PDA

View Full Version : Science at its worst



Interplanner
March 2nd, 2016, 09:53 PM
I followed a bit of the PBS Nature episode Mar.1, and all it did was reminded me how self-blinded scientists can be. 'The palantir only showed Denethor what Sauron wanted him to see--as another weapon to overthrow Gondor.'

In Patagonia, there is lots of buzz about recently found titanosaurus materials, including ACRES of scattered and broken eggshells. The shells are in good enough shape to see color, texture and final shape. The more useful discovery as far as the animals shape was the pile of bones, of course. (A further note on that below).

My point is that there is no way these ACRES of eggs are millions of years old, but only thousands. It's just not what happens in millions of years. Things don't have the crisp sharp edges in normal color etc.

Now, about the bones. What really seemed to be lacking was any diagramming of why the full site layout had the shape that it did. It was probably 150-200 feet from end to end and everything was contorted, twisted, etc. Instead they were removing things and 'analysing' them over at a remote lab. You could never do this in police forensics. I have seen other sites where they did indeed spend time with little flags, tags and markers to show what was where and how it related to the next, but here they were working with not one, but three bucket-loaders and with jackhammers to extract things. Jackhammers? Really? Everything to make sure it was 'dated' in millions of years before anyone could truly think through what happened. Don't want anyone thinking this was recent and slammed, jammed, blasted, pulverized by the fingers of huge oceans of water and ice gone bezerk in a massive global flood and vertical tectonic catastrophe!

Please review my DELUGE OF SUSPICIONS at Amazon.com. Free e.copies to those who want to review to contact me with PM or get me an address at www.interplans.net.

patrick jane
March 2nd, 2016, 10:06 PM
:think:

Nick M
March 2nd, 2016, 10:09 PM
:think:

Millions of years are not needed to make a fossil. Only the right conditions. How long? Surely less than 6000-10000 years. This tree was likely buried in Noah's flood.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Lycopsid_joggins_mcr1.JPG

Interplanner
March 5th, 2016, 08:11 PM
good point; lots of examples like that

SonOfCaleb
March 8th, 2016, 03:23 PM
The irony is there is no science empirical or otherwise that can date anything to millions of years. Such a technology to date that far into the past simply doesn't exist nor is known. These dates are merely just wild speculative guesses from so called experts in their field.
Somewhat also ironic that these wild estimates always seem to be nice round even numbers to 7 or 8 decimal places. The older the find the more 'credible' the 'Science' fiction, and generally speaking the more likelihood of procuring funding for new projects.

Carbon dating isn't capable of dating anything to more than a few thousand years and tolerances needs to be factored in when using Carbon dating depending on the state of the material that is being examined.

Pseudo Science was abundant in the late 19th Century. Its laughed at today. And yet not much has really changed..

Jose Fly
March 8th, 2016, 03:42 PM
It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) in action.

PureX
March 8th, 2016, 03:47 PM
It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) in action.I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.

Lon
March 8th, 2016, 04:25 PM
It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) in action.

Goes both ways on TOL :noway:

Nice of you to provide a link that is NOT your area of expertise illustrating the point, no?

Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating), I'm not science major, but this is a better response than your junk.

It seems that the argument is mostly against extrapolations. It looks to me that all data are extrapolated formula and guessing that the 50k limit of dating would apply without controversy. Such is an assumption, an educated guess. The problem? Every science book inaccurately gives data as if it were gospel. This is ever the problem with the science books. "Evolution-did-it" is just as bad, and imho, worse than "God-did-it." At least the one is true and the other a sloppy bin word that 'tells' and indoctrinates rather than describes and fosters better science understanding. "Evolution-did-it" is sloppy and inept conveyance.

Lon
March 8th, 2016, 04:27 PM
I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.
:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!

Jose Fly
March 8th, 2016, 04:39 PM
Nice of you to provide a link that is NOT your area of expertise illustrating the point, no?

???????? Did I dismiss an entire field of science that I'm not familiar with?


Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating), I'm not science major, but this is a better response than your junk.

Thanks.


It seems that the argument is mostly against extrapolations. It looks to me that all data are extrapolated formula and guessing that the 50k limit of dating would apply without controversy. Such is an assumption, an educated guess.

Can you cite the paper you read where they merely assume/guess in the manner you describe?


The problem? Every science book inaccurately gives data as if it were gospel.

Examples?


This is ever the problem with the science books. "Evolution-did-it" is just as bad, and imho, worse than "God-did-it." At least the one is true and the other a sloppy bin word that 'tells' and indoctrinates rather than describes and fosters better science understanding. "Evolution-did-it" is sloppy and inept conveyance.

Again, do you have specific examples of textbooks saying "evolution did it"?

Jose Fly
March 8th, 2016, 04:43 PM
:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!

Here, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life_and_education

Greg Jennings
March 8th, 2016, 04:43 PM
The irony is there is no science empirical or otherwise that can date anything to millions of years. Such a technology to date that far into the past simply doesn't exist nor is known. These dates are merely just wild speculative guesses from so called experts in their field.
Somewhat also ironic that these wild estimates always seem to be nice round even numbers to 7 or 8 decimal places. The older the find the more 'credible' the 'Science' fiction, and generally speaking the more likelihood of procuring funding for new projects.

Carbon dating isn't capable of dating anything to more than a few thousand years and tolerances needs to be factored in when using Carbon dating depending on the state of the material that is being examined.

Pseudo Science was abundant in the late 19th Century. Its laughed at today. And yet not much has really changed..

Never heard of K-Ar dating I take it? Or Rb-Sr? U-Pb?

It's pretty clear your lack of familiarity with the topic when you come out with "there's no way to date things; they're just guesses." Quit getting your info from AiG and use an actual scientific outlet

Lon
March 8th, 2016, 05:20 PM
Here, educate yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Early_life_and_education

Ah, is that all the further your own science prowess goes as well? Dabbling? It wasn't his degree. We've all had science classes, no? What are you wanting me to see here?

Jose Fly
March 8th, 2016, 05:38 PM
Ah, is that all the further your own science prowess goes as well? Dabbling? It wasn't his degree. We've all had science classes, no? What are you wanting me to see here?

Really? That's all you took from that? Darwin merely took a few courses?

Lon
March 8th, 2016, 06:27 PM
???????? Did I dismiss an entire field of science that I'm not familiar with?
First of all, there is a difference between familiarity and any degree of prowess.
Second, are you familiar or do you assert prowess regarding Dunning-Kruger?
I'd think, perhaps, that it would take a bit more than an armchair assessment to assert whether one is apt in the area or employing no cognition and yet asserting prowess. I have some science background, yet I avoid these topics generally in engagement. I have to read and research a lot more than others and the information doesn't come as readily.


Thanks.
Lest we forget your main objective on TOL isn't to carrying on meaningful or intelligent conversation. :Z

If ever there were a moment where that wasn't the focus and goal, such would be a rare but appreciative and meaningful moment of exchange.



Can you cite the paper you read where they merely assume/guess in the manner you describe?
Here (http://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/radiometric-age-dating.php) is a Christian that agrees with you, yet he asserts that these conclusions are extrapolations. He significantly believes because there are so many different extrapolations, that all agree, that the evidence points overwhelmingly to a specific age in approximation. Well, that's great, but it isn't important until, and unless we could do something about it with precision. An extrapolation like this doesn't help science, it is too broad as to be significantly meaningful (more later, but no good science is done by huge general figures that I'm aware of).



Examples?
Darwin was describing changes in finches and concluding that their beaks were adaptations. while I can agree with a lot of his observations, there is no reason to think 'evolution' or adaptation. Why? Because only a finch 'with' a stronger beak would have been able to crack the nut, or only one with a longer beak would have been able to reach into the bug hole. The point? It isn't 'adaptation.' This is an erroneous conclusion. The reason some finches had stronger beaks is they mated. That's it. The others either flew away or died. The reason some other had longer beaks is they mated. One of my kids may have a longer nose than the other. The only thing that would make longer nosed children afterwards is if they had kids with another with that trait. Evolution is a sloppy bin word where 'selection' (natural unecessary, it is either cognizant or climate related), etc. Using the overall bin word 'evolution' explains nothing and isn't as helpful as 'describing' what is going on. Evolution is such a large bin word that it loses its meaning and becomes nothing less than 'evolution-did-it' every time it is employed. We literally dumb-down science for kids and that's a shame. We'd all do MUCH better to describe what we are seeing. In this case: "Finches on this island have harder shorter beaks. Finches on this island have a longer and more slender beak. How did it happen?" Darwin didn't do that, he speculated as do most scientists. it is the way to get published by sensationalism. I believe my description of finch differentiation much more appreciable than Darwin's summary of 'why' it happened. Telling students 'what' happened accurately is better than an indoctrinating summary that can very well be wrong. Too often, science jumps to the indoctrinating 'tell.' Short-cuts cut off scientific inquiry. It is the difference between indoctrination and guided inquiry. One is exponentially better in a discipline trying to foster that kind of thinking in the first place. Science isn't math or religion, it teaches 'how to think' more than it is supposed to be giving unassailable answers. In fact, assailing and questioning is how science is supposed to be getting students to think about it's discipline. It is odd then, that science is so stubborn and threatened by theology especially Christianity, when these are the ones actually asking questions and employing, however carefully, the scientific method!


Again, do you have specific examples of textbooks saying "evolution did it"?
Yes, at every turn. Look here (http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/2#2) They throw in 'evolution' as the conclusion of the observations. One might agree with everything a scientist says, only to be shut down and walk away in dispute all because of the conclusion disagreement that isn't necessary. My brother and daughter are both science majors (one complete, the other in pursuit). They often differ on 'evolution' as conclusion yet are fully capable of doing excellent science. Why? Because agreeing with conclusion isn't what science is all about. Science is about discovering what works consistently and employing it. Simply disagreeing on the end description is unnecessary when both are agreeing on the data and what happens when such is applied to such. IOW, you, and other scientists and perhaps yes, we theologians can too, take some blame, over assert and ruin good science inquiry where we could do a lot of good if we'd just suck up our prideful conclusions. "Evolution" nor "ID" are necessary to cure cancer. Investigation and trial/error (the scientific method) is more important than indoctrination conclusions in the field of science, yet here we are arguing over exactly that. It doesn't matter to any science whether the earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. Why? Because we have no way to actually tell. Science is exacting and needs exacting measures to function. A ballpark doesn't do anything for any field of science, not even geology.

Lon
March 8th, 2016, 06:33 PM
Really? That's all you took from that? Darwin merely took a few courses?
I got the gist. I've seen a few different renditions regarding his prowess. How would you suggest I balance those all out? It is certainly clear from even this article that it wasn't his primary degree or focus at the time. It should be even noted he showed no academic prowess, according to your article but preferred shooting and riding to actually studying. What did you happen to see beyond these?

My point? Not that Darwin didn't have prowess, but rather is a degree necessary for discussion? It seems to me that the Dunning-Kruger comment was nothing more than a dismissive debate employment. True?

Stripe
March 8th, 2016, 06:56 PM
I followed a bit of the PBS Nature episode Mar.1, and all it did was reminded me how self-blinded scientists can be. 'The palantir only showed Denethor what Sauron wanted him to see--as another weapon to overthrow Gondor.'

In Patagonia, there is lots of buzz about recently found titanosaurus materials, including ACRES of scattered and broken eggshells. The shells are in good enough shape to see color, texture and final shape. The more useful discovery as far as the animals shape was the pile of bones, of course. (A further note on that below).

My point is that there is no way these ACRES of eggs are millions of years old, but only thousands. It's just not what happens in millions of years. Things don't have the crisp sharp edges in normal color etc.

Now, about the bones. What really seemed to be lacking was any diagramming of why the full site layout had the shape that it did. It was probably 150-200 feet from end to end and everything was contorted, twisted, etc. Instead they were removing things and 'analysing' them over at a remote lab. You could never do this in police forensics. I have seen other sites where they did indeed spend time with little flags, tags and markers to show what was where and how it related to the next, but here they were working with not one, but three bucket-loaders and with jackhammers to extract things. Jackhammers? Really? Everything to make sure it was 'dated' in millions of years before anyone could truly think through what happened. Don't want anyone thinking this was recent and slammed, jammed, blasted, pulverized by the fingers of huge oceans of water and ice gone bezerk in a massive global flood and vertical tectonic catastrophe!
The "scientific literature," which is how Darwinists refer to articles that conform to their religion, has almost no regard for the setting in which dead animals are found. There is usually nothing written about the position bones were found in, their relation to other finds, the type of rock encasing them, the position of the find within the strata, the layers above and below or the vertical extension of the fossil.

They skip all the forensic evidence in favor of a story about how the creature evolved.

SonOfCaleb
March 9th, 2016, 07:52 AM
Never heard of K-Ar dating I take it? Or Rb-Sr? U-Pb?

It's pretty clear your lack of familiarity with the topic when you come out with "there's no way to date things; they're just guesses." Quit getting your info from AiG and use an actual scientific outlet


Id prefer to deal with facts rather than hyperbole and your straw man statements, none of which are true in regards to me or what scientific journals, or source material i frequent.

So putting your hubris to one side and the above qoute which you've twisted and conviniently taken out of the context of what i actually said, matter of fact its clearly NOT what i said, are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not. For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....

PureX
March 9th, 2016, 09:01 AM
:doh: Darwin was a theologian, NOT a scientist. ALL of science is taking its cue from a man without a science degree or qualification. Talk about your Dunning-Kruger!There were no science degrees in Darwin's time.

Darwin was a scientist because he used the scientific method for investigating physical reality. That is the definition of a scientist, after all, not; 'humans possessing a science degree'.

Modern scientists are not 'following Darwin' the way religionists follow their religion. Modern scientists have used the scientific method to test and determine for themselves that most of Darwin's conclusions and predictions were accurate.

But of course you will remain willfully ignorant of all of this, because your religion is based on willful ignorance, rather then on honesty or a genuine interest in the truth.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 09:56 AM
There were no science degrees in Darwin's time.
Darwin was a scientist because he used the scientific method for investigating physical reality. That is the definition of a scientist, after all, not; 'humans possessing a science degree'.
:think: Jose disagrees with you. He thinks you must have a degree. My point was simply to point out that Darwin didn't either.
:think: Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi.

Modern scientists are not 'following Darwin' the way religionists follow their religion. Modern scientists have used the scientific method to test and determine for themselves that most of Darwin's conclusions and predictions were accurate.
That darn Darwin fish-ape-man chart is still so hard to get away from on science walls. Some have said they 'just like it' from a by-gone erroneous era and in tribute to the man :think: Christians were against the chart long before it was wrong in science circles too. :think:

But of course you will remain willfully ignorant of all of this, because your religion is based on willful ignorance, rather then on honesty or a genuine interest in the truth.
I don't think you dishonest, I think you Archie-Bunker-prejudice and consistently terrible/wrong at proper assessment because of the prejudism.

PureX
March 9th, 2016, 10:25 AM
Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi. I made no mention whatever of this "Dunning-Kruger accusation". I explain my own positions well enough.

That darn Darwin fish-ape-man chart is still so hard to get away from on science walls. Some have said they 'just like it' from a by-gone erroneous era and in tribute to the man :think: Christians were against the chart long before it was wrong in science circles too. :think: When you finally bother to learn what the theory of evolution proposes, we'll discuss it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own hiney.

I don't think you dishonest, I think you Archie-Bunker-prejudice and consistently terrible/wrong at proper assessment because of the prejudism.The problem is that you don't think at all. You just auto-defend your own ignorance. And as a result you learn mostly nothing.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 10:29 AM
I made no mention whatever of this "Dunning-Kruger accusation".:think:


The Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) in action.
I was thinking the same thing.


I explain my own positions well enough.
When you finally bother to learn what the theory of evolution proposes, we'll discuss it. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up your own hiney.
The problem is that you don't think at all. You just auto-defend your own ignorance. And as a result you learn mostly nothing.
The unfounded assertion game one of your preferred? You 'think' weird about things and are consistently wrong. I've been addressing items in thread. You are attempting to address my character flaws, real or imagined :Plain:

PureX
March 9th, 2016, 10:46 AM
It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

I was thinking the same thing. And even more amazing is the fact that the absurdity of this never seems to occur to them. As though it's just an automatic given that they see so much more in the span of a few minutes than all the scientists of the world can see in a lifetime of in-depth study.

See, I can edit, too.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 10:57 AM
See, I can edit, too.

:doh: That IS the Dunning Kruger effect you are/were agreeing with. Simply removing the label does nothing to distance yourself :Plain:

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 11:08 AM
I don't see it as Dunning Kruger, it's the fetish making tendency of the brain that leads people to confuse faith with cultural religious story telling. If 6 day creationism wasn't in the Bible then old earth scientific observation would be common sense to these same people. It's not because it sounds reasonable, it's because it's in the Bible and they tend not to be honest with themselves or others about their doubts because those doubts are called a lack of faith in the faith community. One poster on this site once frankly confessed that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese they would have to believe it.

The priesthood, a derivation of the medicine man and shaman, has long exploited fear and superstition to it's ends since evolution first produced the religious impulse.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 11:20 AM
I don't see it as Dunning Kruger, it's the fetish making tendency of the brain that leads people to confuse faith with cultural religious story telling.... One poster on this site once frankly confessed that if the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese they would have to believe it.

I'd believe the moon was made of cheese before I'd believe the U-rant-ia book and it's make-believe aliens, if I were forced to a choice.

The field of science is 'about' questioning veracity and fostering inquiry and further-inquiry. It should not matter if Christianity or any other dare question results. Results is the secondary objective of the field of science. Scientific results are the primary goal of marketing and capitalism, not science. These politically steer and fund science but there is nothing I see but a commercial need for scientific dogmatism. That isn't part of science but others try to marry indoctrination to it. That isn't what this field is at all about. Other study disciplines do, but not science.

PureX
March 9th, 2016, 11:37 AM
:doh: That IS the Dunning Kruger effect you are/were agreeing with. Simply removing the label does nothing to distance yourself :Plain:I didn't bring it up, I didn't refer to it, and I don't care how you or Jose label it. It's your problem to face, and to deal with. I already explained how I saw it.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 12:05 PM
:doh:

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 01:14 PM
First of all, there is a difference between familiarity and any degree of prowess.
Second, are you familiar or do you assert prowess regarding Dunning-Kruger?

Come on Lon, pay attention. Am I dismissing an entire field of science, even though I don't know anything about it?


Here (http://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/radiometric-age-dating.php) is a Christian that agrees with you, yet he asserts that these conclusions are extrapolations. He significantly believes because there are so many different extrapolations, that all agree, that the evidence points overwhelmingly to a specific age in approximation.

And where in that are the assumptions and mere guesses that you accused geochronologists of engaging in?


An extrapolation like this doesn't help science, it is too broad as to be significantly meaningful (more later, but no good science is done by huge general figures that I'm aware of).

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think anyone is going to take your empty say-so over the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts who actually work in the field?


Darwin was describing changes in finches and concluding that their beaks were adaptations. while I can agree with a lot of his observations, there is no reason to think 'evolution' or adaptation.

Again, pay better attention. You claimed that there was a "problem with science books" in that they "indoctrinate" by asserting "evolution did it". Where are your examples of such books doing that?


Why? Because only a finch 'with' a stronger beak would have been able to crack the nut, or only one with a longer beak would have been able to reach into the bug hole. The point? It isn't 'adaptation.' This is an erroneous conclusion. The reason some finches had stronger beaks is they mated. That's it. The others either flew away or died. The reason some other had longer beaks is they mated. One of my kids may have a longer nose than the other. The only thing that would make longer nosed children afterwards is if they had kids with another with that trait.

Ok, to be totally honest....that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If that's reflective of the extent of your knowledge of biology, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

It's no different than someone trying to act like they're an expert on the Bible, but in doing so saying "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper".


Evolution is a sloppy bin word where 'selection' (natural unecessary, it is either cognizant or climate related), etc. Using the overall bin word 'evolution' explains nothing and isn't as helpful as 'describing' what is going on. Evolution is such a large bin word that it loses its meaning and becomes nothing less than 'evolution-did-it' every time it is employed.

Given the level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth a thing.


Yes, at every turn. Look here (http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/2#2)

I didn't see the phrase "evolution did it" anywhere in there.


They throw in 'evolution' as the conclusion of the observations. One might agree with everything a scientist says, only to be shut down and walk away in dispute all because of the conclusion disagreement that isn't necessary. My brother and daughter are both science majors (one complete, the other in pursuit). They often differ on 'evolution' as conclusion yet are fully capable of doing excellent science. Why? Because agreeing with conclusion isn't what science is all about.

You're not making any sense at all.


Science is about discovering what works consistently and employing it.

Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century. It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing.

So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless.


Simply disagreeing on the end description is unnecessary when both are agreeing on the data and what happens when such is applied to such. IOW, you, and other scientists and perhaps yes, we theologians can too, take some blame, over assert and ruin good science inquiry where we could do a lot of good if we'd just suck up our prideful conclusions. "Evolution" nor "ID" are necessary to cure cancer. Investigation and trial/error (the scientific method) is more important than indoctrination conclusions in the field of science, yet here we are arguing over exactly that. It doesn't matter to any science whether the earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old. Why? Because we have no way to actually tell. Science is exacting and needs exacting measures to function. A ballpark doesn't do anything for any field of science, not even geology.

Again, given the astounding level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth anything.


I got the gist. I've seen a few different renditions regarding his prowess. How would you suggest I balance those all out? It is certainly clear from even this article that it wasn't his primary degree or focus at the time. It should be even noted he showed no academic prowess, according to your article but preferred shooting and riding to actually studying. What did you happen to see beyond these?

Never mind.


It seems to me that the Dunning-Kruger comment was nothing more than a dismissive debate employment. True?

No, it was a valid observation. In this thread we have people who obviously don't know the first thing about radiometric dating methods, yet have deemed themselves qualified to critique it. That is a very good illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

If someone said, "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper", would you consider that person to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to critique it? Would you take that person's assertions about the Bible as unquestioned gospel?

No? Now you know how we view your assertions about biology.

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 01:21 PM
are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not.

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think if "SonOfCaleb" in a religious internet board says something is so, everyone else will accept it as unquestioned gospel?


For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....

How about you start by explaining the mechanism that causes isotopes that decay via alpha decay to give the same results as isotopes that decay via electron capture?

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 01:23 PM
:think: Jose disagrees with you. He thinks you must have a degree. My point was simply to point out that Darwin didn't either.
:think: Interesting you'd jump on board with the Dunning-Kruger accusation. When it is convenient? Another pos repped me and told me Edison didn't have a science degree either. Dunning-Kruger? Seems to be some prejudism among the hoiti toiti concering the hoi poi.

Um....the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't about having degrees. :duh:

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 01:30 PM
I'd believe the moon was made of cheese before I'd believe the U-rant-ia book and it's make-believe aliens, if I were forced to a choice.

The field of science is 'about' questioning veracity and fostering inquiry and further-inquiry. It should not matter if Christianity or any other dare question results. Results is the secondary objective of the field of science. Scientific results are the primary goal of marketing and capitalism, not science. These politically steer and fund science but there is nothing I see but a commercial need for scientific dogmatism. That isn't part of science but others try to marry indoctrination to it. That isn't what this field is at all about. Other study disciplines do, but not science.


Well there is what the UB calls "atheistic science", that's science with an agenda, so we would agree on that. And my book doesn't have iron chariots that are more powerful than God (in reality the so called Israelites simply lost the stupid battle, get over it already).

Real science provides real facts and those facts conflict with the Babylonian Hebrews fictional recasting of Hebrew history, written for sheep headers. Scientific facts destroy a great bit of the superstition of religion.

And for the record, the Bible has an alien appearing to Mary to inform her that his alien boss was growing inside of her. You've just been given those facts in a tidy religious package thick with speculation.

6days
March 9th, 2016, 02:02 PM
Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century
Actually.... its a superfluous idea. Its a superfluous idea not only according to many creationists, but even according to some anti-creationists such as Larry Witham, author of "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America'...published by Oxford Press

“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote. “Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families."



It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences.
Nonsense. You are doing your best be an evangelist for evolutionism, but more like a snake oil salesman.

Comparative genomics is based on homology, mutation rates, genetic drift etc... Nothing at all to do with common ancestry beliefs.


It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria.
A laughable...silly argument. Both Biblical creationists and atheistic evolutionists perform the same research developing vaccines and antibiotics. They have different beliefs about the past...both observe the ability of bacteria to change into bacteria, and viruses into viruses. But only the evolutionists then think that is evidence that a bug change into a biologist.


Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing.
Peter Harrison, former professor of history and philosophy (and science and Religion at the University of Oxford) says...
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science. …

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”




So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless.
Actually, modern science is founded largely on Biblical beliefs. Evolutionism though has been a cause of genocides, abortuarys, the holocaust, increased racism and often shoddy medical conclusions that has hindered science and harmed people.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 02:02 PM
Um....the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't about having degrees. :duh:

...people who don't know the first thing about a field of science.

... an entire field of science.... geochronologists....the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts...actually...in the field?

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 02:44 PM
Come on Lon, pay attention. Am I dismissing an entire field of science, even though I don't know anything about it? Like religion? Yeah, I do see that. Oh, you mean 'science.' :Plain:

And where in that are the assumptions and mere guesses that you accused geochronologists of engaging in? You don't pay attention to me either, not that either of us owe the other that :Plain:

Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think anyone is going to take your empty say-so over the long-standing consensus conclusions of the experts who actually work in the field?
Of course not, let's not worry about it and just keep doing court cases the rest of eternity :Plain:

Again, pay better attention. You claimed that there was a "problem with science books" in that they "indoctrinate" by asserting "evolution did it". Where are your examples of such books doing that?
You just above showed your disdain as well as again illustrated you are not on TOL for intelligent conversation. My example would 'easily' be dismissed, no? :Plain:

Ok, to be totally honest....that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. If that's reflective of the extent of your knowledge of biology, then I'll just let that speak for itself.
Like you, I have several fields of study and so you don't rate on my radar either. It is mutual :Plain:
There is never an excuse for a scientist to even say such a thing (reserving inane vitriol for another time by contrast). See here (http://evolution.about.com/od/Darwin/a/Charles-Darwins-Finches.htm) While no scientist wants to disagree with Gould, this particular 'evolution expert' says the finches were all the same but the beaks. Well, that is not speciation and so much for your inept assessment here. Nice try, but you make me question your 'science' degree at every turn. :Plain:

It's no different than someone trying to act like they're an expert on the Bible, but in doing so saying "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper". You certainly are not. :Plain:

Given the level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth a thing. Given your inept supposed 'science-expertise' assessment, your input isn't desired anyway :noway:

I didn't see the phrase "evolution did it" anywhere in there.
Again you don't pay attention, but lest we forget, you are not here for that reason anyway. You are inept.

You're not making any sense at all. Incredibly better than you are but again, lest any forget, you are here for fun and ridicule, not some noble scientific pursuit, by your own admission.

Yep, and evolution has served as the unifying framework for the life sciences for over a century. It's the basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we figure out the functions of genetic sequences. It informs us on things like vaccine development and antibiotic resistant bacteria. I'd disagree but "something something something stupidest thing I've ever read..." No? You make your own bed here on TOL, Jose. Nobody looks for anything but mockery and 'fun' from you because that is your only stated purpose. I use you to make points regarding your honesty and integrity as well as any scientific prowess you assert you possess. I doubt your capabilities given that is your stated reason for TOL existence.

Over the same period of time, creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science. Not one thing. Pure assertion on your part. Creationists were against the fish to man chart long before science admitted it was an incorrect portrayal as well.

So on that basis alone, evolution is clearly superior to creationism, which is utterly useless. And this falls in line with your fun and mocking purposes on TOL :Plain:

Again, given the astounding level of ignorance of basic biology you displayed above, your opinions on the subject aren't worth anything. Way to over-play, over-assert your science prowess :noway:

Never mind. Pretty much as I think of the piece of paper your degree is written on could produce at this point :Plain:

No, it was a valid observation. In this thread we have people who obviously don't know the first thing about radiometric dating methods, yet have deemed themselves qualified to critique it. That is a very good illustration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I'd disagree for two reasons 1) Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to laymen websites like this one directly. The expertise for this website is whatever allows for cross-over discussion between science and religion. If you understand this, you are 'half' qualified potentially. 2) The website being laymen, is graced by those with any particular degree. You 'could' be a valued person here. You choose not to be but it is no reason for the disdain that you may possess the degree. It again amounts to your elitist self-love and infatuation disdaining the hoi poi and pretty much the essence of this repost of your's

If someone said, "When Noah took the 10 Commandments to Joseph and broke them on the Ark of the Covenant, Lot's wife got so mad she turned into salt and pepper", would you consider that person to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the Bible to critique it? Would you take that person's assertions about the Bible as unquestioned gospel?First, I don't think the comparison viable because this wouldn't be said by a cognizant individual trying to assert something. I suppose there is something to how prideful the guy is asserting that which is wrong. I don't think this passes comparison viability, Jose.

No? Now you know how we view your assertions about biology.
:Plain: You demean your own profession. :Z

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 03:13 PM
True, the church and all of it's associated superstition and pseudo-biographical claims held people in the bondage of ignorance for ages. But simply put, people had enough of your distortions of history and threats of magic spells! They grew a set, risked torture and murder by the Christian religion in order to pursue the real world of facts. It was only a matter of time before the sins of religion would be exposed.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 03:25 PM
... book doesn't have iron chariots that are more powerful than God (in reality the so called Israelites simply lost the stupid battle, get over it already).Aren't and weren't you just a sloppy theologian?
:think: Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. See Judges 1:27-32 after that. It isn't that "God" couldn't, but that "Judah" couldn't, and the incorrect reason why. Sad you rely on atheist websites for your information :(


Real science provides real facts and those facts conflict with the Babylonian Hebrews fictional recasting of Hebrew history, written for sheep headers. Scientific facts destroy a great bit of the superstition of religion. You sadly, settle for two-dimensional answers, such is your adherence to your book. My brother and daughter do science just fine holding on to the Bible truths and their fields of science (biology both of them).

And for the record, the Bible has an alien appearing to Mary to inform her that his alien boss was growing inside of her. You've just been given those facts in a tidy religious package thick with speculation.
:nono: A spiritual being is not to be confused with science-fiction and this kind of inaccurate assessment does indeed confuse the two. The UB sloppily conflates them but not the Bible.

True, the church and all of it's associated superstition and pseudo-biographical claims held people in the bondage of ignorance for ages. But simply put, people had enough of your distortions of history and threats of magic spells! They grew a set, risked torture and murder by the Christian religion in order to pursue the real world of facts. It was only a matter of time before the sins of religion would be exposed.
I've no problem with corrections. They do have to come from within the walls with those of vested interest, however. You again are uncritically sloppy here with your vernacular, however. There is no superstition or magic :Plain:

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 04:25 PM
Actually.... its a superfluous idea. Its a superfluous idea not only according to many creationists, but even according to some anti-creationists such as Larry Witham, author of "Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America'...published by Oxford Press

Given that Witham is a journalist/artist, I really don't care about his opinions on biology. At the very least his opinions are secondary to the actual facts on the ground.


The annual programs of science conventions also tell the story. When the zoologists met in 1995 (and changed their name to the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology), just a few dozen of the 400 academic papers read were on evolution. The North American Paleontological Convention of 1996 featured 430 papers, but only a few included the word ‘evolution’ in their titles. The 1998 AAS meeting organised 150 scientific sessions, but just 5 focused on evolution—as it relates to biotechnology, the classification of species, language, race and primate families."

As you've been shown before, we can go to the most prestigious journal in the world (PNAS) and do a search for papers that have the word "evolution" either in the title or abstract. The results? Over 4,000 papers at just this one journal in the last 20 years (that's over 80 per year) (http://www.pnas.org/search?tmonth=Jan&pubdate_year=&submit=yes&submit=yes&submit=Submit&andorexacttitle=and&format=standard&firstpage=&fmonth=Jan&title=&tyear=2016&hits=10&titleabstract=evolution&volume=&sortspec=relevance&andorexacttitleabs=and&author2=&tocsectionid=all&andorexactfulltext=and&author1=&fyear=1996&doi=&fulltext=).

If we go to the journal Nature and do the same type of search, we get almost 3,000 papers (http://www.nature.com/search?date_range=1996-2016&order=relevance&title=evolution).

In 2005, the AAAS (the folks who publish the journal Science) named "Watching evolution in action" the Breakthrough of the Year (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5756/1878.full).

Where's the equivalent from creationism?


Nonsense. You are doing your best be an evangelist for evolutionism, but more like a snake oil salesman.

Comparative genomics is based on homology, mutation rates, genetic drift etc... Nothing at all to do with common ancestry beliefs.

You're just plain wrong 6days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics#Evolutionary_principles). MORE (https://www.genome.gov/25521739) and MORE (http://www.nature.com/subjects/comparative-genomics).

What I can't figure out is why you think your "Nuh uh" baseless say-so is more compelling than the consensus view among the people who actually work in the field.


A laughable...silly argument. Both Biblical creationists and atheistic evolutionists perform the same research developing vaccines and antibiotics. They have different beliefs about the past...both observe the ability of bacteria to change into bacteria, and viruses into viruses. But only the evolutionists then think that is evidence that a bug change into a biologist.

Really? What vaccines have been developed based on the "Biblical model of creation"?


Peter Harrison, former professor of history and philosophy (and science and Religion at the University of Oxford) says...
“Strange as it may seem, the Bible played a positive role in the development of science.

What has creationism contributed in the last 100 years?


Evolutionism though has been a cause of genocides, abortuarys, the holocaust, increased racism and often shoddy medical conclusions that has hindered science and harmed people.

Your desperate mud slinging is noted.

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 04:29 PM
Aren't and weren't you just a sloppy theologian?
:think: Deuteronomy 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. See Judges 1:27-32 after that. It isn't that "God" couldn't, but that "Judah" couldn't, and the incorrect reason why. Sad you rely on atheist websites for your information :(

You sadly, settle for two-dimensional answers, such is your adherence to your book. My brother and daughter do science just fine holding on to the Bible truths and their fields of science (biology both of them).

:nono: A spiritual being is not to be confused with science-fiction and this kind of inaccurate assessment does indeed confuse the two. The UB sloppily conflates them but not the Bible.

I've no problem with corrections. They do have to come from within the walls with those of vested interest, however. You again are uncritically sloppy here with your vernacular, however. There is no superstition or magic :Plain:

Bible worshipers have an onboard reality translator in their brains which everything must pass through in order to maintain the holy mans claim that God wrote the Bible. And yes, there are plenty of so called Christian scientist who must do the same thing to maintain misapplied faith and credibility at the same time. When the Bible says God was unable to defeat Iron chariots the Bible worshiper runs that through the theology translator to get the desired results. It's a form of self delusion.

In the UB we know that the Israelites intermixed with the Canaanites and they still are a mixture. When the Hebrew redactors rewrote and exaggerated all those old stories they left clues of the former and more accurate history. They had no idea we would one day have DNA and genetics. The Canaanites were never driven out completely.

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 04:37 PM
They had no idea we would one day have DNA and genetics. The Canaanites were never driven out completely.It is statements like this that make me think you've never read a verse of the Bible in your life :(

Genesis 36:2

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 04:43 PM
Like religion? Yeah, I do see that. Oh, you mean 'science.'

Yes, I mean science. I take your consistent dodging is an indication that you can't answer the question.


You don't pay attention to me either, not that either of us owe the other that

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your accusation.


Of course not

Then why do you keep doing it?


You just above showed your disdain as well as again illustrated you are not on TOL for intelligent conversation. My example would 'easily' be dismissed, no?

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your claim that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".


Like you, I have several fields of study and so you don't rate on my radar either. It is mutual :Plain:
There is never an excuse for a scientist to even say such a thing (reserving inane vitriol for another time by contrast). See here (http://evolution.about.com/od/Darwin/a/Charles-Darwins-Finches.htm) While no scientist wants to disagree with Gould, this particular 'evolution expert' says the finches were all the same but the beaks. Well, that is not speciation and so much for your inept assessment here. Nice try, but you make me question your 'science' degree at every turn.

All you're showing is that you don't know the first thing about biology, let alone evolutionary biology. Yet for some reason you apparently think yourself qualified to critique it.

That's a very good personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.


Given your inept supposed 'science-expertise' assessment, your input isn't desired anyway

Point out specifically where I've said anything wrong about science. Or is this yet another of your baseless accusations?


Again you don't pay attention, but lest we forget, you are not here for that reason anyway. You are inept.

Again I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you cannot back up your accusation that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".


I'd disagree

So what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?


Pure assertion on your part.

Then show me wrong...answer the question no other creationist here can even attempt to answer: What has creationism contributed to science in the last 100 years?


I'd disagree for two reasons 1) Dunning-Kruger doesn't apply to laymen websites like this one directly.

???????? Yes it does. In fact, it's specifically about laypeople (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."

What part of "relatively unskilled persons" is beyond your ability to comprehend?


2) The website being laymen, is graced by those with any particular degree. You 'could' be a valued person here. You choose not to be but it is no reason for the disdain that you may possess the degree. It again amounts to your elitist self-love and infatuation disdaining the hoi poi and pretty much the essence of this repost of your's

Again, you make no sense at all.


First, I don't think the comparison viable because this wouldn't be said by a cognizant individual trying to assert something.

It's the equivalent of the ignorance of basic biology you've displayed.

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 04:55 PM
It is statements like this that make me think you've never read a verse of the Bible in your life :(

Genesis 36:2

I've read it and can see it's many contradictions.


…2So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." 3The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah.


The Israelites never did destroy all the Canaanites and certainly God never told them to kill them. That's the Hebrews nationalist history revisionism. Its the history written by the kind of people who killed Jesus.

6days
March 9th, 2016, 05:13 PM
I've read it and can see it's many contradictions.


…2So Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, "If You will indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities." 3The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah.


The Israelites never did destroy all the Canaanites and certainly God never told them to kill them. That's the Hebrews nationalist history revisionism. Its the history written by the kind of people who killed Jesus.
Caino.....
God's Word has no contradictions.
Would you day that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 05:23 PM
Yes, I mean science. I take your consistent dodging is an indication that you can't answer the question.I've already done so. You being inept? Yep. Your narcissistic prowess is unassailable. You aren't here for intelligence anyway. "Fun" and "mockery" are not noble pursuits. You aren't honest enough to do anything but show narcissism, disdain, and worthless canards. I'm again, merely giving you ample opportunity to disdain your own profession with this kind of contempt.

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your accusation.
Then why do you keep doing it? 1) already have provided examples and 2) I don't owe you, superfly.

Again, I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you can't back up your claim that textbooks merely state "evolution did it".
Likewise, I've never said "god-did-it." Rather, the contention is that is the given sentiment, repeatedly. Look for 'through evolution' or 'through evolutionary processes.' IOW, "Evolution-did-it. :Plain:

All you're showing is that you don't know the first thing about biology, let alone evolutionary biology. Yet for some reason you apparently think yourself qualified to critique it.
Hate to bust the bank, but every student knows the first thing about biology. Every student does NOT know the first thing about Biblical truth. Your narcissism is misplaced :Plain:

That's a very good personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect. See above, you are inept.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.
See above, everyone has a good grasp of basic biology, champ.

Point out specifically where I've said anything wrong about science. Or is this yet another of your baseless accusations?
Having taught this, I try to 'foster' scientific inquiry, not stroke my narcissism, superfly. You obviously don't read links. :noway: Regarding science, not reading it means you are inept. You couldn't even have been bothered to read the paper where she said the beaks were the only differentiation. And, as we've established, you are here to find fodder for further inane office/lab mockery, not to discuss science intelligently. As I said, I think you have a degree and all but what you have to do in mindless repetition in a lab somewhere is forgotten. You certainly show me little to no prowess but instead this mindless inanity. You are easily humored by simpleton expressions, Superfly.


Again I take your consistent dodging as an indication that you cannot back up your accusation that textbooks merely state "evolution did it". You are an inane broken record. Being you are only looking for the inane mockery or 'fun' no surprise, superfly :yawn: As I said, you don't listen so it is expected.


So what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field? See the narcissism there, Superfly? If I could get you to see your own detestable self, perhaps you'd stop being narcissistic and detestable...


Then show me wrong...answer the question no other creationist here can even attempt to answer: What has creationism contributed to science in the last 100 years? I just told you and you are being ingenuine or dishonest, 6-days provided you quotes. How narcissistic are you? How hoi poi...(never mind, this much is obvious Mr. Hoiti Toiti.

???????? Yes it does. In fact, it's specifically about laypeople.
Whether
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is."
What part of "relatively unskilled persons" is beyond your ability to comprehend?
within atheist circles, this effect has taken on a pop-psychology in preference and portrayal, such as you've given here. It doesn't say much for you and only further lessens my opinion of any kind of prowess your narcissism employs.

Again, you make no sense at all. I'm certain to the uninitiated narcissistic superfly, this is true.

It's the equivalent of the ignorance of basic biology you've displayed.
Assertion without substance :yawn:

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 05:24 PM
Caino.....
God's Word has no contradictions.
Would you day that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?
I agree that Gods true Wird has no real contradiction, but the written word is fraught with contradiction and inaccurate history. The Bible was written and rewritten by men.

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 05:46 PM
I've already done so.

You did? Where did you specify what field of science I am dismissing?


1) already have provided examples

No you didn't. You accused geochronologists of merely guessing and assuming things, yet you can't point to a single example of them doing so.


the contention is that is the given sentiment, repeatedly. Look for 'through evolution' or 'through evolutionary processes.' IOW, "Evolution-did-it.

Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields (genetic algorithms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm)).

In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.

Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?

Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed?


Hate to bust the bank, but every student knows the first thing about biology.

Not you...you've made your ignorance of the subject very obvious.


Having taught this, I try to 'foster' scientific inquiry, not stroke my narcissism, superfly. You obviously don't read links. :noway: Regarding science, not reading it means you are inept. You couldn't even have been bothered to read the paper where she said the beaks were the only differentiation. And, as we've established, you are here to find fodder for further inane office/lab mockery, not to discuss science intelligently. As I said, I think you have a degree and all but what you have to do in mindless repetition in a lab somewhere is forgotten. You certainly show me little to no prowess but instead this mindless inanity. You are easily humored but simpleton expressions, Superfly.

I take your repeated dodging as an indication that you can't point to anything wrong I've said about science.


See the narcissism there, Superfly? If I could get you to see your own detestable self, perhaps you'd stop being narcissistic and detestable...

Another dodge. Again, what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?


I just told you and you are being ingenuine or dishonest, 6-days provided you quotes. How narcissistic are you? How hoi poi...(never mind, this much is obvious Mr. Hoiti Toiti.

So the two of you actually think science is less than 100 years old? Remember, the question was for you to name something creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years. Since you both try and answer by saying that creationism is what led to scientific study, that must mean you both think science only started less than 100 years ago.

Thus, either you two are hilariously ignorant of the history of science, or you're very dishonest. Which is it?


within atheist circles, this effect has taken on a pop-psychology in preference and portrayal, such as you've given here.

Folks like you are a very good illustration of the effect. You both demonstrate your ignorance of biology while simultaneously anointing yourself sufficiently qualified to critique it.


Assertion without substance :yawn:

Your post about finches was one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from a creationist, and that's saying a lot. Congratulations I guess.

6days
March 9th, 2016, 05:58 PM
I agree that Gods true Wird has no real contradiction, but the written word is fraught with contradiction and inaccurate history. The Bible was written and rewritten by men.
You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 07:03 PM
You did? Where did you specify what field of science I am dismissing? :doh: You really don't read well. This isn't part of that discussion.

No you didn't. You accused geochronologists of merely guessing and assuming things, yet you can't point to a single example of them doing so. I've given several links in threads, as did 6 days. I also asked you to look up 'the evolutionary process' or 'by evolutionary process.' Both are implicitly 'evolution-did-it' and by no means the only expressions of 'evolution-did-it.' And, do you recall in this very thread that you cited a bunch of papers that include 'evolution' in them? I'd about guarantee half of them are nothing more than 'evolution-did-it' kinds of inane statements.


Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields (genetic algorithms). Wait, you are saying if 'we' do it, that's also evolution? How is that not intelligent design or intelligent manipulation, instead and more potentially a mimickery of the same?

In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. :doh: "evolution-did-it."

Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.
Predation, your own example of human intervention for just two? Why are you so two-dimensional, Jose? You 'could' actually teach me something instead of being this inane parody of a body.

Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?
All I've said was describe rather than tell.

Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed? Do you really sit in a lab and say 'It evolved." or do you describe the change in process? Who is going to argue with you saying "It looked like this, now it looks like this, and this and this are going to make it harder to combat in the future." I can't think of anybody.

Not you...you've made your ignorance of the subject very obvious.
I'll make sure to bring this up with my brother in biology, but 1) I've read this in a critical analysis and 2) Don't feel terrible that I don't take your word for his/her or my lack in grasping what you think is wrong.


I take your repeated dodging as an indication that you can't point to anything wrong I've said about science. You've missed the boat on this one. It has sailed far away from what I was actually giving you grief about.

Another dodge. Again, what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?
There are a lot of papers written on Darwin's finches, almost all creationist websites call into question the differentiation of beaks and whether this means a finch evolved with stronger beaks, whether a better verb than 'evolution-did-it' is most likely. I've repeated what I've read. Now, of course, you've taken the pithy and inane route and called my biology into question rather than asking where I'd heard it. I don't know why you have this hate and disdain but it does press you into a two-dimensional reactionary with little to offer, even in science because of it.


So the two of you actually think science is less than 100 years old? Remember, the question was for you to name something creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years. Since you both try and answer by saying that creationism is what led to scientific study, that must mean you both think science only started less than 100 years ago. Reverting to two-dimensional inanity, Jose :Plain: You keep taking every bit of rope to hang yourself.....and your profession... :sigh:

Thus, either you two are hilariously ignorant of the history of science, or you're very dishonest. Which is it? Yeah, that's it. Now watch you try to defend this as if... :Plain: Why does any referce have to be about all said in that reference? 1) 100 years doesn't matter, and 2) Creationists called into question, rightly, the Darwinistic evolution chart. The problem with the chart is it doesn't express accuracy, even if one buys common ancestry. We helped even evolutionists admit to the problems of that chart as well as pressed for better and viable science expressions. Asking and challenging results is part of the scientific process, it is a good thing.



Folks like you are a very good illustration of the effect. You both demonstrate your ignorance of biology while simultaneously anointing yourself sufficiently qualified to critique it. Human science is science as well and you should look to critiques of the phenomena as well as realize the over-employment of this among many has become pop-psych for atheists, mostly. It does tell me what other websites you might frequent? Specifically, this study was about testing at a Cornell University and given prior to the actual test how well students thought they knew the material. I have no illusions about my biology prowess. I can even be corrected by a sane and caring man/woman of science. It is sad that you've never desired that noble position or influence. Think on this, you could have spent much less time and space telling me why you thought why I and several websites were wrong (not all Christian) regarding Darwin's finches (and moths). On top of that, describing what actually happens, nobody is going to give tons of grief other than if the answer amounted to "evolution-did-it."



Your post about finches was one of the most ignorant things I've ever read from a creationist, and that's saying a lot. Congratulations I guess.
And I've read it in repeated places, many of them Christian[/url (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/)] in origin but even this one for the ([URL]http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--evolution.pdf) nsce describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance. I'm not sure why you jump to 'most ignorant' but I cannot take you seriously when even a secular source attributes a percentage that not only allows, but expresses the adaptation in similar terms. Ignorant science questions are yet science. You'd close off inquiry as stupid, inane, ridiculous, and immature. As I said, It might depend on the audacity and pride of the one asserting but you don't seem to have that gage when it comes to Christians.

Crucible
March 9th, 2016, 07:20 PM
All atheists are born experts of evolution and anthropology, and one should always assume that what they say is accurate because they are infallible prodigies of logic. All of them :rolleyes:

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 07:28 PM
You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

To begin with the Hebrew redactors who wrote the current Old Testament didn't claim it was Gods word. The OT culled from existing creation myths in its day. The Jews were not a miraculous people, but they did develope a racial pride that lead them to write as if they were Gods chosen people.

In the beginning, the factual inaccuracies begin with the garbled, fragmented story of Adam and Eve being the first humans. We know the earth is very old and man evolved, but bible worshipers are not allowed to concede that to anyone at any time. Even within the creation story Eves child Cain knows the world is populated, he fears leaving the tribe of his mothers people.

Eve and Adam are the ones who lost the use of the tree of life due specifically to their sin. Death was already normal for man.


Genesis just gets more rediculous from there.

Btw, I didn't avoid the question, rather I have no hope you will be intellectually honest because you really do think God wrote the Bible.

Jose Fly
March 9th, 2016, 07:34 PM
:doh: You really don't read well. This isn't part of that discussion.

So you're bailing on that as well. Such is your pattern of behavior.


I've given several links in threads, as did 6 days.

And not one of those had an example of geochronologists merely guessing and assuming things. Therefore your accusation is entirely without merit and can be rejected.


I also asked you to look up 'the evolutionary process' or 'by evolutionary process.' Both are implicitly 'evolution-did-it' and by no means the only expressions of 'evolution-did-it.' And, do you recall in this very thread that you cited a bunch of papers that include 'evolution' in them? I'd about guarantee half of them are nothing more than 'evolution-did-it' kinds of inane statements.

Um....are you saying that any time scientists use the term "evolution" that constitutes them merely asserting "evolution did it"?


Wait, you are saying if 'we' do it, that's also evolution? How is that not intelligent design or intelligent manipulation, instead and more potentially a mimickery of the same?

Of course it is evolution. If I go out and run my garden hose until the water carves a little ditch, that's still erosion. Likewise, if I conduct an experiment where bacteria evolve a new trait, that's still evolution.


Predation, your own example of human intervention for just two?

Again we see your ignorance on display. Predation is one of the mechanisms that drive evolution. Specifically, predators are a type of selective force (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/predation/predation.html).


Why are you so two-dimensional, Jose? You 'could' actually teach me something instead of being this inane parody of a body.

If I thought for a second that you were at all teachable, I would consider it. Your behaviors however indicate otherwise.


All I've said was describe rather than tell.

And that's what they do. Did you read any of the papers from the search results I posted?


Do you really sit in a lab and say 'It evolved." or do you describe the change in process?

Had you read the material, you would have seen that descriptions of the evolutionary processes are the norm.


Who is going to argue with you saying "It looked like this, now it looks like this, and this and this are going to make it harder to combat in the future." I can't think of anybody.

Again you fail to make sense.


There are a lot of papers written on Darwin's finches, almost all creationist websites call into question the differentiation of beaks and whether this means a finch evolved with stronger beaks, whether a better verb than 'evolution-did-it' is most likely. I've repeated what I've read. Now, of course, you've taken the pithy and inane route and called my biology into question rather than asking where I'd heard it. I don't know why you have this hate and disdain but it does press you into a two-dimensional reactionary with little to offer, even in science because of it.

Not one bit of that has anything to do with what I asked. Again...what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field?


Why does any referce have to be about all said in that reference?

When you figure out what you were trying to say here, let me know.


1) 100 years doesn't matter

So the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century "doesn't matter" to you? That certainly says a lot about you.


2) Creationists called into question, rightly, the Darwinistic evolution chart. The problem with the chart is it doesn't express accuracy, even if one buys common ancestry. We helped even evolutionists admit to the problems of that chart as well as pressed for better and viable science expressions. Asking and challenging results is part of the scientific process, it is a good thing.

What chart and where exactly is the documentation of creationists helping with it?


I have no illusions about my biology prowess.

Do you think you're qualified to critique the work of evolutionary biologists?


I can even be corrected by a sane and caring man/woman of science. It is sad that you've never desired that noble position or influence. Think on this, you could have spent much less time and space telling me why you thought why I and several websites were wrong (not all Christian) regarding Darwin's finches (and moths).

It's very revealing that you try and blame your own ignorance on others.


And I've read it in repeated places, many of them Christian (https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/natural-selection-vs-evolution/) in origin

The overtly fundamentalist Christian, anti-science organization AiG agrees with you. That's hardly surprising. It's also funny how you think that's a point in your favor.

but even this one for the nsce (http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/excerpt--evolution.pdf)describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance.[/quote]

You can't be serious. On one hand you complain whenever biologists use the term "evolution", and now here you cite a section of a document that's titled "Evolution in a bird's beak" as supporting you?

Wow.

6days
March 9th, 2016, 07:52 PM
Let me see if I have this straight....we know that populations evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know how they evolve because we see it happen, all the time, right before our eyes. We know enough about how populations evolve such that we are able to manipulate the process to our own ends, and even apply those mechanisms to solve problems in other fields.

You are discussing the Biblical model of rapid adaptation...BUT, you are using the fallacy of equivocation to try sell your beliefs.

We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc.

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation


In all the time we've been studying biology, every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise has done so via evolution. Not once have we ever seen a different process produce anything.

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation


Yet according to you, scientists are not allowed to acknowledge this observed reality and must pretend that evolution never occurs and even if it did, we would have no idea how it happens?

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation


Not only is that positively bizarre, it makes me wonder what alternative process you have in mind for generating new traits in biological organisms? If the influenza virus isn't different every year because it evolved, how exactly did it change to the point where a new vaccine is needed?

See TOL thread on Rapid Adaptation... http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

6days
March 9th, 2016, 07:57 PM
You avoided the question I asked.
Would you say that the above verses are the best you can offer as a clear contradiction in scripture?

Pick the biggest baddest proof from the Bible that convinces you it can't be trusted.
(Just pick the best one you wish to defend.... not a list)

To begin with the Hebrew redactors who wrote the current Old Testament didn't claim it was Gods word. The OT culled from existing creation myths in its day. The Jews were not a miraculous people, but they did develope a racial pride that lead them to write as if they were Gods chosen people.

In the beginning, the factual inaccuracies begin with the garbled, fragmented story of Adam and Eve being the first humans. We know the earth is very old and man evolved, but bible worshipers are not allowed to concede that to anyone at any time. Even within the creation story Eves child Cain knows the world is populated, he fears leaving the tribe of his mothers people.

Eve and Adam are the ones who lost the use of the tree of life to specifically to their sin. Death was already normal for man.

Caino.... You are avoiding answering.

You claimed the Bible has contradictions.

You seem unwilling...or unable to provide what you think is the best clear example.

Caino
March 9th, 2016, 08:35 PM
Caino.... You are avoiding answering.

You claimed the Bible has contradictions.

You seem unwilling...or unable to provide what you think is the best clear example.

6days.....you avoided my answer. From the beginning, the bible contradicts reality.

There are many lists of simple contradictions beyond the obveous ones, at least obveous to reasonable people.

6days
March 9th, 2016, 08:53 PM
6days.....you avoided my answer. From the beginning, the bible contradicts reality.

There are many lists of simple contradictions beyond the obveous ones, at least obveous to reasonable people.
Caino.....
You are unable to give a single unambiguous example of a contradiction.
Yes... I have seen lists. But, you can't pick even 1 item on those lists as a clear example of a contradiction. (Anything that would change the message of scripture) You just blindly believe the lists?

Lon
March 9th, 2016, 09:13 PM
So you're bailing on that as well. Such is your pattern of behavior.
You assume a lot, superfly. You can chalk this up to you being inept in poor assumptions.

And not one of those had an example of geochronologists merely guessing and assuming things. Therefore your accusation is entirely without merit and can be rejected. . You aren't a careful man in your pursuit for the ridiculous.

Um....are you saying that any time scientists use the term "evolution" that constitutes them merely asserting "evolution did it"?
Again, realize I think it is an imprecise sloppy word. If you had bothered to read AiG, which you didn't, the problem with it is that it elicites all kinds of objections about things even science has left behind in Darwinism. They changed their views but failed to change the terminolog. In addition, it is used for every lazy Jack out there instead of giving better descriptors or even adopting a word that would better suit what is seen. However, I didn't say every time, even in the very sentence you responded to :noway:

Of course it is evolution. If I go out and run my garden hose until the water carves a little ditch, that's still erosion. Likewise, if I conduct an experiment where bacteria evolve a new trait, that's still evolution.
You'd 'think' then, that science wouldn't have a problem with intelligence behind design. Odd that.


Again we see your ignorance on display. Predation is one of the mechanisms that drive evolution. Specifically, predators are a type of selective force.
You didn't read the article from AiG. That's pretty obvious here (meaning your obtusion, not mine. It would have taken you what? 4 minutes? Well, for you, double that. I didn't think you could be bothered, having this incredible prejudice.

If I thought for a second that you were at all teachable, I would consider it. Your behaviors however indicate otherwise.I don't think so, Fly, not on a Christian website. You stated long ago you aren't here for that and your narcissism is too large for that.

And that's what they do. Did you read any of the papers from the search results I posted?
Yes. Though, again, 'evolution' anything is when explanation gets sloppy. It is a gross (large) bin word that means little when other conveyances are better. You even make the point latter on, saying 'that's evolution.' Well great, say that instead then.

Had you read the material, you would have seen that descriptions of the evolutionary processes are the norm. :sigh: Then why argue with me, Jose?

Again you fail to make sense. The failure is all your's. Alone. :Plain: Above, you said 'description' is what you guys do more often than 'evolution.' You don't even want me agreeing with you, er, when I agree with you. That's clear in your last sentence in this post too.

Not one bit of that has anything to do with what I asked. Again...what makes your empty say-so superior to the consensus view of the people who actually work in the field? Or you with a BAS against a PhD from a AiG? :noway:
Isn't that a Dunning-Kruger faux Pas on your part? Remember I have had biology, even in college before you say 'no.' Likely many of the others on TOL have as well. I believe you are going to have to say 'yes' busterbrown.

When you figure out what you were trying to say here, let me know. You know, seriously, I think you hit 'reply' instead of reading content. Don't do it any more. It doesn't make you look very smart. Stop doing it.

So the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century "doesn't matter" to you? That certainly says a lot about you. It doesn't say Jack, charlatan fly-boy. It says your 100 year imposition is interested in the superficial. "When" isn't as important as the admission 'did' which 100 years certainly concedes. You lost, it doesn't matter after that.

What chart and where exactly is the documentation of creationists helping with it?
Type in "Darwin evolution chart." It's wrong. I'm a creationist. You are welcome.

Do you think you're qualified to critique the work of evolutionary biologists?
Yes. Why? Because I know how to write a cogent sentence. A scientist can do good science and write about with much less expertise.

It's very revealing that you try and blame your own ignorance on others. Er, no. Nice try, armchair.


The overtly fundamentalist Christian, anti-science organization AiG agrees with you. That's hardly surprising. It's also funny how you think that's a point in your favor.
Er, with PhD's and you with a BAS? Dunning-Kureg irony?

but even this one for the nsce describes the finches beaks as I did, as inheritance.

You can't be serious. On one hand you complain whenever biologists use the term "evolution", and now here you cite a section of a document that's titled "Evolution in a bird's beak" as supporting you?
Wow. I didn't say I agreed with 'evolution.' I said I agreed with a few points. "...but even this..." should have cued you to the idea that I agreed with something and not all of the link. You are wasting my time with your low-brow interests and fraternity antics. Go spend some time with your kids. Quit wasting time on endeavors that aren't worth the space. Tell your Christian wife you love her and ask her what makes Christ appealing to her. Do something actually worthwhile.

SonOfCaleb
March 10th, 2016, 08:04 AM
Why, because you say so? Do you honestly think if "SonOfCaleb" in a religious internet board says something is so, everyone else will accept it as unquestioned gospel?



No, not because i say so but because Science and eminent men in the field of carbon dating have ADMITTED there are no empirical methods that can date with absolute accuracy that far into the past and thus the accepted methods are largely based on a slew of wild assumptions. Again i repeat NO EMPIRICAL dating methods exist. Science knows this. So why are you unwilling to accept objective Science that doesn't accord with your own proclivity's?
You've effectively accused me of religious bias and yet not only is your bias self evident in your post you're also equally unable to present any Science or dating method that can provide empirical dating to 7 decimal places. Not that id expect you to as this is an internet board after all and if anyone of us knew the answer to that question i doubt we'd be rankling the point on an internet message board...

And just for the record let me be very clear i am absolutely an exponent of objective Sciences, rationale thought/thinking, and Science that which can be repeated, observed, tested and proven via scientific or analytic methods. It is after all the nature of my work.But what I'm not going to accept is Science fiction just because 'someone' or a a 'scientist' simply says so.

There's a huge chasm between fact and opinion where Science is concerned. I choose the former.

Caino
March 10th, 2016, 09:06 AM
No, I don't blindly believe lists, I knew the Bible books were flawed and human long before the internet or purported lists. And some of the lists I have seen aren't all contradictions, some are.

The Bible is human and should be viewed in that light, but once one makes the Bible a type of idol or fetish then it stuns growth and prevents one from facing scientific facts honestly.

You and I have had this discussion before, others have pointed out flaws as well but you aren't capable of conceding anything.

6days
March 10th, 2016, 10:12 AM
No, I don't blindly believe lists, I knew the Bible books were flawed and human long before the internet or purported lists. And some of the lists I have seen aren't all contradictions, some are.

The Bible is human and should be viewed in that light, but once one makes the Bible a type of idol or fetish then it stuns growth and prevents one from facing scientific facts honestly.

You and I have had this discussion before, others have pointed out flaws as well but you aren't capable of conceding anything.
You still refuse to answer the question.
You do blindly believe Caino... You keep insisting there are contradictions, but you are unable to give even 1 clear example of a contradiction that changes or corrupts the Gospel.

PureX
March 10th, 2016, 11:14 AM
To adhere to a religion that forces people to disregard the evidence of reality in the name of faith is to serve a concept of deity that promotes dishonesty. And since dishonesty is a primary factor in most human suffering, I do not believe it is logical, reasonable, nor healthy for human beings to embrace such a destructive concept of deity.

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 11:20 AM
You are discussing the Biblical model of rapid adaptation

Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?


We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc.

"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 11:37 AM
You assume a lot, superfly. You can chalk this up to you being inept in poor assumptions.
. You aren't a careful man in your pursuit for the ridiculous.

More dodging, indicative of how you can't 1) point to something wrong I've said about science, and 2) show where geochronologists merely guess and assume in their work.

But obviously you don't have the integrity to admit your accusations were without merit either. So you make false, baseless accusations and also don't have the integrity to admit it either. That's pretty sad.


Again, realize I think it is an imprecise sloppy word. If you had bothered to read AiG, which you didn't, the problem with it is that it elicites all kinds of objections about things even science has left behind in Darwinism. They changed their views but failed to change the terminolog. In addition, it is used for every lazy Jack out there instead of giving better descriptors or even adopting a word that would better suit what is seen. However, I didn't say every time, even in the very sentence you responded to :noway:

So according to "Lon's rules for scientists", when are they allowed to use the word "evolution"? Also, I don't care what the overtly anti-science AiG says about science.


You'd 'think' then, that science wouldn't have a problem with intelligence behind design.

What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about? Be specific.


Yes. Though, again, 'evolution' anything is when explanation gets sloppy.

Which paper did that? Be specific.


It is a gross (large) bin word that means little when other conveyances are better. You even make the point latter on, saying 'that's evolution.' Well great, say that instead then.

?????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.


Or you with a BAS against a PhD from a AiG? :noway:
Isn't that a Dunning-Kruger faux Pas on your part?

You've not been paying attention. Again, Dunning-Kruger is not about degrees.


It doesn't say Jack, charlatan fly-boy. It says your 100 year imposition is interested in the superficial. "When" isn't as important as the admission 'did' which 100 years certainly concedes. You lost, it doesn't matter after that.

Then you admit that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in the last 100 years, but you also don't think that matters. Very revealing.


Type in "Darwin evolution chart." It's wrong. I'm a creationist. You are welcome.

Again, your ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted (HINT: Darwin understood the branching, rather than linear, nature of evolution over 150 years ago (https://www.google.com/search?q=darwin+drawing+tree&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj84LCS07bLAhVE3GMKHZ-fDM8QsAQIGw))


Yes. Why? Because I know how to write a cogent sentence.

Really? You think the only qualifications one needs to be able to critique evolutionary biology is the ability to write a sentence?

I'll just let that speak for itself.


I didn't say I agreed with 'evolution.' I said I agreed with a few points. "...but even this..." should have cued you to the idea that I agreed with something and not all of the link.

And through my psychic powers, I was supposed to figure out which parts you agreed with and which parts you didn't?

If nothing else Lon, you are very entertaining. :chuckle:

Caino
March 10th, 2016, 11:38 AM
Well ok, you keep asking for it.



We can start with the reworked versions of Samuel, David and Goliath hoping to achieve their goal of converting the ordinary Israeli people into a "miraculous people."




"Saul had an evil spirit tormenting him 'sent by God'. (1 Samuel 16:14)

Someone recommended David to play the harp, calling him,
"a brave warrior, a mighty man of war." (1 Samuel 16:18) . "David came to Saul and entered his service."

(1 Samuel 16:21)

Saul took a liking to David and told his father,
"'allow David to enter my service,' for, 'he loved him dearly.' " (1 Samuel 16:21)


The second version of their meeting is found at the end of 1 Samuel Chapter 17 . David spoke of killing Goliath, and his words were reported to Saul. (1 Samuel 17:31) Saul did not want to let David fight Goliath, for David was not a trained warrior. David was just a lad and out tending sheep, and his job was to deliver lunch to the soldiers. (1 Samuel 17:18)


"You are not able to go to war against the Philistines. You (David) are just a boy, and Goliath is a man of war."
(1 Samuel 17:33)
Saul relented, and

"clothed David with his armor and said, 'go! May God be with you.'" (1 Samuel 17:37)


David killed Goliath. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem, but he kept his sword in his tent. (1 Samuel 17:54) Jerusalem was not captured from the Jebusites until after David became King (or was it?) and the sword we are told (in another variant) was kept in a temple at Nob. (1 Samuel 21:1) No sooner had David cut off Goliath's head than Saul asked,

"who is that young man?" (1 Samuel 17:55)

David was introduced to Saul

"with the Philistines head still in his hand,"
(1 Samuel 17:57)

and Saul asked,

"who are you?" and David replied, "the son of Jesse."
(1 Samuel 17:58) "That same day Saul kept David and would not let him return to his father's house."
(1 Samuel 18:1)

Rather than a harp player the young adolescent boy was made

"commander of the fighting forces," (1 Samuel 18:5)

an act which pleased everyone, including Saul and his officials.


A few verses later an editorial comment is inserted in a futile attempt to harmonize the compounding contradictions and multiple inconsistencies.

"David played the harp for Saul, as he had done before," (1 Samuel 18:10)

for an evil spirit was tormenting Saul. In this variant David was removed from Saul's household and


"made a commander" (1 Samuel 18:13) because, "Saul was afraid of David for he saw that God was with him." (1 Samuel 18:12)

Note that David was living at home and tending sheep just before killing Goliath, and was not living with Saul, and 'playing the harp for him as he did before', as this weak editorial excuse would try to suggest. When David killed Goliath, they do not know each other. 'That same day' David entered the service of Saul. It then follows that David could not have 'played the harp for Saul, as he did before.' The comment was inserted by an editor well aware of the inconsistencies between the two stories, in a futile attempt to reconcile the multiple versions of events and fuse them into one (pseudo- consistent) manuscript.
Also note that another editorial comment was included
for the same purpose.
"David occasionally left Saul's house (where he was the resident harp player) to feed his father's sheep in Bethlehem." (1 Samuel 17:15)


This futile excuse is intended to explain why David was not 'living with Saul' and 'playing the harp for him as before' but rather living at home with his father and tending sheep just before killing Goliath.

Note that David is both a 'skilled warrior' and 'a young boy, untrained for war.' David is both 'living at home' and 'living with Saul'. Saul knows David, as his personal harp player, even outfitting him to battle Goliath. Saul does not know who David is, and must be introduced to David after he kills Goliath ("who is that young man?') David enters Saul's service as a harp player, and as 'commander of the fighting forces', on two different occasions."

Source http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/jebusite.html

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 11:43 AM
No, not because i say so but because Science and eminent men in the field of carbon dating have ADMITTED there are no empirical methods that can date with absolute accuracy that far into the past and thus the accepted methods are largely based on a slew of wild assumptions.

Where can I find these admissions?


Again i repeat NO EMPIRICAL dating methods exist. Science knows this. So why are you unwilling to accept objective Science that doesn't accord with your own proclivity's?

All you've done to this point is argue via your say-so. You've not backed up a single thing with any sort of citation, reference, or data. So it does look like you were expecting people to just accept your unsubstantiated say-so as gospel.


You've effectively accused me of religious bias

I did? Where?


and yet not only is your bias self evident in your post you're also equally unable to present any Science or dating method that can provide empirical dating to 7 decimal places.

?????? Since when is "7 decimal places" the difference between a result being accurate and being worthless? Where did you come up with this?


And just for the record let me be very clear i am absolutely an exponent of objective Sciences, rationale thought/thinking, and Science that which can be repeated, observed, tested and proven via scientific or analytic methods. It is after all the nature of my work.But what I'm not going to accept is Science fiction just because 'someone' or a a 'scientist' simply says so.

Then I'll ask again: What mechanism would cause isotopes that decay via alpha decay to give the same results/dates as isotopes that decay via electron capture?

6days
March 10th, 2016, 01:32 PM
Well ok, you keep asking for it.
Yes... I asked several times for your best and clear example of something you consider a contradiction in the Bible. Something that convinces you God's Word can't be trusted.

We can start with the reworked versions of Samuel, David and Goliath hoping to achieve their goal of converting the ordinary Israeli people into a "miraculous people."
Caino...... Your example from 1Samuel 16, 17 and 18 is really an example of you rejecting God and His Word. Its an example of your unwillingness to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its an example of you looking for excuses rather than submitting your life to Him.

I had asked for a clear contradiction.
Here is one possible answer.....
"There is no contradiction. Saul was simply asking David whose son he was. He knew David but probably didn't know who was David's father. Since David has just saved Israel, Saul wanted to know who his father was, probably to show the father proper respect for his son David.
In 1 Samuel 16, the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul (16:14), and an evil spirit came and afflicted Saul (16:23). David came and then played for Saul to sooth him. Chapter 17 begins the well-known story of David and Goliath with no mention of how much time passes between David playing the harp and Goliath's challenge. It may very well have been many months or even years. Nevertheless, David was the youngest of the sons of Jesse (17:14), who was a youth (17:33), and who tended the flocks (17:15). David is then known as a young musician and a sheep herder, not a warrior as were his three oldest brothers (17:13-14). Saul and David have conversations about David doing battle with Goliath, and Saul offers David his armor (17:38). David refuses the armor and goes out to kill Goliath. Saul then asks Abner, "Whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know," (17:55). In verse 58, Saul says, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/did-or-did-not-saul-know-who-david-was

6days
March 10th, 2016, 01:36 PM
Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?
Read this.....
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation



"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?
Re-read the various definitions of 'kind' that you say has been given to you previously.

Caino
March 10th, 2016, 02:00 PM
Yes... I asked several times for your best and clear example of something you consider a contradiction in the Bible. Something that convinces you God's Word can't be trusted.

Caino...... Your example from 1Samuel 16, 17 and 18 is really an example of you rejecting God and His Word. Its an example of your unwillingness to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Its an example of you looking for excuses rather than submitting your life to Him.

I had asked for a clear contradiction.
Here is one possible answer.....
"There is no contradiction. Saul was simply asking David whose son he was. He knew David but probably didn't know who was David's father. Since David has just saved Israel, Saul wanted to know who his father was, probably to show the father proper respect for his son David.
In 1 Samuel 16, the Spirit of the Lord had left Saul (16:14), and an evil spirit came and afflicted Saul (16:23). David came and then played for Saul to sooth him. Chapter 17 begins the well-known story of David and Goliath with no mention of how much time passes between David playing the harp and Goliath's challenge. It may very well have been many months or even years. Nevertheless, David was the youngest of the sons of Jesse (17:14), who was a youth (17:33), and who tended the flocks (17:15). David is then known as a young musician and a sheep herder, not a warrior as were his three oldest brothers (17:13-14). Saul and David have conversations about David doing battle with Goliath, and Saul offers David his armor (17:38). David refuses the armor and goes out to kill Goliath. Saul then asks Abner, "Whose son is this young man?" And Abner said, "By your life, O king, I do not know," (17:55). In verse 58, Saul says, "Whose son are you, young man?" And David answered, "I am the son of your servant Jesse the Bethlehemite."
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/joshua-esther/did-or-did-not-saul-know-who-david-was


Yes, as expected I didn't think you would honestly face the obvious reworking of the story of David. Bible worshipers have come up with a number of these sorts of lame excuse making. I'm embarrassed for you 6days, it's just sad.

I do trust Gods true Word, not the writing of biased, flawed holy men. God is the Living Word, but that's beyond your ability at present to do. So instead you take the easy path of conformity to the traditions of the Jews, the very same people who rejected and still reject Jesus based principally on the same scripture that they themselves created and elevated to The Word of God.

I'm already saved through faith, and I have the courage to defend God from the character assassination foisted upon him by the Hebrew redactions.

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 02:04 PM
Read this.....
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation

I don't see anywhere in that post where you explain where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation.

So again, exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?


Re-read the various definitions of 'kind' that you say has been given to you previously.

According to Stripe, the only definition of "kind" that is needed is "organisms that share a common ancestry". Since you've stated that bacteria are a kind, the question remains....What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion? IOW, what methodology did you use to determine that all bacteria share a common ancestry?

Lon
March 10th, 2016, 02:53 PM
To adhere to a religion that forces people to disregard the evidence of reality in the name of faith is to serve a concept of deity that promotes dishonesty. And since dishonesty is a primary factor in most human suffering, I do not believe it is logical, reasonable, nor healthy for human beings to embrace such a destructive concept of deity.

:nono: Your constant, inept, armchair psychiatry nearly always misses the mark (if not always, I have no memory of you ever actually being correct, none :nono: ). It is odd that you think this highly of yourself when you are consistently incorrect. :Plain: Such merely questions the veracity of the summations of men. Scientists have been wrong in the past. How'd you get this self-deluded to believe your own garbage??? :think:

Quit projecting your inept armchair conclusions as if they are gold when they are only fit to be flushed.

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 03:23 PM
Id prefer to deal with facts rather than hyperbole and your straw man statements, none of which are true in regards to me or what scientific journals, or source material i frequent.

So putting your hubris to one side and the above qoute which you've twisted and conviniently taken out of the context of what i actually said, matter of fact its clearly NOT what i said, are you actually claiming that radioactive dating techniques are an empircal science? Because the cold reality is they are not. For you to imply that they are is not only fallacious its Science fiction. So if you can point me to a dating technique that is NOT flawed and that can factually, accurately, and repeatedly measure the rate of decay using a 'Scientific' method to 7 decimal places im all ears....
Umm yeah, radio metric dating techniques are all ~90% accurate. So if you get a date of 50 million years, the actual date could be anywhere between 55 million and 45 million years.

It's absolutely empirical so long as proper protocol is followed in regards to proper sample collection and contamination avoidance techniques. Where are you being told differently? Because I've got several professors of geology/biology whose classes I am in who have no problem with stating that radio metric dating is reliable, as would just about all of the scientific community.

I think your confusion may be coming from your synonymization of carbon dating with radiometric dating. Carbon dating is only one type, and it's only effective up to ~70,000 years because of C-14's tiny half-life of 5730 years. Compare that half-life length to that of Uranium-235 with its half-life of 710 million years. That's why only certain methods can be used to date anything older than 70,000 years ago

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 03:27 PM
Exactly where in the Bible is "rapid adaptation" described?



"Bacteria" is a kind? What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?
Is there a "protist" kind? :chuckle:

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 03:30 PM
Is there a protist kind? :chuckle:

I already answered that HERE (http://theologyonline.com/forumdisplay.php?5-Religion) (channeling my inner creationist).

Lon
March 10th, 2016, 03:37 PM
More dodging, indicative of how you can't 1) point to something wrong I've said about science, and 2) show where geochronologists merely guess and assume in their work. :doh: because I said neither and you are tenaciously wrong and obstinate. Come on, give me another inane comment :Plain:


But obviously you don't have the integrity to admit your accusations were without merit either. So you make false, baseless accusations and also don't have the integrity to admit it either. That's pretty sad.
Because you jump to the inane and just enjoy banter, you cheapen your degree. Nobody (nobody) looks to you as anything but a parody of the inane, Superfly.
You were wrong. End of story. All I ever have to do is give you rope. Your intelligence, oddly thrives on this garbage. Spend some time with your kids. Mine are grown.

So according to "Lon's rules for scientists", when are they allowed to use the word "evolution"? Also, I don't care what the overtly anti-science AiG says about science.
Here is a thought, why use it much at all when description is better?



What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about? Be specific. You are caught in details, most often simply looking for a punchline, than something meaningful or intelligent. On this, the point is that description is better than referring to left-overs of Darwinism. Let me ask you, just on this point for a moment of being teachable: Is the idea of Evolution today, pretty much the same as Darwin's or has it left a lot of those ideas and means something different? Why I'm asking: If it is different, why use it? If it is pretty much the same, this continues to fuel dissention. I've seen science distance and show a lot of Darwin's ideas wrong. His ideas influenced Hitler and the Aryan race. How much does credible science want to be associated with Darwin's ideas? If you answer like I expect, why use Darwin's term "evolution" when so much is different and distanced from it today? If I'm wrong, then I accept your educating me here and the friction in the U.S. (and other countries) will just go on. To me, it seems like the problem is because of misplaced tenacity to hold on to a term that has caused so much friction. It is like purposefully or ineptly fueling the problem. That's politics imho, not science. Forgive me for stepping out of banter and trying to tackle something meaningful.


Which paper did that? Be specific.You aren't paying attention. The 'word' is nearly never needed to express science when the details are what is more important in reporting science findings. Because "through the process of evolution" is so sloppily utilized ("evolution-did-it") in science books, there is no need to be specific. It is grossly prevalent....and indoctrinating. :Plain:

?????? You're not making the slightest bit of sense.
You 'described' a process. You 'labelled' it "evolution" but it wasn't necessary. You did just fine simply describing a process. It was MUCH better than "Evolution-did-it."


You've not been paying attention. Again, Dunning-Kruger is not about degrees.
Not true. You use it against every person that 'has' had biology in school. What do you have that all others don't? Who knows, you likely argue science in areas that are not your specific study or degree as well, and assert thus abusing the same Dunning-Kruger you try to use against others.


Then you admit that creationism hasn't contributed anything to science in the last 100 years, but you also don't think that matters. Very revealing. Uhm, psychology is not your degree, Jose. You've no idea, whatsoever, what it reveals. You just like jumping to conclusions. 6-days gave a few quotes that substantiate creationism contributing. I think the ideas so broad that you purposefully use them so you can over-assert. There are many contributions to science by Christians this past century. All of them are creationists. You are wrong to think this doesn't have anything to do with the contributions because the Christian's view of God's universe fuels his/her desire to contribute meaningfully to the world and God, their worldview, is deeply behind the contribution.


Again, your ignorance of evolutionary biology is noted (HINT: Darwin understood the branching, rather than linear, nature of evolution over 150 years ago (https://www.google.com/search?q=darwin+drawing+tree&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1017&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj84LCS07bLAhVE3GMKHZ-fDM8QsAQIGw)) Yet every science class allowed the linear model for a century? :doh:

Creationists were against it, even when 'scientists' were putting it up on their classroom walls :Plain: Again, you are welcome :noway:




Really? You think the only qualifications one needs to be able to critique evolutionary biology is the ability to write a sentence?
Is that to correct his/her science or his/her 'expression' of that science? :think: "Evolution-did-it" could be rewritten to better express what is seen. Of course, once that is done, the court cases and debate threads like this would dwindle, so we can't have that.

I'll just let that speak for itself.:wave2:


And through my psychic powers, I was supposed to figure out which parts you agreed with and which parts you didn't? Er, hardly needed 'psychic powers.' Oddly, you didn't key in on the fact that the website described the finch variation similarly to what I said. You know, the thing you said was the dumbest thing you'd ever read??? Yeah, go figure you'd obfuscate than notice that. Of course you jumped to 'evolution.' All you would have had to say is "That's evolution, Lon."


If nothing else Lon, you are very entertaining. :chuckle:
You are easily amused. Welcome.

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 04:13 PM
because I said neither

I accept your retraction.


Here is a thought, why use it much at all when description is better?

Because it would be stupidly inefficient to write out a complete description of a well-known and documented process every single time, rather than just use the term "evolution". It's the same reason why physicists use the term "gravity" rather than writing out a complete description each time...why geologists use the term "erosion" rather than writing out a complete description each time....why pathologists use the term "infection" rather than writing out a complete description each time...

Simply put Lon, your insistence that professionals never use terms to describe processes is just plain ridiculous.


You are caught in details, most often simply looking for a punchline, than something meaningful or intelligent. On this, the point is that description is better than referring to left-overs of Darwinism.

I'm now wondering if you are intentionally dodging questions (in typical creationist fashion) or if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. None of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked. Try again...

What "intelligence behind design" are you talking about?


Is the idea of Evolution today, pretty much the same as Darwin's or has it left a lot of those ideas and means something different?

Of course it's changed. You didn't know that?


Why I'm asking: If it is different, why use it? If it is pretty much the same, this continues to fuel dissention.

Why do physicists still use the term "gravity" if the concept has changed since Newton? And let's be perfectly clear here...the source of "dissension" is nothing more than how evolutionary theory conflicts with certain people's religious beliefs. Changing the term won't affect that at all.


I've seen science distance and show a lot of Darwin's ideas wrong. His ideas influenced Hitler and the Aryan race. How much does credible science want to be associated with Darwin's ideas?

Christianity also influenced those things. What's your point?


To me, it seems like the problem is because of misplaced tenacity to hold on to a term that has caused so much friction.

You honestly think if scientists stopped using the term evolution, fundamentalist Christians would suddenly be like "Oh, now we have no problem at all with humans being related to other primates"? Really?


Because "through the process of evolution" is so sloppily utilized ("evolution-did-it") in science books, there is no need to be specific. It is grossly prevalent....and indoctrinating.

Does that also apply to terms like gravity, erosion, infection, evaporation, photosynthesis...?


You did just fine simply describing a process. It was MUCH better than "Evolution-did-it."

Except for that pesky little fact that you've not shown anywhere where anyone has said "evolution did it". But as we've seen, you feel no moral obligation to back up your accusations.


Not true. You use it against every person that 'has' had biology in school.

Another accusation. Are you going to back this one up, or do you not feel a moral obligation to do so?


What do you have that all others don't?

An understanding of the subject being discussed. Your posts OTOH very clearly indicate that you lack such an understanding, yet you declare yourself qualified to critique it. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect; it has nothing to do with degrees.


Who knows, you likely argue science in areas that are not your specific study or degree as well, and assert thus abusing the same Dunning-Kruger you try to use against others.

Your baseless speculation is noted.


6-days gave a few quotes that substantiate creationism contributing.

He did? Where?


There are many contributions to science by Christians this past century. All of them are creationists.

You make the same error you've made before, i.e., conflating "contributions from creationism" with "contributions from creationists". No one is disputing that creationists can and have contributed to science in the last century. The question at hand however is what creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years.

As is plainly obvious, the answer is "nothing".


Yet every science class allowed the linear model for a century?

They did? Name one. I know for a fact that none of my classes ever did such a thing and were quite clear on the branching nature of evolution.


Oddly, you didn't key in on the fact that the website described the finch variation similarly to what I said.

Um...no it didn't.

Lon
March 10th, 2016, 05:13 PM
Because it would be stupidly inefficient to write out a complete description of a well-known and documented process every single time, rather than just use the term "evolution". It's the same reason why physicists use the term "gravity" rather than writing out a complete description each time...why geologists use the term "erosion" rather than writing out a complete description each time....why pathologists use the term "infection" rather than writing out a complete description each time...

Simply put Lon, your insistence that professionals never use terms to describe processes is just plain ridiculous.
:nono: Nobody contests any other scientific term. Like I said, I'm happy with science having to deal with parents and public objections. Let's keep it up :thumb:




I'm now wondering if you are intentionally dodging questions (in typical creationist fashion) or if you lack basic reading comprehension skills. None of what you wrote has anything to do with the question I asked. Try again...
:chuckle: Sure you are, Jose. Sure you are.


Of course it's changed. You didn't know that?
Excellent. You don't have any authority, but perhaps a grassroots movement would help change from that sloppy inaccurate Darwinian word. Oh, that's right, you like the debate over it. Never mind. Let's keep doing the inane, shall we?




Why do physicists still use the term "gravity" if the concept has changed since Newton? And let's be perfectly clear here...the source of "dissension" is nothing more than how evolutionary theory conflicts with certain people's religious beliefs. Changing the term won't affect that at all. I think it would. :think:


Christianity also influenced those things. What's your point? :nono: Hitler killed Christians in those camps too. Next you'll be telling me Jews influence him :noway:




You honestly think if scientists stopped using the term evolution, fundamentalist Christians would suddenly be like "Oh, now we have no problem at all with humans being related to other primates"? Really?It depends on how carefully you describe the relation. Plants have DNA, cells, and are alive so we have related similarity.


Does that also apply to terms like gravity, erosion, infection, evaporation, photosynthesis...?
Show me someone contesting one of those. If it ever happens, and doesn't go away, the 'easiest' way to get away from it is simply to describe after that without using the word. Don't want to? Fine. Here we are. Live with it, then.



Except for that pesky little fact that you've not shown anywhere where anyone has said "evolution did it". But as we've seen, you feel no moral obligation to back up your accusations.You are being in-genuine. You acknowledge that it is a bin word yourself, and then complain in the next breath as if... :Plain: I hardly need to prove what you, yourself conceded already.


Another accusation. Are you going to back this one up, or do you not feel a moral obligation to do so? I didn't bring up Dunning-Kruger. You were guessing that they had no background AND it is not your background. You've a biology BA, right?

An understanding of the subject being discussed. Your posts OTOH very clearly indicate that you lack such an understanding, yet you declare yourself qualified to critique it. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect; it has nothing to do with degrees. First of all, as I said most employment of this study are pop-psychology and more ironically, display the effect in just citing it. Second, I've likely much more social science and am more familiar with this than you, Mr. Pop-psych. Dunning-Kruger indeed :noway:

Your baseless speculation is noted. :chuckle: So is your admission.



He did? Where? Obtuse much? This thread.




You make the same error you've made before, i.e., conflating "contributions from creationism" with "contributions from creationists". No one is disputing that creationists can and have contributed to science in the last century. The question at hand however is what creationism has contributed to science in the last 100 years. False delineation. The one bringing his beliefs to the table is the contribution. Not only that, I told you that we've complained about the linear Darwin chart before scientists recognized or admitted it. You are welcome.

As is plainly obvious, the answer is "nothing".




They did? Name one. I know for a fact that none of my classes ever did such a thing and were quite clear on the branching nature of evolution. Where would I have seen them if not in classrooms? :noway:




Um...no it didn't.
Denial much?

6days
March 10th, 2016, 05:21 PM
I don't see anywhere in that post where you explain where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation.
You are being obtuse. Read it slower. It is not hard to understand.


According to Stripe, the only definition of "kind" that is needed is "organisms that share a common ancestry". Since you've stated that bacteria are a kind, the question remains....What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion? IOW, what methodology did you use to determine that all bacteria share a common ancestry?Again... you are demonstrating obtuseness. Use Stripes definition... and use what I actually said "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."

6days
March 10th, 2016, 05:23 PM
Obtuse much?
Funny..... I had just posted a comment a comment to Jose calling him obtuse then I notice you used the exact word to describe him.

6days
March 10th, 2016, 05:28 PM
Carbon dating is only one type, and it's only effective up to ~70,000 years because of C-14's tiny half-life of 5730 years.
70,000 yr is even quite a stretch.... Anyways, its interesting that soft dino tissue dates about 30,000 year which is consistent with expectations in the creation/ flood model. We don't know what the c14 / c12 ratios were before the flood but all plant life being destroyed 4500 year ago would change ratios.

6days
March 10th, 2016, 05:37 PM
Yes, as expected I didn't think you would honestly face the obvious reworking of the story of David. Bible worshipers have come up with a number of these sorts of lame excuse making. I'm embarrassed for you 6days, it's just sad.
Caino.... You were asked to provide a clear example of a contradiction. After asking you 4 times for the best example possible..... You did give your best shot at it. Thanks.
However, as I showed you, your very best example is certainly not clear. There is a good logical explanation to the verses you suggested.
As a follower of Christ, I believe His Word is God breathed... divinely inspired.... inerrant. Almost always, as in your example, His Word is not difficult to understand. His Word is not contradictory.

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 05:38 PM
70,000 yr is even quite a stretch.... Anyways, its interesting that soft dino tissue dates about 30,000 year which is consistent with expectations in the creation/ flood model. We don't know what the c14 / c12 ratios were before the flood but all plant life being destroyed 4500 year ago would change ratios.
I agree with you that 70,000 is likely a stretch. Most people would likely tell you not to date objects with that method beyond 50,000 years, though some say up to 70,000.

Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth? Even if there was no explanation for the soft tissue (which there is I trust you know), how does a dinosaur from 24,000 years before the creation of the universe support you?

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 05:49 PM
Nobody contests any other scientific term.

Again your ignorance is noted.

We know there are people who contest a spherical earth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Modern_Flat-Earthers), heliocentrism (http://www.geocentrism.com/), germ theory (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/09/yes-there-really-are-people-who-dont-acc/), medicine (http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical2.htm), vaccination (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversies), the holocaust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial), and just about anything you care to name.


Excellent. You don't have any authority, but perhaps a grassroots movement would help change from that sloppy inaccurate Darwinian word.

By the same logic we must also start "describing the process" rather than using the term "holocaust", since there are people who dispute it. Now of course most people understand how stupid that reasoning is. You however.....


I think it would.

Then do it. Start a thread where you attempt to convince the Christians here.


:nono: Hitler killed Christians in those camps too. Next you'll be telling me Jews influence him :noway:

Again your ignorance is noted. Germany had a long history of antisemitism from Christians, including Martin Luther, who authored the book "On the Jews and Their Lies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies)".


It depends on how carefully you describe the relation. Plants have DNA, cells, and are alive so we have related similarity.

Then let's see you do it. Start a thread wherein you attempt to convince the Christians here that humans share a common ancestry with other primates.


You are being in-genuine. You acknowledge that it is a bin word yourself, and then complain in the next breath as if... :Plain: I hardly need to prove what you, yourself conceded already.

Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense.


You were guessing that they had no background AND it is not your background.

I said nothing about anyone's background.


You've a biology BA, right?

No. BS in biology, MS in ecology.


This thread.

Which post?


False delineation.

Not at all. I have named all sorts of contributions that evolutionary theory has made to the sciences in the last century. Yet when creationists are asked to name even one contribution from creationism, they can't come up with anything.


The one bringing his beliefs to the table is the contribution.

If that's all you can muster, I'll allow it to speak for itself.


Not only that, I told you that we've complained about the linear Darwin chart before scientists recognized or admitted it. You are welcome.

So you just ignore the facts (Darwin described evolution as a branching, non-linear process over 150 years ago) and repeat yourself. Such is the nature of denialism.


Where would I have seen them if not in classrooms?

So you are unable to support yet another claim of yours. Noted.

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 05:55 PM
You are being obtuse. Read it slower. It is not hard to understand.

Here, let's just re-post what you linked to (in its entirety)...


Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

One example of the misunderstanding that most evolutionists have is regarding the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Especially in the past, evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. Sticklefish have speciated / rapidly adapted in a very short time period.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.
science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)

Rapid changes are bewildering to evolutionists..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most things with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

Other examples of the ability of animals to adapt quickly:
Fruit flies grow longer wings...
... evolutionists are 'alarmed'
New Scientist 165 wrote:
"Flying out of control—alien species can evolve at an alarming rate"


Frogs seemingly 'evolve' in 1 generation...
... Evolutionists are surprised.
Science Daily wrote:
"However, the results show that in many cases, species with eggs and tadpoles placed in water seem to give rise directly to species with direct development, without going through the many seemingly intermediate steps that were previously thought to be necessary "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0910142632.htm


And the best one showing.....
... Evolutionists are unscientific.
Bird species changes fast but without genetic differences (species-specific DNA markers)...
"Rapid phenotypic evolution during incipient speciation in a continental avian radiation" Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The researchers suggest that the lack of genetic markers may mean the changes in these birds happened so fast that the genes haven't had a chance to catch up yet!!!!

That's a few of the many examples of adaptation and speciation that support the Biblical model, contradicting the evolutionist model of slow gradual change over millions of years.

Now where exactly in that post did you describe where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation?


Use Stripes definition...

I did. "Kinds" are "all the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346755&viewfull=1#post4346755)". Try and keep up.


and use what I actually said "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."

Here we go again...

First question: Is "bacteria" a kind?

6days
March 10th, 2016, 06:04 PM
Now where exactly in that post did you describe where or how the Bible describes rapid adaptation?
Question for you.... Does obtuse and stupid mean the same thing?


(Stripes definition) "Kinds" are "all the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?110849-Rapid-Adaptation&p=4346755&viewfull=1#post4346755)". Try and keep up. Yes... Good definition!


First question: Is "bacteria" a kind?
It seems you are trying your best to create a strawman. What I said was "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."
So..... If you use Stripes definition... And what I said, then unless you are stupid, you would know that bacteria which change and adapt would be the same created kind as their ,grandparents'.

Jose Fly
March 10th, 2016, 06:10 PM
Question for you.... Does obtuse and stupid mean the same thing?

You're dodging again. When I asked you where "rapid adaptation" is described in the Bible, you linked to that post. I just now re-posted the entire contents of that post, and nowhere in it do you describe where rapid adaptation is described in the Bible.

So again, where is "rapid adaptation" described in the Bible?


It seems you are trying your best to create a strawman. What I said was "We see rapid adaptation within created kinds. We see bacteria changing into bacteria. We see breeding varieties within created kinds etc."
So..... If you use Stripes definition... And what I said, then unless you are stupid, you would know that bacteria which change and adapt would be the same created kind as their ,grandparents'.

So "bacteria" are a kind. What methodology did you use to come to that conclusion?

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 06:21 PM
6days was ignoring questions again

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 06:29 PM
6days, I trust you removed that link because you realized how unreliable your source was finally? I searched for newgeology and the first link was an anti-evolution article. Just another creationist waste of webspace.

See here: https://sites.google.com/site/cabbagesofdoom/evolution-creationism/debunking/bitesize001debunkingevolution

6days
March 10th, 2016, 07:39 PM
6days, I trust you removed that link because you realized how unreliable your source was finally? I searched for newgeology and the first link was an anti-evolution article. Just another creationist waste of webspace.

See here: https://sites.google.com/site/cabbagesofdoom/evolution-creationism/debunking/bitesize001debunkingevolution
I removed the link because The picture was too small.

Greg... I expect you to claim "unreliable" when any scientist says something that challenges your belief system/

6days
March 10th, 2016, 07:48 PM
Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth?]
The tissue is not 30,000 years old. C14 testing of dino tissue has ranged from 22,00 to about 50,000. Those dates are consistent with the creation flood model. They are not consistent with your 70 MILLION year date. (No matter how much iron you add)

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?[/QUOTE]
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

Caino
March 10th, 2016, 08:36 PM
Caino.... You were asked to provide a clear example of a contradiction. After asking you 4 times for the best example possible..... You did give your best shot at it. Thanks.
However, as I showed you, your very best example is certainly not clear. There is a good logical explanation to the verses you suggested.
As a follower of Christ, I believe His Word is God breathed... divinely inspired.... inerrant. Almost always, as in your example, His Word is not difficult to understand. His Word is not contradictory.

I understand and agree that Gods Word is trustworthy, the writings of holy men are not. The bible contradicts the facts of science from the beginning of its garbled creation myth. The Hebrews redid their history into science fiction. The early followers of Jesus were Jews who unfortunately contaminated the original gospel by connecting Jesus to the conflicted theology of the Old re-Testament.

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 09:50 PM
The tissue is not 30,000 years old. C14 testing of dino tissue has ranged from 22,00 to about 50,000. Those dates are consistent with the creation flood model. They are not consistent with your 70 MILLION year date. (No matter how much iron you add)
What the hell? You believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. How in the world can you claim a 30,000 year old anything to support your model? Even if the dinosaur really is from just 30,000 (or 22,000 or 50,000 or whatever) years ago, that re-confirms the Earth is older than 6000 years and contradicts your "creation flood model"!


With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14
[ researchers figure that Preflood oganisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
If there was this massive deposition of vegetation, we should see coal seams in sediment deposits worldwide at the exact same level: the "flood level" which must be between 4500-6500 years ago. Correct?

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 09:52 PM
I removed the link because The picture was too small.

Greg... I expect you to claim "unreliable" when any scientist says something that challenges your belief system/
Read the link. Read it all

6days
March 10th, 2016, 10:18 PM
What the hell? You believe that the world was created 6000 years ago. How in the world can you claim a 30,000 year old anything to support your model? Even if the dinosaur really is from just 30,000 (or 22,000 or 50,000 or whatever) years ago, that re-confirms the Earth is older than 6000 years and contradicts your "creation flood model"!
Read again what I said.
If you can't understand it.... Ah, never mind. I don't think you can.....because you are entrenched.
Anyways... your question was answered. (And answered well)


If there was this massive deposition of vegetation, we should see coal seams in sediment deposits worldwide at the exact same level: the "flood level" which must be between 4500-6500 years ago. Correct?
No.... Not correct. However coal seams which sometimes are hundreds of feet thick is strong evidence for the flood model.

Greg Jennings
March 10th, 2016, 10:27 PM
Read again what I said.
If you can't understand it.... Ah, never mind. I don't think you can.....because you are entrenched.
Anyways... your question was answered. (And answered well)
You said that a 30,000 year old fossil was evidence of a 6000 year old earth and a 5000 year old worldwide flood. You never connected the dots. Feel free to, or to have a friend explain your complicated creationist hypothesis


No.... Not correct.
Yes....Yes it was, actually. Just as we see the Carboniferous period coal layer in reality, a massive vegetation deposition caused by a massive flood would produce coal seams worldwide at the same strata.

However coal seams which sometimes are hundreds of feet thick is strong evidence for the flood model.
Unless the seams are all in the same strata, then they were from different events and eras.

Lon
March 10th, 2016, 11:14 PM
Again your ignorance is noted. By you? Who cares what two anonymous people say, Jose? What possible reason would you want to note this for? I'm not sure the following qualifies.

We know there are people who contest a spherical earth, heliocentrism, germ theory, medicine, vaccination, the holocaust, and just about anything you care to name.
You might be making me feel sorry for you and perhaps even a bit more empathetic. How often do you see these contested anymore?


By the same logic we must also start "describing the process" rather than using the term "holocaust", since there are people who dispute it. Now of course most people understand how stupid that reasoning is. You however.....
Ah, couldn't resist the jab at the end. Good for you, Jose. Thanks, I was starting to feel empathetic and sorry for the science community. This snapped me out of it :up:


Then do it. Start a thread where you attempt to convince the Christians here. Even the science community has peer review. Sure, you will still have problems passing people off as ancestors with the rest of the animal kingdom. There are no intelligent lizards driving cars, afterall. We are incredibly far removed from every animal, without exception. In order for science to convince, (and they are 'incredibly' jumping the gun ahead of what science actually 'can' assert) they would have to explain a lot more than they have. The jump is assertion. No scientist has (or can) explain that incredibly long jump and assertion to the general public. Maybe you guys in science have a magic bean or are doing insider trader or something, but you've (as a whole, not you persay) been inept at convincing the public. Evolution, as you describe it is taught unqualified in 100% of public schools yet the Huffington Post reports that only 25% of Americans believe in Evolution and less than that believe we are related to apes. That's a science nightmare. That means, literally, you guys can't explain something that is supposed to be so cut and dried as to not be controversial, and yet 80% of Americans don't believe it. As you know, Only 60% of us are evangelicals. Granted some of that number may be our more liberal cousins, but like Purex, they tend to embrace evolution, including common ancestry. That means that it fundamentalists aren't your only detractors, just the larger portion of them by 3 to 1. One in four, you can't blame their religion "if" that were the thing you thought was the only reason science isn't making headway. It isn't. You don't have to respond to this section, I'm just giving noncontroversial information. There is nothing to argue with. Your comments are welcome or you can argue with the Huffington Post if you like.


Again your ignorance is noted. Germany had a long history of antisemitism from Christians, including Martin Luther, who authored the book "On the Jews and Their Lies". I've read it. It isn't that long. It hardly calls for thier genecide, but for the Christian to guard against proselytizing. I'm not sure Hitler would have cared or even read the book concerning the practice of Christianity. On top of that, as I said, he killed Christians in those camps too and it is well documented. On this, it is important and I'd ask you to rethink inane accusation of ignorance simply because on this, I don't think it is a luxury for either you or I to be ignorant of anything regarding the Holocaust and WW2. Realize as well, Hitler was attacking primarily Christian countries, lest this become 'atheist' or antichristian propoganda. It is my sentiment, that we all need to be more unified when regarding those attrocities than using them to bash one another to oblivion. I would drop out of any conversation that tried to press another into the camp of these attrocities.


Then let's see you do it. Start a thread wherein you attempt to convince the Christians here that humans share a common ancestry with other primates. I'm not sure it'd satisfy you. I'd only say that in the same way plants have similarities to us in that we all have the same/similar building blocks, that of course we share a lot in common with all life on this planet. To me, it isn't unexpected but that doesn't necessitate derivative (my observation). I'm not sure how God did it, but I think there are good points. A wolf/dog hybrid is possible. A chimp/human one is not. Science and religion would explain that differently. It is only when our kids are hearing both explanations that friction continues to occur in America. Can we do it in a way that capitulates? I don't know. We haven't been able to so far. I do think part of it must be layed on the sensitive explanations of educators making the science books. I think they could tone down the friction without compromising either religion or science. There is some stubborness going on that doesn't allow that in these educator's minds, but they forget, I think, that they are supposed to be listening to parents as well as putting in their own thoughts. Like I said, you and I are anonymous. Maybe a grassroots movement, but it is a bit of a pie-in-the-sky pipe-dream that we'd come up with anything but perhaps a pause in our own thoughts and opinions.


Again you're not making the slightest bit of sense.
Try "I'm not getting you, Lon." The gist is that you did a good job of just explaining a scientific observation 'without' using the word evolution. All I'm saying is that you didn't need it and I got the science idea just fine and even appreciated it. That tends to happen when/if friction can be removed.


No. BS in biology, MS in ecology.
:up: Thanks.


Which post? I'll look it up if it is important, but you did respond to his quotes. Some of them were from a reporter, I think.


Not at all. I have named all sorts of contributions that evolutionary theory has made to the sciences in the last century. Yet when creationists are asked to name even one contribution from creationism, they can't come up with anything.
I'm trying to think of any one contribution that specifically couldn't or wouldn't have happened without Evolution and can't think of one. I certainly can think of scientist who hold to the theory contributing, but thats the same as a Christian scientist contributing in my mind.

So you just ignore the facts (Darwin described evolution as a branching, non-linear process over 150 years ago) and repeat yourself. Such is the nature of denialism. He did, but that chart hung on science classroom walls in middle school, high school and a lot more of them in college in about every science classroom I was in. Why a linear chart? :idunno:

Greg Jennings
March 11th, 2016, 12:00 AM
Yes... Good definition!
There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?

SonOfCaleb
March 11th, 2016, 05:23 AM
Explain to me how supposed 30,000 year old dinosaur tissue supports a 6000 year old Earth? Even if there was no explanation for the soft tissue (which there is I trust you know), how does a dinosaur from 24,000 years before the creation of the universe support you?

And why would a flood change C-14 levels?

It doesnt. Because the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible and B)Is certainly not Scientific. In other words neither the Bible or current known scientific evidence support this theory.

The Bible describes creative 'days'. Essentially periods of time or creative epochs as it were which logically delinate each creative period. The Bible provides no guidance at all on how long each one of those epochs/days were which were likely for an indefinite period of time. So it is plausible using current dating methods that the earth is millions or possibly billions of years old. But Science cannot provide definitive guidance on the age of the Earth outside of radioactive dating assumptions and logical deduction. A million years depending on who you speak to is obviously a very large tolerance...

Interestingly Genesis 1:1-2 does actually support the scientifc theory that the Earth is possibly millions or billions of years old as the creative days only describe the creation on Earth and its preparation for mans habitation. Infact Genesis 1:1 tells us that the Earth was created before the first creative day. In essence by the time the first creative day begun the Earth had already existed for an indefinite period of time along with the Universe/Heavens.

To your lata question any contammination to a carbon organism can disturb the rate of decay. That could be literally be anything from water, to gas, magma, lava etc. Its illogical to presume that any carbon based organism has remained in the Earth in a completely undisturbed state, unaltered with respect to its content, biologic or otherwise or any other activity. And yet thats exactly what C14 dating presumes as the rate of decay of radio carbons is constant until all carbon is depleted.

Intertestingly experiments have proven that diamonds purported to be billions of years old contained significant levels of C14. But C14 only has a half life of just under 6000 years. So at best the diamonds could only be 45-50000 years old, or 70,000 year old depending on what method was used for dating, but regardless diamonds are supposed to be radio carbon dead. Thus its clear radio active dating is not and cannot be an empircal technique as fossils in the Earths crust can and will be subject to contamination which can invalidate dating.

6days
March 11th, 2016, 06:51 AM
the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible
From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit epochs of time into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why theistic evolution and long ages contradicts scripture.

A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

An Atheist Answers
From atheists.org/atheism
"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.

Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin.Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.

All we are asking is that you take what*you know*into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it.

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".


A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”


A Prof / PhD Biblical Studies Answers
Dr. Tom Wang says "Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation (‘if anyone is in Christ, he is a New Creation; the old is gone, the new has come’—2 Corinthians 5:17)?”


An Historian Answers (Prof with 2 PhD's)
Dr Benno Zuiddam“God created this world in a very short period of time, under ten thousand years ago. Whether you read Irenaeus in the 2nd*century, Basil in the 4th, Augustine in the 5th, Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, the Reformers of the 16th*century, or Pope Pius X in the 19th, they all teach this. They all believed in a good creation and God’s curse striking the earth—and the whole creation—after the disobedience of a literal Adam and Eve.”

A Biologist Answers
Dr Georgia Purdom says "many Christians have compromised on the historical and theological importance of Genesis. If Adam and Eve aren’t real people who sinned in the Garden of Eden, and as a result we are all not sinners, then Jesus Christ’s death on the cross was useless. ...the*literal truth of Genesis is so important to the authority and truthfulness of Scripture. It is the very foundation of the Gospel."

Our Creator Answers
JESUS speaking*"Haven't you read the Scriptures? They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"


So, again the question is, how can you (why would you?) squeeze millions of years into Gods Word without compromising the Gospel?

Caino
March 11th, 2016, 07:53 AM
Jesus liberated the children of God from the limitations of religion, from the limitations of the world view of Holy men of past ages. That was one of the main reason the right wing hated Jesus, he was a threat to their religious pride.


From my religious philosophy:

"Belief has attained the level of faith when it motivates life and shapes the mode of living. The acceptance of a teaching as true is not faith; that is mere belief. Neither is certainty nor conviction faith. A state of mind attains to faith levels only when it actually dominates the mode of living. Faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience. One believes truth, admires beauty, and reverences goodness, but does not worship them; such an attitude of saving faith is centered on God alone, who is all of these personified and infinitely more.

Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist.

Faith has falsified its trust when it presumes to deny realities and to confer upon its devotees assumed knowledge. Faith is a traitor when it fosters betrayal of intellectual integrity and belittles loyalty to supreme values and divine ideals. Faith never shuns the problem-solving duty of mortal living. Living faith does not foster bigotry, persecution, or intolerance.

Faith does not shackle the creative imagination, neither does it maintain an unreasoning prejudice toward the discoveries of scientific investigation. Faith vitalizes religion and constrains the religionist heroically to live the golden rule. The zeal of faith is according to knowledge, and its strivings are the preludes to sublime peace." UB 1955

Jose Fly
March 11th, 2016, 11:44 AM
6days was ignoring questions again

Well yeah...that's what creationists do. It's also why they have lost in both the legal system and the scientific realm. In internet forums they can ignore all the questions they like and there aren't any real consequences, except perhaps the damage it does to their reputations. But in court you can't ignore questions, nor can you do so in science.

I mean, can you imagine 6days presenting his belief that bacteria are a "kind" at a scientific conference and during the Q&A when he's asked "What methodology did you use to determine that bacteria are a kind", he just says "Next question"?

I'm pretty sure the next question he'd get would be, "Why don't you answer the last question?" :chuckle:

Jose Fly
March 11th, 2016, 12:19 PM
By you? Who cares what two anonymous people say, Jose?

Now you're getting it! Entertainment....:thumb:


How often do you see these contested anymore?

That's why I posted the links. As they show, those things are currently contested, and in some cases by quite a few people. So according to the logic you tried to apply to evolution, we must no longer use those other terms.

But it looks like you recognize the silliness of that logic, so we'll just leave it at that.


I've read it. It isn't that long. It hardly calls for thier genecide, but for the Christian to guard against proselytizing.

Nah, it just says...


to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;

to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;

for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;

for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;

to offer no protection to Jews on highways;

for usury to be prohibited and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside

for safekeeping and given back to Jews who truly convert; and

to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their noses.

That's all. :rolleyes:


It is my sentiment, that we all need to be more unified when regarding those attrocities than using them to bash one another to oblivion. I would drop out of any conversation that tried to press another into the camp of these attrocities.

Now there's a good idea. Maybe you could tell 6days?


I'm not sure it'd satisfy you.

So that's a no? Can't say I'm surprised.


The gist is that you did a good job of just explaining a scientific observation 'without' using the word evolution. All I'm saying is that you didn't need it and I got the science idea just fine and even appreciated it. That tends to happen when/if friction can be removed.

I'd say if the "friction" is merely over the term "evolution", then you need to do some soul-searching.


I'm trying to think of any one contribution that specifically couldn't or wouldn't have happened without Evolution and can't think of one.

Then you haven't been paying attention. As I posted before, the field of comparative genomics, which is how geneticists figure out the functions of genetic sequences, is entirely based on evolutionary relationships between organisms. Only with the understanding of evolution are they able to figure out which genomes to compare, where to look, and what to look for.


He did, but that chart hung on science classroom walls in middle school, high school and a lot more of them in college in about every science classroom I was in. Why a linear chart? :idunno:

Because apparently your educators weren't very well informed.

6days
March 11th, 2016, 05:29 PM
And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why? Greg..... Jose has posted 3 definitions from creationists of "kinds". The definitions from 3 different people are all consistent with each other. Using those definitions, may help you come to a reasonable answer.

Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and maleable.

6days
March 11th, 2016, 08:40 PM
You said that a 30,000 year old fossil was evidence of a 6000 year old earth and a 5000 year old worldwide flood. You never connected the dots. Feel free to, or to have a friend explain your complicated creationist hypothesis
I said a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model and explained... and gave you links.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"

Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.

Greg Jennings
March 11th, 2016, 10:16 PM
It doesnt. Because the 6000 year old Earth stance by Creationists A)Doesnt accord with the Bible and B)Is certainly not Scientific. In other words neither the Bible or current known scientific evidence support this theory.

The Bible describes creative 'days'. Essentially periods of time or creative epochs as it were which logically delinate each creative period. The Bible provides no guidance at all on how long each one of those epochs/days were which were likely for an indefinite period of time. So it is plausible using current dating methods that the earth is millions or possibly billions of years old. But Science cannot provide definitive guidance on the age of the Earth outside of radioactive dating assumptions and logical deduction. A million years depending on who you speak to is obviously a very large tolerance...

Interestingly Genesis 1:1-2 does actually support the scientifc theory that the Earth is possibly millions or billions of years old as the creative days only describe the creation on Earth and its preparation for mans habitation. Infact Genesis 1:1 tells us that the Earth was created before the first creative day. In essence by the time the first creative day begun the Earth had already existed for an indefinite period of time along with the Universe/Heavens.

To your lata question any contammination to a carbon organism can disturb the rate of decay. That could be literally be anything from water, to gas, magma, lava etc. Its illogical to presume that any carbon based organism has remained in the Earth in a completely undisturbed state, unaltered with respect to its content, biologic or otherwise or any other activity. And yet thats exactly what C14 dating presumes as the rate of decay of radio carbons is constant until all carbon is depleted.

Intertestingly experiments have proven that diamonds purported to be billions of years old contained significant levels of C14. But C14 only has a half life of just under 6000 years. So at best the diamonds could only be 45-50000 years old, or 70,000 year old depending on what method was used for dating, but regardless diamonds are supposed to be radio carbon dead. Thus its clear radio active dating is not and cannot be an empircal technique as fossils in the Earths crust can and will be subject to contamination which can invalidate dating.
The diamond is interesting, but I simply don't think that all scientists are lying about radiometric dating methods. Where are you getting your information from?

On the 6000 years stuff: I'm glad to see you are not blind to reality like some

Greg Jennings
March 11th, 2016, 10:21 PM
Greg..... Jose has posted 3 definitions from creationists of "kinds". The definitions from 3 different people are all consistent with each other. Using those definitions, may help you come to a reasonable answer.
You are the "kinds" expert here, not me. I can't figure out your crazy formula. Now will you be so kind as to answer my questions for me, as I can't find the answers myself? Here they are again for you. Thanks

There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?


Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and maleable.
Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is

Greg Jennings
March 11th, 2016, 10:24 PM
I said a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model and explained... and gave you links.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.*
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
There is literally no credible research supporting anything you claim. How many Christians here have told you the same thing? If there is, post it here so I can dissect it, then listen to you complain about how scientific scrutiny destroys your "argument"


Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.
:doh: Dude, you think that water can fold sedimentary and igneous rock layers. You seriously cannot get away with saying somebody else doesn't understand the material. It's like someone who failed algebra telling a calculus major "You have no understanding of math." What college courses on the subject did you take again? What degrees so you have in the field? You have yet to ever answer those questions

Isn't it exciting how fast YECism is being removed from the world? All because the science is very very inconsistent with a literal reading of God's word

6days
March 12th, 2016, 08:25 AM
a C14 date of 30,000 years is consistent with the creation / flood model.
With C14 dating, there are some unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14

Creationist researchers figure that Preflood organisms although only 4500 years old would C14 date somewhere near 40,000 years.
(Brown, R.H./ Creation Research Society Quarterly/ 'Correlation of C-14 age with real time')"
There is literally no credible research supporting anything you claim. How many Christians here have told you the same thing?
The veracity of a claim does not depend on your religion Greg, nor that of any other religion. You need do some basic research. Even secularists know C14 ratios vary with volcanic activity, solar rays etc. A global flood would absolutely effect C14 results.




Your comment about strata / different events and eras shows you don't understand what you are arguing against. The evidence is consistent with God's Word. Science is ALWAYS consistent with His Word.
Dude, you think that water can fold sedimentary and igneous rock layers.
Again Greg..... You need do some research.

Rock layers often fold before they solidified. In the Rocky Mountains, I often see layers of rock that were uplifted and folded during the flood and immediate years after. Examination of these rocks confirm the sedimentary layers hardened into rock after it was folded. (Unfractured).

Also.... if you wish to understand folded rock layers within the Creation flood model, you can find many articles on the topic such as this by Michael Oard
"It is my opinion that another mechanism for folding also is valid, and that is differential vertical tectonics, as propounded by S. Warren Carey.1 For example, there are quite a number of anticlines in Montana and other areas of the Rocky Mountains of North America that are cored by granitic rocks.2 The sedimentary rocks form drapes over these plutonic cores. Although it is generally believed such basement-cored anticlines were produced by horizontal compression, it is easier to believe they were produced by upward vertical tectonics, especially since mid and upper crustal rocks are likely to fail upon compression and not produce folds." http://creation.com/mountains-rose



Isn't it exciting how fast YECism is being removed from the world? All because the science is very very inconsistent with a literal reading of God's word
Again...... You REALLY need to do research.

About 50 years ago, virtually every scientist had compromised adding billions of years into scripture. (At least two scientists had not compromised) Today there are thousands of scientists who reject Darwinism, and state that science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We seeing scientists, and various creation societies not just in North America, but in Russia, S.Korea, Austrailia, Israel and more.

Again Greg..... Do a little research rather than making hostile and illogical arguments against something you don't understand. Reminds me of an article a few years back in the The Chronicle of Higher Education
"As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect"
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/

And RE your claim that Biblical creation is being removed from the world...
It seems atheists feel threatened by Bible believing scientists... AND, even by secularists who aren't committed to Darwinism.

Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/larrry-moran-reviews-shapiros-anti-darwinian-book-and-another-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:
I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....


A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels. Perhaps they understand the ToE is a house of cards about to tumble.
(watch for supernatural alternative explanations that exclude a Creator God. Aliens?)

The most logical and scientific explanation is "In the beginning, God created..."

Greg Jennings
March 12th, 2016, 04:57 PM
The veracity of a claim does not depend on your religion Greg, nor that of any other religion. You need do some basic research. Even secularists know C14 ratios vary with volcanic activity, solar rays etc. A global flood would absolutely effect C14 results.


Again Greg..... You need do some research.

Rock layers often fold before they solidified. In the Rocky Mountains, I often see layers of rock that were uplifted and folded during the flood and immediate years after. Examination of these rocks confirm the sedimentary layers hardened into rock after it was folded. (Unfractured).

Also.... if you wish to understand folded rock layers within the Creation flood model, you can find many articles on the topic such as this by Michael Oard
"It is my opinion that another mechanism for folding also is valid, and that is differential vertical tectonics, as propounded by S. Warren Carey.1 For example, there are quite a number of anticlines in Montana and other areas of the Rocky Mountains of North America that are cored by granitic rocks.2 The sedimentary rocks form drapes over these plutonic cores. Although it is generally believed such basement-cored anticlines were produced by horizontal compression, it is easier to believe they were produced by upward vertical tectonics, especially since mid and upper crustal rocks are likely to fail upon compression and not produce folds." http://creation.com/mountains-rose


Again...... You REALLY need to do research.

About 50 years ago, virtually every scientist had compromised adding billions of years into scripture. (At least two scientists had not compromised) Today there are thousands of scientists who reject Darwinism, and state that science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. We seeing scientists, and various creation societies not just in North America, but in Russia, S.Korea, Austrailia, Israel and more.

Again Greg..... Do a little research rather than making hostile and illogical arguments against something you don't understand. Reminds me of an article a few years back in the The Chronicle of Higher Education
"As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect"
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/

And RE your claim that Biblical creation is being removed from the world...
It seems atheists feel threatened by Bible believing scientists... AND, even by secularists who aren't committed to Darwinism.

Jerry Coyne, well known evolutionist and science wtiter is concerned about the increasingly unmanageable problem of high-level academic defectors from evolutionary theory.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/larrry-moran-reviews-shapiros-anti-darwinian-book-and-another-new-anti-evolution-book-by-thomas-nagel/

One of the " defecters" Coyne mentions is Thomas Nagel.
Nagel wrote:
I believe the defenders of intelligent design deserve our gratitude for challenging a scientific world view that owes some of the passion displayed by its adherents precisely to the fact that it is thought to liberate us from religion. That world view is ripe for displacement....


A funny line from Coyne is that the secular opposition to the ToE is coming from molecular biologists. He suggests they perhaps don't have a good enough education in evolution!
Perhaps these scientists have superior knowledge than Coyne does about life at the most elemental levels. Perhaps they understand the ToE is a house of cards about to tumble.
(watch for supernatural alternative explanations that exclude a Creator God. Aliens?)

The most logical and scientific explanation is "In the beginning, God created..."

Im just going to answer the while post at once rather than waste time breaking it down.

I never said that ratios cannot change under extreme circumstances, and I'll take your word for it that a global flood would change them. Now you have to answer the problem of where all of this extra water came from? I don't mean a vague answer like "goddidit" or "maybe everything was nothing like it was today, just a few thousand years later." I mean a legitimate, scientifically sound answer, preferably backed with some kind of evidence.

After that, it's on to "how did all of the aquatic animals live in the mixed salt and freshwater without dying?" You'll say to that "maybe every animal used to be able to live in all water," but that has no corroborating support from anything. There is NO evidence that previously most of all aquatic species could live in both salt and fresh water then lost this beneficial trait inexplicably.

Then it's on to, "how could all of the animal types from past and extinct species fit on the ark and where did their waste go?"

Then, "how do you explain the galaxies we see that are billions of light years away in the context if a 6000 year old universe?"

It's never-ending


It's not like there's just one or two issues with your "theory." It's one after the other.....after another.....after another.........and it just goes on forever. Science contradicts you at just about every single turn, yet you go on quoting the 1 dissenter in 100 experts and pretending like he's the only person who exists, pathetically trying to use such testimony (or one of your famous quote-mines of testimony) in order to try and dispute the obvious fact that belief in evolution is on the rise while YECism is a dying belief. Fundamentalist Christians can't shield their kids from reality forever. When they leave the nest and are exposed to alternative views to the ones held at their homes, they are able to compare them. And as polls show, when these kids get educated they become far more likely to accept evolution (theistic or atheistic), because they aren't all idiots.


When it comes to the folding rocks, find me one single geologist who doesn't identify as a YEC who says that water can bend rock layers. I'm not taking the, as he himself puts it, "opinion" of one person against the entirety of his field



And did you miss all of this? You dodged it....by accident I'm sure...

I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?"

6days said:
"Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and malleable."

Me again:
"Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is."

6days
March 12th, 2016, 06:42 PM
Now you have to answer the problem of where all of this extra water came from?
I have to keep repeating..... GREG... Please do a wee bit of research. You remind me of a creationist who asks "Why do we have monkeys if humans evolved from them?". I guess it's not really a stupid question, if you don't have a clue what the other side believes.

Where did the water come from? Its amusing that evolutionists have no difficulty believing Mars once was covered with vast oceans... although there seems to be no liquid water now; and yet, those same evolutionists can't seem to imagine planet earth was covered when it currently is more than 2/3 water. There is enough water on earth to cover it to a depth of a couple kilometers if the earth was flat. The Bible tells us that the earth which existed before the flood was destroyed, and the highest point on earth was under about 15 ft. of water. Where did the water go? Again, the Bible provides an answer which is consistent with the world around us.

Psalm 104:7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.



After that, it's on to "how did all of the aquatic animals live in the mixed salt and freshwater without dying?" You'll say to that "maybe every animal used to be able to live in all water," but that has no corroborating support from anything.
Ok..... Do some research... But I will help you...

"How did freshwater and saltwater fish survive the Flood"

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter14.pdf

or

"Noah’s Ark: A feasibility study" by John Woodmorappe, Institute for Creation Research




Then it's on to, "how could all of the animal types from past and extinct species fit on the ark and where did their waste go?"

Easy to fit all the various kinds including those extinct into the space of 500+ rail cars. Various scientists have done studies on it but you don't need a PhD.

John Woodmorappe,



Then, "how do you explain the galaxies we see that are billions of light years away in the context if a 6000 year old universe?"
Hmmmmm Do you understand a light year is a measurement of distance and not time?

A few different models have been proposed by astronomers and astrophysicists. But the answer may simply be found in the scripture telling us that God spreads the universe. How did He.... How fast?

Greg, you often ask questions that you seem to think are 'gotcha' questions, all the while ignoring your own hypothetical/ psuedoscientic assumptions in your model. For example....Big Bangers believe that once upon a time our universe seemed to come into existence without a cause. It was a really really really small hot dense ball that... Oh my goodness measured 3.9 x 10-34 inches. Then, almost like a miracle there was cold whoosh that happened VERY VERY VERY fast.... faster than the speed of light!! In fact this happened at 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000 of the first second. And..... it was HOT HOT HOT... Our universe was much hotter than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kelvin.

So, that teensy weensy itsy bitsy little super hot ball is now our universe which spans 18 billion years...yet we have a light horizon of 46 billion years... Go figure.



When it comes to the folding rocks, find me one single geologist who doesn't identify as a YEC who says that water can bend rock layers. I'm not taking the, as he himself puts it, "opinion" of one person against the entirety of his field

Again Greg,,,, Do a wee bit of research and stop creating strawmen. Nobody has suggested water bends rocks.



And did you miss all of this? You dodged it....by accident I'm sure...
I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

It was answered Greg. I asked you to check with Jose who can give you 3 different definitions of the word kind... yet all definitions are consistent with each other. Now, apply that knowlege to what you know about Archaea, protists, and bacteria. How many kinds did God create? We don't know, but there are tens of thousands of different types of beneficial bacteria... perhaps hundreds of thousands of different kinds. If you truly want to determine various kinds and species..... you, and your crack team of scientists won't complete the task in this lifetime....Its an impossible task.

iouae
March 13th, 2016, 12:30 AM
I asked you:
"There is a kingdom of eukaryotic organisms known as Protista. They are essentially misfits from the other eukaryotic kingdoms. I know you're highly familiar with biology, so you'll be able to tell me what "kind" these protists fall under?

And on the subject, what do you do with Domain Archaea? Are they a separate "kind" from bacteria? And if so, why?

Where in the official "Biblical creation model" do they fit?"

6days said:
"Meanwhile its amusing you are so interested in Biblical definitions of kind, when your definition of 'species' and other words is rubbery and malleable."

Me again:
"Ask me the same questions I'm asking you about bacteria, archaea, and protists. With "species" I can answer all of your questions. The fact that you can't do the same with "kinds" shows how utterly useless it is."[/B]

I don't believe anyone can define what a "biblical kind" is.

Usual definitions go something like this...

A Biblical kind includes all those who can breed with each other, or came from those who can breed with each other.

So, if one kind turns into another, Christians will just say they were the same kind to begin with.
Evolutionists will say "See, we have a new kind".

I don't think God ever intended it to be a LAW that things bring forth according to their kind, as many assume.

There is a difference between a PRINCIPLE and a LAW. It is a PRINCIPLE that most organisms produce after their kind, but if, after isolation, they become a separate "kind" that's fine with God. I am thinking of chiclids or those thousands of "kinds" of fish found in African lakes.

To give another example of a PRINCIPLE vs a LAW. David said he had never seen the righteous forsaken or his seed begging for bread. Ps 37:25. This is a PRINCIPLE not a law. It is entirely possible that a Christian ends up begging bread. Look at the beggar Lazarus in Luke's parable.

Both Christians and evolutionists have been suckered into demanding a strict definition of a Biblical "kind". There is none.

Caino
March 15th, 2016, 05:15 AM
Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

6days
March 15th, 2016, 08:54 AM
Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Dr. Roger C. Wiens

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Wiens seems to have a poor grasp of God's Word. For a christian perspective on Wiens and his paper ... http://creation.mobi/a-christian-response-to-radiometric-dating

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 09:05 AM
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?

Stripe
March 15th, 2016, 09:48 AM
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?

Nothing. What difference does your post make to the debate?

Answer: It derails it.

Conclusion: You're a troll. :troll:

Nick M
March 15th, 2016, 09:53 AM
What difference does it make to salvation whether the Earth is a few thousand years old or a few billions of years old?

As if you don't know why you are twisting the words of the Holy Spirit...to discredit God. (his name is the Lord Jesus Christ) If he is wrong about Noah and the flood, then his wrong about everything. You know this.

Matthew 24

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 10:07 AM
Nothing. What difference does your post make to the debate?

Answer: It derails it.

Conclusion: You're a troll. :troll:
We, meaning the Christian community, spend a whole bunch of time debating this yet, by your own admission, it makes no difference to a persons salvation. So why do you spend so much time debating it?

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 10:22 AM
As if you don't know why you are twisting the words of the Holy Spirit...to discredit God. (his name is the Lord Jesus Christ) If he is wrong about Noah and the flood, then his wrong about everything. You know this.

Matthew 24

37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

I believe that the Earth and the rest of creation is very old. I also believe that God created everything and Jesus is my Lord and Savior. Believing in an old Earth does not discredit God nor does it mean that I don't believe in the flood. All it means is that I understand creation differently than you.

But you didn't answer the question: How does believing in a particular age of the Earth effect a persons salvation?

Nick M
March 15th, 2016, 10:29 AM
I believe that the Earth and the rest of creation is very old.

How old? How long did he take to make it? Are animals, plants and people going through macro-evolution?

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 10:32 AM
How old?Billions

How long did he take to make it? 6 "days" But then God's days are not as our days so I can't give you a number.

Are animals, plants and people going through macro-evolution?Yes. According to God's plans and design. Evolution was created by God.

Caino
March 15th, 2016, 11:13 AM
Wiens seems to have a poor grasp of God's Word. For a christian perspective on Wiens and his paper ... http://creation.mobi/a-christian-response-to-radiometric-dating

In your attempt to discredit Wiens, a fellow Christian, you are only exposing your own dishonest heart 6days. If you can't face the truth you try to discredit the messenger. He lays all the facts out for the honest truth seeker to examine.

The Hebrews wrote a story for the consumption of the common scattered Israelite during the Babylonian captivity. That story is exaggerated and long outdated.

Within the link you provided is the explanation for the dishonesty based on false assumptions: "Their strategy, it seems, is that if they can convince Christians that the earth is billions of years old then they have discredited the other claims of the Bible." Therefore it's like politicians who cover up their crimes for the good of the people, but the cover-up is worse than the human failings they try to conceal. The people who sought to stop Jesus more or less knew the truth about the imperfection of the scripture but they were moral cowards, too proud to admit the truth. I have great faith in God, in Jesus Christ even though I can see the Bible has many factual flaws as should be expected. Christian pride, that's all's this is.

Caino
March 15th, 2016, 11:20 AM
How old? How long did he take to make it? Are animals, plants and people going through macro-evolution?

Life began in earnest roughly 550,000,000 years ago. Adam and Eve incarnate on a populated, fallen earth. They spent the first 6 days surveying their new garden home, on the 7th day they rested. Thousands of years later, when the Jews were writing their version of the many creation narratives in circulation, they assumed Adam and Eve were the first humans. They lived in an enchanted age faaaaar different than the age of science and enlightenment.

Nick M
March 15th, 2016, 12:44 PM
Life began in earnest roughly 550,000,000 years ago. Adam and Eve incarnate on a populated, fallen earth. They spent the first 6 days surveying their new garden home, on the 7th day they rested.

Beam me up, Scotty

Exodus 20

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.

Stripe
March 15th, 2016, 12:47 PM
We, meaning the Christian community, spend a whole bunch of time debating this yet, by your own admission, it makes no difference to a persons salvation. So why do you spend so much time debating it?

We prefer the truth to lies. :up:

You're still contributing nothing with your meta-questions. All toward your goal ofderailing the conversation. You're a troll. :troll:

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 01:18 PM
We prefer the truth to lies. :up:

You're still contributing nothing with your meta-questions. All toward your goal ofderailing the conversation. You're a troll. :troll:
Now, you don't. You were created in God's image with the ability to understand His creation. Yet each time you are confronted with facts that you do not agree with you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eye and shout at the top of your lungs.

The odd thing is is that we agree on the fundamental underlying truth. God created EVERYTHING. We quibble over how and how has no bearing on a persons salvation.

Stripe
March 15th, 2016, 01:31 PM
Each time you are confronted with facts that you do not agree with you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eye and shout at the top of your lungs.

Feel free to present some of these "facts," which will undoubtedly turn out to be you insisting that your evolutionism be bowed to. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, all you are is a troll. :troll:

Caino
March 15th, 2016, 01:31 PM
Beam me up, Scotty

Exodus 20

11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.


That was the story, it was sufficient to bronze age sheep headers but not in 2016 for an educated age. Its because the young earth creation story is in the Bible that people are willing to suspend common sense, not because it sounds true.

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 01:34 PM
Feel free to present some of these "facts," which will undoubtedly turn out to be you insisting that your evolutionism be bowed to. :rolleyes: Evolution is God's tool. He created it.

Meanwhile, all you are is a troll. :troll:Whcih frustrates you to no end because I am far better at it than you are. :D

Stripe
March 15th, 2016, 01:51 PM
Evolution is God's tool. He created it.Ah. Insisting that your evolutionism is fact.

Well, at least you're predictable to go along with stupid.

Whcih frustrates you to no end because I am far better at it than you are. :D:darwinsm:

6days
March 15th, 2016, 03:02 PM
Evolution is God's tool. He created it.

Not the God of the Bible.*


Your god used a cruel process of death, disease, sufferting and extinctions.


The God of the Bible created all in six days and declared it to be very good. Death and sufferring was a penalty for sin. Our Creator humbled Himself... going to Calvary to defeat death...the final enemy. ... . Death and disease may be the creative god of evolutionism; not the God of Scripture.*

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 04:12 PM
Not the God of the Bible.*


Your god used a cruel process of death, disease, sufferting and extinctions.


The God of the Bible created all in six days and declared it to be very good. Death and sufferring was a penalty for sin. Our Creator humbled Himself... going to Calvary to defeat death...the final enemy. ... . Death and disease may be the creative god of evolutionism; not the God of Scripture.*
The God of scripture is the creator of death and disease ans suffering. God created evil, by His own admission. God created death and disease and unleashed it upon His creation. Whether He let it evolve over time according to His plan or created it and loosed it on His creation, God created it.

Jeep
March 15th, 2016, 05:29 PM
I have skimmed this thread, and I'm sorry to interrupt. I just almost finished watching A&E's "Big History", which sucked me in at first, but the third disk was all about evolution.

Basically in one episode, they said that we "evolved" to lay eggs (aka, placentas). They also said that we "evolved" to stand up "over the weeds". But in the same show they specifically stated that "since we don't have claws and fangs", that we "evolved" to have broad shoulders so we could throw spears (to hunt for meat). So, if evolution is correct, why did we not "evolve" to have claws and fangs to capture our meat?

I just feel this particular case for evolution is invalid. If they claim that we evolved to lay eggs and stand up, why did we not develop claws and fangs?

Also, this is not a vegetarian issue. The show specifically stated that we "evolved" to have broad shoulders to throw spears for meat.

6days
March 15th, 2016, 06:11 PM
The odd thing is is that we agree on the fundamental underlying truth. God created EVERYTHING. We quibble over how and how has no bearing on a persons salvation.

You are partly correct.

A person can be a Christian and reject Genesis. But two problems result.

1. Many young people reject the Bible and Christianity over the evolution issue. PEW Research did a large study of college age 'kids' who grew up in Christian homes who no longer attended church. There of course was many reasons but what stood out was poor answers from parents and church over our origins. Many in this group thougt The Bible was Gods Word... but we needed to pick and choose what to believe. (For ex... perhaps Christs resurrection was not physical).*

2. All Christian doctrine is founded in Genesis. A rejection of Genesis can lead to rejection , and or * compromise on all doctrine. It can lead to a deist view of God and destroy the purpose of Christs physical death and resurrection.


CabinetMaker..... evolutionism destroys the gospel. The God of the Bible is not an inept creator using mutations, death, extinctions and sufferring as a "very good" creative process. Read Gen *1... God spoke...and it was.*

6days
March 15th, 2016, 06:24 PM
The God of scripture is the creator of death and disease ans suffering. God created evil, by His own admission. God created death and disease and unleashed it upon His creation.

While God ultimately is the Creator of everything, it would be heretical to suggest He created us in His image ' by unleashing *death and disease upon His creation. Scripture is clear that God 'unleashed death and disease upon His creation' as a result of man's sin.*

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 06:56 PM
You are partly correct.

A person can be a Christian and reject Genesis. But two problems result.

1. Many young people reject the Bible and Christianity over the evolution issue. PEW Research did a large study of college age 'kids' who grew up in Christian homes who no longer attended church. There of course was many reasons but what stood out was poor answers from parents and church over our origins. Many in this group thougt The Bible was Gods Word... but we needed to pick and choose what to believe. (For ex... perhaps Christs resurrection was not physical).*

2. All Christian doctrine is founded in Genesis. A rejection of Genesis can lead to rejection , and or * compromise on all doctrine. It can lead to a deist view of God and destroy the purpose of Christs physical death and resurrection.


CabinetMaker..... evolutionism destroys the gospel. The God of the Bible is not an inept creator using mutations, death, extinctions and sufferring as a "very good" creative process. Read Gen *1... God spoke...and it was.*
It didn't for me. Evolution has no impact on the Gospel. And I do not agree that all Christian doctrine is founded in Genesis.

6days
March 15th, 2016, 07:54 PM
Evolution has no impact on the Gospel.

Evolutionism destroys the gospel. Even atheists understand that if physical death is not the result of sin by Adam, then the physical death and resurrection of Christ become meaningless.
Here is a atheist website explaining how your compromise defeats the purpose of God taking on human flesh.

ATHEIST "Christianity tells us that we are all sinners and doomed to Hell, unless we accept Jesus as our Savior. The reason we are doomed is that we are all sinners. The Apostle Paul says in Rom 5:12:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"The reason that we are all sinners is that we “inherit” the “Original Sin” of Adam.* As sinners we deserve death. Only Jesus’ death could atone for Original Sin.

"Right?

"That puts Christians in an awkward position.

"Christians have to hold that there really was an Adam and Eve and a talking Serpent in the Garden of Eden. They have to accept the creation story of Genesis. Most Christians have abandoned this position in favor of concepts like “divinely guided evolution”. A few Christians still argue in favor of creation a la Genesis but the arguments have been exposed over and over as baseless dogma and have rapidly lost traction among all but the most fundamentalist of Christians.

"Or, Christians can accept evolution, even if they qualify it as divinely guided evolution. Then there was no Adam in a garden with Trees of Life and Knowledge. If there is no Adam, there is no Original Sin. There is only our nature (is it sinful?). And our nature is the product of evolution (is it divinely guided?). If there is no Original Sin, then why did Jesus die?"



And I do not agree that all Christian doctrine is founded in Genesis.
Ok..... You might be correct. Which doctrine is not foundational on Genesis?

Interplanner
March 15th, 2016, 08:14 PM
It's amazing to watch people who don't know the first thing about a field of science (in this case geochronology) nevertheless anoint themselves sufficiently qualified to declare that entire field of science invalid.

The Dunning-Kruger effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) in action.



The thing is Jose, that the program seriously dumbed down the audience. By contrast, go watch the episode 'White Feather' in the FOYLE'S WAR series. Do you know there are people who just can't get what is going on? It is way over their head. The very opposite of the PBS doc on this field of bones and ACRES of shells out in the wide open, picked at by birds, hail, high winds, snowdrifts, whatever. The first questions most people would have is simply buried by the omniscience of the PBS guy who is wondering whether it is closer to 90M or 100M (the only two 'sensible' choices).

Yes, indeed, science at its worst.

CabinetMaker
March 15th, 2016, 08:50 PM
Evolutionism destroys the gospel. Even atheists understand that if physical death is not the result of sin by Adam, then the physical death and resurrection of Christ become meaningless.
Here is a atheist website explaining how your compromise defeats the purpose of God taking on human flesh.

ATHEIST "Christianity tells us that we are all sinners and doomed to Hell, unless we accept Jesus as our Savior. The reason we are doomed is that we are all sinners. The Apostle Paul says in Rom 5:12:

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

"The reason that we are all sinners is that we “inherit” the “Original Sin” of Adam.* As sinners we deserve death. Only Jesus’ death could atone for Original Sin.

"Right?

"That puts Christians in an awkward position.

"Christians have to hold that there really was an Adam and Eve and a talking Serpent in the Garden of Eden. They have to accept the creation story of Genesis. Most Christians have abandoned this position in favor of concepts like “divinely guided evolution”. A few Christians still argue in favor of creation a la Genesis but the arguments have been exposed over and over as baseless dogma and have rapidly lost traction among all but the most fundamentalist of Christians.

"Or, Christians can accept evolution, even if they qualify it as divinely guided evolution. Then there was no Adam in a garden with Trees of Life and Knowledge. If there is no Adam, there is no Original Sin. There is only our nature (is it sinful?). And our nature is the product of evolution (is it divinely guided?). If there is no Original Sin, then why did Jesus die?"



Ok..... You might be correct. Which doctrine is not foundational on Genesis?
I do not believe that the death referred to in Genesis is physical death. I have always believed that it is is spiritual death. We were created in God's image and I understand that to mean, in part, our soul, not so much our physical form. Evolution does not threaten the gospel unles your faith in God is week.

Ask Mr. Religion
March 16th, 2016, 12:01 AM
The God of scripture is the creator of death and disease ans suffering. God created evil, by His own admission. God created death and disease and unleashed it upon His creation. Whether He let it evolve over time according to His plan or created it and loosed it on His creation, God created it.
Evil is not something sitting in the corner smoldering as in some substance or spiritual essence. Evil has no substantial, ontological existence.

Matthew Henry is helpful here:


But, It had two extraordinary trees peculiar to itself; on earth there were not their like.

[1.] There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden, which was not so much a memorandum to him of the fountain and author of his life, nor perhaps any natural means to preserve or prolong life; but it was chiefly intended to be a sign and seal to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness, even to immortality and everlasting bliss, through the grace and favour of his Maker, upon condition of his perseverance in this state of innocency and obedience. Of this he might eat and live. Christ is now to us the tree of life (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), and the bread of life, John 6:48, 53.

[2.] There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called, not because it had any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge (surely then it would not have been forbidden), but, First, Because there was an express positive revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree.

The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man by nature; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. Secondly, Because, in the event, it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has in it, not only Believe and be saved, but also, Believe not and be damned (Mk. 16:16), so the covenant of innocency had in it, not only "Do this and live,’’ which was sealed and confirmed by the tree of life, but, "Fail and die,’’ which Adam was assured of by this other tree: "Touch it at your peril;’’ so that, in these two trees, God set before him good and evil, the blessing and the curse, Deuteronomy 30:19. These two trees were as two sacraments.

The tree was not evil, nor good. It was a tree with no special properties apart from being set apart by God for holy use. The partaking of it by Adam and Eve gave them knowledge of their sinful act, and the evil consequences therein. The tree can be no more evil or good than a can of gasoline. It is the use made of the thing by moral agents that comes good or evil consequences.

The knowledge of good and evil, has a distinct meaning in the Old Testament. It refers to the ability to determine for one's self what is good and evil, what is helpful and harmful. In 1 Kings 3:9 Solomon prays for it so he can rule well. In Deuteronomy 1:39 little children don't have it yet. In 2 Samuel 19:35 senile people have lost it (Note: it is translated "discern between good and evil," but when we look at the Hebrew word behind "discern", it is the very same word as used in Gen 3:5 to mean "knowing" [good and evil]. So, there is no difference between the two.)


In fact, both Trees were sacramental in nature; but as with later sacraments, the two sacraments functioned differently. Concerning Gen.2:15-17, Keil & Delitzsch brilliantly summarize as respects the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (on Gen.2:15-17):

The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good.

By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.

Within Scripture, evil and sin are never considered as "things" or "not things." They are considered to be actions and consequences. Per the full counsel of Scripture evil is relational, not material.

Evil is a broader category than sin. Sin creates and leads to evil. Cancer is a great evil that is the result of sin generally (not anyone's sin in particular save Adam's, e.g., John 9) but is not sin. All sin is evil, but not all evil is sin.

Sin is the action (lawlessness, e.g., 1 John 3:4) and evil is its consequence.

Satan denied the goodness of God in his rebellion. Said denial of the good is evil. Evil is an ethical state of said denial, thus, the privation of the good. The temptation of Satan brought Adam into this evil state. When Adam partook of the fruit he engaged in an ethical act of rebellion. Hence, the fall of Adam and all his progeny is not some ontological event, but an ethical event. Adam embraced no substantial thing called "evil". Instead when Adam turned from God and the good, he denied the good. In that denial of the good lies the ethical act which was evil—a want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

From Scripture we see God on display as such a great and good God that evil acts do not defeat Him (Gen. 50:20; Romans 8:28), rather God uses evil to bring about the greatest good, as especially in the death of Our Lord, wherein lies the death of death for God's people. God's supreme wisdom is such that in both the use and defeat of evil He brings about more in Christ Our Lord than we ever lost in Adam.

From the Belgic Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html)...

Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence:

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.


Whatever we do, let's not try to "rescue" God from the problem of evil via false theodicies, as do the open theists and others. Every time we try to make God's actions completely "reasonable" (to our finite minds) we run roughshod over the Book of Job and the cross.

God is not morally liable for evil, but we cannot say exactly what His relations are—it is beyond our capacity. Nevertheless, there is much we can say from James, causality, etc., but we can't give an exhaustive answer. How this all works we leave to the mind of God which is, as WCF 2.1 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_II.html) and elsewhere says,"incomprehensible."

At this point, we trust in God's goodness. Let's remind ourselves that we can know that what God has done is right and good, because God did it. The thought that we would have done things differently shouldn't function as an indictment of God, but as a grateful reminder that God is the judge of all the earth, that God is goodness itself, that (in a word) He is God, and we are not. And so where we cannot explain or where we do not understand, we can still rest and resist our itching ears for things contrary to Holy Writ. God has given significant help to the weakness of our faith in this regard by making clear that He is not the author nor the approver of sin.

AMR

6days
March 16th, 2016, 12:39 AM
I do not believe that the death referred to in Genesis is physical death. I have always believed that it is is spiritual death. We were created in God's image and I understand that to mean, in part, our soul, not so much our physical form. Evolution does not threaten the gospel unles your faith in God is week.
Your explanations trying to fit millions of years into the Bible..... and trying to fit death into scripture before sin, end up destroying the Gospel. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

CabinetMaker....To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, (as you claim) is refuted in Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4

chrysostom
March 16th, 2016, 01:06 AM
Evil has no substantial, ontological existence.

I agree with this
-evil like yellow are attributes
-which
-do not exist

Caino
March 16th, 2016, 04:36 AM
Not the God of the Bible.*


Your god used a cruel process of death, disease, sufferting and extinctions.


The God of the Bible created all in six days and declared it to be very good. Death and sufferring was a penalty for sin. Our Creator humbled Himself... going to Calvary to defeat death...the final enemy. ... . Death and disease may be the creative god of evolutionism; not the God of Scripture.*

Therein lay the answer to your dilemma, you have your own preconceived notions about how God was to have created life, that everything is supposed to be rainbows and unicorns, no one ever falls and skins their knee. The Bible presents temporary evolution. The fact is that, all that has happened would have been foreseen by the eternal God. There are no unforeseen accidents in the cosmos. You cant get beyond the erroneous philosophy of your own speculation.

* The speculative theory that death entered the world through Adam ruins the batch from the start. In my religion Adam and Eve were incarnate celestials who came from another world for a purpose under the authority of The Son of God, the creator of this world. They were to lead the world in the teaching about the universal Father in heaven (Adams religion).They were warned ("did God really say") beforehand about what to expect on our fallen world. Their human bodies were sustained by "the tree of life", but after their sin they were confined to the mortal death and ascension plan that man is already a part of.

* Jesus didn't end death, man still dies, it's normal. The death penalty for Adams sin is erroneous speculation on the part of mans very limited understanding of Gods cosmic plan.

* However, the failure of Adam and Eves ministry did have enormous consequences going forward for the world, for the environment we inherit due to, not one, but two catastrophic failures of celestial leadership. The fall and rebellion of Lucifer was deliberate, he never repented. Adam and Eve were outflanked, tricked, but still Eve and then Adam did try to assert their own plan fostered by the beast, into world saving, but they did repent. They had become impatient, the beast exploited that.

* Jesus didn't end sin, man still sins.

* People assume so much that Jesus frankly did not say. His original gospel was contaminated by these same kind of preconceived notions after Jesus left.

* All of this prevents sincere believers from acknowledging the facts of evolution.

Caino
March 16th, 2016, 04:41 AM
Your explanations trying to fit millions of years into the Bible..... and trying to fit death into scripture before sin, end up destroying the Gospel. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

CabinetMaker....To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, (as you claim) is refuted in Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4

The beast had already fallen before Eve and then Adam, he was already evil, already working against Gods will. So your theory falls apart before it gets started. But like so many of inconsistencies of Christian theology, there is a willingness to just ignore mater of fact statements left in the scripture books by the authors. Away from the garden Cain knew of a world where death was already in existence, he feared it, God agreed with him.

CabinetMaker
March 16th, 2016, 06:58 AM
Your explanations trying to fit millions of years into the Bible..... and trying to fit death into scripture before sin, end up destroying the Gospel. If physical death already existed before sin... then why did Christ need to physically die and be resurrected? If the curse in Genesis 2 was only a spiritual death to Adam, then Christ only need to rise, or defeat, spiritual death. Clearly, in 1 Cor. 15:26, physical death was part of the curse which Christ conquers.

The Bible attributes physical death to sin...specifically referring to Adam. And here is the Gospel....
1Cor. 15: 21 "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive"Also see Rom. 5:12-19

CabinetMaker....To imagine that Genesis 2:17 is not referring to physical death, (as you claim) is refuted in Genesis 3:19 "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."
Physical death ...returning to dust, IS part of the curse. It is something that Christ has defeated and we can join Him in the resurrection. "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Rev. 21:4
If Jesus defeated physical death, why do we all still die? If Christ defeated physical death, why does Jesus tell us not to fear death but to fear the one who can destroy the soul?

CabinetMaker
March 16th, 2016, 07:08 AM
Evil is not something sitting in the corner smoldering as in some substance or spiritual essence. Evil has no substantial, ontological existence.

Matthew Henry is helpful here:


But, It had two extraordinary trees peculiar to itself; on earth there were not their like.

[1.] There was the tree of life in the midst of the garden, which was not so much a memorandum to him of the fountain and author of his life, nor perhaps any natural means to preserve or prolong life; but it was chiefly intended to be a sign and seal to Adam, assuring him of the continuance of life and happiness, even to immortality and everlasting bliss, through the grace and favour of his Maker, upon condition of his perseverance in this state of innocency and obedience. Of this he might eat and live. Christ is now to us the tree of life (Rev. 2:7; 22:2), and the bread of life, John 6:48, 53.

[2.] There was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so called, not because it had any virtue in it to beget or increase useful knowledge (surely then it would not have been forbidden), but, First, Because there was an express positive revelation of the will of God concerning this tree, so that by it he might know moral good and evil. What is good? It is good not to eat of this tree. What is evil? It is evil to eat of this tree.

The distinction between all other moral good and evil was written in the heart of man by nature; but this, which resulted from a positive law, was written upon this tree. Secondly, Because, in the event, it proved to give Adam an experimental knowledge of good by the loss of it and of evil by the sense of it. As the covenant of grace has in it, not only Believe and be saved, but also, Believe not and be damned (Mk. 16:16), so the covenant of innocency had in it, not only "Do this and live,’’ which was sealed and confirmed by the tree of life, but, "Fail and die,’’ which Adam was assured of by this other tree: "Touch it at your peril;’’ so that, in these two trees, God set before him good and evil, the blessing and the curse, Deuteronomy 30:19. These two trees were as two sacraments.

The tree was not evil, nor good. It was a tree with no special properties apart from being set apart by God for holy use. The partaking of it by Adam and Eve gave them knowledge of their sinful act, and the evil consequences therein. The tree can be no more evil or good than a can of gasoline. It is the use made of the thing by moral agents that comes good or evil consequences.

The knowledge of good and evil, has a distinct meaning in the Old Testament. It refers to the ability to determine for one's self what is good and evil, what is helpful and harmful. In 1 Kings 3:9 Solomon prays for it so he can rule well. In Deuteronomy 1:39 little children don't have it yet. In 2 Samuel 19:35 senile people have lost it (Note: it is translated "discern between good and evil," but when we look at the Hebrew word behind "discern", it is the very same word as used in Gen 3:5 to mean "knowing" [good and evil]. So, there is no difference between the two.)


In fact, both Trees were sacramental in nature; but as with later sacraments, the two sacraments functioned differently. Concerning Gen.2:15-17, Keil & Delitzsch brilliantly summarize as respects the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (on Gen.2:15-17):

The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good.

By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.

Within Scripture, evil and sin are never considered as "things" or "not things." They are considered to be actions and consequences. Per the full counsel of Scripture evil is relational, not material.

Evil is a broader category than sin. Sin creates and leads to evil. Cancer is a great evil that is the result of sin generally (not anyone's sin in particular save Adam's, e.g., John 9) but is not sin. All sin is evil, but not all evil is sin.

Sin is the action (lawlessness, e.g., 1 John 3:4) and evil is its consequence.

Satan denied the goodness of God in his rebellion. Said denial of the good is evil. Evil is an ethical state of said denial, thus, the privation of the good. The temptation of Satan brought Adam into this evil state. When Adam partook of the fruit he engaged in an ethical act of rebellion. Hence, the fall of Adam and all his progeny is not some ontological event, but an ethical event. Adam embraced no substantial thing called "evil". Instead when Adam turned from God and the good, he denied the good. In that denial of the good lies the ethical act which was evil—a want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

From Scripture we see God on display as such a great and good God that evil acts do not defeat Him (Gen. 50:20; Romans 8:28), rather God uses evil to bring about the greatest good, as especially in the death of Our Lord, wherein lies the death of death for God's people. God's supreme wisdom is such that in both the use and defeat of evil He brings about more in Christ Our Lord than we ever lost in Adam.

From the Belgic Confession (http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/BelgicConfession.html)...

Article 13: The Doctrine of God's Providence:

We believe that this good God, after he created all things, did not abandon them to chance or fortune but leads and governs them according to his holy will, in such a way that nothing happens in this world without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of, nor can he be charged with, the sin that occurs. For his power and goodness are so great and incomprehensible that he arranges and does his work very well and justly even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.

We do not wish to inquire with undue curiosity into what he does that surpasses human understanding and is beyond our ability to comprehend. But in all humility and reverence we adore the just judgments of God, which are hidden from us, being content to be Christ's disciples, so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word, without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort since it teaches us that nothing can happen to us by chance but only by the arrangement of our gracious heavenly Father. He watches over us with fatherly care, keeping all creatures under his control, so that not one of the hairs on our heads (for they are all numbered) nor even a little bird can fall to the ground without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest, knowing that he holds in check the devils and all our enemies, who cannot hurt us without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject the damnable error of the Epicureans, who say that God involves himself in nothing and leaves everything to chance.


Whatever we do, let's not try to "rescue" God from the problem of evil via false theodicies, as do the open theists and others. Every time we try to make God's actions completely "reasonable" (to our finite minds) we run roughshod over the Book of Job and the cross.

God is not morally liable for evil, but we cannot say exactly what His relations are—it is beyond our capacity. Nevertheless, there is much we can say from James, causality, etc., but we can't give an exhaustive answer. How this all works we leave to the mind of God which is, as WCF 2.1 (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_II.html) and elsewhere says,"incomprehensible."

At this point, we trust in God's goodness. Let's remind ourselves that we can know that what God has done is right and good, because God did it. The thought that we would have done things differently shouldn't function as an indictment of God, but as a grateful reminder that God is the judge of all the earth, that God is goodness itself, that (in a word) He is God, and we are not. And so where we cannot explain or where we do not understand, we can still rest and resist our itching ears for things contrary to Holy Writ. God has given significant help to the weakness of our faith in this regard by making clear that He is not the author nor the approver of sin.

AMR
True as all this may be, my comment was in reference to Isaiah 45:7. God said He created evil. However you care to look at evil, Gos is sovergien over His creation.

6days
March 16th, 2016, 08:50 AM
If*Jesus defeated physical death, why do we all still die? If Christ defeated physical death, why does Jesus tell us not to fear death but to fear the one who can destroy the soul?

You gloss over the fact that physical death is part of the curse. We are shown that to be true both OT & NT.*


Why do we die? We die because of sin and the curse. We live in a sin cursed world where all creation groans. But, because Christ defeated physical death in the physical resurrection, we too will be physically resurrected. (1 Cor. 15)


You ask why Jesus said not to fear death. I think you know the answer. It is because there is a resurrection of the dead. "And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment" Heb. 9:27

CabinetMaker
March 16th, 2016, 09:07 AM
You gloss over the fact that physical death is part of the curse. We are shown that to be true both OT & NT.*I don't believe that it was. As Caino related, there were others outside of the land that Cain and God knew of. Physical death is not a curse for to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.


Why do we die? We die because of sin and the curse. We live in a sin cursed world where all creation groans. But, because Christ defeated physical death in the physical resurrection, we too will be physically resurrected. (1 Cor. 15)That is why our souls die. Our bodies die because we fell or got old or murdered or any number of reasons. Your soul dies because you reject Jesus and if your soul is dead, there will be no resurrected body worth living in.



You ask why Jesus said not to fear death. I think you know the answer. It is because there is a resurrection of the dead. "And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment" Heb. 9:27
I asked why Jesus said to fear the One who can destroy your soul. You ignored that part.

Jose Fly
March 16th, 2016, 11:15 AM
The thing is Jose, that the program seriously dumbed down the audience.

Write 'em a letter. I'm sure they'll be very interested in your input.

Jose Fly
March 16th, 2016, 11:28 AM
Many young people reject the Bible and Christianity over the evolution issue. PEW Research did a large study of college age 'kids' who grew up in Christian homes who no longer attended church. There of course was many reasons but what stood out was poor answers from parents and church over our origins. Many in this group thougt The Bible was Gods Word... but we needed to pick and choose what to believe. (For ex... perhaps Christs resurrection was not physical)

Yep, I've seen this happen. You have some kid raised in a fundamentalist environment who's been told by his parents, his church, and creationist orgs like AiG that there are no transitional fossils, evolution can't produce new genetic info, radiometric dating is useless, scientists admit evolution is a failed theory, and so on. Then the kid goes to college, takes a few courses and sees for himself that transitional fossils are ridiculously abundant, conducts experiments where he sees new functional genetic sequences evolve right in front of him, learns the actual methodologies of radiometric dating, sees the congruent results himself, reads the papers where these quotes come from and sees how the creationists dishonestly edited them and took the out of context....

...he sees all that and realizes he's been lied to. He also sees that "millions of years" and evolutionary theory aren't some anti-god plot by satanic Darwinist scientists, but are nothing more than the results of good science. Then he puts that together with the fact that his family, church, and creationist org's have told that it's one or the other....Christianity or the science he's seeing with his own eyes. He has to choose. As you note, and as the data shows, significant numbers of these kids elect to walk away from Christianity.

Then, just as clueless as before, the creationists blame the university system. As if it's the school's fault for exposing kids to reality.

Caino
March 16th, 2016, 03:58 PM
Enoch and Elijah didn't die, they were translated. More inconsistencies with the sin curse theory. This world isn't our permanent home anyway, we never were going to be immortal from birth. The material of our bodies must stay here on this earth.

6days
March 16th, 2016, 06:04 PM
You gloss over the fact that physical death is part of the curse. We are shown that to be true both OT & NT.

I don't believe that it was. That is one of many things you deny in scripture. Denying that physical death is a result of the curse, is just one of many compromises to scripture evolutionists make. Part of the curse is that our bodies will die...return to the dust. Gen. 3:17-19.*
As Caino related, there were others outside of the land that Cain and God knew of. Caino believes in aliens. He thinks thinks he is above God, deciding what to accept as truth from the Bible.*



Why do we die? We die because of sin and the curse. We live in a sin cursed world where all creation groans. But, because Christ defeated physical death in the physical resurrection, we too will be physically resurrected. (1 Cor. 15)

That is why our souls die. Our bodies die because we fell or got old or murdered or any number of reasons. Your soul dies because you reject Jesus and if your soul is dead, there will be no resurrected body worth living in.You claimed evolutionism does not destroy the gospel. You have created your own 'gospel'. *Our bodies die because of sin. ( Genesis 3). *Read 1Cor. 15 and Romans 5. Because Christ defeating physical death at Calvary, all will physically arise at the resurrection of the dead, and kneel before Him at the judgement. *Your beliefs eliminate the purpose of Christs physical death and resurrection.*



You ask why Jesus said not to fear death. I think you know the answer. It is because there is a resurrection of the dead. "And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment"*Heb. 9:27

I asked why Jesus said to fear the One who can destroy your soul. You ignored that part Cabinet.... are you serious or just trying hit a daily word quota? :) Or,... maybe I am not getting your point? There will be a physical resurrrection of the dead...then judgement. Jesus tells us there are two destinations. "He will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels". .... And you ask why you should fear that?

CabinetMaker
March 16th, 2016, 06:38 PM
That is one of many things you deny in scripture. Denying that physical death is a result of the curse, is just one of many compromises to scripture evolutionists make. Part of the curse is that our bodies will die...return to the dust. Gen. 3:17-19.* Caino believes in aliens. He thinks thinks he is above God, deciding what to accept as truth from the Bible.*You claimed evolutionism does not destroy the gospel. You have created your own 'gospel'. *Our bodies die because of sin. ( Genesis 3). *Read 1Cor. 15 and Romans 5. Because Christ defeating physical death at Calvary, all will physically arise at the resurrection of the dead, and kneel before Him at the judgement. *Your beliefs eliminate the purpose of Christs physical death and resurrection.* Cabinet.... are you serious or just trying hit a daily word quota? :) Or,... maybe I am not getting your point? There will be a physical resurrrection of the dead...then judgement. Jesus tells us there are two destinations. "He will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels". .... And you ask why you should fear that?
I have already explained my view on what death means in Genesis. That has not changed.

My view is not a new Gospel as my view changes nothing in Christ's Gospel of salvation.

Finally, I am asking you to deal with this verse in its entirety.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

God can resurrect a body so physical death is nothing to fear.

6days
March 16th, 2016, 10:21 PM
I have already explained my view on what death means in Genesis. That has not changed.

Yes you have explained that you reject what God tells us...that our bodies returning to dust / death is part of the curse. You reject the curse in Gen. 3 believing death already existed for *millions of years... which compromises the Gospel and the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. In your version of things, you essentially have Adam telling God the curse is no biggie since he was going to die anyways. In your version of things, pain, sufferring and thorns already existed.*




Finally, I am asking you to deal with this verse in its entirety.
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
God can resurrect a body so physical death is nothing to fear.

Cabinet...it was answered.*


With your last statement though, you seem to demonstrate how evolutionism destroys the gospel. Yes...God can resurrect a body. *God can do anything.... but He can't do anything against His nature. If God could physically raise the dead, and defeat the curse, without sending His Son to the cross, He would

have. *Physical death / shed blood is the penalty for sin. "In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness". Heb. 9:22


In the OT, blood of a pure innocent lamb was sacrificed as a temporary atonement of sin. There was a physical death that was a consequence and penalty of sin. In the NT, the pure innocent Lanb of God.was sarificed as an atonement for sin. But Christ defeated physical death with a physical resurrection. Without Christ we would have physical death as a result of sin and then a Christless eternity.*


Evolutionary beliefs weaken or destroy the gospel. Evolutionism is the belief that God created through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it very good. Evolutionism believes that physical death is not a penalty for sin, which makes the sacrificial death of Christ meaningless.*

Caino
March 17th, 2016, 06:17 AM
Yes you have explained that you reject what God tells us...that our bodies returning to dust / death is part of the curse. You reject the curse in Gen. 3 believing death already existed for *millions of years... which compromises the Gospel and the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. In your version of things, you essentially have Adam telling God the curse is no biggie since he was going to die anyways. In your version of things, pain, sufferring and thorns already existed.*




Cabinet...it was answered.*


With your last statement though, you seem to demonstrate how evolutionism destroys the gospel. Yes...God can resurrect a body. *God can do anything.... but He can't do anything against His nature. If God could physically raise the dead, and defeat the curse, without sending His Son to the cross, He would

have. *Physical death / shed blood is the penalty for sin. "In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness". Heb. 9:22


In the OT, blood of a pure innocent lamb was sacrificed as a temporary atonement of sin. There was a physical death that was a consequence and penalty of sin. In the NT, the pure innocent Lanb of God.was sarificed as an atonement for sin. But Christ defeated physical death with a physical resurrection. Without Christ we would have physical death as a result of sin and then a Christless eternity.*


Evolutionary beliefs weaken or destroy the gospel. Evolutionism is the belief that God created through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it very good. Evolutionism believes that physical death is not a penalty for sin, which makes the sacrificial death of Christ meaningless.*

Your foundation is faulty from the outset, rather you should focus on the purpose of Christ's life, not the Pagans negative theory about his death as a human sacrifice. Besides, his material body died, it's normal, but he didn't die, he returned to say hello and goodbye before returning to his rightful place on high. He had already explained to the right wingers who killed him that he would allow them to kill his body yet return 3 days later to prove his authority to teach. Jesus never taught blood sacrifice for sins, he taught sincere repentance and a new heart through faith.

CabinetMaker
March 17th, 2016, 09:46 AM
Yes you have explained that you reject what God tells us...that our bodies returning to dust / death is part of the curse. You reject the curse in Gen. 3 believing death already existed for *millions of years... which compromises the Gospel and the purpose of Christ's death and resurrection. In your version of things, you essentially have Adam telling God the curse is no biggie since he was going to die anyways. In your version of things, pain, sufferring and thorns already existed.*
I do not agree. Physical death is not the curse, separation from God is the curse. Evolution only weakens the Gospel to those who focus only on the physical and ignore the spiritual. Christ came to redeem is to His Father so that we might once more walk with God. My personal opinion is that creationism weakens the Gospel as it turns God into a magical Genni that need only to snap His finger and poof, it is done. I do not see God as a Genni.



Cabinet...it was answered.*


With your last statement though, you seem to demonstrate how evolutionism destroys the gospel. Yes...God can resurrect a body. *God can do anything.... but He can't do anything against His nature. If God could physically raise the dead, and defeat the curse, without sending His Son to the cross, He would

have. *Physical death / shed blood is the penalty for sin. "In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness". Heb. 9:22


In the OT, blood of a pure innocent lamb was sacrificed as a temporary atonement of sin. There was a physical death that was a consequence and penalty of sin. In the NT, the pure innocent Lanb of God.was sarificed as an atonement for sin. But Christ defeated physical death with a physical resurrection. Without Christ we would have physical death as a result of sin and then a Christless eternity.*


Evolutionary beliefs weaken or destroy the gospel. Evolutionism is the belief that God created through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it very good. Evolutionism believes that physical death is not a penalty for sin, which makes the sacrificial death of Christ meaningless.*

6days
March 17th, 2016, 11:27 AM
Jesus never taught blood sacrifice for sins, he taught sincere repentance and a new heart throughfaith.

Jesus: "for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many."

Matt. 26:28

Caino
March 17th, 2016, 12:27 PM
Jesus: "for this is my blood, which confirms the covenant between God and his people. It is poured out as a sacrifice to forgive the sins of many."

Matt. 26:28

That's how it was misremembered or perhaps changed later after the human sacrifice doctrines of Romanized Christianity overwhelmed the original gospel of Jesus.

In my religion this is what he actually said at the last supper:

"As they brought Jesus the third cup of wine, the “cup of blessing,” he arose from the couch and, taking the cup in his hands, blessed it, saying: “Take this cup, all of you, and drink of it. This shall be the cup of my remembrance. This is the cup of the blessing of a new dispensation of grace and truth. This shall be to you the emblem of the bestowal and ministry of the divine Spirit of Truth. And I will not again drink this cup with you until I drink in new form with you in the Father's eternal kingdom.”

"When they had finished drinking this new cup of remembrance, the Master took up the bread and, after giving thanks, broke it in pieces and, directing them to pass it around, said: “Take this bread of remembrance and eat it. I have told you that I am the bread of life. And this bread of life is the united life of the Father and the Son in one gift. The word of the Father, as revealed in the Son, is indeed the bread of life.” When they had partaken of the bread of remembrance, the symbol of the living word of truth incarnated in the likeness of mortal flesh, they all sat down." UB 1955


"After they had engaged in meditation for a few moments, Jesus continued speaking: “When you do these things, recall the life I have lived on earth among you and rejoice that I am to continue to live on earth with you and to serve through you. As individuals, contend not among yourselves as to who shall be greatest. Be you all as brethren. And when the kingdom grows to embrace large groups of believers, likewise should you refrain from contending for greatness or seeking preferment between such groups.”

"When Jesus had thus established the supper of the remembrance, he said to the apostles: “And as often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me. And when you do remember me, first look back upon my life in the flesh, recall that I was once with you, and then, by faith, discern that you shall all sometime sup with me in the Father's eternal kingdom. This is the new Passover which I leave with you, even the memory of my bestowal life, the word of eternal truth; and of my love for you, the outpouring of my Spirit of Truth upon all flesh.”

In the original gospel taught for 3+ years before Gods Son and messenger was rejected and killed, he taught salvation by faith. God was already forgiving, it was never conditional to the murder of Jesus. God never needed anyone to pay a price, we have always been his children.

Luke 7:50


48Then He said to her, "Your sins have been forgiven." Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this man who even forgives sins?" 50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Greg Jennings
March 17th, 2016, 07:07 PM
I have skimmed this thread, and I'm sorry to interrupt. I just almost finished watching A&E's "Big History", which sucked me in at first, but the third disk was all about evolution.

Basically in one episode, they said that we "evolved" to lay eggs (aka, placentas). They also said that we "evolved" to stand up "over the weeds". But in the same show they specifically stated that "since we don't have claws and fangs", that we "evolved" to have broad shoulders so we could throw spears (to hunt for meat). So, if evolution is correct, why did we not "evolve" to have claws and fangs to capture our meat?

I just feel this particular case for evolution is invalid. If they claim that we evolved to lay eggs and stand up, why did we not develop claws and fangs?

Also, this is not a vegetarian issue. The show specifically stated that we "evolved" to have broad shoulders to throw spears for meat.

It's because according to the theory, our ancestors were tree-dwellers that fed mostly on fruits or other vegetation. For a comparison, chimpanzees and other primates are good ones. Primates don't have claws, and because that is the branch of animals that humans come from neither do we. Primate hand design is perfect for climbing and using tools, but not great for scratching things. Basically, evolution will play to an organism's strengths: our ancestors already had solid shoulders, hands and arms; but no claws to speak of. So instead of evolving claws from scratch we simply built on what we already had.


As for fangs, we do have them. Your canine teeth are what's left. They are much bigger in wild primates, but are not normally for eating meat. They use them for fighting, self-defense, and breaking down tough vegetation like bamboo stalks.

We don't have sharp teeth because the human diet is way more diverse than that of most animals. We have different teeth for different kinds of foods. Our teeth actually do show a more carnivorous shift over the course of the hominid fossil record

Greg Jennings
March 17th, 2016, 07:19 PM
Evolutionary beliefs weaken or destroy the gospel. Evolutionism is the belief that God created through a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions calling it very good.

It IS good!

Tell me, how can there be new life if there is no death? Do you think the Earth can sustain unlimited growth? That if nothing died and births keep happening, the population of all species wouldn't grow rapidly out of control?

Ask Mr. Religion
March 17th, 2016, 10:10 PM
True as all this may be, my comment was in reference to Isaiah 45:7. God said He created evil. However you care to look at evil, Gos is sovergien over His creation.

"Creating Evil" in the passage there is pointing to the Lord bringing judgment. A word commonly used in that verse for evil is calamity. A judgment brought about by the Lord for a nation's sin. This is plain from the juxtaposition "I make peace and create evil.." The calamity (evil) here is war.

Calamity can always be termed 'evil'. Here in Isaiah this calamity is good, God makes it happen, creating the evil of punishment. Consider also the plagues of Egypt, which were good calamities, but not sin, which is a moral evil.

But evil cannot always be termed calamity.

Accordingly, Isaiah 45:7 cannot be used as an affirmative claim that God created sin.

The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Lastly, of course God is sovereign over evil, as testified to by Joseph to his brothers. While the immediate works of Joseph's brothers was moral evil (sin), God's work in the long-run was good. What happened to Joseph, from God's perspective and plan, was not the end. The end was beginning the work of building His people and His nation and God used the moral evil (sin) of His brothers to bring about that good consequence.

AMR

6days
March 17th, 2016, 10:28 PM
So instead of evolving claws from scratch we simply built on what we already had.
Evidence points to our Designer. Monkeys are designed to live in trees. Whales are designed to live in the ocean. The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version.


We don't have sharp teeth because the human diet is way more diverse than that of most animals. We have different teeth for different kinds of foods.
Awesome!! Evidence of design.

Greg Jennings
March 18th, 2016, 06:17 PM
Evidence points to our DesignerNot really, but that's never stopped you before .

Monkeys are designed to live in trees.
Where are apes designed to live???

Whales are designed to live in the ocean.
They are adapted well to aquatic life, I agree. But you've yet to show any evidence of that being the result of God

The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version.
The chimpanzee hand competes pretty well with it. I'm fairly certain robotic hands do as well. Do you actually have anything to back up your statement here?

Awesome!! Evidence of design.As long as you admit that the design comes via evolution, then sure

6days
March 18th, 2016, 10:05 PM
Whales are designed to live in the ocean.
They are adapted well to aquatic life, I agree. But you've yet to show any evidence of that being the result of God
You have seen the evidence Greg, but you deny things which contradict your religion. Things which appear designed, containing complex sophisticated information systems ALWAYS have a designer. We have the evidence from God's Word... and the evidence of His creation.




The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version.
I'm fairly certain robotic hands do as well. Do you actually have anything to back up your statement here?
Like always Greg..... You believe things but without evidence or knowledge.
Show me a mechanical hand that is remotely close to human hand functionality, and I will point you to a very very impressive team of designers.

A team of researchers recently were impressed by the capabilities of our hands. PLOS ONE, published a paper recently by a team of four researchers,three in China, one in USA. "The paper dealt with everyday topics such as how human hands grasp objects, and showed these actions that we take for granted require “complex biomechanical architecture”. But this would hardly have been controversial if not for its ‘unfortunate’ use of some extremely taboo language: the researchers in multiple places referred to the Creator.”

"The many protests and threats of resignations have their way. “Paper Containing Creationist Language Pulled” was the title in “The Scientist. ....This incident should serve as a perfect response to any such challenge, and a ‘test case’ for what happens in such a circumstance. Far from giving due consideration, the so-called scientific community does the exact opposite: they scorn and bully anyone who would dare attempt to suggest a Creator, and do their best to prevent any such evidence from seeing the light of day. There would be pressure to remove any editor who allowed this to be published.

“This is the same type of behavior documented in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, as well as the book Slaughter of the Dissidents by Dr Jerry Bergman. The simple truth is, the secular academic world is not open to considering evidence for a Divine Creator. The very concept of intelligent design is anathema to them, and they will stop at nothing to prevent any hint of such a Creator from breaking through the pages of secular scientific literature. The oft-cited ‘amazing admission’ by Dr Richard Lewontin once again is relevant here......"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen. "

https://thebestofbelief.wordpress.com/2016/03/10/human-hand-was-designed-by-creator/




Awesome!! Evidence of design.
As long as you admit that the design comes via evolution, then sure
God's Word tells us where the design came from.....our Creator. Logic and experience tell us that design which results from a code, ALWAYS has a designer.

In the beginning, God created.

Stripe
March 19th, 2016, 07:47 AM
Cabinethead contradicts himself on a post-by-post basis.

God ... created evil.


He is not the author ... of sin.


True.

CabinetMaker
March 19th, 2016, 07:53 AM
Cabinethead contradicts himself on a post-by-post basis.
You are a liar. You parse people's posts to turn them into something they were not. It's dishonest. Worse, it is you bearing false witness against your neighbors, your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Greg Jennings
March 20th, 2016, 06:24 PM
You have seen the evidence Greg, but you deny things which contradict your religion. Things which appear designed, containing complex sophisticated information systems ALWAYS have a designer. We have the evidence from God's Word... and the evidence of His creation.

Like always Greg..... You believe things but without evidence or knowledge.
Show me a mechanical hand that is remotely close to human hand functionality, and I will point you to a very very impressive team of designers.
I can't believe how dishonest you are. You quote-mined me. I said the chimpanzee hand first, then mentioned the robotic hand as a possible contender. So how about you answer the actual question and tell me how our hand is so much more special than a chimp's? And don't quote mine me again ok?


God's Word tells us where the design came from.....our Creator. Logic and experience tell us that design which results from a code, ALWAYS has a designer.

In the beginning, God created.
Yet you can't find any non-YEC sources, papers. studies.....anything really.....tat comes anything close to backing up your absurd statements. Maybe there was w creator, and maybe there wasn't. Pretending that there is evidence to prove one way or the other is idiotic. It's philosophy, and unlike in science verification is not necessary and oftentimes not possible

Stripe
March 20th, 2016, 08:23 PM
You are a liar. You parse people's posts to turn them into something they were not. It's dishonest. Worse, it is you bearing false witness against your neighbors, your brothers and sisters in Christ.

You say God created evil, then you agreed with the statement that God is not the author of evil. :idunno:

6days
March 20th, 2016, 09:01 PM
You have seen the evidence Greg, but you deny things which contradict your religion. Things which appear designed, containing complex sophisticated information systems ALWAYS have a designer. We have the evidence from God's Word... and the evidence of His creation.

Like always Greg..... You believe things but without evidence or knowledge.
Show me a mechanical hand that is remotely close to human hand functionality, and I will point you to a very very impressive team of designers.
I can't believe how dishonest you are. You quote-mined me. I said the chimpanzee hand first, then mentioned the robotic hand as a possible contender.
Greg..... Its hard to take you serious sometimes. If you want to discuss something, don't keep trying to move the goalposts.

Lets Review

I said "The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version"

You replied... "The chimpanzee hand competes pretty well with it"

HUH??? Give your head a shake man..... The chimp hand has nothing to do with this world's engineers and designers.

SHEESH!! (BTW... The chimp hand is also designed very well for things that chimps do)




God's Word tells us where the design came from.....our Creator. Logic and experience tell us that design which results from a code, ALWAYS has a designer.

In the beginning, God created.
It's philosophy, and unlike in science verification is not necessary and oftentimes not possible

Very good..... That is much the same as something I often say. Evolutionism and creationism are not science. They are beliefs about the past. Both sides examine the exact same EVIDENCE, but interpret it to fit their beliefs. Neither side comes to the table as a blank slate.



........Pretending that there is evidence to prove one way or the other is idiotic.
BTW..Suggestion for you..... Why don't you make your statement about evidence your signature line. I think that would fit every post of yours when you try convince others of your beliefs ..."Pretending that there is evidence to prove one way or the other is idiotic.". Ha..... I don't necessarily agree but it would go well with your posts.

Greg Jennings
March 23rd, 2016, 01:31 PM
Greg..... Its hard to take you serious sometimes. If you want to discuss something, don't keep trying to move the goalposts.

Lets Review

I said "The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version"

You replied... "The chimpanzee hand competes pretty well with it"

HUH??? Give your head a shake man..... The chimp hand has nothing to do with this world's engineers and designers.

SHEESH!! (BTW... The chimp hand is also designed very well for things that chimps do)
I said the chimp hand because you seem to think that humans are made perfectly when they aren't (though our brains are close). If you agree that chimp hand design is no better than human hand design, why bring it up? Talk about strawmen and moving goalposts, you started that whole tangent! Nobody ever said that humans are capable of creating human-quality hands to date. That is what you might call a strawman. You'd think you would avoid those, as much as you whine about them (usually incorrectly I might add)


Very good..... That is much the same as something I often say. Evolutionism and creationism are not science. They are beliefs about the past. Both sides examine the exact same EVIDENCE, but interpret it to fit their beliefs. Neither side comes to the table as a blank slate.
You quote-mined again. Here is what I said. Feel free to respond to that:

"Yet you can't find any non-YEC sources, papers. studies.....anything really.....tat comes anything close to backing up your absurd statements. Maybe there was w creator, and maybe there wasn't. Pretending that there is evidence to prove one way or the other is idiotic. It's philosophy, and unlike in science verification is not necessary and oftentimes not possible."



BTW..Suggestion for you..... Why don't you make your statement about evidence your signature line. I think that would fit every post of yours when you try convince others of your beliefs ..."Pretending that there is evidence to prove one way or the other is idiotic.". Ha..... I don't necessarily agree but it would go well with your posts.
And another quote-mine. I even took the trouble to bolden my statement above so that it can be seen in context.
Are you proud of yourself when you do this?

6days
March 23rd, 2016, 07:06 PM
I said the chimp hand because you seem to think that humans are made perfectly when they aren't (though our brains are close).
No you said "chimp hands" to try move the goal posts. It had nothing to do with my statement "The human hand is a marvel of engineering... The worlds best engineers and designers have not been able to build anything close to competing with the God made version"