Self-Contradictions of the Bible

[ted]

How can a theory be a fact?

Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?

t.

[KeilanS]

Sorry to interrupt in the middle of this argument, but I was wondering if anyone did actually address all those points anywhere? I don't really have time to read all 90+ posts, so if it has been addressed, could you please point me to the post number? I am a believing Christian, but I would like to see some educated explanations to these apparant "contradictions".

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

No, its a theory and a fact.

Prove it.

Where are the transitional fossils that even Darwin said must exist for the theory to hold water.?

Peace,

Dave

[Ovedya]

"I'll leave you for now with a quote I found from a former atheist who discovered the truth through reason:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

--C.S. Lewis

An argument for God, but not necessarily the Christian God.

If it hasn't been mentioned qlready, C.S. Lewis was a Christian. The quote comes from "Mere Christianity." So, yes, it is an argument for the Christian God.

[Ovedya]

"I'll leave you for now with a quote I found from a former atheist who discovered the truth through reason:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

--C.S. Lewis

An argument for God, but not necessarily the Christian God.

If it hasn't been mentioned qlready, C.S. Lewis was a Christian. The quote comes from "Mere Christianity." So, yes, it is an argument for the Christian God.

[Arjuous]

How can a theory be a fact?

Wouldn't it have to be one or the other?

t.

Great question ted,

Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

First of all, what is a theory? A theory, in the scientific sense, is not a guess or a hypothesis. A hypothesis in science is more like an educated guess. A theory, however, is a conceptual framework that we use to make sense of conclusions and other observations that have already been made. A scientific theory requires a huge weight of evidence that already exists and has been accepted, scientifically, before it can be conceptualized.

How can the theory of evolution be fact as well? When we speak of evolution as fact, we are not talking about the theoretical framework, but something else. Evolution actually means "change." When we speak of it scientifically, it means the 'change in allele frequency over time,' which is constantly occurring, and is indisputable. Look it up.

Evolution is no more able to be disputed than the fact of gravity, the fact of human disease, the fact of chemical reactions taking place...

And it is no different than the other established scientific theories of gravitational theory in physics, germ theory also in biology, and atopic theory in physics and chemistry. Just as these are accepted by science and the public. Evolution is accepted by science, and should be accepted by the public.

[Arjuous]

Grace to you,

No, its a theory and a fact.

Prove it.

Where are the transitional fossils that even Darwin said must exist for the theory to hold water.?

Peace,

Dave

See above. And those fossils aren't necessary to prove the theory and the fact, both of which have been done and have been WHOLLY accepted by the scientific community, with ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, NONE! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM AS ANY SORT OF THEORY.

[Floatingaxe]

That's because Creationism is no theory! Science in your opinion may have accepted evolution, but it's because they refuse to accept any other explanation. The scientific community that doesn't know Christ is blind, and is a god unto itself!

[Arjuous]

That's because Creationism is no theory! Science in your opinion may have accepted evolution, but it's because they refuse to accept any other explanation. The scientific community that doesn't know Christ is blind, and is a god unto itself!

Right. There's absolutely no evidence for it, even the bible. The scientific community knows what is fact and what is not. The facts are that evolution is a part of nature, the earth is over 3 billion years old, and that the events assumed to describe the 'creation' in the bible are impossible.

[Floatingaxe]

That's because Creationism is no theory! Science in your opinion may have accepted evolution, but it's because they refuse to accept any other explanation. The scientific community that doesn't know Christ is blind, and is a god unto itself!

Right. There's absolutely no evidence for it, even the bible. The scientific community knows what is fact and what is not. The facts are that evolution is a part of nature, the earth is over 3 billion years old, and that the events assumed to describe the 'creation' in the bible are impossible.

You seem to miss the point that God himself is what you see in Science! Science points to God and His creation only---nothing else! All science points to God, the ultimate beginning of all things. He created distinct things apart from all others,apart from radical evolutionary change. There is no evidence to support evolution anywhere, because it never occurred!

God is so perfectly creative that He can make millions of distinct organisms apart from any other...no evolution is even necessary! He is supremely creative! Do not limit God.