PDA

View Full Version : Creation vs. Evolution II



Pages : [1] 2

MichaelCadry
April 23rd, 2016, 02:18 AM
Dear All,

I miss everyone already from before, so I am starting this new thread. It isn't so lengthy and is easy to post at. Hey Alwight and Hedshaker, what floats your boats 2nite?? Miss you both!!
Looking forward to hearing from you! Much Love Coming Your Way!! Hey Greg Jennings and 6days; Yorzhik, Jose Fly, gcthomas, cross reference, etc. I didn't want all the work of a thread, but this one you can all post in and I will just pop in sometime and post. If I get ten pages behind, that will have to do. I can't always keep up with all of you because there are more than ten of you and only one me. That's why I got frustrated on my last original thread. Well, look forward to hearing from you all. I will understand if you don't want to post again.

Tons Of Love From God And Me & Cheerio, Mates!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer: :singer:

alwight
April 23rd, 2016, 04:02 AM
Hi Michael,
the old thread may have run its course and this one probably needs something specific to kick it off imo.
People will need to subscribe to this thread or it may slip under their radar.
My last post on it was:



Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post

Jose... your prediction and guarantee failed. And you aren't scoring points with your 'theology'. God is omnipotent. He can do anything within His nature. God can not tell lies. Your argument that He 'could do the exact opposite' is incorrect and not scriptural.
Seems to me 6days that you put rather more faith in an ancient and arguably entirely man-made scripture than in any divine being.Creationists seem to choose adherence to ancient scripture rather than have faith in a God that may simply have used Darwinian evolution as His preferred method.
Why do creationists put so much faith in ancient words rather than put their faith in God?

Jonahdog
April 23rd, 2016, 06:16 AM
Creationists seem to choose adherence to ancient scripture rather than have faith in a God that may simply have used Darwinian evolution as His preferred method.
Why do creationists put so much faith in ancient words rather than put their faith in God?

Several reasons:
1. they were born into a particular faith.
2. maybe it is easier to let something else do your thinking for you?
3. for some it lets them rant and rave with some perceived force behind it.
4. the "why are we here" question gets answered with some finality despite the fact that the world is chaotic and stochastic.
5. it allows you to be part of a particular tribe/group/clan that will support you against THE OTHER.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are mine this rainy Saturday morning in Massachusetts.

alwight
April 23rd, 2016, 06:31 AM
Let's see if we get a creationist perspective now.

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 11:44 AM
Let's see if we get a creationist perspective now.

God said it ( scripture ) I believe it ( faith ), and that settles it for me ( following ).

alwight
April 23rd, 2016, 01:22 PM
God said it ( scripture ) I believe it ( faith ), and that settles it for me ( following ).Any particular reason to believe one scripture over another or indeed over science?
Couldn't your scripture be partly allegorical and perhaps only the words of men?

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 01:36 PM
Any particular reason to believe one scripture over another or indeed over science?
Couldn't your scripture be partly allegorical and perhaps only the words of men?

No scripture contradicts creation by God NONE.

If a person is NOT born again ,nor trust God, the whole bible is no more than men's words to them , sadly.

In the beginning of Genesis ( chapter 1 ) God explains to mankind how the world got here, which was through His creating the heavens and the earth.

Finally Christians are warned by scripture to put no trust in what men have to say concerning the things of God.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Peace

alwight
April 23rd, 2016, 01:58 PM
No scripture contradicts creation by God NONE.

If a person is NOT born again ,nor trust God, the whole bible is no more than men's words to them , sadly.

In the beginning of Genesis ( chapter 1 ) God explains to mankind how the world got here, which was through His creating the heavens and the earth.

Finally Christians are warned by scripture to put no trust in what men have to say concerning the things of God.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

PeaceCan I presume that you think that the Earth is but a few thousand years old?

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 02:03 PM
alwight;4684172]Can I presume that you think that the Earth is but a few thousand years old


You would be correct in assuming I believe the world is close to 6000 years old give or take a few hundred years.

I have heard the arguments for an old or re-created earth,but I believe those arguments are to make those making the arguments feel good about rejecting God.

alwight
April 23rd, 2016, 02:16 PM
You would be correct in assuming I believe the world is close to 6000 years old give or take a few hundred years.

I have heard the arguments for an old or re-created earth,but I believe those arguments are to make those making the arguments feel good about rejecting God.Welcome creationist. :)

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 02:17 PM
Welcome creationist. :)

Thank you !

Peace

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 03:28 PM
Jonahdog;4683806]Several reasons:
1. they were born into a particular faith.

I became a christian @ 27



2. maybe it is easier to let something else do your thinking for you?

Seems to me that is WHY the world is so screwed up. Everyone following everyone else.


3. for some it lets them rant and rave with some perceived force behind it.

Those who witness for Christ Jesus are instructed to be meek and humble NOT argumentative.



4. the "why are we here" question gets answered with some finality despite the fact that the world is chaotic and stochastic.

That is a good question to ask ! Where you spend eternity could depend on getting that answer right.



5. it allows you to be part of a particular tribe/group/clan that will support you against THE OTHER.


Christians are NOT against anyone else they want everyone to receive the good that God has prepared for them.


I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are mine this rainy Saturday morning in Massachusetts.

Folks are going to either believe God or Satan ! I prefer to seek TRUTH because lies in this world are plentiful !

MichaelCadry
April 23rd, 2016, 04:32 PM
I became a christian @ 27


Seems to me that is WHY the world is so screwed up. Everyone following everyone else.



Those who witness for Christ Jesus are instructed to be meek and humble NOT argumentative.




That is a good question to ask ! Where you spend eternity could depend on getting that answer right.





Christians are NOT against anyone else they want everyone to receive the good that God has prepared for them.



Folks are going to either believe God or Satan ! I prefer to seek TRUTH because lies in this world are plentiful !


Dear Dodge,

Where have you been keeping yourself and why? You are quite bright about your answers. It's good to have someone like you post here. Why haven't you posted more often? Just wonderin'??

Michael

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 04:34 PM
Dear Dodge,

Where have you been keeping yourself and why? You are quite bright about your answers. It's good to have someone like you post here. Why haven't you posted more often? Just wonderin'??

Michael


Thank you ! I have been on another christian forum where I am now banned for 3 days for quoting scripture.

MichaelCadry
April 23rd, 2016, 04:41 PM
Dear alwight,

Thanks for starting this thread off just marvelously. And thanks to Jonahdog for adding his two cents. I've missed you all!! Alwight, it looks like you've all smashed the champagne bottle off the bow of the ship!!

Thanks also to you, Jonahdog, for posting!! I noticed you too, brother. Yes, I know you're an atheist, right? If Dodge can find Jesus at 27, then an atheist can find Jesus at 40, right?? That's what I aim for.

God Bless You All & Cheerio!!

Michael

Jonahdog
April 23rd, 2016, 08:05 PM
Those who witness for Christ Jesus are instructed to be meek and humble NOT argumentative.






Christians are NOT against anyone else they want everyone to receive the good that God has prepared for them.




Wow, are you sure you are in the right place here on TOL? It is full of "Christians" who do nothing but argue and revel in telling people they are going to hell.

dodge
April 23rd, 2016, 08:20 PM
Wow, are you sure you are in the right place here on TOL? It is full of "Christians" who do nothing but argue and revel in telling people they are going to hell.

Yes, I know. God gave us the truth to share and tells us to love other folks, sadly Satan seems to constantly make folks forget or ignore WHO they follow and are supposed to obey.

I believe as long as someone is breathing that there is hope, and that they will stop long enough to hear and listen to God.

It grieves me to think that the WAY and MEANS to follow and love God are revealed but folks are too caught up in themselves to share the love and forgiveness that God offers and provides.

God loves you.

It took me a long time and many trials to understand that God loves me in spite of me, and wants what is best for me.

Peace.

6days
April 23rd, 2016, 10:44 PM
Creationists seem to choose adherence to ancient scripture.. We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.


rather than have faith in a God that may simply have used Darwinian evolution Would you trust a god who 'creates' through processes of death, pain, suffering and extinctions? ...Oh, wait...that is the god of Darwinists. Why put so much faith in a creator (Mutations)which is not supported by evidence?

6days
April 23rd, 2016, 10:48 PM
Yes, I know. God gave us the truth to share and tells us to love other folks, sadly Satan seems to constantly make folks forget or ignore WHO they follow and are supposed to obey.
53 posts in 8 years? Come on man... pick up the pace!!!! :)

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 12:15 AM
We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.

Would you trust a god who 'creates' through processes of death, pain, suffering and extinctions? ...Oh, wait...that is the god of Darwinists. Why put so much faith in a creator (Mutations)which is not supported by evidence?This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 12:28 AM
Darwinists hate discussions involving evidence.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 12:43 AM
Darwinists hate discussions involving evidence.
If you are not going to contribute here Stripe then perhaps you would kindly butt out? :thumb:

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 04:00 AM
If you are not going to contribute here Stripe then perhaps you would kindly butt out? :thumb:

Darwinists hate it when they are reminded that they despise evidence.

Jonahdog
April 24th, 2016, 05:12 AM
Darwinists hate it when they are reminded that they despise evidence.

Stripey just hates. As Dodge will no doubt figure out in due time.

Jonahdog
April 24th, 2016, 05:15 AM
We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.

Would you trust a god who 'creates' through processes of death, pain, suffering and extinctions? ...Oh, wait...that is the god of Darwinists. Why put so much faith in a creator (Mutations)which is not supported by evidence?

Your first sentence is factually incorrect, you should work on that a bit.

Your second sentence brings to mind the death, pain and suffering brought about by your particular deity throughout the Old Testament.

patrick jane
April 24th, 2016, 07:43 AM
Mike i'm really disappointed that you closed the biggest thread here. I think you did it for attention so I will not post anymore in your threads :chuckle:

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 10:18 AM
53 posts in 8 years? Come on man... pick up the pace!!!! :)

I have a wife, 4 grown kids, 8 grand kids, full time job ,church, and other things going on that does NOT leave much time for posting regularly.

Peace

:salute:

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 10:34 AM
This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.


Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?

If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?

If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.


I believe it takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than it does to place your faith in the truth as God provided for us through His word and the evidences He provides in scripture.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 11:55 AM
Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?
Human beings evidentially evolved from proto-human beings which were themselves highly developed complex creatures that also didn't emerge from any "primordial slop" that the original simple life might have come from.
My understanding is that sexual reproduction is a relatively late development of life which probably involved genetic information somehow being transferred from one individual to another, long before any humans. Of course all the many distinct gender features as seen in modern human beings today evolved far greater complexity over great periods of time, periods of time that YECs do not accept existed. It wasn't a case of two individuals coming along at the same time.


If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?I think that your understanding of Darwinian evolution is probably very poor and suspect that you don't really choose to go beyond whatever YEC sources will tell you.
You really need to understand that evolution happens to whole species not individuals and that whatever the species was that humans evolved from they also had many individuals of both sexes, so your perceived problem here really doesn't exist.


If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.


I believe it takes more faith to believe the lie of evolution than it does to place your faith in the truth as God provided for us through His word and the evidences He provides in scripture.I think you'll find that science generally regards Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact as I do too because it is supported by testable evidence, reasoning and facts not faith nor a literal adherence to ancient scripture.

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 12:00 PM
Human beings evidentially evolved from proto-human beings which were themselves highly developed complex creatures that also didn't emerge from any "primordial slop" that the original simple life might have come from.
My understanding is that sexual reproduction is a relatively late development of life which probably involved genetic information somehow being transferred from one individual to another, long before any humans. Of course all the many distinct gender features as seen in modern human beings today evolved far greater complexity over great periods of time, periods of time that YECs do not accept existed. It wasn't a case of two individuals coming along at the same time.

I think that your understanding of Darwinian evolution is probably very poor and suspect that you don't really choose to go beyond whatever YEC sources will tell you.
You really need to understand that evolution happens to whole species not individuals and that whatever the species were that humans evolved from they also had many individuals of both sexes, so your perceived problem here really doesn't exist.

I think you'll find that science generally regards Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact as I do too because it is supported by testable evidence, reasoning and facts not faith nor a literal adherence to ancient scripture.

Have YOU ever Googled scientists that disagree with evolution ? It might surprise you to know there are scientists who have P.H.D.'S that disagree with evolution....So NOT all scientists agree with evolution.

Facts are NOT called theories.

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 12:08 PM
evidentially.

:darwinsm:

The closest a Darwinist will ever come to discussing evidence is when they use words to pretend they have it.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 12:09 PM
Have YOU ever Googled scientists that disagree with evolution ? It might surprise you to know there are scientists who have P.H.D.'S that disagree with evolution....So NOT all scientists agree with evolution.

Facts are NOT called theories.By all means present their arguments here. If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted, though I rather doubt it is possible.

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 12:12 PM
If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted.Great! Got a photocopier?


though I rather doubt it is possible.
That's your religionism talking. A scientist would have no need of such a defensive mechanism.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 12:19 PM
Great! Got a photocopier?


That's your religionism talking. A scientist would have no need of such a defensive mechanism.Butt out Stripe you have nothing to contribute obviously. :Plain:

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 12:21 PM
By all means present their arguments here. If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted, though I rather doubt it is possible.



Why did you reject evolution

Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told. Eventually, I became a Christian and a believer in the Genesis account of creation. Let me share with you some of the things that I believe will convince anyone who looks honestly into the subject of origins.

Evidence for Supernatural Origin by Design

Charles Thaxton of Charles University in Prague wrote that evidence for design is reasonable because, “In ordinary life we distinguish natural from intelligent causes all the time—when police officers determine whether a person died of natural causes or was murdered, when archaeologists decide whether a chipped rock is just a rock or a Paleolithic tool.”

Though evolutionists chide creationists for using design arguments, they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space. NASA’s SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is searching for intelligent life in outer space. Isaac Asimov described the purpose for sending signals into space saying that if intelligent life in the universe detect the signals, they will recognize the obvious design of intelligence in its creation and conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Not only do we send signals into space, we also scan the heavens for signs showing evidence of intelligent creation. Obviously, even the evolutionists recognize the validity of design arguments.

The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Evidence for Supernatural Origin of the Universe

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.
In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

In contrast, evolution proposes only natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific.


http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htm

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 12:26 PM
Why did you reject evolution

Patrick Briney, Ph.D.

As an atheist, I believed in evolution as fact. It was the only explanation for existence. But after attending a lecture on creation science, I began to rethink the question of origins. The speaker had pointed out several things that I knew were true, but I never considered the implications. He also said some things I had not been told about in class. Subsequently, I began to doubt evolution, distrust teachers of evolution, and wonder what else I had not been told. Eventually, I became a Christian and a believer in the Genesis account of creation. Let me share with you some of the things that I believe will convince anyone who looks honestly into the subject of origins.

Evidence for Supernatural Origin by Design

Charles Thaxton of Charles University in Prague wrote that evidence for design is reasonable because, “In ordinary life we distinguish natural from intelligent causes all the time—when police officers determine whether a person died of natural causes or was murdered, when archaeologists decide whether a chipped rock is just a rock or a Paleolithic tool.”

Though evolutionists chide creationists for using design arguments, they use the design argument in their search for intelligent life in outer space. NASA’s SETI program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) is searching for intelligent life in outer space. Isaac Asimov described the purpose for sending signals into space saying that if intelligent life in the universe detect the signals, they will recognize the obvious design of intelligence in its creation and conclude that intelligent life exists elsewhere. Not only do we send signals into space, we also scan the heavens for signs showing evidence of intelligent creation. Obviously, even the evolutionists recognize the validity of design arguments.

The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Evidence for Supernatural Origin of the Universe

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.
In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

In contrast, evolution proposes only natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts a natural law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific.


http://mbbc.us/creation/inquiry/rejection.htmPlease don't present cut and paste articles from creationist sites for me to read. Where is your understanding of what they may say and how it affects the ToE?

Jose Fly
April 24th, 2016, 12:30 PM
Question: Since neither man nor woman can exist without the other how is it that during this long process of climbing out of the primordial slop to eventually walking upright did BOTH man and woman do so at exactly the SAME time ?

You're assuming that going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction must happen in one individual in a single leap. However, no evolutionary biologist has posited such a thing. Instead, we know from studying organisms (http://www.mycologia.org/content/105/1/1.full) that there are intermediate types of reproduction available.


If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?

As has been explained for you, humans are descended from earlier hominid species that reproduced sexually (as did the ancestral species going quite far back).


If you think about it it takes MORE misplaced faith to believe in evolution than FAITH to believe the truth that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is therein.

Well, given what you posted above, it seems the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 12:35 PM
Please don't present cut and paste articles from creationist sites for me to read. Where is your understanding of what they may say and how it affects the ToE?


I am quoting YOU "By all means present their arguments here."

Jose Fly
April 24th, 2016, 12:36 PM
The DNA molecule is a string of information far more complex than radio or optical signals. It is unnaturally complex in size, function, and coded information. Intelligent men have been working on producing life in test tubes for years, and yet they continue to fail even with the code and materials of life all around them. They can create signals to send into outer space, but they cannot create life. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes mindless molecules more clever than brilliant scientists. But from a common sense perspective, this suggests that we have already found the evidence for intelligent design and creation. How is it that intelligent life on this planet are searching for simple design from outer space and missing the obvious evidence of complex design in the genetic code?

Fallacy of appeal to ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).


1. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that Energy is not created by natural means. But, the universe exists as matter and energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it did not create itself by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the universe was created supernaturally.

The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.


In contrast, Evolution proposes strictly natural explanations. Therefore, evolution contradicts an established, scientific law. Models that contradict laws of science are unscientific. Therefore, evolution as a model of origins is unscientific and false.

That doesn't even make sense.


2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that there is no natural means to increase usable energy (reduce entropy) in a closed system. The universe contains all things and is a closed system that is decreasing in usable energy (increasing in entropy). But decreasing in usable energy means that it began in a state of higher energy. An established, scientific law tells us that it could not have increased its state of usable energy by natural means. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that the initial energy of the universe must have originated supernaturally.

Again, the origin of the universe doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary biology. And again, we see that despite your rather grandiose claims about evolution, you really don't know all that much about it.

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 12:45 PM
Butt out Stripe you have nothing to contribute obviously. :Plain:

Darwinists love talking all big about "falsification," but run for the hills when presented with a knockout case against their precious religion.

A plain ole photocopier shows evolutionism up.

I thought you'd be "delighted." :idunno:

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 12:58 PM
Fallacy of appeal to ignorance
Nope.

Clearly you don't know how to recognize actual fallacies. That's probably because you use real ones so much that you think they are rational.

That life cannot be created in the lab is indeed suggestive that a greater intelligence was required.


The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.
Then you should stop talking about it then. :up:


That doesn't even make sense.
But you're not going to tell us what you don't comprehend. :rolleyes:

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 12:58 PM
You're assuming that going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction must happen in one individual in a single leap. However, no evolutionary biologist has posited such a thing. Instead, we know from studying organisms (http://www.mycologia.org/content/105/1/1.full) that there are intermediate types of reproduction available.



As has been explained for you, humans are descended from earlier hominid species that reproduced sexually (as did the ancestral species going quite far back).



Well, given what you posted above, it seems the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.

Since I know evolution is a lie started by Satan to deceive and keep folks from the truth ! The science is phony or else Anyone could dig anywhere and find a species in transition, which there is NONE.

The problem is that you and those who have bought into the evolution lie have no clue of the truth, and sadly will one day stand before God without an advocate ( Jesus ), which means you will die in your sins and spend eternity in hell,sadly.

Jose Fly
April 24th, 2016, 01:02 PM
Since I know evolution is a lie started by Satan to deceive and keep folks from the truth ! The science is phony or else Anyone could dig anywhere and find a species in transition, which there is NONE.

Oh....so it's pretty pointless to discuss this with you from a scientific perspective, since no matter what you're presented you'll just wave it away as a "lie from satan".


The problem is that you and those who have bought into the evolution lie have no clue of the truth, and sadly will one day stand before God without an advocate ( Jesus ), which means you will die in your sins and spend eternity in hell,sadly.

Sure, whatever.

Jose Fly
April 24th, 2016, 01:05 PM
That life cannot be created in the lab is indeed suggestive that a greater intelligence was required.

Please explain how without committing the fallacies of false dilemma and appeal to ignorance.

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 01:11 PM
Please explain how without committing the fallacies of false dilemma and appeal to ignorance.

Sure.

If you were trying to build a rocket and found you could not make one fly, that would be suggestive that a greater intelligence was required.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 01:18 PM
I am quoting YOU "By all means present their arguments here."But I want you to present your understanding of them, I can always go and look at them myself if I feel the need, I don't need you to simply relay words at me. What is your understanding of why they may think that Darwin got it so wrong?

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 01:57 PM
Jose Fly;4684757]Oh....so it's pretty pointless to discuss this with you from a scientific perspective, since no matter what you're presented you'll just wave it away as a "lie from satan".


Correct ! Why would I leave what I know to be true to follow the same lie you follow ?



Sure, whatever.

Reverse that YOU will not accept anything unless it agrees with the deceptions YOU have believed.

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 02:03 PM
But I want you to present your understanding of them, I can always go and look at them myself if I feel the need, I don't need you to simply relay words at me. What is your understanding of why they may think that Darwin got it so wrong?


Truthfully I have zero interest in evolution ! I know it is a lie and it is hard for me to study lies.

Have you ever really read the bible without preconceived beliefs as to the truth of scripture as opposed to what you have been told about God ?

Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 02:19 PM
Truthfully I have zero interest in evolution ! I know it is a lie and it is hard for me to study lies.Wouldn't you find it more rewarding to actually know and demonstrably show these supposed lies are lies rather than just repeat what other creationists will typically say?


Have you ever really read the bible without preconceived beliefs as to the truth of scripture as opposed to what you have been told about God ?
I tend to believe what is written when it is supported by evidence.



Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I think that much of Genesis is allegorical and was never intended as an historical narrative to be considered as literally true.

dodge
April 24th, 2016, 02:25 PM
alwight;4684835]Wouldn't you find it more rewarding to actually know and demonstrably show these supposed lies are lies rather than just repeat what other creationists will typically say?

Been there done that long ago ! Most if not all have dug in and are not seeking truth they want to hedge themselves in among the lies they live.



I tend to believe what is written when it is supported by evidence.

Then read the bible.




I think that much of Genesis is allegorical and was never intended as an historical narrative to be considered as literally true.


IT WAS NOT ALLEGORICAL READ THE REST OF Genesis chapters 1 - 2- and 3

alwight
April 24th, 2016, 04:23 PM
Been there done that long ago ! Most if not all have dug in and are not seeking truth they want to hedge themselves in among the lies they live.I suspect that you simply presupposed your conclusions about the ToE long ago and won't let reality ever get in the way now. Clearly from before you don't understand too much about Darwinian evolution.


Then read the bible.
You probably think that the Bible is evidence of itself and doesn't require any outside sources of support, sorry but I do.


IT WAS NOT ALLEGORICAL READ THE REST OF Genesis chapters 1 - 2- and 3And that will show what exactly other than two conflicting creation accounts?

6days
April 24th, 2016, 07:33 PM
Human beings evidentially evolved from proto-human beingsHuman beings were created as intelligent, moral, spiritual beings.


which were themselves highly developed complex creatures I'm sure you realize that scientists think the very 'simplest' life forms are highly developed and complex.


that also didn't emerge from any "primordial slop" that the original simple life might have come from. There is a scientific law...law of biogenesis....you should know that life does not arise from warm little ponds.


