Originally posted by RJHindsThe problem I have with scripture is that it is written by people. You may choose to believe that it is inspired by god (since it says so, in the scripture) but why would you? If someone tells you a dead man came back to life or a horse talked or a dog played chess, would you believe him? I would hazard not, because generally, dead men don't come back to life, horses don't talk and dogs don't play chess. People, on the other hand, do sometimes misrepresent the truth. Sometimes deliberately, sometimes otherwise. And beyond that, if god wants us to know him, why would he choose such a manner to impart his wishes? God, I imagine, also knows that people sometimes misrepresent the truth, and yet he apparently expects us to disregard this knowledge where scripture is concerned. And who decides what ancient writings constitute the bible? God, you think? Or men?
I believe it all, until something about it can be
proven to be wrong. I have heard many claims
that there are so many contradictions in the
Holy Bible that who could believe it all, just like
you. But as it turned out, they were wrong, not
the Holy Bible. I'm sure you have what you
think are contradictions. Let's hear a few along
with your proof a ...[text shortened]... ore the Holy Bible. You say he is
not an atheist, so what god does he believe in?
RJHinds
This pretty much does it for scripture, as far as I can discern, whatever Robbie and his ilk might claim regarding it's veracity. Which is not to say that I disbelieve in god, you understand - I just don't think that the bible has much, if anything, to do with him, if he exists.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAs David Hume advised, when in doubt, choose the lesser miracle.😉
The problem I have with scripture is that it is written by people. You may choose to believe that it is inspired by god (since it says so, in the scripture) but why would you? If someone tells you a dead man came back to life or a horse talked or a dog played chess, would you believe him? I would hazard not, because generally, dead men don't come bac ...[text shortened]... nd - I just don't think that the bible has much, if anything, to do with him, if he exists.
To Penguin:
I'm sorry if I misrepresented Darwin by stating he had doubts
about the evolutionary theory which did not even exist when
he wrote this book. But he did admit how absurd it was to
think the process of natural selection could result in the human
eye. He must of had some doubt in natural selection to point
this out. It was my understanding that the process of natural
selection is what the theory of evolution is based on. If I am
wrong, please educate me on its meaning and origin.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsAs I already suggested, please re-read Penguins post in which he quotes Darwin's actual comments in full. I think that Darwin had no such doubts and was actually trying to convince those who do have doubts that his theory is a viable explanation.
To Penguin:
I'm sorry if I misrepresented Darwin by stating he had doubts
about the evolutionary theory which did not even exist when
he wrote this book. But he did admit how absurd it was to
think the process of natural selection could result in the human
eye. He must of had some doubt in natural selection to point
this out. It was my understandi ...[text shortened]... evolution is based on. If I am
wrong, please educate me on its meaning and origin.
RJHinds
To Twhitehead:
Yes, now I see what your getting at. Darwin may have been trying
to convince others to believe in his theory even though it seems so
absurd. Well, he hasn't convince me and many others who still
think it is absurd to the highest degree. To think that one type of
animal could turn into another type of animal by natural selection
is more absurd than thinking a radio could turn into a television
by some natural process. However, if there was really proof of
this happening that I could see, I could be convinced. Until then,
it is an absurd theory.
RJHinds
5 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's just a hunch of mine but I suspect your thoughts on this matter are shackled by the belief in a 6000 year old earth, and that "one type of animal could turn into another type of animal by natural selection" sounds absurd because you have no way to conceive that trillions upon trillions of creatures have been playing, and mostly failing at the game of adapting to new environments and challenges over millions and millions of years. There is no way for you to imagine that amidst countless numbers of evolutionary changes from species to species that offered no advantages, a small number of them, as the law of large numbers would expect, did! - and then were better equipped to pass on their good fortune to new generations that would further exploit these boons.
To Twhitehead:
Yes, now I see what your getting at. Darwin may have been trying
to convince others to believe in his theory even though it seems so
absurd. Well, he hasn't convince me and many others who still
think it is absurd to the highest degree. To think that one type of
animal could turn into another type of animal by natural selection
is m ...[text shortened]... pening that I could see, I could be convinced. Until then,
it is an absurd theory.
RJHinds
Evolution is not about big changes in short intervals of time but about small incremental changes over long periods of time.
To Aqerq:
The Holy Bible is not clear on how old the earth is but Adam
and Eve were created by God a little over 6,000 years ago.
