Re: Evolution is not a fact

Ray Martinez wrote:
On Apr 29, 8:37 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[big snip]
The bible isn't true, Ray. If it were true, it would not contradict
itself in the first two chapters of the first book.

You have mistaken complexity with contradiction, which is a very
common mistake

Not as common as confusing complexity with design, but go on.

since the Author, as science has shown, is extremely
complex. The Bible corresponds to scientific fact.

No insult intended, but the Text is "above your head." Intelligence is
a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. Evolutionists are, for the
most part, uneducated or mill products. They have passed classes but
remain ignorant. Unless a person understands the Bible they cannot
understand anything true about the world we live in.

Then why would it matter whether or not "The Bible corresponds to scientific fact"? Scientists attempt to understand the world by studying the world. If the world has been created to be understandable only through the bible, then no science should work. Science does work, Ray, with or without the bible.


That is why they
invented the Agnostic label, to hide behind, so their predictable anti-
Bible conclusions are not seen as the predictable opinion of an
Atheist.
Why, if you were inclined to think this way, would the opinions of an
agnostic be any less predictable?


They aren't. That was my point.

So why invent the label?



Of course Dana's answer shows that evolutionists are completely
dishonest, unwilling to admit to the most obvious bias that they
possess. It shows that evolutionists and Atheists will lie to your
face. That is my only point. Now just think what they have done with
complicated scientific evidence if they will not even admit that their
enemy is their enemy?
Ray, you won't admit that Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 about the
order in which men and birds were created. Why should we trust anything
you say about the bible?


I see no contradiction. Genesis 1 is a general chronology. Genesis 2
begins a close-up and explanation of chapter one. Man is prominent in
chapter two because he is the most important thing revealed in chapter
one, in God's opinion. Chapter two simply expands on certain general
facts declared in chapter 1.

I don't dispute this interpretation.

Asserting that chapter 2 is a second
chronology when there is no basis for this belief is explained as your
Atheism attempting to make the Bible appear contradictory, and thus
not the words of God, but man.

Ray, I just asked whether birds were created before man, as clearly stated in Genesis 1, or after man, as equally clearly stated in Genesis 2. For all your verbiage, you haven't actually answered the question.

I am not asserting that Genesis 2 is a chronology. I just read what it says in verse 19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof."

Jump through all the interpretive hoops you want with your assumption of inerrancy, but a plain reading of the bible is self-contradictory.


Your entire argument is built on an assumption with nothing in the
Text justifying that assumption.

As is yours. The difference is that my assumption has exterior supporting evidence (the fact that science works, even without reference to the bible), and yours does not.

This assumption and its motive is
explained above.



Now we will be told that the Bible and evolution do not contradict,
which will once again prove my point that evolutionists will lie to
your face even over the undisputed and self-evident.
The statements made in the bible about the origin of living organisms
are not true. Physical reality contradicts the statements in the bible.
The theory of evolution explains those facts. To that extent, the bible
and evolution are contradictory.

I completely agree with your last sentence. I would say they are
antithetic since evolution says causation is not Divine, but material
or natural, unconnected to Mind or its power.

There is no contradiction between
evolution and other parts of the bible, including the parts you choose
to ignore (Luke and James, at the last count, but I'm sure there will be
others)


Miracles are strewn throughout the Bible. Evolution says miracles are
false, especially creation miracles.

If Jesus rose from the dead then Genesis is true. If any one miracle
is true then all of them are true.

This is a bizarre statement. You really need to learn a form of logic other than the "invulnerable" kind.

Every Christian says Jesus rose
from the dead - that's why He lives in their heart and mind.

Ken Miller is a fraud, double agent or deceived, like all CEists.
There is no way around it.


Evolution is a lie. Animals have no power to change into another
animal.
No one claims that they do. All that is claimed is that offspring are
not identical to the parents. If you had children, or pets, or a garden
you would realise this.


And that created nature!

How deluded can one be?

Incredulity is not an argument. Study of nature shows that the diversity of biological organisms that we see can indeed be accounted for by descent with modification.


Evolution is Atheist ideology based on rejection of Genesis.
Evolution is a scientific explanation of the diversity of life on Earth.
If God didn't want Genesis to be rejected, he should either have written
it more accurately, or created less lazily.

The evidence does not support evolution OR its alleged causation, as
we just saw concerning the latter.

You didn't present any evidence, just incredulity. Nature doesn't care what you can get your head around.


The evidence of nature as a whole was not in any way produced by
differential reproduction (= ridiculous), nature is a mirror showing
the work of an invisble Designer.

You repeatedly show by your posts here that you know nothing of nature. You didn't know that bats are not birds. You didn't know anything about hybridisation. You know nothing about the mating habits of eels, yet assert them as evidence for the existence of Atlantis.

Using the bible as a textbook will make you stupid about nature. Watching Gene Scott videos will make you even more stupid. The proper study of Nature is Nature itself.

Your causation proposal is not
supported by the evidence (= nature a whole).

You don't know what the evidence is, Ray.


Ray


-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Six Simple And Reasonable Questions ...
    ... deliberate nature. ... because a theory could be wrong that scientists don't promote it as ... happen so rapidly at such a relatively low level in an exponential ... misconceptions about evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Logic of Ray Martinez
    ... "Evolution says God is not seen in nature. ... Since all scientists use the same methods and general approach, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading