Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Is anyone on the side of Evolution going to deal with the argument presented by Elaine Morgan and give their reasons why her suggestion is wrong?
    I already addressed this. There is no evidence for her suggestions. That is why mainstream science doesn't adopt her hypothesis. There is nothing more to say than that.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    In light of the most recent understanding, what is the correct branch of evolution leading to man? It is like we have reached a destination by following one of two roads. Both roads do not lead back to the same starting point, so one of those routes has to be wrong. Having an incontrovertible path leading to the evolution of man is essential. While there is controversy, the theory remains a theory. Fact has been claimed when it has not been fact. The fact is; a great deal of similarities have been found, but the links from one to the other have not been proven but postulated.
    It's really sad you are incapable of learning. You keep repeating the same BS arguments about evolution being just a theory time after time. There is no way you have a scientific or technical mind to keep regurgitating that erroneous crap. You have no freaking idea about evolution and yet you feel qualified to say it's not a fact. This thread is littered with your ignorance of evolution. I have pleaded with you to correct your errors but you refuse to educate yourself. More proof of your ignorance is in your second to last post.

    Also, there is no controversy. The only controversy is in the minds of deluded believers.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    No-one doubts micro evolution takes place, but macro evolution is what is the controversy.
    Thank you for admitting evolution is true and proving that you have no clue about evolution at the same time.

    They are the same thing. Micro evolution is genetic changes which are subtle enough and have not yet accumulated to the point where they resulted in speciation, and macro evolution means radical change observed over a large enough period of time (many many generations) which has resulted in a population giving rise to at least one subspecies. The mechanism is the same. There are many studies done that illustrate speciation occurring in plants and insects which have very short generations and therefore can be observed.

    Here is a whole lot of macro evolution occurring. http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...-evidence.html

    Although I'm sure you will reject it like you do everything else.

    Your ignorance of evolution is astounding. Yet, you reject it on bogus information you have been fed by deluded creationist. And the worst part of it all is that you refuse to correct your errors. This thread is littered with your errors of evolution and I have repeatedly brought them to your attention. But you just ignore what people say and persist in your errors. It truly is sad to watch someone operate this way.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67
    What errors do I have? Please be specific so each item can be addressed.
    In your very first post you said this" It is said by the supporters of Evolution; "Evolution theory is fact".

    Richard had to correct your confusion.

    Post # 4 first page you posted this nonsense. Yes it is fact; humans are relatively hairless compared to the apes from which we are supposed to have descended. Elaine Morgan is showing how the theory(s) attached to Evolution are just that; theory. There is controversy within the field of Evolution as to how humans came about. This is not giving me confidence in "Evolution" as an explanation for the origin of life. This is fact; theories of Evolution change, hence the perfect theory (which should not change) has not been found. Can a perfect theory be found. As long as it remains illusive, I will stick with Creation based on the word of God whose word does not change.

    You said we descended from apes. Wrong. You called evolution just a theory again. Wrong. You expect evolution to tell you the origins of life. Wrong. Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Darwin called Origin of the Species, NOT the origins of life. Evolution occurs AFTER life has started.

    Post # 8 on the first page you told this whopper with no evidence. Knoweldge does increase and understanding progresses, but in the text books what has been put forward as theory is what people have been lead to believe and amny still are saying we descended from the apes or that the apes are our nearest ancestor.

    You never provided the evidence I asked you to. It's safe to say you don't have any.

    Page 2 post #12 Your back to asking about the origins again after I corrected you. Can you explain how the genome evolved in the first place?

    And in my previous post you confused micro and macro evolution. You think they are somehow different processes.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I have not dropped the dating standard. This can be dealt with separately. The dating of fossils and artefacts is well know for the uncertainty of the results and the widely differing results that have been obtained when the same samples have been given to independent laboratories.
    This is complete crapola. No it can be dealt with NOW. The dating methods pertain to evolution. So go ahead and prove the dating methods are unreliable.

    If the dating methods are unreliable, then how can you tell someone we have evidence for Abraham and David? How can you dare tell someone they are blinkered as you blindly accept the dating methods to support your bias?


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I like you have to discern what is the truth. It might seem like picking and choosing, but that is what we have to do. We have to pick out the truth from the lies.
    Yes, that's true. But you have no consistency by you can tell truth from fiction. I proved that above. You tell me the dating methods are unreliable and then yuo blindly accept them to confirm your bias.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You show your own ignorance and bias. I expect you know very little about Rood or the Christadelphians of which you cite. For example, Rood does not claim to be a prophet. Your calling him a false prophet shows your ignorance.
    Now your just flopping around like a fish out of water. You say I have shown my ignorance. Where have I? Evidence please.

    Did Michael rood make FALSE end time predictions? Why, yes he did. He also claims to have been the recipient of direct divine interventions many times.

