Science Disproves Evolution

[VINDICATOR]

Latest post of the previous page:

Dear Pahu,
Obviously your purpose in disproving evolution is to prove that your God made the whole universe, including man. Just to get the argument out of the quick-sand, let's hypothesize that God did create everything. Now prove to us that it was your God, (The God of Abraham?) that did it, and not one of the other of the thousands of Gods worshipped on Earth. (Temporarily don't consider the extra-terrestrial Aliens' Gods) If you can't do that, then your effort is completely useless!

[Pahu]

You're not making any progress here, Pahu, are you? Do you understand why?

Do not post any more unnecessary graphics. And please do not quote large chunks of text copied from elsewhere: provide a few selected sentences with your own commentary in future. Do you understand all of that?

In other words, shut up, your facts are disturbing me.

[Pahu]

Dear Pahu,
Obviously your purpose in disproving evolution is to prove that your God made the whole universe, including man. Just to get the argument out of the quick-sand, let's hypothesize that God did create everything. Now prove to us that it was your God, (The God of Abraham?) that did it, and not one of the other of the thousands of Gods worshipped on Earth. (Temporarily don't consider the extra-terrestrial Aliens' Gods) If you can't do that, then your effort is completely useless!

There is only one true, living, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible:

[center]Bible Accuracy [/center][/color]

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. 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
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[VINDICATOR]

Dear Pahu,
Fine, now we're getting warm! Here is your logic:
First you prove that the Bible is true. Since the Bible says God created man, then that proves that God created man! QED! Evolution is false.
However, if you want to use the Bible as proof of anything, you must be sure that the Bible is 100% true. If there are untruths in the Bible then using the Bible for proof is invalid. Are you ready to guarantee that the Bible is 100% correct? Would you bet your after-life on it? (Pahu's Wager)

[Pahu]

Dear Pahu,
Fine, now we're getting warm! Here is your logic:
First you prove that the Bible is true. Since the Bible says God created man, then that proves that God created man! QED! Evolution is false.
However, if you want to use the Bible as proof of anything, you must be sure that the Bible is 100% true. If there are untruths in the Bible then using the Bible for proof is invalid. Are you ready to guarantee that the Bible is 100% correct? Would you bet your after-life on it? (Pahu's Wager)

Yes.

[Alan H]

Dear Pahu,
Obviously your purpose in disproving evolution is to prove that your God made the whole universe, including man. Just to get the argument out of the quick-sand, let's hypothesize that God did create everything. Now prove to us that it was your God, (The God of Abraham?) that did it, and not one of the other of the thousands of Gods worshipped on Earth. (Temporarily don't consider the extra-terrestrial Aliens' Gods) If you can't do that, then your effort is completely useless!

There is only one true, living, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible:

[center]Bible Accuracy [/center][/color]

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. 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
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

and not forgetting:

4. How accurate is your figure of 8,000 years for the age of the Universe?

[Tetenterre]

In other words, shut up, your facts are disturbing me.

I call bullshit!

Speaking only of myself (obviously), I would prefer to debate with you, in your own words, rather than with some person who does not interact on these forums but whose words you keep copying and pasting here. It's as if you are scared to interact as yourself, so you cower behind the words of others. You reinforce this appearance with your repeated failure to respond, in your own words, to what others write/ask in these posts, other than to occasionally repeat an assertion that you have previously made, but without explaining, in your own words, (a) why you believe your assertion is true and, more importantly, (b) where you believe the flaws are in the arguments of others.

[Pahu]

Dear Pahu,
Obviously your purpose in disproving evolution is to prove that your God made the whole universe, including man. Just to get the argument out of the quick-sand, let's hypothesize that God did create everything. Now prove to us that it was your God, (The God of Abraham?) that did it, and not one of the other of the thousands of Gods worshipped on Earth. (Temporarily don't consider the extra-terrestrial Aliens' Gods) If you can't do that, then your effort is completely useless!

There is only one true, living, creator God who reveals Himself in the Bible:

[center]Bible Accuracy [/center][/color]

1. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
 
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
 
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
 
3. 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
 
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

No

and not forgetting:

4. How accurate is your figure of 8,000 years for the age of the Universe?

I don't know.

[Pahu]

In other words, shut up, your facts are disturbing me.

I call bullshit!

Speaking only of myself (obviously), I would prefer to debate with you, in your own words, rather than with some person who does not interact on these forums but whose words you keep copying and pasting here. It's as if you are scared to interact as yourself, so you cower behind the words of others. You reinforce this appearance with your repeated failure to respond, in your own words, to what others write/ask in these posts, other than to occasionally repeat an assertion that you have previously made, but without explaining, in your own words, (a) why you believe your assertion is true and, more importantly, (b) where you believe the flaws are in the arguments of others.

Most of the time I prefer to use the words of others on a subject they are more knowledgeable about.

[Alan H]

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

No[/quote]You're not really trying, are you Pahu?

and not forgetting:

4. How accurate is your figure of 8,000 years for the age of the Universe?

I don't know.

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

[Pahu]

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

No

You're not really trying, are you Pahu?

and not forgetting:

4. How accurate is your figure of 8,000 years for the age of the Universe?

I don't know.

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?

[Alan H]

I don't know.

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?

[Tetenterre]

Most of the time I prefer to use the words of others on a subject they are more knowledgeable about.

That is obvious. Bur we are not debating with these others; we are debating with you.

[Alan H]

In other words, shut up, your facts are disturbing me.

I call bullshit!

Speaking only of myself (obviously), I would prefer to debate with you, in your own words, rather than with some person who does not interact on these forums but whose words you keep copying and pasting here. It's as if you are scared to interact as yourself, so you cower behind the words of others. You reinforce this appearance with your repeated failure to respond, in your own words, to what others write/ask in these posts, other than to occasionally repeat an assertion that you have previously made, but without explaining, in your own words, (a) why you believe your assertion is true and, more importantly, (b) where you believe the flaws are in the arguments of others.

Most of the time I prefer to use the words of others on a subject they are more knowledgeable about.

If it's them who are more knowledgeable than you, Pahu, how can we ever be sure you actually understand what it is you are copy and pasting from your playbook?

[VINDICATOR]

Dear Pahu,
Are you absolutely certain that your Bible is 100% correct? Please answer "yes" or "no".

[Pahu]

Dear Pahu,
Are you absolutely certain that your Bible is 100% correct? Please answer "yes" or "no".

Yes.

[animist]

Dear Pahu,
Are you absolutely certain that your Bible is 100% correct? Please answer "yes" or "no".

Yes.

so how about all the internal contradictions?

[Pahu]

Dear Pahu,
Are you absolutely certain that your Bible is 100% correct? Please answer "yes" or "no".

Yes.

so how about all the internal contradictions?

Such as?

[Tetenterre]

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

No

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.


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.

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.

I suppose you are aware, Pahu, that both St Augustine of Hippo (4th Cent CE) and St Thomas Aquinas (13th Cent CE) acknowledged not only that there were factual errors in the Bible, but that those who insisted that these errors were facts were guilty of "bringing our faith into ridicule". Were they wrong? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.

[Pahu]

Does your bible:

1. Have any historical inaccuracies?
2. Have any scientific inaccuracies?
3. Have any false prophecies?

No

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.

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.

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?

I suppose you are aware, Pahu, that both St Augustine of Hippo (4th Cent CE) and St Thomas Aquinas (13th Cent CE) acknowledged not only that there were factual errors in the Bible, but that those who insisted that these errors were facts were guilty of "bringing our faith into ridicule". Were they wrong? Please explain your reasons for your answer in your own words.

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

[Alan H]

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