My understanding is that sexual reproduction is a relatively late development of life which probably involved genetic information somehow being transferred from one individual to another, long before any humans That isn't a understanding grounded in evidence; but instead 'grounded' in a false belief system.



It wasn't a case of two individuals coming along at the same time.
"Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'Matt.19:4




If there would have been any gap between the TWO ( man and woman ) arriving at the pretty much to the exact same time there would be no mankind correct?
....so your perceived problem here really doesn't exist. You might want to let Richard Dawkins know. He called the origin of sex an unsolved mystery.


]I think you'll find that science generally regards Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact as I do too because it is supported by testable evidenceTestable evidence tells us common ancestry beliefs is a false belief system. Darwinian evolutionists have claimed many things to be 'virtual facts' which science later proved was false.


reasoning and facts not faith nor a literal adherence to ancient scripture. Adherance to the inerrant word of God will never leave us with egg on face, foot in mouth backtracking that evolutionists have a history of.
If we can falsify The Theory of Evolution I will be delighted, though I rather doubt it is possible. Evolutionism is a belief system that can't be falsified. It is like a dense fog that covers any landscape. For example, evolutionists claim both good design and sloppy design are evidence of their belief system.

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 12:45 AM
No scripture contradicts creation by God NONE.

If a person is NOT born again ,nor trust God, the whole bible is no more than men's words to them , sadly.

In the beginning of Genesis ( chapter 1 ) God explains to mankind how the world got here, which was through His creating the heavens and the earth.

Finally Christians are warned by scripture to put no trust in what men have to say concerning the things of God.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Peace


Dear dodge,

Thanks for your posts. Yes, we believe in our writings about our God and our Jesus Christ, just as evolutionists believe in their writings about Darwin. So, no one wants to change their beliefs. Enough said, to be honest. I'm certainly not going to give up my writings about God for some writings about a man with some sick compulsion that apes/chimps and man both have two legs and two hands, and are similar to each other in other ways also. So does he want us to believe we are all the product of one-celled amoebas? It's a good thing that he isn't God. Certainly God can have that be so, by His creating and forming, not by 'nature' causing. So well all have a proton similar between all of us living creations, so that means that God has nothing to do within it? I would rather believe that someone Has Been Creating all of these things, not that they just all came from "Mother Nature," which is saying just about the same thing as all of it coming from God. There is no Mother Nature. It is God alone. God causes the tornado, and the hurricane, and the lightning, which is over 5 times as hot as the surface of the Sun. He causes the waterspout, rain, thunder, hail, snow, ice, etc. also. There is no use me going through it all. You're going to go and believe otherwise regardless, to save face regarding your beliefs. God is in control of the cocoons of the caterpillars and praying mantises. Isn't that miraculous??!! I think it's awesome. Well, I'm not going to waste my fingers trying to type all of this when it is for naught. Love came from God also. Can't make that with an amoeba. Neither crying, nor laughter, etc.

Much Love To All,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 01:05 AM
Hi Michael,
the old thread may have run its course and this one probably needs something specific to kick it off imo.
People will need to subscribe to this thread or it may slip under their radar.
My last post on it was:

Creationists seem to choose adherence to ancient scripture rather than have faith in a God that may simply have used Darwinian evolution as His preferred method.
Why do creationists put so much faith in ancient words rather than put their faith in God?


Hey Brother alwight,

Are you trying to say that Darwin was here before God or vice versa?? Of course God made Darwin before Darwin ever had a brain to even think with. Still, I can see your vexation. You see, alwight, we believe in the sacred ancient writings because we know they are from God Himself. That is where our comfort comes from. And we have yet to be let down. We're on a collision course with destiny and prophecy. Yippee!! In the words of Stevie Nicks, "I Can't Wait!!"

Tons Of Love Coming At Ya'!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 01:17 AM
You would be correct in assuming I believe the world is close to 6000 years old give or take a few hundred years.

I have heard the arguments for an old or re-created earth,but I believe those arguments are to make those making the arguments feel good about rejecting God.


Hey dodge,

Thanks for taking any heat to keep your strong beliefs alive, despite the naysayers. Yes, the Earth was created aged some 6,000 years ago. God created Adam as a young man, not as a crying male baby. Same with Eve. Same with the creatures of the Earth and the birds, fish, creeping things. All were created aged, instead of God throwing some seeds down and letting them mature first. The chicken came before the egg. God created the chicken. The chicken had sex. Thus: the egg!! Now you know what to tell your friends when they ask what came first, the chicken or the egg. And it was in the Bible all of this time. You're a wonderful person!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 01:57 AM
Thank you ! I have been on another christian forum where I am now banned for 3 days for quoting scripture.


Dear dodge,

I am the other creationist, besides 6days, who believe that the Earth and Universe is 6,000 some years old. I say that God has had over 6,000 years now to expand the Universe and perfect His creations on Earth. That is plenty of time for all of His Divine creations!! Holy are they indeed. I hope you never leave. Stay here with us and don't grow weary despite any negative feedback. We really have a bunch of good people here. That is why I can give Thanks to both sides of the coin at certain times. Without the evolutionists and atheists, we would not be here. Well, we'd be discussing between ourselves how we all agree that God created us and the Universe. It would be far less interesting. I know why I am here. I am here to try to somehow persuade other atheists or evolutionists to reconsider and perhaps change their beliefs. We want them to live eternally also so that they will be with us in Heaven too!! I think they are also here for that reason towards us Christians. It is a fun website and this is a fun Thread. I hope you enjoy your stay here. Don't forget. Be Strong!!

Oh, How Awesomely Incredible And Wonderful Is God's Imagination!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 02:17 AM
Mike i'm really disappointed that you closed the biggest thread here. I think you did it for attention so I will not post anymore in your threads :chuckle:


Dear patrick jane,

Do you think I closed my longest thread to start all over again???!!! If anything, I should have kept the longest running thread in some time and held onto it like a diamond, a precious stone, or some precious metal? I did not do any of the things you are accusing me of, PJ. The other thread just got to be too big to me and I could not keep up with everyone posting twelve posts to my one. I just couldn't hack it anymore. I have made it very clear in the beginning of this thread that, if I get behind, then so be it. I will just pick up from wherever I want to start discussing things, and am not expected to hold the thread together and read EVERYONE'S posts and answer them all. I tried to give everyone who posted on my old thread a matching post of my own to them. When I could not anymore, I felt like I wasn't being fair anymore. I just couldn't do it anymore. I have ten to twelve people posting to me and I'm one person posting back. It is highly improbable that everyone would get a personal touch and so I ended it. And with this thread, I have stated that I cannot do that anymore. I am happy. I hope that you are too, my Twin Brother!!

If Mom And Dad Could See Us Now!! Heheeeh!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 02:40 AM
This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.

Dear alwight,

I am glad to hear that you might like the idea of a friendly heavenly Father looking after us. That is exactly what is going on up there. I know you can't understand why God did things this way and that, but there is a very important reason for each instance. I hope you can realize this.

God Bless You, My Bro'!!

Michael

alwight
April 25th, 2016, 02:55 AM
Hey Brother alwight,

Are you trying to say that Darwin was here before God or vice versa?? Of course God made Darwin before Darwin ever had a brain to even think with. Still, I can see your vexation. You see, alwight, we believe in the sacred ancient writings because we know they are from God Himself. That is where our comfort comes from. And we have yet to be let down. We're on a collision course with destiny and prophecy. Yippee!! In the words of Stevie Nicks, "I Can't Wait!!"

Tons Of Love Coming At Ya'!!

MichaelMichael, Darwinian evolution as a concept has always existed, it has nothing to do with the man himself other than he first brought it to our attention.
I don't know that any ancient text comes from any god even if you think you do, but I suspect that you want to believe it rather more than you can demonstrate it does.

alwight
April 25th, 2016, 03:02 AM
Dear alwight,

I am glad to hear that you might like the idea of a friendly heavenly Father looking after us. That is exactly what is going on up there. I know you can't understand why God did things this way and that, but there is a very important reason for each instance. I hope you can realize this.

God Bless You, My Bro'!!

MichaelAs you know certain things are currently going on in my life which I conclude are not "mysterious ways" but are instead harsh reality, if that perception is ever changed by events I will let you know. ;)

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 03:41 AM
Hey, hey,

I am sorry, but I'm only at the end of page 2. Will try to catch up 2morrow. I have to get to bed right now because I have a very important dental appointment 2morrow. I hope that everyone is having a good time here debating and learning, and that God's Peace be over it all!!

Warmest Wishes & Cheerio, Mates,

Michael

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 09:41 AM
If you were trying to build a rocket and found you could not make one fly, that would be suggestive that a greater intelligence was required.

And you see that as solid, valid logic? :chuckle:

Stripe
April 25th, 2016, 09:56 AM
And you see that as solid, valid logic?

Sure. Why is that not reasonable? I know rockets can be made. If I try to make one myself and fail, I know I need to learn more about making rockets.

You're seriously going to argue with that?

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 10:01 AM
Sure. Why is that not reasonable?

Does that reasoning apply to all areas and across history?


I know rockets can be made. If I try to make one myself and fail, I know I need to learn more about making rockets.

Does "learning more about rockets" mean you need to get more intelligent?

Stripe
April 25th, 2016, 11:02 AM
Does that reasoning apply to all areas and across history? Does "learning more about rockets" mean you need to get more intelligent?

See?

Seriously, Darwinists will talk about anything to avoid a rational critique of their precious religion. They desperately need to shield it from any kind of analysis.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 11:03 AM
Thanks for your time.

Stripe
April 25th, 2016, 11:09 AM
Thanks for your time.

You're welcome, you flaming retard. :up:

Lon
April 25th, 2016, 07:52 PM
Creationists seem to choose adherence to ancient scripture rather than have faith in a God that may simply have used Darwinian evolution as His preferred method.
Why do creationists put so much faith in ancient words rather than put their faith in God?
I think the central point must/necessarily be not observation, but interpretation. Scriptures have never been 'proven' wrong. When I think of atheist websites dedicated to exactly that end, it certainly becomes evident.

So, lest we be accused of moving the goalposts, and science interpretation as well, we need to follow the truth and take a second and third look at our interpretations of data and conclusions. Data is what is there/true. Interpretation and conclusion is in nowise unassailable. That's WHY we have denominations. In the end, we all follow the data, correct?

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 09:48 PM
You're welcome, you flaming retard. :up:


Hey Stripe,

Just a note. I made a rocket and it had an engine, and I made it fly and it had a parachute which opened to guide it back to land without hurting it. You could fly it as many times as you wanted, as long as you could still afford the fuel pack.

May God Shine Upon Your Countenance And Increase It Four-fold,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 10:15 PM
Thank you ! I have been on another christian forum where I am now banned for 3 days for quoting scripture.


Well, I hope we don't lose you any time soon! You're very appreciated here and have a lot of wisdom to impart. I just love your tag line about the RCC and worshiping Mary more than worshiping God and Jesus. It's a real turn-off.

May God Always Answer Your Prayers,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 10:33 PM
I have a wife, 4 grown kids, 8 grand kids, full time job ,church, and other things going on that does NOT leave much time for posting regularly.

Peace

:salute:

Dear dodge,

I understand. And you've been posting somewhere else for a while too. So it is just fine. I do hope no one will scare you away. You are very welcome here. I have found myself trying to persuade atheists by telling them the truth about hell and the lake of fire. I've only done it to try to help them see reason and Who will save your soul is God through Jesus. No man comes to the Father but by Me / Jesus. It's the truth. I'm not trying to scare them. I just want to give them enough information so that they won't hang themselves in the shuffle. I worry about them all so much and they are my friends and I'd really rather gab to them in Heaven instead of not. Well, now you know me and how I feel.

May God Support You In Your Endeavors,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 10:43 PM
This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.