    Were his predictions true? NO! That makes him a false prophet and the Bible tells you NOT to listen to such people. But do you listen to the Bible? NO! You don't care because you are looking to confirm your bias.

    I know all about the Christadelphians. Their belief system is scattered all over this forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I listen to Rood the same as I listen to you and I discern who is speaking the truth and what evidence each brings to the table. Start being specific and stop talking in generalities and belittling people. This is one of the lowest forms of the 38 ways to try and win an argument.
    I have been specific this entire thread. Your appeal to the 38 tricks is laughable. I did no such thing. I posted the truth and I back up my claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I only appear blinkered to you. I am reading and watching the rubbish you present to me. Unfortunately, time is limited to deal with every specific point in this so called "rubbish" and these things have been covered in other threads which I do not have the ability to give the links to.
    You maybe reading but you sure as hell aren't comprehending anything. You continually repeat the same errors over and over again.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    There is often a little truth on both sides and getting into your argument with Mystykal was not my intention. All I did was point out that he had come to the same conclusion as I had done when reading the article of Tilgarth Pileser III which did not prove what you were claiming. You can deny this, but it does not change the conclusion I had come to based on a different subject.
    No you FALSELY used that argument because you had nothing else to say. You thought that somehow that would lend some credibilty to you argument.
    It was false of you to do that.

    You pulled the same crap in the Damascus thread. You still never refuted anything I said. You just simply denied it like you do everything else and then FALSELY claim my evidence doesn't support my argument. Refuting my argument is giving evidence to the contrary. You didn't do that. You took Isaiah out of context, I can prove that.

    It's obvious the time period Isaiah was preaching in. Once minute he is mentioning Tiglath-Pileser III in 732BC and then a few chapters later you think his prophecy is thousands of years later. That is false.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This is no more rubbish than the rubbish you present to me. Please deal with the specific 12 points that Doug Batchelor presents and deal with the specifics. He said he once believed in Evolution and that is not surprising since the education system is biased in teaching evolution and is stifling the teaching about creation.
    You're right David. Me correcting your errors is rubbish. I'll deal with them as time permits.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    On the subject of credentials, please answer this. What are your credentials? What letters do you have after your name? Please let us have some indication of your level of intellect.
    My credentials are irrelevant. But my credentials are sufficient enough to know Doug Batchelor is NOT an authority figure on evolution. My intellect is also high enough to actually read and learn new things.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Your dismissal to discuss the 12 reasons shows me why it is difficult to reason with you. It is the same as you would not give me the criteria by which the masses will not be saved or the criteria by which the few will be saved. Until you start to deal with my questions as I have asked you to do, then there is little point to continuing discussions in which you generalize and can only belittle people to try and prove you are superior and that your opinion should be accepted. Only an idiot will fall for that.
    Difficult to reason with me? Not a chance. It seems difficult to you because you are committed to repeating your errors over and over again. I can't reason with people who won't correct their mistakes. You continue in your gross errors. I have corrected you many times in this thread and yet you persist in error. Richard, who has better qualifications than both of us has pointed out your errors and you still won't correct them.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The Nobel prize is biassed towards the establishment. Awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (twice?) proves my point.
    BS! If evolution was as false as you say and so easily debunked, then that would be the greatest scientific discovery of this millenium. It would be monumental. Unfortunately for you, no creationist even comes close to representing correctly let alone debunk it.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Please answer my question in the post your replied to. Here it is again;
    On the subject of credentials, please answer this. What are your credentials? What letters do you have after your name? Please let us have some indication of your level of intellect.
    Regards
    David

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    You said we descended from apes. Wrong. You called evolution just a theory again. Wrong. You expect evolution to tell you the origins of life. Wrong. Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life. Darwin called Origin of the Species, NOT the origins of life. Evolution occurs AFTER life has started.

    Post # 8 on the first page you told this whopper with no evidence. Knoweldge does increase and understanding progresses, but in the text books what has been put forward as theory is what people have been lead to believe and amny still are saying we descended from the apes or that the apes are our nearest ancestor.

    You never provided the evidence I asked you to. It's safe to say you don't have any.
    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolution), which is relatively current it says this;

    10 Ma The lineage currently represented by humans and the Pan genus (chimpanzees and bonobos) speciates from the ancestors of the gorillas.


    Elaine Morgan might be on the fringes of Evolution just as it can be said that I am on the fringe of mainstream Christianity. The fact is that no-one could give Elaine Morgan an answer to the question she was asking. It is like mainstream Evolutionists are putting their head in the sand and waiting for her to go away. Sadly, she has died and they got their wish, but we have her video and the question remains. How have humans become hairless when descended from the apes? You need to listen to the whole of her talk and address the points she makes. When you can do that, then I might learn something from you in the process.

    You have to explain the origins of life for Evolution to begin. If you cannot, then you cannot give any proof that God does not exist or that God did not create life. If you cannot give an explanation for the origin of life, then God has to fill the gap.

