Scientific, archaeological, current events proof of bible!

[Glides]

Who has denied the Bible?

I know it exists, I have like 8.

Best post all thread.

[David88vert]

Wow, so much fail in this thread.

I will not get into everything, as I do not have enough time to post it in this thread, but I will make a couple of points.

Geoff,
You cannot prove the existence of an infinite being with archeological evidence. Your entire goal of this thread cannot be proven with certainty. The approach you take is like the mathematicians of the 19th century. The only certainty is uncertainty, and probabilites are the measure.

QD is correct in that he stated that you are defending what you believe. I will take that further. You choose to have faith, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, that is the only method in which you can truly grasp the concept of an infinite being. To attempt to rationalize the belief is falacy in and of itself, as that cannot be accomplished - see Godel and Turing's works. They proved that there is things we know to be true, without being able to calculate whether they are true. Intuition is also one of these items, and is one that people easily understand.

The only correct way to explain belief is through personal testimony. Obviously, it is the only argument that cannot be refuted in any manner, other than outright rejection.

As for you attempt to show evidence of the veracity of the Bible, it is the wrong approach entirely. In 2000 years, no one has been able to disprove the Bible, so no further argument needs to be made on that issue. It is purely a matter of faith. People can freely choose to believe what they wish. If they choose not to believe that there is a god, then they can.

As for evidence of the Christian version of God, this is another item that cannot be proven through finite, scientific means. While we can establish probabilites that intelligence was required to create us, we cannot use the same reasoning and logic to say it is the Christian version of truth. Again, it comes down to personal faith. I have discussed this in other threads in the past.

Personally, I do believe that God is real, and is the God in the Bible. I draw that conclusion based on what I have been able to study and observe in this universe, but - understand this - I accept it completely based upon faith. Faith is not based upon proof.

[David88vert]

^ Your post just now shows that you are unlearned in the facts and don't care to crack the Word open. .... by the way the twin towers are in the bible. ... just open your eyes and look.

Obviously, you are refering to Isaiah 30:25 - "And on every lofty mountain and every high hill there will be brooks running with water, in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers fall."

This scripture is being taken out of context. In reality, it has nothing to do with NYC, 9/11, or anything similar.

Reading the entire passage, it has to do with:
The Jews admonished for seeking aid from Egypt. (1-7)
The contempt of God's word by the Jews, and the resulting judgments . (8-18)
The mercy of God to His church. (19-26)
The ruin of the Assyrian army, and of all God's enemies. (27-33)


If you have knowledge of another scripture referring to the twin towers, please share it.

[geoff]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.

[David88vert]

The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population.

Then you have no point to make, and this thread cannot accomplish "its purpose".
The Bible can state every fact accurately, and be completely true, yet you still will not be able to prove or disprove this point. An absolute certainty cannot be determined on this. This is something that can be completely true, but cannot be proveable.

For religious discussions, your time would be better served by simply providing your own undisputable testimony.

[5speed]

The point of this thread was not to prove a God or Christian God existed, like you stated that takes faith. The point of this thread was to show the bible was not made up of lies by men to control the population. One thing I have learned though is that these people just reject the facts, can't really do anything about that, it is in God's hands. And I know that scripture you are talking about, there is another one I read before that said something like, their towers will burn.....ect. I will try and locate it.

This is where you messed up. You state that you only wish to provide others with the uninterpreted version of the Bible, but you just interpreted it by what you believe it to mean. I understand you only want to give God's word unmolested by mankind, but you just did it yourself.

[geoff]

Was not trying to interpret the scriptures, I just remember that was part of it and it was along those lines, more like a refrence not interpretation.

[David88vert]

Let me save you the effort. There is no reference to 9/11 in the Bible. There is no secret code, as some people have suggested. The entire nature of the argument that the Bible has a secret code is entirely against the will of God. He is not the author of confusion. If you have truly studied the Bible, you should know this already.

If you want proof that the Christian God exists, that cannot be proven by scientific methods. For that matter, you cannot prove if the ancient Egyptian god Ra exists or not either. How can you prove that the Egyptians were not correct? You cannot - scientifically.

[BABY J]

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8io...eature=popular

2) http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistM.../1/B6HrTC7IG_M

[David88vert]

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS8io...eature=popular

2) http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistM.../1/B6HrTC7IG_M

Richard Dawkins is well-known for ignoring the laws of genetics to support his own anti-religion opinion. Specifically, he starts with his conclusion that there is no god that he needs to answer to, and then uses only information that supports his view - while ignoring basic items, such as the genetic code is not jsut an object (such as matter or energy), but a package of information. If you ready any of his books, you will find that he ignores how every current language that we are aware of has been created by intelligence. He believes in randomization.
The simple fact is that no known natural processes can produce a coded language with an interpretation decoding system - only intelligence has been observed to produce language with a decoder.

Here is a simple exercise that anyone can do, and one that defeated him.
Take any sentence of reasonable length. Change any two letters at a time. Make the message clearer to understand (improve the information). Example: "The brown cow jumped over the moon, while the mouse ate a piece of cheese."
A Creationist made a randomizer based upon this principle, so that you don't have to do it manually, if you prefer.
http://www.randommutation.com/

Again though, even if randomization has an extremely low probability, it does not make it impossible, nor does it prove the existence of God. Again, faith is required - and in that case, one can choose, as Richard Dawkins has, to believe in something that has very low odds of working.
You are also free to believe what you wish, and I am not making an effort to change your beliefs. My only suggestion is that you discover and learn for yourself, and believe what you determine to be the truth.

Some quotes from learned individuals:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces.
- George Sim Johnson

We have always underestimated the cell….The entire cell can be viewed as factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines….Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machine invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts” – Bruce Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences (The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines, Cell 92, 1998)

We should reject, as matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations” – Biochemist Franklin M. Harold (Oxford: The Way of the Cell)

[bu villain]

He believes in randomization.

Random mutations yes, but also in natural selection which is absolutely NOT random.

Here is a simple exercise that anyone can do, and one that defeated him.
Take any sentence of reasonable length. Change any two letters at a time. Make the message clearer to understand (improve the information). Example: "The brown cow jumped over the moon, while the mouse ate a piece of cheese."
A Creationist made a randomizer based upon this principle, so that you don't have to do it manually, if you prefer.
http://www.randommutation.com/

I'm not sure what this proves. It sounds like in your analogy the sentence is a genetic sequence and each letter is a gene. However if that's the case it doesn't make sense because you can change a single gene in a genetic code and have a great effect (positive or negative). Thousands of diseases are caused by a single gene. Additionally there is a perfect English sentence but there isn't a perfect genetic code. If you start with a random assortment of letters and do enough random mutation you absolutely could get a perfect English sentence but you are trying to take something that is perfect and make it more perfect. Of course that's impossible.

[David88vert]

Random mutations yes, but also in natural selection which is absolutely NOT random.
I'm not sure what this proves. It sounds like in your analogy the sentence is a genetic sequence and each letter is a gene. However if that's the case it doesn't make sense because you can change a single gene in a genetic code and have a great effect (positive or negative). Thousands of diseases are caused by a single gene. Additionally there is a perfect English sentence but there isn't a perfect genetic code. If you start with a random assortment of letters and do enough random mutation you absolutely could get a perfect English sentence but you are trying to take something that is perfect and make it more perfect. Of course that's impossible.

How exactly does natural selection know if a genetic change is successful? What feedback does it get? It has to make random changes to even start to evolve.

In order to improve the genetic structure, it has to make changes to the code itself. Mutations are either neutral or harmful - very rarely has one been shown to be even minorly beneficial, and none have shown the steps between species.

Diploid organisms (plants and animals) have two copies of each chromosome. Change just one gene and see what happens.

[bu villain]

How exactly does natural selection know if a genetic change is successful? What feedback does it get? It has to make random changes to even start to evolve..

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.

In order to improve the genetic structure, it has to make changes to the code itself. Mutations are either neutral or harmful - very rarely has one been shown to be even minorly beneficial, and none have shown the steps between species.

I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.

Diploid organisms (plants and animals) have two copies of each chromosome. Change just one gene and see what happens.

What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.

[David88vert]

The only thing that determines if a gene change is "successful" is survival. Take a group of brown rabbits in a snowy environment. A genetic mutation (random) occurs in two rabbits, one is born with bright white fur and the other bright red. The white one is well camoflauged and thus more likely to survive. That rabbit then is more likely to reproduce white offspring with the white gene. The bright red rabbit would stand out and likely be eaten, thus no new generation to inheret the red gene.

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.

I just gave an example above that shows a beneficial example. Of course most mutations would be harmful because there are far more ways to disrupt a system than improve upon it. What do you mean exactly by showing steps between species? A frog will never turn into a dog so there will never be something in between. Even assuming you are talking about two "species" on the same genetic line, let's say homo habilus and homosapiens, the "step" in between would be homo erectus. The word 'step' is a little misleading because there are an infinite number of 'steps' just as there are infinite color steps between orange and yellow.

If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.

What happens? You might get a different trait (e.g., hair color, eye color, etc). They aren't copies as in the exact same genetic code. You have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair is made up of one from your mother and one from your father. Unless your mom and dad have the exact same DNA (highly unlikely), your chromosome pairs will not be identical to eachother.

The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

[5speed]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.


If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.


The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".


Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

Very well put sir.

[Starrfire]

^^^I concur

[bu villain]

Obviously, that would mean that you would have to have a lot of the exact same change happen in the exact same area, and those changed individuals would have to meet and propogate - in masses. One rabbit wouldn't only change - many would have to at the same time, in the same breeding area, from both genders, and would have to find each other - and not just one pair either. For a lot of creatures that have limited young, it would have to happen on a massive scale. The probability of that happening in just one instance is so rare that we have yet to observe it in action. It is nothing more than conjecture. Without proof, it must be believed through faith, like a religion.

If evolution as currently stated is true, then you would have to have genetic disruptions between the existence of multiple species. This has never been observed in current nature by any biologist.

The proteins stay the same structure. They do not created a new species. The data inside is approximately 3 billion characters long. 99.7% of them copy over the same. The few characteristics that vary do not create a new species - ever. The copying of data is so exact that you only see one error per 10 billion letters. Try to type that well. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, you get mutations such as sickle-cell anemia.

New species don't just appear, they never will so I'm not sure what your point is here. And about mutations causing diseases, I already addressed that in my last response.

Even Francis Crick, stated in his book that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going".

Currently, if you choose to believe that we exist by randomness, you are just using faith. Just like religion. Nothing wrong with that though. And no - it still does not prove the existence of God. It just means that we have to choose what we believe.

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

[NJSC]

Okay here it goes again.
Geoff, I understand what you are trying to do. You have faith and you want to share it. But bro you are going about it the wrong way. Think about it, you are trying to bring people to understand God but you are turning them off. What is better to stand there and say "this is what I think and the rest of you are going to Hell. Turn or burn baby" and not reach a single person, OR would it be better to actually just get down on people's level and love them the way that Christ loved them and show them why you love them and where you get that love and possibly make a positive impact in some people's lives. You are turning people further away with this approach than anything else.

[geoff]

^ FAIL. NOT ONCE did I condemn anyone, or tell them to convert. I listed archaeological findings that proved the stories in the bible to be accurate, I have given thoughts and studies that show the possiblility of a Creator to be plausible. I have given my own testimony of how God has worked in my life and my family's life. I have talked to some off of this forum about God, I have never once cussed anyone out, lost my temper, or bashed on anyone. I am NOT a judge and have not portrayed myself to be one. I see constant links to some study or book written that tell someone's opinion or theory about why God can not exist. I can not prove it but with tangible evidence only give examples that insinuate this truth. BUT, and this is a big one, God left His fingerprint on everything so that it can be found. I have heard that there is no evidence at all of His existence and any evidence provided has been tossed aside. What faith really is, is accepting these things as truth. God is not absent from this world as some unbelievers and believers alike state. He is very real and my bible tells me that He is a very present help in time of need, what does yours say?

I ask you this NJSC, you seem to believe, so which statement would be better?

A) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, but i will not tell anyone about it because they might get offended, instead I will say," believe what you want it is all ok." and know in my heart that they are lost and missing out on the greatest love there is to experience.
B) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, I thank Him so much and I rejoice and love Him for loving me when I was not worthy. So, I will go and tell others of this love and my Savior so that they too can experience the beauty of God that I have.

My friends, it is commanded to us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the very God that made us; to go out into the world and preach the gospel. What is the gospel you ask? The gospel is this, Jesus was God wrapped in flesh, He made Himself as us to be with us. He provided Himself as the punishment for our sins(death) and made us clean and righteous. But He rose again so that we may have life. He sent back the Holy Spirit to comfort us and sanctify us. We are then expected to share this news and grace with the world because this world is lost and in need of a Savior. That's it, the whole gospel wrapped up in a nutshell. Some people will hear this and get offended, saying, " You think you're better than me? Typical christian." others will say, " What a load of crap, show me why I should believe." and then a few will say, " Wow, tell me more." The word of God is a mirror, but instead of showing us the outside man it seperates flesh and spirit and shows us how truly corrupt and dirty we are. That's why people don't like to hear the message, because they don't want to surrender or answer to someone besides themselves. You can keep your faith to yourself and pat people on the back and say it doesn't bother you, that they can do whatever they want. My friend that is a selfish mentality and to keep your faith to yourself shows that you do not truly know God and believe, if you did you would shout from the mountain tops to the world, " The Lord is coming as a thief in the night, are you ready to meet Him? Do you know Him?" For those of you " Christians" out there that condemn others, or keep silent, or instead condone false teachings and moralities than I pray for you, because you do not know God and you should be ashamed to call yourself Christ like. As far as I knew, Jesus preached to all, whether they accepted or tried to kill Him or laughed at Him.

[NJSC]

Okay lets look to Jesus as the example. When he was on the earth did he just stand up and say "See the rainbow that's proof that God exists. This is a piece of the Ark proof that God exists. Here's the tablets the 10 commandments were written on so that is proof." No he sat down with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors and ate with them. He built a relationship with people and then talked to them about who he was. So in answer to your query I would say neither because I don't think Jesus would choose either of the options. I choose to love people and love God. Somebody somewhere in the Bible said that was important. And through that love for the people I share the love of God.

[David88vert]

I was going to respond to your remarks but I can tell it is futile. I admit the details of evolution are complex and confusing, even counterintuitive at times. But, no one has time to research the intracacies of everything and that's why we rely on experts. If I have a car question I trust a mechanic. If I have a medical question I ask a doctor. If you really care about knowing the answer to such details of evolutionary theory, you should go talk to an evolutionary biologist. If 98% of doctors say smoking can cause lung cancer, I believe them even though I don't know anyone with cancer. Why is it that when 98% of biologists say evolution is the method of speciation, you are so convinced you understand it better than they?

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/w...cientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

[David88vert]

^ FAIL. NOT ONCE did I condemn anyone, or tell them to convert. I listed archaeological findings that proved the stories in the bible to be accurate, I have given thoughts and studies that show the possiblility of a Creator to be plausible. I have given my own testimony of how God has worked in my life and my family's life. I have talked to some off of this forum about God, I have never once cussed anyone out, lost my temper, or bashed on anyone. I am NOT a judge and have not portrayed myself to be one. I see constant links to some study or book written that tell someone's opinion or theory about why God can not exist. I can not prove it but with tangible evidence only give examples that insinuate this truth. BUT, and this is a big one, God left His fingerprint on everything so that it can be found. I have heard that there is no evidence at all of His existence and any evidence provided has been tossed aside. What faith really is, is accepting these things as truth. God is not absent from this world as some unbelievers and believers alike state. He is very real and my bible tells me that He is a very present help in time of need, what does yours say?