I do believe God created animals to be able to adapt to their
changing environments. But as the Holy Bible says they
reproduce after their kind. When a bird lays an egg, it does
not hatch out an alligator, etc. This is where the theory of
evolution goes too far. Until I see proof otherwise, it is more
logical to me to believe in an intelligent creator God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsWho told you that evolution says birds lay eggs and crocodiles hatch from them??? 😕
To Aqerq:
The Holy Bible is not clear on how old the earth is but Adam
and Eve were created by God a little over 6,000 years ago.
I do believe God created animals to be able to adapt to their
changing environments. But as the Holy Bible says they
reproduce after their kind. When a bird lays an egg, it does
not hatch out an alligator, etc. This is ...[text shortened]... proof otherwise, it is more
logical to me to believe in an intelligent creator God.
RJHinds
Originally posted by AgergI was just being facetious in making the point that
Who told you that evolution says birds lay eggs and crocodiles hatch from them??? 😕
all creatures reproduce their own kind and therefore
do not evolve somehow into another kind of creature.
There is no evolving at all. There is adaptation and
mutations but the genes prevent evolving.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you admit the quote was taken out of context, and you didn't bother to check up on that context when you posted it but simply took it off some creationist website and assumed it to be true? I hope you now realize that creationist websites are not to be trusted.
Yes, now I see what your getting at. Darwin may have been trying
to convince others to believe in his theory even though it seems so
absurd.
To think that one type of animal could turn into another type of animal by natural selection
is more absurd than thinking a radio could turn into a television
by some natural process.
You are clearly not a farmer. Every farmer knows that selective breeding is very effective. Nearly every food you eat today is a result of selective breading and in most cases that selective breeding or at least some of it has taken place within recorded history and is a matter of historical record.
However, if there was really proof of this happening that I could see, I could be convinced. Until then,
it is an absurd theory.
RJHinds
Well there is scientific proof of it happening. Whether you will accept that depends on whether you are willing to study some science and whether you feel it will threaten your beliefs.
Now, you fully admit that you don't accept as fact what science has to say about the past, so why was it so important to you earlier in the thread that the science you don't accept matches the Bible?
To Twhitehead:
I understand selective breeding; but what I was referring
to is that cattle can't become sheep, goats, horses, chickens
pigs, etc. no matter how much selective breeding he does.
Natural selection does not work that way. And the Holy
Bible says they will reproduce after their own kind.
If all scientists would redefine evolution to mean only
selective breeding, then we Christians could come to an
agreement. Some scientists leave God out of the equation.
This is unacceptable to us Christians.
I really don't care if junk science matches the Holy Bible.
True science will match the Holy Bible because God is Truth.
The word of God is what is so important.
RJHinds
Originally posted by RJHindsTaking your example, I don't see why it would challenge Bible believers one bit, if a scientist took cattle DNA and changed it so it produced sheep, with whatever changes to the DNA it took. Why would God prohibit such a silly little change? What's the big deal, really? Don't you believe God has revealed the biochemistry, or might not, eventually?
To Twhitehead:
I understand selective breeding; but what I was referring
to is that cattle can't become sheep, goats, horses, chickens
pigs, etc. no matter how much selective breeding he does.
Natural selection does not work that way. And the Holy
Bible says they will reproduce after their own kind.
If all scientists would redefine evolution to me ...[text shortened]... tch the Holy Bible because God is Truth.
The word of God is what is so important.
RJHinds
The only prohibition I can imagine God placing on it is economic; why produce sheep from cattle DNA, when we already have sheep from sheep DNA? Better would be to produce a really long cow, with a lot of steaks.🙂
Speaking as the son of a meat market owner.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut a wolf can become a greyhound, a sausage dog or a Labrador.
I understand selective breeding; but what I was referring
to is that cattle can't become sheep, goats, horses, chickens
pigs, etc. no matter how much selective breeding he does.
How do you define 'kind'?
Natural selection does not work that way. And the Holy
Bible says they will reproduce after their own kind.
So its not that you don't understand the concepts, or lack proof, but the fact that you believe the Holy Bible rules it out. So when you said:
However, if there was really proof of this happening that I could see, I could be convinced.
you were lying.
If all scientists would redefine evolution to mean only
selective breeding, then we Christians could come to an
agreement. Some scientists leave God out of the equation.
This is unacceptable to us Christians.
Is it equally unacceptable in Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Astronomy, or only when it comes to Biology?
I really don't care if junk science matches the Holy Bible.
True science will match the Holy Bible because God is Truth.
The word of God is what is so important.
But you obviously do care. You made the claim in the second post of this thread and spent quite some time trying to defend it despite the fact that it was obviously false.
What is 'true science' and how does one differentiate it from 'junk science'? Do you even know what science is?