Challenge for Christians: disprove evolution and a 6000 year old earth

What other fields of academia are you looking to dismiss?

 

What I find interesting is the parts that are suppose to be taken literally changes over time to "parables" as science learns more about evolution.

 

That would be the secret of longevity for scripture...Adaptability.

 

Right. As far as we know, most of the Bible is composed of parables, but we know that it revolved mainly around one being (one that actually existed). The hard part is finding out which parts of the Bible are parables or not. Now, from what I've gathered in my life as a Catholic, much of the Old and New Testaments are parables and stories, however, the Gospels are told in the form of true stories, unless actually quoting Jesus's own parables, in which they specify that. So, IMHO, the Gospels are the only thing we can regard as "scientifically proven" in the Bible. Hell, even if the entire Bible were debunked as scientifically untrue, I would still follow it's teachings, because they teach good morals and have helped me succeed in life.

 

What fields of academia are trying to disprove the Bible?

Again, if you look at the Bible and read it carefully, there is no conflict between science and the words of the Bible. Either side trying to prove otherwise has an ulterior motive that deserves to be investigated.

 

How do we know that man cannot discount creation by a higher power? What proof is there of a higher power? Existence is not proof that something was created by an intelligence. Even if you were to prove that creating was the result of an intelligence, then what intelligence? God? Brahma? Odin? Aliens? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Red Herring, has nothing to do with whether God created the universe or not or if the Bible is true.

Actually, we know quite a bit about the past thanks to the work of geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists and historians. As for the Bible's so called prophecies, they have either been self-fulfilling, or were interpreted to fit some modern (i.e. after the Bible was written) event.

What destinies? Who specifically?

Also, a billion people agreeing, does not make something true.

 

Might I suggest a Mark Twain quote in support of that point? "One of the proofs of the immortality of the soul is that myriads have believed it — they also believed the world was flat."

 

I like it, thanks.

 

I'm not dodging your questions. It's just that when I respond to someone else, I don't really owe you an answer. Further complicating that is the fact that you did not understand my responses to another poster.

For example, I did not come to my conclusions and be the only person in the world that read the Bible and noticed the things about which I wrote. No, like yourself, I don't believe in democracy. The masses have generally been proven wrong.

Now, if you have a question relative to the OP, I'd be glad to humor you, but to answer each and every question you've asked would be more like answering a set of interrogatories that even you would not read due to their obvious length.

 

Did you happen to notice any of the contradictions in the Bible, like the fact that Exodus 21 says that it's OK to own Hebrews as slaves, but Leviticus 25 says that you may not own the children of Israel as slaves. Or what about logical inconsistencies, like daylight being created before the sun.

Democracy has some pretty big flaws, but so far no one's invented anything better.

 

Fair enough, so I withdraw all my previous questions and instead ask this one. Can the Bible prove or disprove evolution?

 

I don't think that the Bible addresses the issue - at least not to the best of my knowledge.

In an earlier posting here it was addressed that there were pre - Adamic people on earth. The Bible only professes to be a book about Adam and his generations. It's obvious to me that when the offspring of Adam intermarried into the pre - Adamic branches, it created a different kind of person.

There is no concrete evidence, however, that conclusively proves that Adam man evolved. Around six thousand years ago Adam man kind of burst onto the scene. Adamic people had the breath of life breathed into their soul and became a creature unlike any other that had ever existed.

For me, the evolution of plant life and the changes of people by intermarriage and their interaction with plant and animal life that changes our physical makeup still in no way discounts the creation account in the Bible.

 

The only time it was okay to own God's children as slaves is when they were being punished by God.

Since neither of us were there at the time, we cannot say which came first - the light or the sun; the chicken or the egg.

 

By Adamic people, I assume you mean the Homo sapien sapien species and yes, very little evolution has happened within our species since its appearance. The only possible evolution that may have happened is the ability to process starches and sugar and the ability to drink milk as those didn't come along until after the agricultural revolution.

 

Investigate all you like;science does not corroborate biblical supernatural events.
As to your claim that man knows no more today about the past than he did in biblical times;
that is demonstrably false.

 

Typical.

You cannot disprove the science, genetics or math so you attempt to discredit the poster.

Pathetic.

AboveAlpha

 

You mean discredit the poster that did not even know who Chaitin is, yet claimed evolution was mathematically proven? That poster totally discredited himself.

 

I was honest.

And I have never read anything by him.....until you mentioned him.

I stand by what I have posted.

AboveAlpha

 

Bear in mind, this claim is a from a guy that believes that nothing created a big bang in a non-existent universe.

 

I can't comment on Cosmo's beliefs, because I don't know enough about him, but in God: The Failed Hypothesis, Victor Stenger explained that there is no proof that there was nothing before the Big Bang. The Big Bang was just the beginning of the part of the universe with which we're familiar.

Also, we have two possibilities: either the universe exists without having been created by a creator, or a creator exists without having been created by a creator. Since there's currently no way to prove either of these possibilities, we're left with Occam's razor. Since the first assumption is simpler than the second, the first is preferable.

 

The Big Bang did not come from nothing.

I will repost this as I posted it earlier in this topic.



The whole.....Something created from nothing....argument is a fallacy.

I an explain what happened but some people just might not understand it.

The Big Bang and all the Quanta explosively ejected from a single point is what developed this Universe of ours and even space-time did not exist before this ejection.

The singularity point of ejection is known as a WHITE HOLE.

Every White Hole is connected to a BLACK HOLE....and in this case the White Hole that ejected all Quanta to create our Universe was connected to a Black Hole existing in another Divergent Universal State of Reality where all Quanta had been sucked into the Black Hole that achieved such a level of mass and gravitic effect that the Universal Space-Time Geometry and Dimentionality in that collapsed Universe could not support that immense amount of mass at a single point.

The Black Hole ripped through the membrane fabric of the separation of Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality and a White Hole was generated outside these Divergent Universes creating a new Alternate Divergent Universal State of Reality which is our Universe which is but one of an infinite in number set of Universes in the Multiverse.

How are we very sure a Multiverse exists?

Because we have developed FUNCTIONAL APPLICATIONS using Quantum Mechanics which is intrinsically tied to Multiversal Theory as Multiversal Theory is a much more expanded and complex version of Many Worlds Theory as The Many Worlds Theory is too limited to account for Quantum Mechanics.

Thus the Quanta that was explosively ejected from a White Hole that was connected to a Black Hole in another Divergent Universal State of Reality is what developed our Universal Reality.

This means our Universal Space-Time and all Matter and Energy within it did not come from nothing.

The argument by hardcore creationists that something cannot come from nothing does not apply to the development of our universal reality as our Universe did come from something.

AboveAlpha

 

Your accusation is inane; something from nothing is a religious concept.

 

The dilemma associated with the start of the universe is well known. Placing an omnipotent, fully formed consciousness at the start of it all doesn't make that dilemma any less confounding.

 

The Big Bang theory offers no greater. That's not an accusation; it is an observation. So, what is your point?

Either position requires a little faith and a certain belief that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately you have to say that what we have came from a Creator OR it developed out of nothing.

 

Uhh.

OK....I am going to try to explain this a little better.

Understand this has nothing to do with trying to prove a GOD exists or not.

Our Universe did NOT develop out of NOTHING.

The opposite of EXISTENCE is NONEXISTENCE.

Since I am typing this right now we know NONEXISTENCE is impossible.

Humans are far too limited in intelligence to understand that although we as Humans see Time as having a Past, Present and Future....in reality Time is Space-Time and it runs CONCURRENTLY.

Thus there really is no beginning, middle or end.

Nonexistence is impossible.

AboveAlpha