I ask you this NJSC, you seem to believe, so which statement would be better?

A) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, but i will not tell anyone about it because they might get offended, instead I will say," believe what you want it is all ok." and know in my heart that they are lost and missing out on the greatest love there is to experience.
B) Jesus died to clean me and rose again so I may have life, I thank Him so much and I rejoice and love Him for loving me when I was not worthy. So, I will go and tell others of this love and my Savior so that they too can experience the beauty of God that I have.

My friends, it is commanded to us by Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the very God that made us; to go out into the world and preach the gospel. What is the gospel you ask? The gospel is this, Jesus was God wrapped in flesh, He made Himself as us to be with us. He provided Himself as the punishment for our sins(death) and made us clean and righteous. But He rose again so that we may have life. He sent back the Holy Spirit to comfort us and sanctify us. We are then expected to share this news and grace with the world because this world is lost and in need of a Savior. That's it, the whole gospel wrapped up in a nutshell. Some people will hear this and get offended, saying, " You think you're better than me? Typical christian." others will say, " What a load of crap, show me why I should believe." and then a few will say, " Wow, tell me more." The word of God is a mirror, but instead of showing us the outside man it seperates flesh and spirit and shows us how truly corrupt and dirty we are. That's why people don't like to hear the message, because they don't want to surrender or answer to someone besides themselves. You can keep your faith to yourself and pat people on the back and say it doesn't bother you, that they can do whatever they want. My friend that is a selfish mentality and to keep your faith to yourself shows that you do not truly know God and believe, if you did you would shout from the mountain tops to the world, " The Lord is coming as a thief in the night, are you ready to meet Him? Do you know Him?" For those of you " Christians" out there that condemn others, or keep silent, or instead condone false teachings and moralities than I pray for you, because you do not know God and you should be ashamed to call yourself Christ like. As far as I knew, Jesus preached to all, whether they accepted or tried to kill Him or laughed at Him.

This statement is quite different than the initial post of this thread.
You started the thread with the statement that you would provide scientific and archelogical proof of God. This cannot be proven.
The only thing that you can do is present data, and determine probabilities. No certainty of God's existence can be proven scientifically.
Godel stated it best -

[geoff]

^FAIL AGAIN, read the topic title. proof...of Bible.

[bu villain]

It is futile because the current theory is flawed. Evolution was proposed without the current scientific knowledge we have now. Darwin marketed his theory before mathematics had shown that only probability can be determined, and DNA was not discovered until 1953.
Perhaps the theory can evolve into something plausible in the future, but to teach it as fact when it is obviously not probable, is irresponsible.

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.

I question your 98% number. I do not know where you came up with that number but I do have comments on it.
According to this 2006 study (http://www.rice.edu/sallyport/2006/w...cientists.html), only 41% of biologists at "elite research universities" do not believe in God. Presumably the other 59% do believe in God or are agnostic.

Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.

If I was paid to promote evolution, I would be an evolutionary biologist. It's a simple concept really, you sell the concept, you get compensation. And if you do not wish to believe in religion, the field of choice is evolutionary biology. Dawkins, Moran, and Gould are all examples of this.

Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

I have questioned evolutionists, and have yet to have one explain how evolution overcame mathematics and physics, much less DNA. As I stated earlier, you are free to believe whatever you wish. I have no problem with people believing evolution. Just understand that you are taking that on faith, not a definitive proof.

I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

[David88vert]

Darwin was only the beginning. To credit him entirely for the modern theory is to disregard the last 100+ years of contributions and study. It's not "fact" so to speak but neither is gravity for that matter. No one can tell you why two masses are attracted to each other but do you advocate not teaching about it until we figure that out? Science is always up for revision when new evidence comes to light but until it does, we teach the best theories we have.



Belief in God does not mean you don't believe in evolution so I'm not sure why you are referencing that study. Here is an example from a 1997 Gallup Poll that states 95% of scientists believe in evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm) Notice 40% believe in theistic evolution.



Every scientist is paid to study their field, so do you question all scientific findings to this extent or only evolution? I don't see what religion has to do with any of this other than religious people seem to only disregard science when it conflicts with their religious beliefs.



I don't see what is to overcome in math and physics and DNA. Either something is possible or its not. I am taking it on "faith" in the same way as I take the idea that things are made of protons and electrons on "faith". The same way I know the sun is a giant ball of gas burning at millions of degrees. If you want to argue that this "faith" is the same as religious faith, I guess there is no point in testing hypothesis, collecting data, or doing experiments.

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

[David88vert]

^FAIL AGAIN, read the topic title. proof...of Bible.

John 1:1

[ahabion]

@geoff,you probably find it emotionally exhilarating to stir emotions on this forum. How then does it help promote the Gospel when in so many ways what you're posting will only cause your brothers to sin against our Father? Is this where you find your ministry? Does this edify you?

@David88vert, great points all around.

[StreetHazard]

@geoff,you probably find it emotionally exhilarating to stir emotions on this forum. How then does it help promote the Gospel when in so many ways what you're posting will only cause your brothers to sin against our Father? Is this where you find your ministry? Does this edify you?

X2

Yea Goeff, what is wrong with you? Your internet posting offends my christian sensibilities, and now I feel inclined to commit mortal sins in response to your callousness in not considering my emotional needs.

excuse me....I have to go kill a baby and it's all your fault.

And hey! how is that christian car club "riding for God crew" coming along? I want to sign up because after all of your posts and all of your commentary, I am happy to tell you I have finally found a god and it is all because of you Geoff.

Check it out "it's sort of like the Bible........but different"

"if knowing the unknowable is crazy, then I don't want to be sane"

[bu villain]

I'm not throwing out any scientists work, including Darwin's. But I'm also not going to swllow it hook, line, and sinker without learning about it first with my own research.
I don't see scientists proclaiming that gravity is spawning new species, new elements, or anything like that. I have not problem with scientists trying to further the studying of the evolutionary theory. I do have a problem with it being taught as fact, when it clearly is not fact. Scientists that push evolution do it with the same conviction and tactics as religious doctrines - and with just as much missing answers.
You are correct that belief in one does not require a disbelief in the other. I agree 100% with you on that. Again, that is faith - which I have advocated that it is the entire time.
I question any science that makes outlandish claims that go against mathematical probability. I question religions also - unfortunately, they do not have to attempt to prove their claims.
You appear to not understand possibility and probability. Possibility is either 0 or 1, and since we cannot prove that something is always impossible, the answer is always 1. Probability is always measured between the two, and will move up and down the scale. The probability that teh current evolution theory got us to where we are was once calculated as 1 in 10x38th power. You have a much better chance of winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life. Do you have faith that you can do that?

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

[David88vert]

In the end you either trust the scientific method and scientist or you don't. If you don't trust them, I doubt I can convince you otherwise. The evidence I have seen is convincing to me, obviously not so to you. I guess you just have a higher threshold for belief than 95% of scientists. Btw, if current evolutionary theory is true, then the chance it got us to where we are today is 100%. The chance of one person winning the lottery may be 1 in a million and yet someone always wins the lottery.

Also, I would like to know, what are the consequences of teaching evolutionary theory that you fear? Since it is really the only scientific theory on the subject out there right now, do you suggest we not teach it at all or do you simply want more emphasis placed on the fact that we can't answer every single question associated with it?

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

[geoff]

David88vert- one of my favorite scriptures.
ahabion- how would my witnessing cause someone to sin? your not technically a " brother " until you accept Christ. The unbelieving populous will still continue to sin just as the Christians will.

[BABY J]

LOL @ this. I'll just say "who created God?".. you know, since you "can't get something from nothing." But I'm sure the thumpers will say "God just IS" - that's laughable as well.

[geoff]

actually no, in order for there to have been something created it would of had to been created by something that is not bound by the physical laws of nature

[BABY J]

So the supernatural creates natural objects that can then spawn supernatural objects - makes PERFECT sense.

[David88vert]

Our universe is finite - it has bounds. In order to have a omniscient and omnipotent deity, the diety would have to be infinite. From a conceptual viewpoint only, as it could never be proven from a finite being like us, it would be logical that an infinite being could create a finite structure.
Think of us living in a box, and the deity is located outside of the box. It would be easy for the diety to reach in the box, get into the box, move the box around, etc. But it would be impossible for a microscopic organism like a bacterium to have any effect on the box.
Of course, this is all conjecture.

[JDM onlyy]

Proof Jesus exists....at least thats what the cop said...

[bu villain]

First, let me expain probability to you.
Cover all of North America in dimes, with the edge of each one touching each other. Then stack dimes in columns on those all the way to the moon. Now take that one pile that is the size of North America piled all the way to the moon, and multiply it 1 million times. Take one dime and paint it red and put it a random somewhere in those 1 million piles of dimes each the size of North America and piled to the moon. Have a blindfolded person pick out that one dime. That is the odds that a single living cell came from nothing, and became our current civilization.
The question was can you personally always win the lottery - every day. It is mathematically improbably, but its odds are much better, but I doubt that you believe that you can do that.
Show me the scientific method for testing how something comes from nothing (spontaneous creation from the lack of matter), plus scientific method of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life), and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

You seem to be easily convinced. That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish, I have no problem with that. If someone tells you the world is flat, and you believe them, it probably won't affect your daily life.

I have no problems or issues with teaching evolution. I do believe that evolution should not be taught as fact, when it is clearly not. It should be taught that it has ample data available that makes it improbable, but do not rule it out entirely. That is very different than what you see presented by biased individuals currently.

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

[David88vert]

Your coin image is very powerful but I have a hard time believing it. Could you please explain how you arrived at those numbers. I don't see how you could calculate the probability of something like that without making unsubstantiated assumptions. There are far too many unknowns.

Also, the theory of evolution does not make any comment on how the first life started, it only tries to explain how life developed once it had started. So your comment about something from nothing is irrelevant to this discussion.

And your right. I am easily convinved by people I trust. That's what trust means! On this biological issue I trust the biologists more than a random guy on a message board (although I have no doubt you are intelligent as well). However, I would probably trust you on car issues more than an evolutionary biologist. I would argue that's how most people handle complex issues outside of their expertise.

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

[The Creeper]

No one in this world has the knowledge of how life was created on our planet. Not as a fact, anyways. Because of this, the argument will never end, so realistically there is no point in arguing.

[bu villain]

I did not calculate it to that degree - nor could I spend that much time doing it. It came years ago from a DNA calculation book which included the example. They definitely did not have to make as many assumptions as you do to believe in evolution - as it is currently presented.
I do have lots of information on DNA that I could send you - if you are interested in it. It's pretty dry reading material, but it is pretty clear that DNA does not mutate like the old textbooks claimed in support of evolution.

Are you saying you have something that claims DNA does not have mutations? Either way I'm up for learning something new.

Ok, ignore the fact that something cannot come from nothing. Show an example of an inorganic object becoming a living organism (creation of life) from inorganic matter through the scientific method, and the utilization of the scientific method to observe the natural creation of a new species through DNA mutation.

I don't know how life was first created but once again that is not part of evolutionary theory. Here is an example of a new species being created:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/05/07/sc...l?pagewanted=1

So, you choose to trust a random person who you cannot name, question, research, etc? Care to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? It's cheap..
I would hope that you would question everything told and taught to you - however, that being said, there is no real harm in you believing something that does not daily impact your life. Like I said earlier, it is all about faith. I personally cannot have faith in something that defies probability to such an extent as the current theory does, but whether I believe it or not does not affect my daily decisions either of how I provide for my family.

I do question such things. I have read more books on evolutionary theory than probably 99% of people and the logic and evidence are convincing to me. Of course some amount of trust is required because I haven't inspected these fossils myself, or verified that DNA even exists by myself. I think its unfair for you to equate believing what an expert says about something in their field to what a random guy on the street says.