    Evolutionists are telling us that the Big Bang was the origin of matter and that God was not involved. Are you saying different? If you believe all prophecy was completed by AD 70, are you agreeing that the Bible was right in its predictions? Who could make such predictions and be correct?

    Regards
    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-30-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67



    According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...uman_evolution), which is relatively current it says this;

    10 Ma The lineage currently represented by humans and the Pan genus (chimpanzees and bonobos) speciates from the ancestors of the gorillas.
    What is your point? Even answers in genesis said you shouldn't this use point. Please read David. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...lved-from-apes

    And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Elaine Morgan might be on the fringes of Evolution just as it can be said that I am on the fringe of mainstream Christianity. The fact is that no-one could give Elaine Morgan an answer to the question she was asking. It is like mainstream Evolutionists are putting their head in the sand and waiting for her to go away. Sadly, she has died and they got their wish, but we have her video and the question remains. How have humans become hairless when descended from the apes? You need to listen to the whole of her talk and address the points she makes. When you can do that, then I might learn something from you in the process.
    I don't need to examine her points because there is no evidence for her claims. That's all there is to it. She wasn't a scientist and you need to read the reasons why she suggested the hypothesis in the first place. It was NOT a scientific reason at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You have to explain the origins of life for Evolution to begin. If you cannot, then you cannot give any proof that God does not exist or that God did not create life. If you cannot give an explanation for the origin of life, then God has to fill the gap.
    I don't have to explain the origins of life. No one knows definitively. But I have never said once that it's not possible that God created life. I have said that I don't subscribe to that anymore because the evidence is monumental against the claims of the Bible.

    David please listen to me. I don't care one way or another if you conform to my way of thinking. I'm not trying to get you to stop your belief in God. I'm trying to get you to educate yourself about evolution. You would be so much further ahead if you at least said God created everything and used evolution to get us to our current state. I don't agree with the first part of that statement but at least you would account for the truth of evolution.

    No God does NOT get to fill the gap just because we don't know everything. That answers NOTHING. And we know the Bible has a lot wrong with its stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Evolutionists are telling us that the Big Bang was the origin of matter and that God was not involved. Are you saying different? If you believe all prophecy was completed by AD 70, are you agreeing that the Bible was right in its predictions? Who could make such predictions and be correct?
    There is evidence for the Big Bang. I'm not saying it's perfect or that God is completely ruled out. But the God of the gaps is shrinking daily.

    No I don't agree that the Bible is right in all its predictions. I'm saying according to the language of the Bible, everything being completed by AD 70 is the view that makes the most sense scripturally.

    The predictions are also nothing impressive. It's not too hard to fulfill prophecy when man is the author of the prediction and its fulfillment. For all you or I know, the Bible could have been written long after the events and reverse engineering of prophecy was in full effect.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    What is your point? Even answers in genesis said you shouldn't this use point. Please read David. http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...lved-from-apes

    And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    I don't need to examine her points because there is no evidence for her claims. That's all there is to it. She wasn't a scientist and you need to read the reasons why she suggested the hypothesis in the first place. It was NOT a scientific reason at all.

    I don't have to explain the origins of life. No one knows definitively. But I have never said once that it's not possible that God created life. I have said that I don't subscribe to that anymore because the evidence is monumental against the claims of the Bible.

    David please listen to me. I don't care one way or another if you conform to my way of thinking. I'm not trying to get you to stop your belief in God. I'm trying to get you to educate yourself about evolution. You would be so much further ahead if you at least said God created everything and used evolution to get us to our current state. I don't agree with the first part of that statement but at least you would account for the truth of evolution.

    No God does NOT get to fill the gap just because we don't know everything. That answers NOTHING. And we know the Bible has a lot wrong with its stories.

    There is evidence for the Big Bang. I'm not saying it's perfect or that God is completely ruled out. But the God of the gaps is shrinking daily.

    No I don't agree that the Bible is right in all its predictions. I'm saying according to the language of the Bible, everything being completed by AD 70 is the view that makes the most sense scripturally.

    The predictions are also nothing impressive. It's not too hard to fulfill prophecy when man is the author of the prediction and its fulfillment. For all you or I know, the Bible could have been written long after the events and reverse engineering of prophecy was in full effect.
    Hello L67

    Once again you have not answered my question asking what are your credentials. You replies here are telling and the fact that you do not answer specific questions.

    First if all, if you remember, even contrary to what most Creationists think, I did start a thread in which I was willing to explore with Richard the possibility that Creation was along the lines of evolution, which would account for long periods of time. Both Evolution and Creation begins with the simplest forms of life leading up to the pinnacle of life which is man; given that the human brain is the most complex organ known to man. Do you want to pick up that thread where Richard left off?

