INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#681 Postby Alan H » October 27th, 2017, 6:26 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Hi Pahu. Since you're here, can you see your way to addressing these questions? Much obliged.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#682 Postby animist » October 27th, 2017, 8:28 pm

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Yes.
so how about all the internal contradictions?


Such as?

there are several website devoted to these. This is just one: https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html

I am perusing these choice morsels, and here a couple of direct statistical mutual contradictions:
1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#683 Postby Pahu » October 27th, 2017, 8:36 pm

Alan H wrote:
That's quite an admission, isn't it? But could it be (as I previously suggested), 83 -0, +13.8199929 years?


As shown above, evidence shows the age of the earth and universe are in the thousands of years old. Would you like to see the evidence again?
Why? Has it changed since yesterday? Which of the sections with the headings I repeated gave the answer? But anyway, if it's 'thousands of years' as you say, is it 13,820,000 thousand years?


No. It is about 8000 years.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#684 Postby Alan H » October 27th, 2017, 11:56 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:

As shown above, evidence shows the age of the earth and universe are in the thousands of years old. Would you like to see the evidence again?
Why? Has it changed since yesterday? Which of the sections with the headings I repeated gave the answer? But anyway, if it's 'thousands of years' as you say, is it 13,820,000 thousand years?


No. It is about 8000 years.
This is a fun game, isn't it, Pahu? I thought you'd want to be all scientific about it. What does 'about 8000 years' actually mean? Doesn't your book tell you?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 629
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#685 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 28th, 2017, 12:43 am

Pahu wrote:


Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.[/quote]

Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.



Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.[/quote]

Well, we know who said that the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham:

https://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef ... elAviv.pdf

What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

Lord Muck oGentry
Posts: 629
Joined: September 1st, 2007, 3:48 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#686 Postby Lord Muck oGentry » October 28th, 2017, 12:50 am

Pahu wrote:


Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.[/quote]

Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.



Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.[/quote]
[ Bolding mine. LMoG]

Well, we know who said that the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham:

https://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef ... elAviv.pdf

The data indicate that this event occurred not earlier than the last third of the 10th century BCE and
most probably during this time.


We know who said it. And we know why they said it: data.
Your move.
What we can't say, we can't say and we can't whistle it either. — Frank Ramsey

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#687 Postby Tetenterre » October 28th, 2017, 10:33 am

Pahu wrote:
Tetenterre wrote:
Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.
LMoG has already addressed this.


Mark 14:35-36 portrays Jesus in agony and distress before his death, yet John 16:32-33 says he was calm and in total control. These are mutually exclusive. How can they both be correct? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Two different times and places.
There were two "last supper"s in two different places? Interesting.

Matthew and Luke both correct Mark's geography. If Mark was accurate, then entire locations (including their archaeology) must have magically moved. Is this what happened? If not, how can the gospels of Mark, Luke and Matthew all be correct? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Where do Matthew and Luke both correct Mark's geography?
In the gospels attributed to them. (I had assumed that, as a Christian, you would already know what is written in the gospels.) For example, Matt 21:1 omits Bethany in order to correct its "mis-placing" in Mark 11:1. There are several other examples, as I am sure you already know.

Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.
Even if it was true that some deity is the author (and you have offered no evidence for this assertion), it was written down by human beings. Human beings can commit errors, so how can you know that what is written down is true. The obvious (if trivial) example is the 7th commandment in the 1631 Bible of Barker and Lucas. perhaps less trivial are changes of meaning, such as Luke 2:14 in the KJV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men", or the rendering of the Hebrew "Almah" (= "young woman") as "virgin".
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#688 Postby animist » October 28th, 2017, 10:45 am

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:so how about all the internal contradictions?


Such as?

there are several websites devoted to these. This is just one: https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html

I am perusing these choice morsels, and herewith a couple of direct statistical mutual contradictions:
1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
here is another:

GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.

Phew, this is great fun and very easy, much easier than having to stretch my brain and my limited knowledge of evolutionary theory! C'mon Pahu, you must have some packaged answers ready!

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#689 Postby VINDICATOR » October 28th, 2017, 12:23 pm

Dear Pahu,
So, the answer to my question is "yes". Now you have staked your bet that everything in the Bible is 100% true. That means one of 2 things:
1-You have cherry-picked the Bible taking only the red sweet cherries.
2-You believe that the Laws of Nature aren't binding, anyone can do magic!
I lost my religion due to cherry-picking, because I picked only the green and sour cherries! Here's an example of a sour cherry: In Exodus 7:19-21 Moses and Aaron turned all the water in Egypt into blood (including the millions of tons of water in the Nile)! The Egyptians had no water to drink! There are hundreds of such sour cherries in the Bible. That is why Einstein called the Bible "a book of fairy tales"! I give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed these sour cherries when you read the Bible. I can't believe that anyone who stopped believing in Santa Claus could still believe anything so silly!

