Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 59. (Read 108156 times)

@BADecker

Since the Bible isn't wrong, it is an accurate record. The scientific methodology that shows what the Bible is, and how it couldn't exist in the form in which it exists, shows the miraculousness of the Bible, and that God made it. So, God and the bible are true, and science is guessing at multitudes of things that are outside of its scope to understand.

The flaws and lies in your link are enormous deceptions. There are as many holes in the points in the link, as there are missing missing-links in the fossil record = possibly millions, but more like billions or trillions.

Evolution is a pure and unadulterated hoax.

''the Bible is an accurate record'' It is not accurate if it's wrong on almost everything, the history taught in the bible is nowhere to be found. Flood? Noah's Ark? Talking snakes? None of those things existed, accurate because you say so? ROFL

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/evolutionexampl/

Slap yourself and wake up.

You forget the major thing about the Bible. And that is, the Bible isn't a scientific text in the terms of modern science. Rather, it is a religious text that uses the terms of an ancient race of people who had different ways of thinking than even their modern counterpart.

For simple example. The way that the Ancient Israel people calculated days and months and weeks was different than the way that we calculate them. It is possible that some Middle East folks still calculate them as did Ancient Israel, even though their governments have adopted the form used in Europe and America. See https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/what-is-the-biblical-day-week-month-year-and-does-it-really-matter/ to see what the "calendar" of Bible times was really like.

The point is, the Bible isn't wrong. Rather, modern science is trying to use it as a measurement in the wrong way.



EDIT: The real point, again, is that the Bible is an accurate record, and can be used accurately by those who have studied how to use it. Even if evolution wasn't backward in the way it is being applied - the truth is that the longer the time, the greater the chance for deterioration and destruction of beneficial mutations (assuming that there are some) - the Bible is a witness to the things that really happened.

Evolution is a hoax.

I just gave it to you. Proof against the bible is indeed proof that god is not real. An all knowing god wouldn't make mistakes, wouldn't let an outdated book to be the only ''proof'' of his existence either. Everything in the bible is pretty much wrong which indicates it was written by people to deceive other people.

You have 0 proof that god is real, already debunked everything in the other thread, most people accept evolution, religious, the pope, 99.99% of scientists. Only delusional people like flat earthers wouldn't accept it.

But, since nobody has that proof...

Oh that's right. Proof against the Bible isn't proof. It's just blabber.

Evolution is a hoax.

The bible is evidence that people who wrote it knew nothing about the world. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

It's proven that the bible is simply wrong on almost anything. Morals, science, history. God from the bible is proven beyond a doubt to be false.

The only clear place where we see 6,000 years is the Bible. Other literature or ideas are not clear on the 6,000-year point. And even the Bible was not meant to be a historical record that shows 6,000 years, even though it does.

How does the Bible show 6,000 years to, say, 6,200 years (not 10,000)? Indirectly. Here is the link that shows how the Bible does it - http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

Now, here is the important part that folks seem to not get. In verse 2 of Genesis 1, the ancient Hebrew for the word "was" (הָיְתָ֥ה) can, also, be translated as "became," even though such translation is not popular. If "became" were used, the picture would change entirely to a heavens and earth that that was created some (possibly great) time before the earth became formless and void, and that this "era" was started about 6,000 years ago.

In other words, an understanding of disruption of the physics of the pre-beginning universe is plausible. The beginning spoken of, might only be the beginning of this era of created things, where God made a new universal physics, the physics of the universe we have today. Yet, some of the old physics remains embedded in the new. And that is why we understand such a variety of possible ages for the universe. Present universal physics is not the same as it was prior to about 6,000 years ago. And 6,000 years ago was when the new beginning started, even though the old beginning was an indeterminable time prior to the new beginning.

At this point, in this thread, I'll not go into why and how the universe physics was changed, but there is evidence in the Bible for such.

Regarding the C-14 point, there is evidence in the Bible that C-14 was not in existence on earth before the Great Flood, which the Bible link, above, shows came about roughly 4,500 years ago. (If there happened to be some pre-4,500-year-ago C-14, it was in such limited quantities that we could never know for sure which C-14 we were working with. And that would further complicate accurate time measurement.)

I see. 6000 years is a hard one to defend! Even with skill there are just too many things past that age. Wonder what the take on dinosaurs is then? All those bones and not one older than 6000 years? Even if c14 method is a bit off, it should be a lot off to account for this timeframe.

According to the bible, the world and universe are about 6 to 10k years old at most. Obviously science has shown they are much older so that's already a big mistake. Badecker believes in creationism yet there is literally 0 evidence for it. He might think all the evidence we have for evolution is wrong but he doesn't even have 1 piece of evidence for his claim.

I had to go to page 1 of this thread to see what the original question was for this thread. “Why there are still monkeys around if they were part of our evolutionary beginnings”. Which is a rather easy question? Romans coins, in the millions, are also around, despite not being used for 1500 some years.
 
Evolution is a hoax according to you.  We spend 150 some pages of post arguing about that. I try and turn it around. If evolution is a hoax, how does it all work according to you? What is instead of evolution? creation?, limited evolution?, adoption?, something else? Are we carved in stone, all species?   

I have seen the number 6000 years several times in this thread, what is this number? Where does it come from, and what meaning does it have? Is it to be understood that nothing was before that time?

Bible is a great thing if you use it the right way. If you use it to teach people to do good and be good to others. But yeah it's not exactly a source of valid information and facts.

Does the bible explain anything? Do you know it's full of scientific mistakes and retarded laws? What's your IQ, <50 right?

Bible clearly disproved human evolution. And  even though our human knowledge have evolved so much in terms of science and technology yet,  Bible still a very concise reference. So Human evolution is indeed a hoax.

What the fuck? ''some crocs still can't stand up with two legs lol'' What? What are you talking about my dude?

I changed my stand to this topic. I use to think the result why crocs had legs because over millions of years the rivers dried up and they started finding better swamps and so they crawl and gradually their fins become legs. I'm not sure anymore after watching the some crocs still can't stand up with two legs lol. Anyway, I feel like there is a god, he is just not around anymore.

What would be a factual example of evolution in your opinion badecker? Do we have a factual example of spontaneous generation as stated in the bible? Ofc we don't. I gave you 100 examples of evolution and you copy pasted your shitty sentence for when you don't know how to argue against it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=examples+of+evolution

So very true

Are you really trying to say that rainbows aren't there because of what they are made up of?

Measure evolution data, and compare it to evolution theory. You can't do it, because according to evolution theory, there isn't any evolution. Things don't work like evolution theory suggests. If they did, we would have at least one factual example of evolution. But we have countless numbers of recognizable like-begets-like, and adaptation.

Evolution people are playing you, man... and maybe themselves, as well.

Scientific theory is not a hoax by a long shot. Scientific theory is a thing that is designed to change over time as new info is found out. Scientific theory only starts becoming a hoax when people start believing that it is the truth, when they know that multitudes of theories have been upgraded to something else. Scientific theory becomes a true hoax when believers in it express that it is the final authority on something, while they know that it is not.

For example. Black Hole Theory has been upgraded many times. And nobody knows for a fact that this theory is even near truth. Why not? Because they all know that black holes might be something entirely different than what BHT suggests. The current BHT simply gives them a place to continue investigating. So, they accept it as true all the while knowing it might not be.

The hoax is when they tout any current scientific theory as truth.