    We could agree that if Creation followed along the lines of Evolution and can explain all the difficulties along the way, we end up with man being at the top of the chain. Can we agree that life on the planet evolved and that man, the pinnacle of creation could have been Created? I have to ask that question, because we have a problem when it comes to the "fall of man". Understanding what the curse on the serpent and the curse of the woman meant and the enmity between the two, are the crux of what lead up to the genesis of Jesus and the laying down his life. If man was evolving, then why does God begin with Adam and Eve? At some point God put man to the test. We might think that God took Adam and Eve as two fully evolved humans and then set them a test. However, from what we know, for Jesus to be born and be the Son of God, something miraculous occurred in both the way it took place and God fulfilling his promise and word of prophecy. We cannot rule out the miraculous intervention by God.

    All we know is that Jesus believed that God made male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6); But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. This is the Son of God speaking and is the authority next to God. In another thread, I have raised the question of whether God created the serpent in the garden; male and female. After all, the serpent was to have "seed". We have the problem of whether to take this literally or symbolically and if we take the "seed" of the serpent to be symbolic, why do we not take the serpent to be symbolic? If the serpent is symbolic, what does that symbol represent in reality?

    We do not have to be authorities in any particular subject to be able to reason these things out. I do not have to be an expert in Evolution to be able to reason for or against. I have the ability to reason based on the evidence presented and if I am quoting outdated evidence (as unfortunately is printed in the text books) then it is up to you to give me the latest evidence which I can either agree with or give my explanation why I cannot agree with the conclusions base on the evidence.

    I said that your replies are telling. You tell me that you believe the Bible to be the work of men and not of God. Yet you have not ruled out God as the creator of life which kicked off evolution. If you give God credit, for the intelligence that is required to create the conditions on earth for life to exist and you consider the complexity of the most basic cell, then why dismiss the same intelligence to also give us words of wisdom, which are the words in the Bible. The argument that the Bible was written retrospectively does not hold up. Start a new thread dealing with this as a subject, if you want to prove your point.

    The Bible is far too complex and consistent and harmonious to have been written by men at different times without divine authorship.

    AD70 might seem the best fit to you for the conclusion of all prophecy, it certainly is not the best fit for me. Therefore, we have to continue this discussion as one of many in which we give all our reasons for coming to our conclusions.

    You say that the Bible is not correct in all its predictions. That would be true if the words in the Bible did not have divine authorship. I have yet to be given proof that predictions in the Bible are not correct. Until proven otherwise, I accept all predictions in the Bible are true, and some have not been fulfilled and are still future, which is why I cannot accept AD70 as an end date to all prophecy.

    Regards
    David

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post

    Now your just flopping around like a fish out of water. You say I have shown my ignorance. Where have I? Evidence please.

    Did Michael rood make FALSE end time predictions? Why, yes he did. He also claims to have been the recipient of direct divine interventions many times.

    Were his predictions true? NO! That makes him a false prophet and the Bible tells you NOT to listen to such people. But do you listen to the Bible? NO! You don't care because you are looking to confirm your bias.
    L67, trying to understand prophecy and when it is fulfilled in the future is not making prophecy. The prophecy that has come from God is already written. Rood does not claim to have received new prophecy from God.

    On the point about him predicting future dates of when things will happen, I have heard him say on at least two separate occasions that his words and what he said have been misunderstood. Rood has said that if he had interpreted correctly and had some things (which have to happen first) happened by a certain date, that would mean that he had got the dates correct. Things did not happen by a certain date and therefore he admits that he had not get the date correct. This does not change the prophecy.

    Rood is not a prophet, does not claim the title Rabbi and seeks the truth of the Bible in a the way I think all Bible scholars should take. It is very easy to criticize, but I doubt you have devoted to studying the Bible as much as Rood has done and learnt Greek and Hebrew in the process. I do not understand Hebrew and I will be guided by those who have. Even then, it is apparent that not all Hebrew scholars agree on the meaning of the Hebrew text. I still have to make a decision of what to accept or reject based on my own understanding of the Bible. I am going to go with anything that fits in and does not disagree with what I read in the Bible.

    As for things that have happened in Rood's life that can be seen to be providential care or revelations when it comes to understanding of passages in scripture, this is nothing new and those who have experienced likewise, whether they agree with Rood's teaching or not, will not deny that God is at work and working in the lives of men and women the same as Daniel tells us that; God works in the kingdoms of men God's plans will come to fruition; his purpose will be complete and while there are things to be accomplished God is at work behind the scenes. We are told to watch for the signs and every generation has had some signs to make their faith sure. Even now, from what is taking place in Israel and the surrounding nations, the prophecies are being fulfilled. I know you disagree with this, so you do not have to comment. That is the way I see it, and any opposing argument is not going to stand up, otherwise I would not be taking the position I do.

    Your time would be better spent actually listening to what Rood teaches and not trying to find constant fault. I have said that I am not expecting to agree with Rood on everything and he does not expect everyone to agree with him. He will not suffer fools (in the Biblical sense) gladly and neither will I or should anyone else. We all have something to learn and that acceptance of our limited knowledge and understanding is what should keep us humble.

    At the end of this rule of mankind on the earth is set for those who believe, eternal life in God's kingdom. The message of Peter is one that I subscribe to and no-one who is going to be able to put up a persuasive argument to make me change. That does not mean I will not change, the argument has to be very convincing and at the same time, one has to be on guard against false teachers as warned by Jesus (Matt. 24:24) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. That said, in face of such looming deception that will come with signs and wonders, it is not likely I am going to be easily deceived by lying words which are not scriptural.

    God knows who are his. God knows the intent of the heart of those who truly believe in him. God will save those who are his and that is the position we have to choose to put ourselves in. As Rood says; "the safest place to be is in the will of God".


    1 Peter 1
    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
    4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
    5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
    6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
    7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
    8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
    9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.
    10 Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
    11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
    12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
    13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
    14 As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
    15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
    16 Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.


    Regards
    David

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello L67

    Once again you have not answered my question asking what are your credentials. You replies here are telling and the fact that you do not answer specific questions.
    I did answer your question. I said it is irrelevant. You just don't like the answer I gave. If you really want to go there, we can. What are your credentials that you think you are qualified to say Evolution is false or just a theory?

    Don't worry though. My credentials are enough to debunk you and Doug Batchelor. I will be debunking his 12 reasons, which are crap to begin with. I see where you have gotten your arguments from. No wonder you are so clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    First if all, if you remember, even contrary to what most Creationists think, I did start a thread in which I was willing to explore with Richard the possibility that Creation was along the lines of evolution, which would account for long periods of time. Both Evolution and Creation begins with the simplest forms of life leading up to the pinnacle of life which is man; given that the human brain is the most complex organ known to man. Do you want to pick up that thread where Richard left off?
    No, I don't remember.

    Your assertion that creation is along the line of evolution is wrong. There is no evidence for creation like there is evolution.

    And you are WRONG again to assert that both evolution start with simple forms of life leading up to modern day. Evolution is NOT the origins of life. I have corrected you THREE times now and you still repeat the same error. Creation deals with the supernatural origins of life. There is NO room for evolution in the creation story or the origins of life. Your creation to evolution comparison still won't work because the Biblical timeline is way off. If you believe in a young earth then evolution goes out the window.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We could agree that if Creation followed along the lines of Evolution and can explain all the difficulties along the way, we end up with man being at the top of the chain. Can we agree that life on the planet evolved and that man, the pinnacle of creation could have been Created? I have to ask that question, because we have a problem when it comes to the "fall of man". Understanding what the curse on the serpent and the curse of the woman meant and the enmity between the two, are the crux of what lead up to the genesis of Jesus and the laying down his life. If man was evolving, then why does God begin with Adam and Eve? At some point God put man to the test. We might think that God took Adam and Eve as two fully evolved humans and then set them a test. However, from what we know, for Jesus to be born and be the Son of God, something miraculous occurred in both the way it took place and God fulfilling his promise and word of prophecy. We cannot rule out the miraculous intervention by God.
    Like I explained above Creation and evolution are NOT comparable.

    Also, if you actually studied any religious text that predates the Bible you would see the serpent story was copied from earlier myths.

    And here we have you again comparing evolution with the origins of life. That is the fourth time in this thread you have made that mistake. Please educate yourself.

    You asked why did God use Adam and Eve. We don't know that he did. There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever. All you have is words in an ancient text. Do you really believe that we come from Adam and Eve and are eventually the product of incest? That's just silly.

    No, we cannot rule out the miraculous but we have no evidence of anything miraculous ever happening.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    All we know is that Jesus believed that God made male and female in the beginning (Mark 10:6); But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. This is the Son of God speaking and is the authority next to God. In another thread, I have raised the question of whether God created the serpent in the garden; male and female. After all, the serpent was to have "seed". We have the problem of whether to take this literally or symbolically and if we take the "seed" of the serpent to be symbolic, why do we not take the serpent to be symbolic? If the serpent is symbolic, what does that symbol represent in reality?
    NO, all you have are words on pages that said Jesus believed God did anything. Mark is in no way a reliable source of info. It has been tampered with. You have no idea fact from fiction in the Gospels since they are all based from Mark.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We do not have to be authorities in any particular subject to be able to reason these things out. I do not have to be an expert in Evolution to be able to reason for or against. I have the ability to reason based on the evidence presented and if I am quoting outdated evidence (as unfortunately is printed in the text books) then it is up to you to give me the latest evidence which I can either agree with or give my explanation why I cannot agree with the conclusions base on the evidence.
    Nonsense David. You don't disregard evolution on evidence. You do it for religious reasons. That is painfully obvious.

    You again make the FALSE assertion of outdated evidence in textbooks. Prove it. You're making that up.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I said that your replies are telling. You tell me that you believe the Bible to be the work of men and not of God. Yet you have not ruled out God as the creator of life which kicked off evolution. If you give God credit, for the intelligence that is required to create the conditions on earth for life to exist and you consider the complexity of the most basic cell, then why dismiss the same intelligence to also give us words of wisdom, which are the words in the Bible. The argument that the Bible was written retrospectively does not hold up. Start a new thread dealing with this as a subject, if you want to prove your point.
    The Bible is the work of MEN. Can you prove the Bible is God's word? No. All you have is your BELIEF that it is God's word. I don't base my belief on something that isn't provable. I base my beliefs on what the evidence shows that coincides with reality.



    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The Bible is far too complex and consistent and harmonious to have been written by men at different times without divine authorship.
    No, that is YOUR rosy view of the Bible. You choose to ignore the errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Plus, you don't even realize how the Bible copied from earlier myths. Here is a rather obvious story the Bible used from other myths. These text were much earlier than the Bible was.

    It's the story of Moses. We'll forget that there is NO evidence the exodus even happened and focus on his birth. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/moses.html

    Modern archeaology, together biblical criticism, no longer accepts the major events described in the Pentateuch about Moses’ life as historical.

    The story of Moses' birth is borrowed from another ancient semitic legend.

    The mosaic laws are based on the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. Even the story of Moses taking the stone tablets containing the ten commandments are derived from this Babylonian myth of Hammurabi.

    Although in the past scholars had accepted that there could be a central kernal of history behind the story of the Exodus, the scholarly consensus today is very different. The current consensus is that the Exodus or anything closely resembling it, never happened.

    The Birth of Moses
    One such instance is the story of Moses’ birth, given in Exodus:

    Exodus 2:2-6,10
    The woman conceived and bore a son; and...she hid him for three months. And when she could hide him no longer she took for him a basket made of bulrushes; and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river's brink. Now the daughter of the Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river; and her maiden walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child...And the child grew...and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said "Because I drew him out of water."

    There is a legend of the founder of the Semitic dynasty of Akkad, King Sargon, which dates to the third millennium BC and is certainly earlier than the story in Exodus. This legend was found on Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets dated to the first millennium BC. This is how the tablets sound like, in English:

    Sargon, might King of Akkad, am I. My mother was of mixed blood; I never knew my father...My city is Azupiranu, on the banks of the Euphrates. My mother conceived and she secretly bore me. She put me into a basket of rushes, and sealed its lid with tar. She cast me into the river which did not drown me. The river swept me to Akiki, the drawer of water. Akiki, the drawer of water scooped me up in his pitcher. Akiki, the drawer of water raised me as his son. [1]

    Here, like the stories of the flood, creation and paradise, the parallels are amazing:

    The mother had a baby in secret.
    Due to circumstances the baby had to be put away.
    This was done by making a basket out of bulrushes and sealing it with tar.
    The baby was put into the basket and left adrift on the river.
    The baby was discovered by the person who became his foster parent.

    Now, it should be obvious to all that the story of Moses' birth is based on the legend of Sargon. There can be no historical truth in stories which are used, repeatedly on different persons, by ancient cultures to glorify their heroes. As Werner Keller, the author of The Bible as History, admits:

    The basket story is an old Semitic folk-tale. It was handed down by word of mouth for many centuries...It is nothing more than the frills with which posterity has always loved to adorn the lives of great men. [2]


    Or how about how the 10 commanded story was borrowed as well?

    This is not the only episode in the Moses chronicles that has been borrowed from Babylon. Everyone is familiar with Moses receiving the ten commandments in two stone tablets from God in Mount Sinai. However, this story is originally Babylonian.

    One of the most well known ancient code of law was the Code of Hammurabi, so name after the Amorite king Hammurabi who lived around 1700 BC. On the great Babylonian stone monument, known as the stele of Hammurabi, a drawing inscribed on it shows the great Amorite King receiving the tablets of the law from the sun god, Shamash.

    The similarity does not end here. On the stele too is inscribed the laws that made up the Code of Hammurabi. The general similarity between the code and The “Book of the Covenant” (Exodus chapters 21 to 23) and the legal codes of the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy cannot be denied. The Mosaic laws were obviously written under the influence of the Babylonian code. [3] In some cases even the wordings are uncannily close to one another. For example take this one from the code on the principle of an-eye-for-an-eye:

    If a citizen shall put out the eye of another, then let his own eye be put out.
    If a citizen shall knock out the teeth of another who is higher in rank, then let his own teeth be knocked out. [4]

    This closely parallel’s one of the Lord’s commands in Exodus:

    Exodus 21:23-24
    And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

    Here is another example, the code gives the following principle:

    If a citizen steals the son of another citizen, he shall be put to death.

    The principle and wording is closely followed in the verse below from Deuteronomy:

    Deuteronomy 24:7
    If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel...then that thief shall die...



    You can spin it any way you like, but the fact is those gross similarities are not coincidences.


    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    AD70 might seem the best fit to you for the conclusion of all prophecy, it certainly is not the best fit for me. Therefore, we have to continue this discussion as one of many in which we give all our reasons for coming to our conclusions.
    That's because you are committed only to your doctrines that ignore the plain and obvious words of the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    You say that the Bible is not correct in all its predictions. That would be true if the words in the Bible did not have divine authorship. I have yet to be given proof that predictions in the Bible are not correct. Until proven otherwise, I accept all predictions in the Bible are true, and some have not been fulfilled and are still future, which is why I cannot accept AD70 as an end date to all prophecy.
    Except you can't prove the Bible is of Divine authorship and I can prove it was NOT correct in all its predictions.

    I will give you one MAJOR prediction that never came true. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would totally destroy the city of Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt. It never happened the way Ezekiel predicted. History tells us otherwise.

    Ezekiel 26:7-14 7 “For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8 He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9 He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10 His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11 The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. 13 I will put an end to your noisy songs, and the music of your harps will be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I the Lord have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord.

    History tells us Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Tyre for 13 years but never took the city. He certainly never did any of what Ezekiel predicted. He failed. Tyre wasn't destroyed until Alexander the Great destroyed it. But then Ezekiel says it will never be rebuilt. Well we know that's not true because the Bible makes mention of it in the New Testament and Tyre is still here today.


    Acts 12:20 20 He had been quarreling with the people of Tyre and Sidon; they now joined together and sought an audience with him. After securing the support of Blastus, a trusted personal servant of the king, they asked for peace, because they depended on the king’s country for their food supply.

    Ezekiel later on admits Nebuchadnezzars failure.

    Ezekiel 29:17-20 7 In the twenty-seventh year, in the first month on the first day, the word of the Lord came to me: 18 “Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon drove his army in a hard campaign against Tyre; every head was rubbed bare and every shoulder made raw. Yet he and his army got no reward from the campaign he led against Tyre. 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.

    Ezekiel's prophecy FAILED. And then he later changed it after the fact to fit the historical situation as it had actually unfolded.

    After Nebuchadnezzars failure to take the city of Tyre, the Lord says he will give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar. Guess what? As far as history is concerned that NEVER happened either. If he had conquered Egypt, it would have been his greatest conquest in the minds of everyone at the time. It would be recorded as history. Because every other campaign of his is documented.

    This is NOT the work of divine authorship in any way. This was the Lord saying these things. So much for an all knowing all powerful God with divine authorship. Your assertion that there are no errors other than translational is completely false. These are the writings of MEN with bits of history thrown in. I could list a ton more like this. I have at least 10-15 pages written down full of these false predictions.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace - Jimi Hendrix


  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    Hello L67

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    I did answer your question. I said it is irrelevant. You just don't like the answer I gave. If you really want to go there, we can. What are your credentials that you think you are qualified to say Evolution is false or just a theory?
    OK so I am not satisfied with your answer. I expected you to show me where Elaine Morgan was wrong. After all, she was looking for answer from the establishment and she did not get it the same as you avoid answering questions. My credentials are nothing to boast about by I have certificates in Physics, Chemistry, and a degree in Electrical Engineering. I have a scientific and technical mind and I have considered the arguments for creation and evolution for 40 years and I have not come to my decision lightly. I believe in God and Creation as the only viable answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Don't worry though. My credentials are enough to debunk you and Doug Batchelor. I will be debunking his 12 reasons, which are crap to begin with. I see where you have gotten your arguments from. No wonder you are so clueless.
    Good! Please state your credentials. I do not have to agree with everything Doug Batchelor says, but starting with his 12 reasons is a good place to start. I look forward to your new thread dealing with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    No, I don't remember.
    Maybe you should find it and see what I was saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Your assertion that creation is along the line of evolution is wrong. There is no evidence for creation like there is evolution.
    I was trying to find a path to explore. If you think it cannot be done, what are the grounds for saying so?

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    And you are WRONG again to assert that both evolution start with simple forms of life leading up to modern day. Evolution is NOT the origins of life. I have corrected you THREE times now and you still repeat the same error. Creation deals with the supernatural origins of life. There is NO room for evolution in the creation story or the origins of life. Your creation to evolution comparison still won't work because the Biblical timeline is way off. If you believe in a young earth then evolution goes out the window.

    Like I explained above Creation and evolution are NOT comparable.
    It would be helpful if you show where the timeline is off.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Also, if you actually studied any religious text that predates the Bible you would see the serpent story was copied from earlier myths.
    I accept the story appears in other cultures, what is at the heart of any disagreement is the dating of those other stories.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    And here we have you again comparing evolution with the origins of life. That is the fourth time in this thread you have made that mistake. Please educate yourself.
    Without God who has no beginning or end and is eternal, then everything else has to have an origin. Life had to have had a beginning. You had better start explaining if you think I am mistaken

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    You asked why did God use Adam and Eve. We don't know that he did. There is no evidence of any kind whatsoever. All you have is words in an ancient text. Do you really believe that we come from Adam and Eve and are eventually the product of incest? That's just silly.
    It would be even sillier not to believe the words of God. Jesus believed the words of God and without Jesus the world would have no hope and no future. That is a different subject. I know you have abandoned your belief and that is why you speak as you do. Your words will never convince me to change especially when you cannot explain and do not explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    No, we cannot rule out the miraculous but we have no evidence of anything miraculous ever happening.
    You had better define what you mean by miraculous. You cannot explain how the first simple cell evolved, when you do, you might start me thinking evolution could have happened as you say. This still does not negate everything in the Bible which proves to me the existence of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    NO, all you have are words on pages that said Jesus believed God did anything. Mark is in no way a reliable source of info. It has been tampered with. You have no idea fact from fiction in the Gospels since they are all based from Mark.
    I do not think John's gospel is based on Mark. John's gospel is not one of the synoptic gospels which can be compared.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Nonsense David. You don't disregard evolution on evidence. You do it for religious reasons. That is painfully obvious.
    I can disregard evolution on the lack of essential evidence. I do not do this purely for religious reasons. What religion are you specifically talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    You again make the FALSE assertion of outdated evidence in textbooks. Prove it. You're making that up.
    I will have to do what you are going to do in order to refute the 12 reasons for not believing in Evolution. The fact is; we have God's word that was first given to the Israelites which has not changed. In contrast to this we have text books dealing with the theory of Evolution in which the theory has been progressed. The fact that old ideas have been supplanted by new ones (not all) means that the old ideas were false. If not, they would not have been changed. It is like science claiming for years that the Big Bang was the solution to the origin of the universe, and the expansion of space was slowing down. The evidence now is that the universe is expanding and accelerating. What are we to believe? These things get put in the text books and depending on which book we read will lead us to believe in one thing or another. At least with God's word, God is not changing his promises.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    The Bible is the work of MEN. Can you prove the Bible is God's word? No. All you have is your BELIEF that it is God's word. I don't base my belief on something that isn't provable. I base my beliefs on what the evidence shows that coincides with reality.
    I will deal with the city of Tyrus as you mention below. This is proof of God's word coming true as I will explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    No, that is YOUR rosy view of the Bible. You choose to ignore the errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions. Plus, you don't even realize how the Bible copied from earlier myths. Here is a rather obvious story the Bible used from other myths. These text were much earlier than the Bible was.
    This is the point I made earlier. The problem lies with the dating of these other texts. You take whichever date suits your purpose and so that same right can be given to me while the jury is out on the dating.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    That's because you are committed only to your doctrines that ignore the plain and obvious words of the Bible.
    How come you do the same when I quote verses which are plain and simple to understand?

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    Except you can't prove the Bible is of Divine authorship and I can prove it was NOT correct in all its predictions.
    Sounds like a big boast to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    I will give you one MAJOR prediction that never came true. Ezekiel predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would totally destroy the city of Tyre and that it would never be rebuilt. It never happened the way Ezekiel predicted. History tells us otherwise.
    I have left out your quotes from Ezekiel in order to shorten this post.

    Some of the events which happened are like what you say, but let's see the whole story.

    Nebuchadnezzar took 13 years laying siege and failed. In the meantime, the inhabitants had rebuilt their city on an island in the sea. Later, the old city of Tyrus was used to make a causeway to get to the island in order to capture it. The prophecy was fulfilled and the old city that was Tyrus was thrown into the sea. The old city of Tyrus had nothing left to show of itself and the land on which it was built was swept clean.

    The prophecy took years to come to pass (how long it was to take was not predicted nor was it necessary to predict the time it would take). The important point to all of this is; God's word came true. The city has never been built on the spot it once occupied (unlike the city Damascus (not the region) which was never made a ruinous heap, or like Babylon which was covered by sand and lost for centuries and never has regained its status as a city now that is has been discovered.

    Tyre is there to be seen to this day, but is not the original city of Tyre or Tyrus that was thrown into the sea. With the passage of time, the sea around the island due to the causeway that was built in order to lay siege to it, has silted up and made the island into a peninsula. A look at the map will show this.

    Quote Originally Posted by L67 View Post
    This is NOT the work of divine authorship in any way. This was the Lord saying these things. So much for an all knowing all powerful God with divine authorship. Your assertion that there are no errors other than translational is completely false. These are the writings of MEN with bits of history thrown in. I could list a ton more like this. I have at least 10-15 pages written down full of these false predictions.
    Alas, you come to your conclusion in the wrong way. The prophecy against Tyre worked out perfectly. It took many years (centuries) before it finally came to fulfilment, but to God, a long time to us, is a very short time to God.

    Regards
    David
    Last edited by David M; 08-01-2013 at 08:36 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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