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#690 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 3:41 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:so how about all the internal contradictions?


Such as?

there are several website devoted to these. This is just one: https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html


You will find answers to these sick, childish, foolish, erroneous, pathetic, twisted, perverted attempts to distort the true meaning of Scripture here:
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html

I am perusing these choice morsels, and here a couple of direct statistical mutual contradictions:
1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).


The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles refer to different locations. In 1 Kings the author counts all the stables Solomon has, while the author of 2 Chronicles just counts the stables Solomon had in each chariot city. There were ten of those, so 10 chariot cities times 4000 stables makes the 40,000 that are mentioned here.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#691 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 3:47 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:


Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.



Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.

Well, we know who said that the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham:

https://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef ... elAviv.pdf



The opinions of men do not change the word of God.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#692 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 3:53 pm

Lord Muck oGentry wrote:
Pahu wrote:


Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.



Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.
[ Bolding mine. LMoG]

Well, we know who said that the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham:

https://archaeology.tau.ac.il/ben-yosef ... elAviv.pdf

The data indicate that this event occurred not earlier than the last third of the 10th century BCE and
most probably during this time.

We know who said it. And we know why they said it: data.
Your move.


It does not matter who said it. If the opinions of men conflict with the word of God, they are wrong.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#693 Postby Alan H » October 28th, 2017, 3:57 pm

@Pahu: What does 'about 8000 years' actually mean? Doesn't your book tell you?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#694 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 4:53 pm

Tetenterre wrote:
Historical inaccuracy:
In Genesis, there is mention of Abraham's servant travelling by camel. According to Biblical chronology, this was around the 2nd millennium BCE. However, the evidence is that the camel was not domesticated until about 1000 years after this. (This is a rare case of the Bible claiming things are older than they actually are; it's usually the other way round.) How is the Bible correct in this? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Whoever said the camel was not domesticated at the time of Abraham was wrong.

LMoG has already addressed this.

Mark 14:35-36 portrays Jesus in agony and distress before his death, yet John 16:32-33 says he was calm and in total control. These are mutually exclusive. How can they both be correct? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.


Two different times and places.

There were two "last supper"s in two different places? Interesting.


In John 16:32,33 Christ is celebrating the Last Supper. In Mark 14:35,36 He is on the Mount of Olives. Two different times and places.

Where do Matthew and Luke both correct Mark's geography?

In the gospels attributed to them. (I had assumed that, as a Christian, you would already know what is written in the gospels.) For example, Matt 21:1 omits Bethany in order to correct its "mis-placing" in Mark 11:1. There are several other examples, as I am sure you already know.


I know no such thing. Bethphage began where Bethany ended, and reached to the city itself. Just because one eye witness does not mention a town does not mean he mis placed it.

Since God is the author of the Bible, it cannot be in error regardless of the opinions of men.

Even if it was true that some deity is the author (and you have offered no evidence for this assertion), it was written down by human beings. Human beings can commit errors, so how can you know that what is written down is true. The obvious (if trivial) example is the 7th commandment in the 1631 Bible of Barker and Lucas. perhaps less trivial are changes of meaning, such as Luke 2:14 in the KJV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men", or the rendering of the Hebrew "Almah" (= "young woman") as "virgin".


I have given evidence God is the author of the Bible, most notably in the fact that the Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

It is true God inspired humans to write the Bible and He insured it was preserved accurately. The blunder by Barker and Lucas was corrected.

Different translations say the same thing differently.

Almah means a young woman who has not known a man, or virgin.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#695 Postby Alan H » October 28th, 2017, 5:08 pm

@Pahu: What does 'about 8000 years' actually mean? Doesn't your book tell you?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#696 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 6:47 pm

animist wrote:
so how about all the internal contradictions?


Such as?

there are several websites devoted to these. This is just one: https://infidels.org/library/modern/don ... tions.html


You will find answers to these sick, childish, foolish, erroneous, pathetic, twisted, perverted attempts to distort the true meaning of Scripture here:
http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/index.html

I am perusing these choice morsels, and herewith a couple of direct statistical mutual contradictions:
1KI 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2CH 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).


The authors of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles refer to different locations. In 1 Kings the author counts all the stables Solomon has, while the author of 2 Chronicles just counts the stables Solomon had in each chariot city. There were ten of those, so 10 chariot cities times 4000 stables makes the 40,000 that are mentioned here.

here is another:

GE 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.

GE 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.


What chapter 32:28 says is that Jacob would not be called Jacob only. The new name didn't have to replace the old name, as Genesis clearly shows, so we should read “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel” as “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob only, but Israel.” So not just Jacob, but both. And indeed the name Jacob is used after this, but the name Israel more frequently. And the Israelites are named after Israel, not after Jacob. In chapter 35:10 the name Israel is confirmed, it is God saying to him that his new name is indeed Israel.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#697 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 7:17 pm

VINDICATOR wrote:Dear Pahu,
So, the answer to my question is "yes". Now you have staked your bet that everything in the Bible is 100% true. That means one of 2 things:
1-You have cherry-picked the Bible taking only the red sweet cherries.
2-You believe that the Laws of Nature aren't binding, anyone can do magic!
I lost my religion due to cherry-picking, because I picked only the green and sour cherries! Here's an example of a sour cherry: In Exodus 7:19-21 Moses and Aaron turned all the water in Egypt into blood (including the millions of tons of water in the Nile)! The Egyptians had no water to drink! There are hundreds of such sour cherries in the Bible. That is why Einstein called the Bible "a book of fairy tales"! I give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed these sour cherries when you read the Bible. I can't believe that anyone who stopped believing in Santa Claus could still believe anything so silly!


I do not cherry pick the Bible and I believe the laws of nature are binding. However everything is subject to God's will. If He decided to change the water in the Nile to blood, He has the power to do that. Why do you believe God, who created everything, does not have absolute power over His creation?

Einstein was a smart man, but He was wrong about the Bible. He did say: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe—a Spirit vastly superior to that of man” (Quoted in H. Dukas and B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein – The Human Side (USA Princeton University Press 1981); Jammer, p.144).

And: “The divine reveals itself in the physical world” (Z. Rosenkranz, Albert through the Looking Glass (Jewish National Library Jerusalem, 1998), pp.xi, 80; Jammer, p.151).

And: “My God created laws… His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws” (Einstein in conversation with W. Hermann in Hermann’s book Einstein and the Poet (USA Branden Press, 1983), p.132; Jammer, p.123).
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#698 Postby Pahu » October 28th, 2017, 7:19 pm

Alan H wrote:@Pahu: What does 'about 8000 years' actually mean? Doesn't your book tell you?


Not precisely, but it does indicate that creation took place about 8000 years ago.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#699 Postby Alan H » October 28th, 2017, 7:46 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:@Pahu: What does 'about 8000 years' actually mean? Doesn't your book tell you?


Not precisely, but it does indicate that creation took place about 8000 years ago.
What does 'about 8000 years' mean? How inaccurate is it?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

VINDICATOR
Posts: 593
Joined: December 22nd, 2016, 11:07 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#700 Postby VINDICATOR » October 29th, 2017, 5:31 am

Pahu,
It wasn't God that turned the Nile into blood. It was Aaron and Moses. Other men like Joshua, can stop the sun in the sky! In the Bible there are no "Laws of Nature" there is only magic and anything goes. There are hundreds of these magics in the Bible. They can be found only in fairy tales. That's why Einstein called the Bible a book of fairy tales.
Your God, the God of Abraham, was made in the image of man. You don't agree? Your God is narcississtic, tyrannical, jealous, cruel, capricious, vindictive, etc. He has all the faults of man and much more!
Don't think that your God is the only God, there are thousands of others. You would never be able to comprehend the God of Einstein, just as an ant could not comprehend you! Look up Einstein's God in Wikipedia. Don't be like the frog at the bottom of a well. Hop out and take a look around the Cosmos!

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#701 Postby Tetenterre » October 29th, 2017, 2:04 pm

Pahu wrote: In John 16:32,33 Christ is celebrating the Last Supper. In Mark 14:35,36 He is on the Mount of Olives. Two different times and places.
Oh dear, you are slipping there, Pahu. All four gospels recount Jesus going to pray after the last supper. In Mark (and Matthew) he is in Gethsemane (precise location unknown, beyond being somewhere at the foot of the Mount of Olives); it is Luke that puts him on the Mount of Olives. John says this conversation took place in a garden in or near the Kidron Valley.

So, was he split into three?

Bethphage began where Bethany ended, and reached to the city itself.
That is quite simply not true. Although Bethphage is now contiguous with Jerusalem, 2000 years ago,Jerusalem, Bethphage and Nethany would have been distinct and separate entities.

I have given evidence God is the author of the Bible, most notably in the fact that the Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
That is not evidence, it is opinion. The so-called accurate prophecies can just as easily be accounted for by the Jewish tradition of Midrash. For example, they could have written the NT stories (NB: the gospels were written long after the time when the events they depicted were meant to have occurred) so that they appeared to fulfill prophecies in the OT stories. The Washington Codex alone is sufficient evidence that "embellishing" earlier gospels was an acceptable deed.


It is true God inspired humans to write the Bible and He insured it was preserved accurately.
How do you know that?

The blunder by Barker and Lucas was corrected.
How do you know that there are not other errors that remain uncorrected?

Different translations say the same thing differently.
Indeed, but there are also translations that say different things. "... good will toward men" does not mean the same as either "...to men of good will" or "....to men with whom God is pleased"

Almah means a young woman who has not known a man, or virgin.
Again, that is simply not true. The "who has not known a man" qualification was sometimes a cultural assumption, but was not a meaning.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.


Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests