100 Questions for the Evolutionists to Answer

Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Plants were on the third day.
All land animals on the sixth, marine animals on the fifth. Presumably this was ALL creatures that have ever existed on earth, probably many we have never seen or heard of (developed and died along the way, natural causes).

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said 'let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life-the fish in the sea, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals'
1:27 So God created people in his own image; God patterend them after Himself; male and female he created them."

Sorry Tom, not much of an answer huh?
 
[ QUOTE ]
You guys might enjoy checking out the Codex Project.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106312433

It's an online re-assembly of one of the oldest new testament bibles in the world, and it's translation into english by expert modern linguists.

It has raised a bit of a christian ruckus, in that so far it has documented over 1000 translational errors, and even a few fabrications and contradictions in our modern new testament bible.

According to the codex, Jesus and his disciples used women in his early church as well as men, calling them deacons of the church.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jomoco: With all due respect, would you please cite your sources for some of these claims? I didn't hear it in the vids or see it on the website.

What is your source for the "christian ruckus"? The Codex Sinaiticus has been around a long time and only upsets hard-core King James Only advocates, a small percentage of Christians.

You are right, it was and still is used today, although mostly by Textual Scholars and others who can read Greek. It is an early complete New Testament and, along with Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrius, about 5400 other Greek manuscripts, quotations by the early Church Fathers, and all the manuscripts in other languages (Syrian, Coptic, Old Latin, etc.) has helped us varify that what we have today is about 98% what the original authors wrote.

What is your source for the "1000 translational errors"?
And what kind of errors are you refering to? We do see many variants, but the majority of those are simple scribal errors (mispellings, etc.) that are just illustrating that people back then couldn't always write clearly either - and were human.

What is your source for "a few fabrications," especially from Codex Sinaiticus? What "fabrications" are you refering to?

What "contradictions" are you refering to?

Are you saying that the Sinaticus says Jesus used women as deacons? Please cite the passage. We do know from Luke 8 (and others) that there were women who followed Jesus and who helped support Jesus and the Twelve. Where do you find they were actually called "deacons?"

In 1 Timothy 3 there is a possible reference to women deacons, and Paul also seems to indicate in Romans 16 that Phobe may have been one. But Scripture doesn't say much either way about them that I'm aware of.

I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to be harsh or attack you, I just need to see these sources so I can check them out for myself.

Thanks.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like and ape to me but im sure its not its gotts be one of the missing links we never seem to find.Or it could just be another species of ape that was just discovered nah that cant be right.Its crazy if we are millions of years old and the transition animals would have been around for at least a few million years,It seems like we would find fossils all over the place.Just dont understand why its a very small fragmented record when the record prior is so large.Another thought if monkeys and apes evolved into humans ,why then do we still have monkeys and Apes.Please read again Darwins conclusion on native africans and native australians. I read the other day they found a new species of lizard in the phillipians it was measuring over 6' and very brilliant colors.Wow how did we miss that but we can look at a skull from a million years ago and instantly determine it was hominid or early human but it still had a small monkey brain.Sounds to me like maybe a monkey that had never been discovered prior.I guess I just dont have enough faith to believe this stuff with the facts presented.I guess they didnt learn anything from Nebraska Man.May wanna do some testing before you make a concrete judgement about a paticular species.But judging from the article its seems the scientists where not in agreement about its true place in the evolutionary chain.Am I the only person that thinks just maybe this could be and extinct primate that we no nothing about.Lets automatically conclude this is early human hes just not very smart because of his tiny brain.

[/ QUOTE ]


How do you explain the appendix(the actual body part)? What about the fact that increasing numbers of humans are never growing wisdom teeth? If we aren't evolving why do we keep changing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Banjo: I really don't know about the appendix. Beats me why it's there, or why more folks are not growing wisdom teeth.

I actually have no problem with micro-evolution, because science shows with hard evidence that it happens. I do have a problem with macro-evolution because there seems to be more theory than hard evidence, and many more theories based upon those theories, which gets kind of circular to me.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Science is built on theories.

Robinia...contrary...that is a decent answer.

Bill Bryson's book, A Short History of Nearly Everything was an interesting, engaging and easy read. He starts from our view of the world and then goes in several directions. Time going back to the moment after the Big Bang to the present and what scientists keep looking for. Along the way he lays out theories about the formation of the Universe and how this water covered rock could produce us. Another travel goes down into the depths of the atom.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Hey Tom, good morning because it is morning i will not have time to go back and read the post you refer to.i will later.
Let me say this however, for most believers the idea of God experimenting and makeing mistakes is a stretch . Mainly because God does not make mistakes.( in our belief system). Then the arguement usually comes well how come he didnt know About the fall etc.and some other usual questions . The answer is he did.Scripture is clear about that.
Check a book called bone of contention. I will see if i can dig it up (pun intended). there is a very cool story attatched to that book!! When i get time i will lay out some very cool facts about a creation class that i took that just blew me away . It turned my brain into thinking that all science really does is to try and unlock the puzzle that God put together. cool stuff!!
Enjoying the disscussion~!
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Tom: I agree that science is built on theories. And I'm not saying that all theories are bad or wrong. I also understand that at times all we have is theories because while we may not have enough evidence to complete the set, that theory is what best explains the evidence we do have. So, we try to form the best theory that has the greatest "explanitory scope" to explain why that stuff is there, or why certain events happened in history, etc.

And, until such time we actually have the hard evidence, we have to base our beliefs on something. But I also know that it is human beings who form these theories. And while scientists, philosophers, theologians, and arborists all are trying to be as objective as possible, we all start out with a certain way we view reality, our worldview. And, because we all believe that our worldview is correct (objectively True), those ideas, and even sometimes evidence, that goes against it are at times not accepted or included. These theories have their roots firmly attached to the worldview.

We all know how those in the church at times in history held beliefs that went against the science at that time (flat earth, sun revolving around the earth). At times scientists have done the same thing because they are human beings. Human beings do not like having their worldview upset. While the goal of science, philosophy, and theology is suppost to be the Truth, wherever that may lead, few want to grapple with the possibilities and consequences of their way of viewing reality being inaccurate, or even false. Especially if they have based their life and career on it.

Anyway, I enjoy this discussion. You're right Tom, it is nice to be able to discuss these topics in a civil and couteous way. We can be passionate about what we believe, be direct in our questions, and feel strongly about what we believe, but we don't have to be rude about it. Thanks for engaging the topic this way.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Tcsafety....that was very well stated!! very true.
"evidence" is often veiw through abelief biased lens.Most think that Science is inherently unbiased....unfortunatley that is not the case.useing the pure form of the scientific method would be but people can control outcome to prove or disprove their own belief system
Ie is global warming real or not:man made or not.....And Science lines up on both sides!
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Thanks Taitree - and Happy Birthday! May God richly Bless you and yours!

I hope you (and others) see I'm not trying to knock science or scientists. Most are hard working and are trying to find the truth wherever it leads them. But, my point is two-fold. One, every human - scientist, theologian, arborist - starts with a certain view of how reality works. While they are seeking to be as objective as possible, their research and conclusions are influenced by their worldview. Not a problem if their view is correct, which they all believe to be the case. It may, however, affect their whole methodology if they are not open to investigating other claims. Not that they have to accept them, but at least one should be open and prepared to defend them in a charitable manner.

Two, while I believe Science and the Scientific Method is good, it is often clouded by scientists. Just because they are seeking to be objective there have been cases where they refuse to be and are as fundamentalist as any Baptist. Part of my life is in academia and I find some of the most arrogant, elitist, and close-minded people that I've ever met here. Not that they don't exist in the church, but at least Christians have an objective mandate to be humble and walk in love that they can be held to.

Anyway, I appreciate the Buzzers and being able to discuss a lot of this stuff in a good manner.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

We probably need to “demystify” science in some senses.

Einstein once wrote:

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”


It’s a quote worth thinking about. Science is not something “magical” and unfounded. Instead, much of science has to do with the elimination of errors (in thinking and experimentation), the following of multiple lines of evidence, the systematic exploration of questions, and the seeking of repeatable and solid evidence, among other things.

I’m coming to think that many people have an incredibly poor understanding of science itself and, thus, distance themselves from it and (to a degree) think it has to do with pulling rabbits out of hats. Too many people think that they can simply “accept” science when they like what it says and, conversely, choose to disagree with science when what it says causes them discomfort.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

So here's a question... Lots of religious folks refer to God as 'He.' In fact, I can't think of any that refer to God as a 'She.'

Is the higher power a 'He,' or is this just a convenient description for believers through the years?

History being written by the victors (men), it makes sense that God would be described as a man, but, for real, if there's a higher power, who really believes that sex is involved?

...Is God a 'He?' If you believe so, do you have a solid argument to support that 'God' is male, and how does that translate to 'Him' creating Man and Woman in 'His' image?

-Tom
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

[ QUOTE ]

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said 'let us make people in our image, to be like ourselves. They will be masters over all life-the fish in the sea, and all the livestock, wild animals, and small animals'
1:27 So God created people in his own image; God patternd them after Himself; male and female he created them."


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, easilly interpreted to go either way, or maybe both ways!
Maybe God is assexual. Presumably he doesn't reproduce, so the creation of male and female sexes would be strictly functional, and maybe distinctly seperate from his form? Just thinking out loud...

God is often refered to as 'Father' in the Bible, as well as a 'Groom' (the church being the 'bride'). So it's easy to see where the gender assignment comes from.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

I mean no disrespect, but I think it's ironic God had a son and not a daughter. If the bible were written today "He" would be "She" and she would of had a daughter. Women have come along way.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Fun stuff.

Actually, outside of some more, ahhh, interestingly enthusiastic femenists, there are female deities in other religious systems (Hinduism for example), and some specific focussing on the feminine powers in spiritual groups like Wicca.

The Judeo-Christian God is refered to in masculine terms because that is the way in which He has revealed Himself (Father, etc.). In reality, God is neither male nor female but is spirit. This is why Jesus said in John 4:24 to worship Him in spirit and in truth.

And Tom I don't think He has genitalia, either. Probably another reason why we'll never be gods :{). Dang things get in the way, physically and mentally...make up your own jokes with that one, I'm not going any further.

Jeremy, technically God didn't have a Son, the Son has always co-existed with the Father in the Christian view. Hard to imagine, but we believe that God is the one who created all this, and was around before this ever was, and therefore was here before time began. Since God is outside of time, "eternity" and "eternal" may just be a synonym for "being."

Verging on the Platonic...but lemme know how that settles in with ya. Don't think about it too much when you're starting the back cut, though.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

[ QUOTE ]
We probably need to “demystify” science in some senses.

Einstein once wrote:

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”


It’s a quote worth thinking about. Science is not something “magical” and unfounded. Instead, much of science has to do with the elimination of errors (in thinking and experimentation), the following of multiple lines of evidence, the systematic exploration of questions, and the seeking of repeatable and solid evidence, among other things.

I’m coming to think that many people have an incredibly poor understanding of science itself and, thus, distance themselves from it and (to a degree) think it has to do with pulling rabbits out of hats. Too many people think that they can simply “accept” science when they like what it says and, conversely, choose to disagree with science when what it says causes them discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]



I agree, Jeremy. TCsafety- a theory is not just an idea, it is a story...a story supported by not only research but also by the lack of any other story that better explains a phenomena!

You are welcome to come up with a better story, tcsafety, but it needs to withstand the rigor of deductive thought by professional scientists.

Creationists start out with an idea and then select evidence to support it. Science starts out with an idea and attempts to disprove it.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We probably need to “demystify” science in some senses.

Einstein once wrote:

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”


It’s a quote worth thinking about. Science is not something “magical” and unfounded. Instead, much of science has to do with the elimination of errors (in thinking and experimentation), the following of multiple lines of evidence, the systematic exploration of questions, and the seeking of repeatable and solid evidence, among other things.

I’m coming to think that many people have an incredibly poor understanding of science itself and, thus, distance themselves from it and (to a degree) think it has to do with pulling rabbits out of hats. Too many people think that they can simply “accept” science when they like what it says and, conversely, choose to disagree with science when what it says causes them discomfort.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree, Jeremy. TCsafety- a theory is not just an idea, it is a story...a story supported by not only research but also by the lack of any other story that better explains a phenomena!

You are welcome to come up with a better story, tcsafety, but it needs to withstand the rigor of deductive thought by professional scientists.

Creationists start out with an idea and then select evidence to support it. Science starts out with an idea and attempts to disprove it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Next up:

Demons!
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

[ QUOTE ]
I always think of Gaia as a female.

[/ QUOTE ]
grin.gif

IT is Tom, IT is.
 
Re: 100 Questions-9 year old finds new bones

Kylimb! that is not what believers believe!! WE think that what has happened to science......taking a Theory and using experimentation with a control group to demonstrate what works and what does not .....withOUT bias is not able to be used looking backward at the evolutionary model. They actually do what you say the creationists do which is to start w the premis that their model is true and we must try our best to prove it often times completly ignoring or creating evidence
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom