the prophesy so he was listed as born in Bethlehem . Same with "A virgin will conceive. The original Hebrew does not say that. It says a maiden has conceived which is in the past tense and not about some future event. but one that has already happened. The prophesies are not about some distant future event they are about an event of the day they were written. The Word used in Hebrew and wrongly translated "virgin' was incorrectly translated as "virgin" The word used meant young maiden. This has nothing to do with making babies or having sex. They are not prophesy fulfilled but an attempt to make it look so. Being read literally leads to all kinds of absurdities.

  2. #3542
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,323
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    06:45 AM
    Points
    35,415
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    That is your interpretation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post
    No, that is what the Bible says.
    Let's try this again.

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."
    THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)

    "The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."
    That is what YOU say.

    What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  3. #3543
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,182
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    05:45 AM
    Points
    5,316

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    I do not know about any new additions but the one most used in the past had some 25000 translation errors.

  4. #3544
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,182
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    05:45 AM
    Points
    5,316

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    maybe someone should print a red error edition.

  5. #3545
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    FourPart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    5,832
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    01:45 PM
    Points
    26,942
    Gifts Beer Cake

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    As I understand it, even Genesis has the name of it's MORTAL author. It is "The First Book of Moses". If God had written it, why would it not be called "The First Book of God"? The Bible never even claims to be written by God - Inspired by a belief in a God, yes, but that's quite another thing.

    As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.

    Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.

    Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.

    Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.

  6. #3546
    Ted
    Currently Offline
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Gabriola Island BC
    Posts
    5,182
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    05:45 AM
    Points
    5,316

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Shaking my head at Pahu. LOL

  7. #3547
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,570
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    08:45 AM
    Points
    5,884

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    Pahu I've already explained the so called fulfilled prophesies. The ancient Israeli people after their experience of Jesus Nazareth decided that this man was the Messiah. So they return to the OT and search out passages that seem to support their view even if they have to make changes. They thought that Jesus was the messiah so in their sear they find out that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. However Jesus "of Nazareth" was born in Nazareth, thus the name "Jesus of Nazareth"



    It did not matter where he was born generally but some of them took it very seriously. No matter where Jesus was really born the scriptures had to fulfill the prophesy so he was listed as born in Bethlehem .
    According to the record, He was born in Bethlehem.


    Same with "A virgin will conceive. The original Hebrew does not say that. It says a maiden has conceived which is in the past tense and not about some future event. but one that has already happened.
    Here is the actual quote: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

    The prophesies are not about some distant future event they are about an event of the day they were written.
    What about this: Tyre

    Ezekiel 26 (592-570 B.C.)

    Therefore, thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up many nations against you, as the sea brings up its waves. "And they will destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her debris from her and make her a bare rock"(verses 3,4 ).

    For thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses, chariots, cavalry, and a great army. He will slay your daughters on the mainland with the sword; and he will make siege walls against you, cast up a mound against you, and raise up a large shield against you (verses 7,8 ).

    "Also they will make a spoil of your riches and a prey of your merchandise, break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses, and throw your stones and your timbers and your debris into the water (verse 12 ).

    "And I will make you a bare rock; you will be a place for the spreading of nets. You will be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken, "declares the Lord GOD (verse 14 ).

    "I shall bring terrors on you, and you will be no more; though you will be sought, you will never be found again,"declares the Lord GOD (verse 21 ).

    Predictions

    1. Nebuchadnezzar will destroy the mainland city of Tyre (26:8 ).

    2. Many nations will come against Tyre (26:3 ).

    3. She will be made a bare rock; flat like the top of a rock (26:4 ).

    4. Fishermen will spread nets over the site (26:5 ).

    5. The debris will be thrown into the water (26:12 ).

    6. She will never be rebuilt (26:14 ).

    7. She will never be found again (26:21 ).

    NEBUCHADNEZZAR

    Nevuchadnezzar laid siege to mainland Tyre three years after the prophecy. The Encylopedia Britannica says: "After a 13-year siege (585-573 B.C.) by Nebuchadnezzar II, Tyre made terms and acknowledged Babylonians suzerainty." 43/xxii 452

    When Nebuchadnezzar broke the gates down, he found the city almost empty. The majority of the people had moved by ship to an island about one-half mile off the coast and fortified a city there. The mainland city was destroyed in 573 (prediction #1), but the city of Tyre on the island remained a powerful city for several hundred years.

    ALEXANDER THE GREAT

    The next incident was with Alexander the Great.

    "In his war on the Persians," writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica, "Alezander III, after defeating Darius III at the Battle of Issus (333), marched southward toward Egypt, calling upon the Phoenician cities to open their gates, as it was part of his general plan to deny their use to the Persian fleet. The citizens of Tyre refused to do so, and Alexander laid siege to the city, Possessing no fleet, he demolished old Tyre, on the mainland, and with the debris built a mole 200 ft. (60m.) wide acriss the straits separating the old and new towns, erecting towers and war engines at the farther end. 43/xxii 452 (Prediction #5).

    The Tyrians countered here with a full-scale raid on the whole operation, which was very successful; they made use of fireships to start the towers burning and then swarmed over the mole after the Greeks were routed. General destruction of the mole was made to as great an extent as the raiding party was capable. Arrian progressed to the sea struggle. Alexander realized he needed ships. He began pressuring and mustering conquered subjects to make ships available for this operation. Alexander's navy grew from cities and areas as follows: Sidon, Aradus, Byblus (these contributed about 80 sails), 10 from Rhodes, 3 from Soli and Mallos, 10 from Lycia, a big one from Macedon, and 120 from Cyprus. (Prediction #2.)

    With this now superior naval force at Alexander's disposal, the conquest of Tyre through completion of the land bridge was simply a question of time. How long would this take? Darius III, Alexander's Persian enemy, was not standing idle at this time, but finally the causeway was completed, the walls were battered down, and mop-up operations began.

    "The causeway still remains," writes Philip Myers, "uniting the rock with the mainland. When at last the city was taken after a siege of seven months, eight thousand of the inhabitants were slain and thirty thousand sold into slavery." 99/153

    Philip Myers made an interesting observation here; he is a secular historian (not a theologian), and this is found in a history textbook:

    Alexander the Great...reduced [Tyre] to runs (332 B.C.). She recovered in a measure from this blow, but never regained the place she had previously held in the world. The larger part of the site of the once great city is now bare as the top of a rock [prediction #3]-a place where the fisherman that still frequent the spot spread their nets to dry. 99/55 (Prediction #4.)

    John C. Beck keeps the history of the island city of Tyre in the proper perspective:

    The history of Tyre does not stop after the conquest of Alexander. Men continue to rebuild her and armies continue to besiege her walls until finally, after sixteen hundred years, she falls never to be rebuilt again. 21/41


    The Word used in Hebrew and wrongly translated "virgin' was incorrectly translated as "virgin" The word used meant young maiden.
    Who has never known a man.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  8. #3548
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,570
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    08:45 AM
    Points
    5,884

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    Let's try this again.

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. ..."

    THAT is what the Bible says. (King James Version, to be precise)

    "The heavens and the earth is the universe. It the beginning is the time stamp. Later in verse 26 you see the creation of mankind. You don't see evolution because it isn't there. God's creation rules out evolution."

    That is what YOU say.

    What you said is your interpretation of what the Bible said. Not what the Bible said.
    No, that is what the Bible says.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #3549
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,570
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    08:45 AM
    Points
    5,884

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted View Post
    I do not know about any new additions but the one most used in the past had some 25000 translation errors.
    Such as?
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  10. #3550
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,570
    Local Date
    09-26-2017
    Local Time
    08:45 AM
    Points
    5,884

    Re: Science Proves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by FourPart View Post
    As I understand it, even Genesis has the name of it's MORTAL author. It is "The First Book of Moses". If God had written it, why would it not be called "The First Book of God"? The Bible never even claims to be written by God - Inspired by a belief in a God, yes, but that's quite another thing.
    Since God inspired it, He is the author.

    As for the the repetition of the phrase "Discipline of Science" - well the context in which you are using it demonstrates in a single sentence that you don't have the foggiest idea of what the primary Discipline on Science is. Science doesn't Prove nor Disprove anything. It examines the evidence, forms theories based on that evidence & then works to see whether or not the evidence supports the theories. Then, if further evidence comes to light that indicates that the theory in question is wrong, then they amend the theory accordingly. You see, the primary Discipline of Science is NEVER to asume ANYTHING has been Proven or Disproven. The very nature of Science is to leave an open mind & always to question itself based on the evidence. Even many of the initial theories of Darwin have been shown to be flawed, although additional evidence continues to support his overall interpretations.
    If the evidence shows the earth is circular. doesn't that disprove the flat earth idea?

    Your claim about a bird having to have a greater wing span in relationship to its body is a prerequisite for being a bird - then what ould you consider an ostrich to be. If you were to find a fossilised skeleton of an ostrich would you consider it to be a bird or a reptile? Before you go on to use the usual argument that it doesn't have teeth, therefore it has to be a bird - well most lizards don't have teeth either. Take the slow worm. It is technically a lizard, yet it has no legs, so why is it not a snake? There are fish that not only walk on land, but that climb trees also. What is it that predetermines a creature to be a fish rather than a newt? Where do you draw the boundary between a newt & a lizard? What about a bat? A bat has wings & flys - but it's not a bird. There are squirrels who may not have wings, as such, but they fly most ably, gling on the webs of skin beneath their limbs. There are fish that fly for great distances. Crabs & Spiders are technically the same species, yet live in totally different environments in totally different ways. All of these abilities are cross species ones & is not exactly rocket science to see how one moves on to evolve into another over time.
    Where is evidence they evolved?

    Science also does not claim that anything was always there. It accepts the binary option. 1. That it was always there & 2. That it somehow came into being. Science accepts either as a possibility. The Big Bang Theory actually supports both notions. Under the first, that it always existed, it's a matter of in what form it existed. The primary theory is that it existed as an infinitely dense piece of energy, which was suddenly triggered into a chain reaction by causes unknown (this also happens under laboratory conditions, incidentally, where apparently stable elements suddenly decay & compound into something else - usually quite violently). Elements, themselves are base materials which, left to their own devices remain as such, until triggered to change. A simple spark, for instance will trigger the compounding of 2 parts of Hydrogen to 1 part of Oxygen - Water. You might ask how, in the infinitessimal realm of possibilities would you be able to come up with such a random combination of events with a chemical formula with such precision - yet it happens on every single lightning strike - every single spark where there are traces of the base elements to be found. Furthermore, using the Theory of Relativity, Energy, Matter, the Speed of Light & Time are all inter-related. Therefore, until the change occured to trigger the change that caused the Big Bang, Time didn't exist either. Therefore, it can be viewed as having either always been there or not - in the same way as the value Zero can be looked on as being either Positive or Negative.

    Now (WITHOUT USING ANY PASTING) see if you can formulate an argument.
    The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe has always existed or came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradict the facts of science.

    Something cannot bring itself into existence from nothing. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

    All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 355 of 359 FirstFirst ... 255 305 345 353 354 355 356 357 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2