Dear alwight,

I assure you positively that there is a heavenly Father who loves you tons, if you'd only let Him in your life. He is happy to help you out and make your life heavenly and joyous. You'll find out. Please don't miss the boat. I want to be able to chat with you at the end of all of this. The wheat is saved and the chaff is burned. Try to be some of the wheat, alwight. Not the chaff!! Eeeek!!

Much Love Always To You And For You,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 11:15 PM
You're assuming that going from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction must happen in one individual in a single leap. However, no evolutionary biologist has posited such a thing. Instead, we know from studying organisms (http://www.mycologia.org/content/105/1/1.full) that there are intermediate types of reproduction available.



As has been explained for you, humans are descended from earlier hominid species that reproduced sexually (as did the ancestral species going quite far back).



Well, given what you posted above, it seems the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.


Oh Jose, Can You See?

You'd rather wrap yourself around some darkness instead of embracing actual facts and truths. What you have is only a Theory of Evolution. Not facts. You haven't proven that we descended from another animal species like chimps or apes. Give it a rest. It's just not truth. Why must you scramble in the quagmire of your errant beliefs, and make sunny side up eggs? You can't even keep the egg yolk from breaking. I thought I would give you some of the trash that you try to give me.

You Know That I Love You. I'm Just Trying To Help You Realize The Truth!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 11:24 PM
This is one reason I don't believe in gods and that the natural world is what it is because of Darwinian evolution, uncontrolled by any divine entity, no gods are responsible or to blame for its harsher reality.
I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly father looking after us, but clearly that is not happening and we should just get on with it as it is.


Dear alwight,

I too might like the idea of a friendly heavenly Father looking after us, and it truly is happening during these times, but I won't see it because I don't want to believe that way. I'd rather go with something concrete so that I end up with a sidewalk in the end. Yippee! You're selling your soul for a sidewalk and you don't know it. Please Al, start believing in a Heavenly Father. He's REALLY There!! Give Him some more time and you will see His wonders that He will do in the Earth. He is waiting for you all to board the Peace Train. Will you?? Come on. Let us all be together in the same place in the end. PLEASE!! I love you all exceedingly and you all know it.

Believing In A Heavenly Father!! Cheerio Indeed!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 25th, 2016, 11:32 PM
Yes, I know. God gave us the truth to share and tells us to love other folks, sadly Satan seems to constantly make folks forget or ignore WHO they follow and are supposed to obey.

I believe as long as someone is breathing that there is hope, and that they will stop long enough to hear and listen to God.

It grieves me to think that the WAY and MEANS to follow and love God are revealed but folks are too caught up in themselves to share the love and forgiveness that God offers and provides.

God loves you.

It took me a long time and many trials to understand that God loves me in spite of me, and wants what is best for me.

Peace.


Dear dodge,

You have some powerful arguments that I find to be wonderful. How could others ignore the truth that does exist and Darwin is a big Theory of Evolution. Not a Fact, but a Theory only!! You don't convince me simply by saying this man Darwin said this and so that is what we should believe instead of God. You must be kidding me?? Please come to rationalization and peace in your spirit instead of always wondering if you are perhaps believing the wrong thing after all. You certainly must know that it is not God causing you to not believe in Him. Turn Around, Please. You are following a LIE. It says in Genesis that God created man in His image, not in the image of an ape, but instead that of a man. Find out the truth please. Be there with us all in the end.

From The Heart!!

Michael

alwight
April 26th, 2016, 01:16 AM
I think the central point must/necessarily be not observation, but interpretation. Scriptures have never been 'proven' wrong. When I think of atheist websites dedicated to exactly that end, it certainly becomes evident.I really don't think that your scriptures have any way of being "proven" wrong of falsified, there just isn't anything definitive that can be put to the test. Clearly however science has shown that the Earth is much older than Genesis suggests and that arguably many contradictions do exist which suggests that something must be wrong. Noah's flood can't really be "proven" false but I think that since the evidence lacks any sign of a global flood ever happening you really need a rosy view of scripture to believe it isn't wrong.


So, lest we be accused of moving the goalposts, and science interpretation as well, we need to follow the truth and take a second and third look at our interpretations of data and conclusions. Data is what is there/true. Interpretation and conclusion is in nowise unassailable. That's WHY we have denominations. In the end, we all follow the data, correct?Scripture is on face value only the words of men (else "prove" otherwise), it doesn't offer any scientific data and only a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist would insist that it was all literally true. If it did then there would probably be rather less denominations if any.

Lon
April 26th, 2016, 01:45 AM
I really don't think that your scriptures have any way of being "proven" wrong of falsified, there just isn't anything definitive that can be put to the test. Clearly however science has shown that the Earth is much older than Genesis suggests and that arguably many contradictions do exist which suggests that something must be wrong.
Certainly it might look that way. For the time being, we are reading 24 hour days as part of the text. Hebrew was a primitive language in the sense that they didn't have a separate word for everything like we do. In addition, we extrapolate, mostly from genealogies, how old the earth is. It assumes we have a complete genealogy record (partly because in several cases a time-table is given). I do know that a complete ecosystem has to function for life. I am trying to make an aquarium with plants reach an equilibrium with the animals. I realized early on that things had to be planted side-by-side for the tank to work right. There was a period between planting water plants and then being able to introduce animals. It is fairly exacting work. Genesis explains an overview, but not in enough detail for me to 'go and do likewise.' Not even science, in this respect, has been perfect. The first set of animals died because the thermostat didn't work right. It boiled my fish and frogs.


Noah's flood can't really be "proven" false but I think that since the evidence lacks any sign of a global flood ever happening you really need a rosy view of scripture to believe it isn't wrong. I disagree. While other cultures included a bit of wives-tales with their version, they still recorded a global flood. There is every reason to wonder about that flood and not dismiss it at that venture. Something, I think by necessity of multiple recordings had to have happened. I personally don't think it wise to try to dismiss historical record by more than one people group. We can with certainty say that those cultures all thought there was a large deluge with memories associated.


Scripture is on face value only the words of men (else "prove" otherwise), it doesn't offer any scientific data and only a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist would insist that it was all literally true. If it did then there would probably be rather less denominations if any.
A challenge and a declaration. First, there are archeological verifications. For instance, until the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that Daniel was too clear to have been prophetic and must have been back written. The scrolls proved that this 'intellectual logicking conjecture couldn't have been right. So, there are other attacks but I think history necessarily has to be proven right. Lately there is a push to deny the indentured tenure of Israelites in Egypt. Such doesn't make sense, historically because the only thing lacking is an Egyptian mention. A lack of verification could lead to skepticism, but things are always being found. Skeptics didn't believe Solomon's stables existed and insisted it was impossible until they were found. Time proves a thing that actually exists, as true and no one thing challenged has ever been found otherwise. Therefore, a lack in evidence has never meant but that such hasn't been found. Biblical archeology is viable and lucrative business, science, and art.

Scientific data was addressed above. I think it can steer science well. The Genesis account gives an sustaining ecosystem. I know I need a sustainable eco-system based at least in part, as a Christian reading Genesis. Science, as I also said, has not guaranteed a viable ecosystem, but because of both science and Genesis, I know what one is supposed to look like. I finally have that system up and running. In fact, it is my love for creation that has me setting up a tank in the first place. -Lon

MichaelCadry
April 26th, 2016, 04:28 AM
Certainly it might look that way. For the time being, we are reading 24 hour days as part of the text. Hebrew was a primitive language in the sense that they didn't have a separate word for everything like we do. In addition, we extrapolate, mostly from genealogies, how old the earth is. It assumes we have a complete genealogy record (partly because in several cases a time-table is given). I do know that a complete ecosystem has to function for life. I am trying to make an aquarium with plants reach an equilibrium with the animals. I realized early on that things had to be planted side-by-side for the tank to work right. There was a period between planting water plants and then being able to introduce animals. It is fairly exacting work. Genesis explains an overview, but not in enough detail for me to 'go and do likewise.' Not even science, in this respect, has been perfect. The first set of animals died because the thermostat didn't work right. It boiled my fish and frogs.

I disagree. While other cultures included a bit of wives-tales with their version, they still recorded a global flood. There is every reason to wonder about that flood and not dismiss it at that venture. Something, I think by necessity of multiple recordings had to have happened. I personally don't think it wise to try to dismiss historical record by more than one people group. We can with certainty say that those cultures all thought there was a large deluge with memories associated.


A challenge and a declaration. First, there are archeological verifications. For instance, until the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that Daniel was too clear to have been prophetic and must have been back written. The scrolls proved that this 'intellectual logicking conjecture couldn't have been right. So, there are other attacks but I think history necessarily has to be proven right. Lately there is a push to deny the indentured tenure of Israelites in Egypt. Such doesn't make sense, historically because the only thing lacking is an Egyptian mention. A lack of verification could lead to skepticism, but things are always being found. Skeptics didn't believe Solomon's stables existed and insisted it was impossible until they were found. Time proves a thing that actually exists, as true and no one thing challenged has ever been found otherwise. Therefore, a lack in evidence has never meant but that such hasn't been found. Biblical archeology is viable and lucrative business, science, and art.

Scientific data was addressed above. I think it can steer science well. The Genesis account gives an sustaining ecosystem. I know I need a sustainable eco-system based at least in part, as a Christian reading Genesis. Science, as I also said, has not guaranteed a viable ecosystem, but because of both science and Genesis, I know what one is supposed to look like. I finally have that system up and running. In fact, it is my love for creation that has me setting up a tank in the first place. -Lon


Dear Lon,

Thanks for stopping by. You are welcome to stay here and post every day. I have a 50 gallon fish tank, but only a plastic plant. I have a tank of fancy goldfish. Just awesome. They are easier to raise and keep than most fish. The other fish get ick and all of that stuff. I tried raising them, but couldn't keep them alive. The fish I have now have feathery multiple tails. It's hard to explain, but they are so colorful!! It's nice having part of a lake in my living room. My brother-in-law and sister raised piranhas, but I wouldn't do that. You have to feed them live goldfish. They got tired of that awfully fast and turned around and sold the tank. It was 100 gal. I have colored gravel on the bottom of the tank, Lon, but no dirt to grow plants in. I figured it would be harder to vacuum the aquarium with plants. I guess there's probably something that I don't understand.

Well, take care. I'm up to Page 3 here, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate you popping in to say hello and generously donating your time to post here. You're always welcome here, Lon!! Do you have a saltwater tank? That's even harder, so I figure you don't. What kind of fish do you have? Maybe some angel fish. They are SO beautiful.

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 26th, 2016, 04:56 AM
Since I know evolution is a lie started by Satan to deceive and keep folks from the truth ! The science is phony or else Anyone could dig anywhere and find a species in transition, which there is NONE.

The problem is that you and those who have bought into the evolution lie have no clue of the truth, and sadly will one day stand before God without an advocate ( Jesus ), which means you will die in your sins and spend eternity in hell, sadly.


Dear All Evolutionists and Atheists,

This guy knows what he's talking about. You don't realize how Satan has lied to you about a number of things. I told you before the same thing he is telling you now. Some changes need to be made by you all. If you need any help, just mention it to me in a PM. Or to dodge in a PM. Help is available, but first you must realize that you need help. You are being deceived by Satan and his lies. He wants your souls and with the way you believe, you can't fight back much, so you are an easy target for him.

It's up to you! The ball is in your court.

Michael

Stripe
April 26th, 2016, 07:29 AM
I really don't think that your scriptures have any way of being "proven" wrong of falsified, there just isn't anything definitive that can be put to the test.:darwinsm:


Clearly however science has shown that the Earth is much older than Genesis suggests.Nope. Science shows that the Earth is young.


Noah's flood can't really be "proven" falseSure, it could. If you spent even an iota of effort understanding the claims of a flood model, you would have no trouble devising a test.


Scripture is on face value only the words of men (else "prove" otherwise), it doesn't offer any scientific data and only a dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist would insist that it was all literally true. If it did then there would probably be rather less denominations if any.

Nobody thinks scripture is "all literally true."

alwight
April 26th, 2016, 10:34 AM
Nope. Science shows that the Earth is young.
Pull the other one Stripe it's got bells on.
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?


Sure, it could. If you spent even an iota of effort understanding the claims of a flood model, you would have no trouble devising a test.Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not an ancient scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.


Nobody thinks scripture is "all literally true."Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?
If I said that Genesis at least is supposed by you to be a totally accurate historical narrative, would you quibble?
Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:

Stripe
April 26th, 2016, 11:15 AM
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?No.

Trust you to not know what science is.

Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not a 150-year-old scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.


Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?If you find one, you'll probably be able to win a debate with him. Meanwhile in reality, nobody claims that the Bible is "literally all true."

Genesis is historical narrative.


Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:Is this what you call a rational assessment of a flood model?

alwight
April 26th, 2016, 12:02 PM
Certainly it might look that way. For the time being, we are reading 24 hour days as part of the text. Hebrew was a primitive language in the sense that they didn't have a separate word for everything like we do. In addition, we extrapolate, mostly from genealogies, how old the earth is. It assumes we have a complete genealogy record (partly because in several cases a time-table is given). I do know that a complete ecosystem has to function for life. I am trying to make an aquarium with plants reach an equilibrium with the animals. I realized early on that things had to be planted side-by-side for the tank to work right. There was a period between planting water plants and then being able to introduce animals. It is fairly exacting work. Genesis explains an overview, but not in enough detail for me to 'go and do likewise.' Not even science, in this respect, has been perfect. The first set of animals died because the thermostat didn't work right. It boiled my fish and frogs.Human genealogies hardly compares to the geological strata/ages nor indeed the phylogenetic tree. The creation story in Genesis is not about scientific facts it's just a story to capture the imagination.


I disagree. While other cultures included a bit of wives-tales with their version, they still recorded a global flood. There is every reason to wonder about that flood and not dismiss it at that venture. Something, I think by necessity of multiple recordings had to have happened. I personally don't think it wise to try to dismiss historical record by more than one people group. We can with certainty say that those cultures all thought there was a large deluge with memories associated.There are many different versions regarding floods and clearly there have been many different periods of flooding. But there have also been many periods of ice ages too that have all gone unmentioned in Genesis. There is no reason to suppose that any previous cultures with flood myths had much of a concept of the entire Earth and wouldn't have known what a global flood was.



A challenge and a declaration. First, there are archeological verifications. For instance, until the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that Daniel was too clear to have been prophetic and must have been back written. The scrolls proved that this 'intellectual logicking conjecture couldn't have been right. So, there are other attacks but I think history necessarily has to be proven right. Lately there is a push to deny the indentured tenure of Israelites in Egypt. Such doesn't make sense, historically because the only thing lacking is an Egyptian mention. A lack of verification could lead to skepticism, but things are always being found. Skeptics didn't believe Solomon's stables existed and insisted it was impossible until they were found. Time proves a thing that actually exists, as true and no one thing challenged has ever been found otherwise. Therefore, a lack in evidence has never meant but that such hasn't been found. Biblical archeology is viable and lucrative business, science, and art.I don't suppose for a minute that the Bible is a complete fabrication and secular archaeologists and anthropologists may use it as a source of information and an indication of where to look. The authors of the Bible have surely used real places, but none of that means that the Bible scripture is anything but man-made.


Scientific data was addressed above. I think it can steer science well. The Genesis account gives an sustaining ecosystem. I know I need a sustainable eco-system based at least in part, as a Christian reading Genesis. Science, as I also said, has not guaranteed a viable ecosystem, but because of both science and Genesis, I know what one is supposed to look like. I finally have that system up and running. In fact, it is my love for creation that has me setting up a tank in the first place. -LonI won't argue about keeping fish, it requires a good practical knowledge of their life cycle. If you get it wrong it will likely fail. :)

dodge
April 26th, 2016, 04:06 PM
Welcome creationist. :)


Alwight I have a question. How could a man 2000 years ago ( the Apostle John ) make the statement that NO MAN COULD BUY OR sell unless he has the mark of the beast ? Remember when John wrote that scripture there was no electricity nor any means to keep up with the whole world.

Have you ever heard of the computer in Brussels Belgium named the beast ? That one computer can keep up with the data of every person on our planet. Now how did John know that the technology would one day be available to do such a feat if not for God telling him ?

When I was a kid there was no scanners at every store where you buy everything....The technology we have today John talked about 2000 years ago now HOW did he know or write that ?

There are many more prophecies that PROVE that God wrote the bible.

Lon
April 26th, 2016, 08:40 PM
Lon!! Do you have a saltwater tank? That's even harder, so I figure you don't. What kind of fish do you have? Maybe some angel fish. They are SO beautiful.
Michael
Patrick Jane started a thread on this here (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117458-Fish-Tanks-Who-Has-One&highlight=). :)

Lon
April 26th, 2016, 08:49 PM
Human genealogies hardly compares to the geological strata/ages nor indeed the phylogenetic tree. The creation story in Genesis is not about scientific facts it's just a story to capture the imagination.
Needs a rephrase. I'm fairly sure it is your opinion, but opinions are just that and not much else.


There are many different versions regarding floods and clearly there have been many different periods of flooding. But there have also been many periods of ice ages too that have all gone unmentioned in Genesis. There is no reason to suppose that any previous cultures with flood myths had much of a concept of the entire Earth and wouldn't have known what a global flood was. A scientist may not pay much attention, certainly a historian will.



I don't suppose for a minute that the Bible is a complete fabrication and secular archaeologists and anthropologists may use it as a source of information and an indication of where to look. The authors of the Bible have surely used real places, but none of that means that the Bible scripture is anything but man-made. It certainly doesn't negate them.


I won't argue about keeping fish, it requires a good practical knowledge of their life cycle. If you get it wrong it will likely fail. :) It was important to establish what we may rightly assume regarding a scientific need for life on the planet. Knowing how hard it is to keep an ecosystem, and the imperative need of my hand involved with their balance and survival, it is less tenable we are all here by accident without purpose and design. A simple thermometer malfunction that was designed not to fail, failed. That's with intelligence 'trying' to ensure an ecosystem is firmly established.

It is a point to ponder.

MichaelCadry
April 26th, 2016, 09:49 PM
You All Should Really Take Some Time To Read This Offering:

The Big Bang Blows Atheism Sky High: Even Science May Eventually Catch Up to God’s Word

By J. Matt Barber | April 26, 2016 | 2:30 PM EDT


They say there are no atheists in the foxhole. Even fewer when death is certain. None once the final curtain falls. God’s Word declares, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘there is no God'” (Psalm 14). For three decades, until his death in 1953, Josef Stalin was the mass-murdering atheist dictator of Soviet Russia. He was also a fool. In his 1994 book, “Can Man Live Without God,” famed Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias recounts a story he heard firsthand from British Journalist Malcomb Muggeridge “that stirred [him] then and still does even yet.” Muggeridge had collaborated with Svetlana Stalin, Josef Stalin’s daughter, on a BBC documentary about her God-hating father. She recounted his last act of defiant rebellion against the Creator: “[A]s Stalin lay dying, plagued with terrifying hallucinations, he suddenly sat halfway up in bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens once more, fell back upon his pillow, and was dead.”

“[H]is one last gesture,” observed Zacharias, “was a clenched fist toward God, his heart as cold and hard as steel.”

In my experience it is something common among atheists: an inexplicable, incongruent and visceral hatred for the very God they imagine does not exist.

Indeed, Romans 1:20 notes, “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”

Yet excuses they make.

Psalm 19:1 likewise observes: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

The manifest intentionality and fine-tuning of all creation reveals design of breathtaking complexity. The Creator is of incalculable intelligence and infinite splendor. As I see it, atheism provides a case study in willful suspension of disbelief – all to escape, as the God-denier imagines it, accountability for massaging the libertine impulse.

“Wouldn’t the atheist ‘suspend belief’?” you might ask.

No, the phrase is properly “suspension of disbelief.” It is defined as “a willingness to suspend one’s critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment.”

In the case of the atheist, or the “freethinker,” as they paradoxically prefer, that which is unbelievable is that somehow everything came from nothing – that there is no uncaused first cause; that God does not exist, even as knowledge of His being is indelibly written on every human heart and proved by all He has made.

Be they theist, atheist or anti-theist, on this nearly all scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

Then: bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we, too, popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.”

Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not.

And then they were.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Christian author Eric Metaxas notes, “The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ nuclear forces – were determined less than one-millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. … It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?”

Secular materialists claim it can’t be – that such explanation is a “God of the gaps” explanation and, therefore, must be banished from the realm of scientific inquiry. They demand that anything beyond the known natural is off-limits. Atheists attribute all of existence to, well, nothing. It just kind of happened. Genesis 1:1 of the materialist bible might read: “In the beginning nothing created the heavens and the earth.” Even in the material world that’s just plain silly. Nothing plus nothing equals something? Zero times zero equals everything?

And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.”

Reader, meet God.

In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

Fred Hoyle is the atheist astronomer who coined the term “Big Bang.” He once confessed that his disbelief was “greatly shaken” by the undisputed science, writing that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.”

Albert Einstein, who is often dishonestly characterized as having been an atheist, agreed that God-denial is foolishness. He once said of non-believers: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

“I’m not an atheist,” added Einstein. “The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

Illustrious NASA scientist (and agnostic) Dr. Robert Jastrow (1925-2008) put it this way: “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Yes, with time and chance, even science may eventually catch up to God’s Word.


Matt Barber is founder and editor-in-chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

alwight
April 27th, 2016, 12:50 AM
Alwight I have a question. How could a man 2000 years ago ( the Apostle John ) make the statement that NO MAN COULD BUY OR sell unless he has the mark of the beast ? Remember when John wrote that scripture there was no electricity nor any means to keep up with the whole world.Revelation 13:17 ?
You seem to be coming to a strange unwarranted conclusion from some pretty nutty scripture if I may say so.


Have you ever heard of the computer in Brussels Belgium named the beast ? That one computer can keep up with the data of every person on our planet. Now how did John know that the technology would one day be available to do such a feat if not for God telling him ?Clearly "John" didn't and never did know anything about computers, you are seeing connections that simply aren't there. "John" of Patmos also apparently saw strange blaspheming beasts, so a large pinch of salt seems to be in order imo. Maybe if the number of the beast had been written in binary I might have been more impressed. ;)


When I was a kid there was no scanners at every store where you buy everything....The technology we have today John talked about 2000 years ago now HOW did he know or write that ?

There are many more prophecies that PROVE that God wrote the bible.No there aren't, "John" talked about scanners? Really? Your God-goggles seem to be of the ultra-strong variety perhaps but I've never seen a supposed Christian "prophecy" that wasn't either rubbish, self-fulfilling, coincidence or otherwise quite rationally explainable.

DavisBJ
April 27th, 2016, 01:19 AM
We put our faith in the inerrant Word of God, supported by history and science.
Let’s see, 6days again says the Word of God is supported by science. That must mean to 6days that science supports rivers that transform into blood, and smelly dead human bodies getting up and strolling around, and the cellular structure of wood suddenly turning into reptile DNA, and human DNA has transformed into sodium chloride crystals, and …

Every one of those ideas is blithering silliness to the real world of science. No wonder creationism has been so scientifically impotent.

MichaelCadry
April 27th, 2016, 03:28 AM
Pull the other one Stripe it's got bells on.
Science is an atheistic conspiracy right?

Unlike you I follow where evidence leads not an ancient scripture nor any baseless contrived "model" dreamed up.

Aren't we being a just little presumptuous here, there are plenty of nutters out there?
If I said that Genesis at least is supposed by you to be a totally accurate historical narrative, would you quibble?
Surely Noah's supposed flood and his Ark of two by two animals couldn't just be a nice kiddies bed time story, it's solid fact, right? :think:


Dear alwight,

Yes, the Lord God put it into the brains of these certain animals to go to where Noah was. God can surely control His animals, and God can control His man, namely Noah building the boat. He gave to Noah all of the building requirements and size of the boat, etc. The animals would have been too hard to round up otherwise. You don't know the whole story and that is a drawback, but it doesn't have to be a final separation. Live and Learn.

Your Good Friend, Michael

Stripe
April 27th, 2016, 04:55 AM
Let’s see, 6days again says the Word of God is supported by science. That must mean to 6days that science supports rivers that transform into blood, and smelly dead human bodies getting up and strolling around, and the cellular structure of wood suddenly turning into reptile DNA, and human DNA has transformed into sodium chloride crystals, and …Every one of those ideas is blithering silliness to the real world of science. No wonder creationism has been so scientifically impotent.

Meanwhile, Darwinists think everything came from nothing, life emerged from non-life, dinosaurs turned into birds and personhood is added to embryos.

One of these days, you'll learn to assume equality of beliefs when it comes to science; it doesn't matter what your idea is — as long as you're willing to put it to the test, then you can practice science.

Evolutionists like to pretend their ideas are sacrosanct and all opposition is non-scientific.

DavisBJ
April 27th, 2016, 08:50 AM
Meanwhile, Darwinists think everything came from nothing, life emerged from non-life, dinosaurs turned into birds and personhood is added to embryos.

One of these days, you'll learn to assume equality of beliefs when it comes to science; it doesn't matter what your idea is — as long as you're willing to put it to the test, then you can practice science.
Though you sound like you disagree with me, I think on this we are pretty much on the same page. There are a huge number of scientific articles dealing with investigations into evolution. Our understanding of the details is being refined (but the core concept of diversity resulting from natural selection acting on variation is pretty much a staple of science).

Since the ideas put forth in the “Word of God” that 6days says are scientifically supported far predates the formal studies into Darwinian evolution, then there should be a similar wealth of scientific studies on the Biblical silliness I mentioned. I am having a bit of trouble finding any studies at all on how wooden staffs turn into snakes. Can you help?

And, if you want to show that you are interested in being accurate in your comments, how about attributing to evolution those things that it actually studies? Not “something from nothing” (big bang?) – hardly something that falls within the purview of evolution.

I don’t know what it means in a scientific sense to speak of personhood. Is that something we can quantify or measure?

Evolutionists like to pretend their ideas are sacrosanct and all opposition is non-scientific.
If the opposition is scientific, then show where the supporting studies are – repeatable lab results, calculations, that kind of “real science stuff”.

Stripe
April 27th, 2016, 09:02 AM
Though you sound like you disagree with me, I think on this we are pretty much on the same page.Nope.

You will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over our differences with regards to science.


I don’t know what it means in a scientific sense to speak of personhood. Is that something we can quantify or measure?So you think personhood doesn't exist?


If the opposition is scientific, then show where the supporting studies are – repeatable lab results, calculations, that kind of “real science stuff”.What subject? Be specific. :up:

DavisBJ
April 27th, 2016, 10:11 AM
You will do anything to avoid a rational discussion over our differences with regards to science.
I am well aware that you like to impugn the integrity or intelligence of those you engage. If you can step out of character for a bit and restrict your commentary to things other than personal insults, then there might be some benefit in our exchange. I am not interested in providing a forum for you to engage in your infantile behavior.

So you think personhood doesn't exist?
I am interested in science. I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.

What subject? Be specific. :up:
Whatever subject you were thinking of what you referred to when you said we think “all opposition is non-scientific”. A specific example might be the Biblical claim that sticks can transform into snakes. How about that one – are you guys scientific in maintaining that that really happens?

alwight
April 27th, 2016, 11:58 AM
Dear alwight,

Yes, the Lord God put it into the brains of these certain animals to go to where Noah was. God can surely control His animals, and God can control His man, namely Noah building the boat. He gave to Noah all of the building requirements and size of the boat, etc. The animals would have been too hard to round up otherwise. You don't know the whole story and that is a drawback, but it doesn't have to be a final separation. Live and Learn.

Your Good Friend, MichaelSurely Michael God wouldn't need to bother with going through such a protracted performance. If He can do so many wondrous things He only has to magic things how He wants them to be without the need for this rather obvious kiddies' just-so story? :)

Stripe
April 27th, 2016, 01:29 PM
I am well aware that you like to impugn the integrity or intelligence of those you engage. If you can step out of character for a bit and restrict your commentary to things other than personal insults, then there might be some benefit in our exchange. I am not interested in providing a forum for you to engage in your infantile behavior.Wake us up when you're finished wailing like a little girl.


I am interested in science. I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.Nothing. It's a metaphysical term.

So you think personhood doesn't exist, right?


Whatever subject you were thinking of what you referred to when you said we think “all opposition is non-scientific”. A specific example might be the Biblical claim that sticks can transform into snakes. How about that one – are you guys scientific in maintaining that that really happens?
There isn't a Biblical claim that sticks can turn into snakes.

I love the easy ones; keep 'em coming. :thumb:

DavisBJ
April 27th, 2016, 02:44 PM
I asked Stripe:

I very specifically asked what personhood means in a scientific sense.
Stripe's reply:

Nothing. It's a metaphysical term.
Then since The Theory of Evolution deals with science, adding “personhood” to an embryo is not scientifically meaningful.

So you think personhood doesn't exist, right?
Not a scientific question, so not something I am interested in.

There isn't a Biblical claim that sticks can turn into snakes.
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed you had actually read the Bible.

Then how about this – do you think it is good science to claim that a person can turn into a pillar of salt?

Jonahdog
April 27th, 2016, 03:43 PM
There isn't a Biblical claim that sticks can turn into snakes.

I love the easy ones; keep 'em coming. :thumb:

Exodus chapter 7.

dodge
April 27th, 2016, 07:06 PM
alwight;4686891]Revelation 13:17 ?
You seem to be coming to a strange unwarranted conclusion from some pretty nutty scripture if I may say so.

The Apostle John was told what was going to happen in the future and it is happening NOW.


Clearly "John" didn't and never did know anything about computers, you are seeing connections that simply aren't there. "John" of Patmos also apparently saw strange blaspheming beasts, so a large pinch of salt seems to be in order imo. Maybe if the number of the beast had been written in binary I might have been more impressed. ;)

You need to pay better attention when you read ! I never said John knew anything about computers. I was trying to get you to understand that when John wrote Revelation the capability was not available to do as he wrote about in Revelation in being ale to keep up with all humanity.


No there aren't, "John" talked about scanners? Really? Your God-goggles seem to be of the ultra-strong variety perhaps but I've never seen a supposed Christian "prophecy" that wasn't either rubbish, self-fulfilling, coincidence or otherwise quite rationally explainable.

Again you are ADDING to what I wrote ! I never said John knew or said anything about scanners. What I said was when John wrote Revelation 2000 years ago scanners nor the capability to keep up with everyone on the planet EXISTED it does NOW.

Stripe
April 27th, 2016, 11:07 PM
Not a scientific question, so not something I am interested in.We know why you're not interested.

Is personhood a real thing?


Do you think it is good science to claim that a person can turn into a pillar of salt?
Oh, you want to talk about salt now?

Exodus chapter 7.
Where does Exodus say sticks can turn into snakes?

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 03:49 AM
Stripe doesn't like the word "stick".
But staffs and rods are potential snakes. ;)

Jonahdog
April 28th, 2016, 04:41 AM
Stripe doesn't like the word "stick".
But staffs and rods are potential snakes. ;)

Oh, sorry Stripey, I was hung up on whatever the inanimate object, stick or staff or rod, morphing into a recognizable animate object. Question for you---is Exodus 7 to be taken literally?

Stripe
April 28th, 2016, 05:00 AM
Is Exodus 7 to be taken literally?

Exodus is historical narrative.

DavisBJ
April 28th, 2016, 09:52 AM
I really haven’t much interest in another protracted exchange with Stripe in which he resorts to anything but simply, directly, and civilly addressing the question at hand.

I do note that 6days has been absent from this discussion that was engendered by his blanket assertion that science supports the Bible.

6days, I say a staff changing into a snake is in contravention to science.

Jonahdog
April 28th, 2016, 11:50 AM
Exodus is historical narrative.

But is it to be taken literally? Yes or no?

Stripe
April 28th, 2016, 11:56 AM
I really haven’t much interest in another protracted exchange with Stripe in which he resorts to anything but simply, directly, and civilly addressing the question at hand.:allsmile:

We know why you don't want to answer the question.

Is personhood a real thing?

Science supports the Biblical account.


I say a staff changing into a snake is in contravention to science.A statement you can only use as ammunition if you carefully avoid the personhood question.


But is it to be taken literally? Yes or no?

You read it and understand it. That's what happened. Historical narrative.

DavisBJ
April 28th, 2016, 02:37 PM
Science supports the Biblical account.

That's what happened. Historical narrative.
Sorry Stripe, but since you think that a staff transforming into a snake is scientifically credible, then you have disqualified yourself from any shred of scientific credibility. You are free to leave the conversation and go have your momma change your diaper.

6days
April 28th, 2016, 06:08 PM
Sorry Stripe, but since you think that a staff transforming into a snake is scientifically credible... It is credible but not testable. Likewise the virgin birth is credible. We also believe that Christ's physical resurrection is credible. Its credible based on evidence of a supernatural Creator, eye witness testimony, and the evidence of inerrant scripture.

Atheists however have beliefs that are not scientifically credible or testable. Some believe in Multiverse. Others believe in aliens. Some atheists think that everything came from nothing. And it's quite amazing how many believe that life can come from non-life.

DavisBJ
April 28th, 2016, 07:07 PM
It is credible based on evidence of a supernatural Creator…
And in that statement, you have admitted that you are no longer doing science. Science endeavors how to understand the “natural” world, and the second you try to shoe-horn that “SUPER” in front of “natural”, you have jettisoned any pretense that you are still using science.

patrick jane
April 28th, 2016, 07:14 PM
Hebrews 11:3 KJV -

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 08:01 PM
And in that statement, you have admitted that you are no longer doing science. Science endeavors how to understand the “natural” world, and the second you try to shoe-horn that “SUPER” in front of “natural”, you have jettisoned any pretense that you still using science.
So God has to be ONLY able to do what you can physically do to be God??? :doh: :dizzy:

DavisBJ
April 28th, 2016, 09:22 PM
So God has to be ONLY able to do what you can physically do to be God??? :doh: :dizzy:
Not at all. But science has naturalism as a boundary within which it operates. Since, as 6days says, God is supernatural, what He does may be outside the realm of science. Like turning sticks into snakes. That requires the “super”natural, which by definition is not under the umbrella of science.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 11:31 PM
Not at all. But science has naturalism as a boundary within which it operates. Since, as 6days says, God is supernatural, what He does may be outside the realm of science. Like turning sticks into snakes. That requires the “super”natural, which by definition is not under the umbrella of science.
I'm not sure observation is anti- or incompatible with science. The medical field tends to observe more of this phenomena.

Stripe
April 29th, 2016, 12:02 AM
Sorry Stripe, but since you think that a staff transforming into a snake is scientifically credible, then you have disqualified yourself from any shred of scientific credibility. You are free to leave the conversation and go have your momma change your diaper.

You'd love to have everything you're own way, wouldn't you?

We know why you don't want to answer the question:

Is personhood a real thing?

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 12:16 AM
You'd love to have everything you're own way, wouldn't you?

We know why you don't want to answer the question:

Is personhood a real thing?
Not a question I have any interest in, but maybe the kid on the teeter-totter next to you will humor you. Go ask him.

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 12:18 AM
I'm not sure observation is anti- or incompatible with science.
Observation is fine. How does that apply to sticks into snakes?

The medical field tends to observe more of this phenomena.
Sticks into snakes?

Stripe
April 29th, 2016, 12:19 AM
Not a question I have any interest in.

We know why.

Since you refuse to answer a question that doesn't relate to science, we can ignore your questions that do not relate to science.

However, we will not act in bigotry — as you do — refusing to believe that you can partake in a scientific discussion just because you accept the reality of things beyond what science can account for.

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 12:27 AM
Since you refuse to answer a question that doesn't relate to science, we can ignore your questions that do not relate to science.
I kinda think each person has always been perfectly free to ignore any posts they want to. So???

Lon
April 29th, 2016, 01:59 AM
Observation is fine. How does that apply to sticks into snakes?

Sticks into snakes?
I'm not sure why this particular was the focus. We can only speak to what we currently do see God doing miraculously, if we are on the observation side of seeing. Jesus did tell Thomas, after he saw, that those who don't see are blessed as well, because they believe for other reasons that are equally or better than 'proof.' Proof removes choice. Once it is done, one might be obstinate, but I think the polarization would be quick and decisive. God is in the business of seeking and saving that which is lost, so there is a period given 'until the full number is saved.' Such might include you as well, but that ensures that some proofs can only be given on an individual basis. I love the verse that says those who seek God, will find Him. I found it to be true but only an individual can. Our stories are all different.

So, a snake-stick? It wasn't the case for me, but I think the challenge to any scientist, among all people on earth, to seek God and you'd find Him, an individual challenge and call. We can't make friends with or love one we don't know.

Stripe
April 29th, 2016, 02:47 AM
I kinda think each person has always been perfectly free to ignore any posts they want to. So???

You're a bigot about it.

MichaelCadry
April 29th, 2016, 03:05 AM
Dear DavisBJ,

You are like a timid spider who sits in the dark recess of it's web until a victim is caught in it's threads and then you race out into the light and inject it with some venom. Does anyone else seem to feel this way?? Why is it that my Creation thread is the only thread you post at, compared to ALL of the OTHER threads that are out there. I know I am accommodating on my thread and I don't want to single you out, but you don't seem to care if you single someone else out. Yes, I'm talking about all of those people here that you put down. You're the little spoiled kid on the leash here. You seem to like to belittle others also. This is just what I've observed of you. I try not to single out anyone here because I don't want anyone to feel uncomfortable posting on my thread, but you don't always leave much choice otherwise.

We can believe anything we want, just like you, BJ. If we want to believe that Daniel and his close friends were put into a great furnace and survived it, then that was counted unto them as righteousness. The Lord kept the flames from burning Daniel one iota. That same when he was in the lion's den, and the hungry lions left him alone, because God was with him.

Similarly, the Lord God parted the Red Sea for Moses' and the ocean was parted so that all could pass through, except the Pharoah and his army. Likewise, if the Lord God allowed Moses' staff to change into a big snake, that is God's luxury. You'll notice that the magicians of the Pharoah also cast down their rods and they turned into snakes also. But the snake from Moses' staff ate the other snakes. You don't seem to know the whole story. And did Jesus surely raise a man from the dead?? You have a problem with that. Is there any feat that God cannot do if He decides to do it?? If Jesus can die Himself and His Father raise Him back up from death 3 days after His death, so can Jesus raise up a close beloved friend after being dead for 4 days. Who are you to decide what God will do with His Life? Do you begrudge God in any way for doing miracles that might be in conflict with your approval? You'd best turn around first and see Who you are belittling. You're a testy little worm, aren't you? And yes, there was a serpent in the garden of Eden who spoke to Eve telepathically, for none had learned a language yet. Do you think that the serpent spoke to Eve with some lips? They just all spoke what language the Lord used. Do you actually think that the serpent spoke with his mouth to Eve?? And this serpent, having 6 legs, ended up with no legs and cast upon it's belly like a snake, to lick the dust all the rest of his life and his ancestor's besides, well that is God's say-so. Just because you don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Do you have as much trouble as Jesus turning water to wine? I suppose you don't believe that either. Hey, you are the one facing each deity with unclean lips and deadly risk of your soul. You really MUST be BLIND. It is for people like you to never believe in God so that He doesn't have to save you, which I'm sure He'd rather now, lest He have to put up with you for eternity. Yep, there are some words that represent your type in the Bible too, spoken of by the Lord specifically.

Well, I'm not going to waste any more of my time right now. You are a hopelessly lost cause who seems to like to hold everyone and everything in derision, including He Who decides whether you go to Heaven or not. Yes, I know, you're not worried about any of that. I know a time when you will be, but by then, it will be too late. You are surely not making many friends with your attitude, and I mean holy friends, too. I have taken off my gloves with you and I could do a lot more damage, but I don't wish to lower myself to your level. You want to knock God off of His Pedestal, you are a donkey to do so. He will soon enough knock you off of your own. You will rue the day you were ever conceived. I'd be kinder, but you leave me with little empathy for you and since you are an enemy of my God, and of Jesus, then you are also an enemy to me. Go back into the darkness for a while now again, so you won't have to worry about light shining upon you, so that people can actually see how you are and who you are. You're going to Fall and Fall Big!!

I feel so very sorry for you because you are not even human and you don't know what you're doing, but God will not take that into consideration, concerning how evil you want to be.

Hasta la Vista,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 29th, 2016, 04:28 AM
I think the central point must/necessarily be not observation, but interpretation. Scriptures have never been 'proven' wrong. When I think of atheist websites dedicated to exactly that end, it certainly becomes evident.

So, lest we be accused of moving the goalposts, and science interpretation as well, we need to follow the truth and take a second and third look at our interpretations of data and conclusions. Data is what is there/true. Interpretation and conclusion is in nowise unassailable. That's WHY we have denominations. In the end, we all follow the data, correct?


Dear Lon!!

Well, I thought I should write and tell you that I am still stuck back on Page 5, on Post 70. I have a pinched nerve in my neck and it is excruciating to do much computer work. It is slowing me down. I have pain medicine for my neck, so it could be worse, I know. I will try to catch up as soon as possible. I will try to come here first in the a.m. to make a dent in things. I had to delete most of my email because I simply couldn't answer it. About 100 posts. Just had no choice. I'm barely making a dent in it. This happens like once every six mos. or so. I'll see what I can do 2morrow. I'll come here 1st, and then try to do some email afterwards. I'm ready to call it a night. Thanks for your input here, with loving care, I notice. Will call it a night!! You take great care of yourself!!

With God's And Jesus' Love,

Michael

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 07:41 AM
… you don't seem to care if you single someone else out. Yes, I'm talking about all of those people here that you put down.
Hi, Michael. My entry into this thread was to show how dishonest it is for 6days to continuously claim that science supports the Bible, when in fact it is solidly in opposition to numerous Biblical claims. (And if honesty were a valued part of your set of morals, you would have done likewise.) Other than that, I have only responded to others who first posted to me.

We can believe anything we want, just like you, BJ.
I can’t stop anyone from whatever beliefs they want to hold. But remember, Michael, you are the poster child for holding onto a nonsense belief – remember your failed rapture claims that exposed how willing you are to believe in fantasies rather than reality?

And actually I am on your side here. Once again I stand ready to take over this thread, just like I did when Patrick Jane handed me the previous “Creation – Evolution” thread. You made a good choice there – letting the thread pass into more capable and honest hands.

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 07:55 AM
I'm not sure why this particular was the focus.
The stick to snake example was simply a specific example that puts the lie to the “Science supports the Bible” tripe.

We can only speak to what we currently do see God doing miraculously…
Except, strangely, many of the miracles alluded to in the Bible would be prime candidates for science to document and examine. But I am still awaiting someone, some person of great faith, to invite me with some scientific equipment to a comparable modern miracle today. Is God a bit bashful about doing miracles in front of modern science, instead of in front of ancient ignorant nomadic tribesmen?

…I think the challenge to any scientist, among all people on earth, to seek God and you'd find Him, an individual challenge and call. We can't make friends with or love one we don't know.
Been there, done that. My own sense of honesty forced me to admit that for far too long, as a nominal Christian I had been deceiving myself as much as those who looked up to me. I am where I am not because I wanted to be here, but rather because I decided that if truth was what I sought, I had to follow wherever it led.

patrick jane
April 29th, 2016, 08:00 AM
Is God a bit bashful about doing miracles in front of modern science, instead of in front of ancient ignorant nomadic tribesmen?



The times of obvious miracles are finished but God works miracles all day every day for billions of people.

Stripe
April 29th, 2016, 08:17 AM
The stick to snake example was simply a specific example that puts the lie to the “Science supports the Bible” tripe.And the personhood example shows you to be a liar.

It's OK for you to believe in non-scientific realities, but you'll condemn it in others. You're a two-faced liar.


Except, strangely, many of the miracles alluded to in the Bible would be prime candidates for science to document and examine. But I am still awaiting someone, some person of great faith, to invite me with some scientific equipment to a comparable modern miracle today. Is God a bit bashful about doing miracles in front of modern science, instead of in front of ancient ignorant nomadic tribesmen?
Is this your argument?


My ... sense of honesty.

:darwinsm:

So far, you've only displayed bigotry.

dodge
April 29th, 2016, 08:56 AM
DavisBJ;4688898]The stick to snake example was simply a specific example that puts the lie to the “Science supports the Bible” tripe.

God does NOT answer to scientists, but they will answer to Him.



Except, strangely, many of the miracles alluded to in the Bible would be prime candidates for science to document and examine. But I am still awaiting someone, some person of great faith, to invite me with some scientific equipment to a comparable modern miracle today. Is God a bit bashful about doing miracles in front of modern science, instead of in front of ancient ignorant nomadic tribesmen?

God worked and works miracles for HIS purpose not to please those that deny Him.




Been there, done that. My own sense of honesty forced me to admit that for far too long, as a nominal Christian I had been deceiving myself as much as those who looked up to me. I am where I am not because I wanted to be here, but rather because I decided that if truth was what I sought, I had to follow wherever it led.


The above is EXACTLY what and where Satan led you ! YOU have been duped by the Father of LIES. You claim to seek truth and yet live in a lie,sadly.

If you would have honestely and sincerely sought God you would have found Him.

6days
April 29th, 2016, 08:57 AM
It is credible based on evidence of a supernatural Creator…
And in that statement, you have admitted that you are no longer doing science. Science endeavors how to understand the “natural” world, and the second you try to shoe-horn that “SUPER” in front of “natural”, you have jettisoned any pretense that you are still using science.
False.

Science is knowlege...searching for truth...using the scientific method. Science is following the evidence no matter where it leads.

If the evidence leads to a supernatural Creator....Are you willing to follow the evidence?

BTW...would you also say atheists 'jettison any pretense that they are still using science' with many of the miracles they believe in?

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 09:31 AM
Science is knowledge
Wrong. Science is a methodology for learning about the world.

...using the scientific method.
And the scientific method is to try to understand the universe without recourse to “super”natural explanations.

If the evidence leads to a supernatural Creator....Are you willing to follow the evidence?
If we don’t understand the evidence, science is fine with admitting that “We don’t know.” History is replete with examples of things that were not understood being resolved by later scientists. When do you suggest we throw up our hands and just give up and invoke divine magic?

BTW...would you also say atheists 'jettison any pretense that they are still using science' with many of the miracles they believe in?
I am not the spokesman for the world of atheism. You will need to ask these ephemeral atheists you allude to.

DavisBJ
April 29th, 2016, 09:42 AM
God does NOT answer to scientists, but they will answer to Him.




God worked and works miracles for HIS purpose not to please those that deny Him.






The above is EXACTLY what and where Satan led you ! YOU have been duped by the Father of LIES. You claim to seek truth and yet live in a lie,sadly.

If you would have honestely and sincerely sought God you would have found Him.
Sorry, but I am more sincere (and at peace with myself) now than I ever was as a Christian. If God really exists, and values truth, then He should have greater appreciation for me now than when I was seeking emotional validation instead of truth.

You are obviously welcome to preach at me, but that is probably the least effective way of showing me that you are right and I am wrong.

dodge
April 29th, 2016, 10:24 AM
DavisBJ;4689075]Sorry, but I am more sincere (and at peace with myself) now than I ever was as a Christian. If God really exists, and values truth, then He should have greater appreciation for me now than when I was seeking emotional validation instead of truth.

DavisBJ, you was never a christian if you had been you would still be. Scripture says it this way they went out from us because they were not of us.

Many folks try to make a mental assent ( convince themselves ) to God, and that never works. Those who go to God must believe that He is and HE is a re warder of those that diligently seek Him. Sadly, you either never really believed He is and tried to make the mental assent without FAITH.


You are obviously welcome to preach at me, but that is probably the least effective way of showing me that you are right and I am wrong.

God loves you and therefore as a christian so do I. Everyone on this planet has a spiritual father either it is God leading you into truth , or it is Satan leading you into lies.

Many folks have started out believing evolution and then found out it is a hoax !

All anyone can do is share the truth and pray that those that are lost and heading for hell will stop long enough to let God through His Holy Spirit lead them into truth !

Lon
April 29th, 2016, 11:24 AM
The stick to snake example was simply a specific example that puts the lie to the “Science supports the Bible” tripe.

Except, strangely, many of the miracles alluded to in the Bible would be prime candidates for science to document and examine. But I am still awaiting someone, some person of great faith, to invite me with some scientific equipment to a comparable modern miracle today. Is God a bit bashful about doing miracles in front of modern science, instead of in front of ancient ignorant nomadic tribesmen?
No. Once God does do this, it will be all over. It has a necessary polarizing effect. It eliminates choice and further scientific inquiry is no longer required or of viable interest at that point. God meets people on an individual basis. It is the only way relationship works.


Been there, done that. My own sense of honesty forced me to admit that for far too long, as a nominal Christian I had been deceiving myself as much as those who looked up to me. I am where I am not because I wanted to be here, but rather because I decided that if truth was what I sought, I had to follow wherever it led.
I've no idea why some don't have confirming answers to prayers and other miracles that prove He is there, in their lives. I suspect, at the end of the day, we are self-fulfilling prophecies and it is upon us what we experience and found. I can say I took James challenge of prayer, to not do it if I doubted, as well as God's challenge that if I sought Him, I would surely find Him at face value and God proved, beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, to be there. No relationship I know of works well when doubt and distrust are part of the equation. So, in relationship to God, we find what we are looking for, I think by necessity. Relationships themselves work this way and we know it to be true.

Stripe
April 29th, 2016, 11:27 AM
The scientific method is to try to understand the universe without recourse to “super”natural explanations.Nope.

Science is the practice of testing ideas. It doesn't matter what idea you have, as long as you put it up to the test. If your idea is that God created the world, that idea can be tested, hence it is scientific.

What's not scientific is to demand the exclusion of ideas because you don't like them. That's bigotry and antiscience.

You're an antiscience bigot.


If we don’t understand the evidence, science is fine with admitting that “We don’t know.” History is replete with examples of things that were not understood being resolved by later scientists. When do you suggest we throw up our hands and just give up and invoke divine magic?Never.

When do you think we should give in to your demands that our ideas are not to be accepted?

6days
April 29th, 2016, 11:39 AM
Science is knowledge. Science is knowlege...searching for truth...using the scientific method. Science is following the evidence no matter where it leads.
Science is a methodology for learning about the world. Sure! There are many ways to define the word. Dictionary.com says science is "A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
And the scientific method is to try to understand the universe without recourse to “super”natural explanations.
That is psuedo-science. You are trying to define a word using circular reasoning that will affirm your bias. You are trying to define 'science' in a way that excludes some possible answers. Your definition demands you reject data that points to an intelligent creator.



If the evidence leads to a supernatural Creator....Are you willing to follow the evidence?
If we don’t understand the evidence, science is fine with admitting that “We don’t know.” History is replete with examples of things that were not understood being resolved by later scientists. When do you suggest we throw up our hands and just give up and invoke divine magic?
That is dodging the question. Everyday, scientists speculate possible answers. Are you willing to follow evidence that seems to lead to an intelligent designer?



BTW...would you also say atheists 'jettison any pretense that they are still using science' with many of the miracles they believe in?
I am not the spokesman for the world of atheism. You will need to ask these ephemeral atheists you allude to.
You dodged that question also. Are you willing to be consistent and attack miracles that atheists believe in? The question was..."would you also say atheists 'jettison any pretense that they are still using science' with many of the miracles they believe in

MichaelCadry
April 29th, 2016, 02:32 PM
Hi, Michael. My entry into this thread was to show how dishonest it is for 6days to continuously claim that science supports the Bible, when in fact it is solidly in opposition to numerous Biblical claims. (And if honesty were a valued part of your set of morals, you would have done likewise.) Other than that, I have only responded to others who first posted to me.

Who are you joking BJ, I have a fine set of morals compared to you. You are amoral, by far. And everyone here can see that clearly. You have no morals at all. Maybe if you served God, you'd have some morals at least.


I can’t stop anyone from whatever beliefs they want to hold. But remember, Michael, you are the poster child for holding onto a nonsense belief – remember your failed rapture claims that exposed how willing you are to believe in fantasies rather than reality?

And how long are you going to beat that dead horse?? Yep, I've made a couple mistakes since I've been here almost 3 years ago. Not bad, I think! You have been wrong so very many times, there's no keeping track of it. Almost all of your beliefs are errant. How long are you going to deny the Flood, Piltdown Man, deny Moses staff becoming a snake, etc. I cold go on and on, tbh. Your morals lack a God.




And actually I am on your side here. Once again I stand ready to take over this thread, just like I did when Patrick Jane handed me the previous “Creation – Evolution” thread. You made a good choice there – letting the thread pass into more capable and honest hands.

I don't believe that patrick jane realized that you were atheist when he was trying to give my thread to you. And I'll not be giving my thread to an atheist either. You have a lot of nerve.

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 29th, 2016, 02:53 PM
Sure! There are many ways to define the word. Dictionary.com says science is "A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
That is psuedo-science. You are trying to define a word using circular reasoning that will affirm your bias. You are trying to define 'science' in a way that excludes some possible answers. Your definition demands you reject data that points to an intelligent creator.


That is dodging the question. Everyday, scientists speculate possible answers. Are you willing to follow evidence that seems to lead to an intelligent designer?


You dodged that question also. Are you willing to be consistent and attack miracles that atheists believe in? The question was..."would you also say atheists 'jettison any pretense that they are still using science' with many of the miracles they believe in

Dear 6days,

I've found BJ to be a wily little ounce of a man, who thinks he has morals but has no God to get those correct morals to have. Will chat more later. My neck is killing me!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 30th, 2016, 03:21 AM
Dear 6days,

My neck is fine now. I know it might sound like I'm a terrible person to speak to DavisBJ so scornfully, but that is what he has been asking for for a while now. I've been dealing with him since his first appearance on my old Creation thread. I know him very well indeed. He disrespects our God and then turns around and tells us how good his morals are. And he calls the angels good fairies. Does someone with morals call the angels 'good fairies.' I'll bet the angels don't appreciate it, much less God. All He does is speak against our God and beliefs, and tell us how great science is instead. I just got tired of hearing it. I suppose he could not even pray.

Finally he is silent for a change.

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 30th, 2016, 04:42 AM
Let’s see, 6days again says the Word of God is supported by science. That must mean to 6days that science supports rivers that transform into blood, and smelly dead human bodies getting up and strolling around, and the cellular structure of wood suddenly turning into reptile DNA, and human DNA has transformed into sodium chloride crystals, and …

Every one of those ideas is blithering silliness to the real world of science. No wonder creationism has been so scientifically impotent.


So you don't believe that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, eh? He is able to make man from rocks. Certainly His Chemistry abilities can make salt out of a human being. Didn't Jesus tell us that God could make up children to Abraham out of some nearby rocks? Aren't we told that the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground. So how much less a woman into a pillar of salt? She was warned specifically. Oh well, I believe the story. DavisBJ doesn't. So who has the most morals? The guy who believes in God or the guy who doesn't believe our Lord didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt
{sodium chloride crystals}?

Michael

Tyrathca
April 30th, 2016, 05:40 AM
DavisBJ, you was never a christian if you had been you would still be. Are you a true Christian? If yes then how do you know you wont leave the faith in a few years? How do you know what you are thinking now isn't exactly what many ex-christians have felt too?

The answer is you don't. For all you know you aren't even a Christian yourself according to your own rules. :think:

Scripture says it this way they went out from us because they were not of us. And yet many will say that they believed exactly the same thing at one time. So you believing it now is no guarantee that you are a true Christian either :)

Many folks try to make a mental assent ( convince themselves ) to God, and that never works. Those who go to God must believe that He is and HE is a re warder of those that diligently seek Him. Sadly, you either never really believed He is and tried to make the mental assent without FAITH.And you know you aren't doing exactly this too how? Most ex-christians didn't know they were doing it even as they denounced others for it just as you have done.

Many folks have started out believing evolution and then found out it is a hoax ! A hoax that has somehow convinced the vast VAST majority of scientists, even the Christian ones? Do you have any idea the gargantuan magnitude of conspiracy that would take to maintain? It would be unsustainable.

Tyrathca
April 30th, 2016, 06:09 AM
So you don't believe that God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, eh? He is able to make man from rocks. Certainly His Chemistry abilities can make salt out of a human being. Didn't Jesus tell us that God could make up children to Abraham out of some nearby rocks? Aren't we told that the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground. So how much less a woman into a pillar of salt? She was warned specifically. Oh well, I believe the story. DavisBJ doesn't. So who has the most morals? The guy who believes in God or the guy who doesn't believe our Lord didn't turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt
{sodium chloride crystals}?
Michael Problem is that God being able to turn anyone into a pillar of salt without causing a massive explosions and or lethal radiation is not science. There simply isn't enough sodium or chloride int he body to even make much of a small pile, no amount of chemistry will help since we are talking about basic elements. The only solution is to resort to fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion), which when dealing with the mass of a human tends to lead to literally earth shattering results.

dodge
April 30th, 2016, 07:56 AM
Tyrathca;4689861]Are you a true Christian? If yes then how do you know you wont leave the faith in a few years? How do you know what you are thinking now isn't exactly what many ex-christians have felt too?

The answer is you don't. For all you know you aren't even a Christian yourself according to your own rules. :think:
And yet many will say that they believed exactly the same thing at one time. So you believing it now is no guarantee that you are a true Christian either :)

And you know you aren't doing exactly this too how? Most ex-christians didn't know they were doing it even as they denounced others for it just as you have done.

There is no such thing as an ex-christian !

I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that HE is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day !

I know in whom I have believed=Jesus

And am persuaded= BELIEVE

that HE is able= God keeps His own

to keep that which I have committed unto Him=my eternal soul

Against that day= judgement





A hoax that has somehow convinced the vast VAST majority of scientists, even the Christian ones? Do you have any idea the gargantuan magnitude of conspiracy that would take to maintain? It would be unsustainable.

Of course it is a hoax ( LIE ) ; otherwise, anyone could dig anywhere and find something in transition.

When you deny your very creator , God , to follow and believe a lie and then immerse your lies in your god of science that is exactly what Satan had planned and you fell for it, sadly.

Stripe
April 30th, 2016, 08:08 AM
Are you a true Christian? If yes then how do you know you wont leave the faith in a few years? How do you know what you are thinking now isn't exactly what many ex-christians have felt too?The answer is you don't. For all you know you aren't even a Christian yourself according to your own rules. :think: And yet many will say that they believed exactly the same thing at one time. So you believing it now is no guarantee that you are a true Christian either :)And you know you aren't doing exactly this too how? Most ex-christians didn't know they were doing it even as they denounced others for it just as you have done. A hoax that has somehow convinced the vast VAST majority of scientists, even the Christian ones? Do you have any idea the gargantuan magnitude of conspiracy that would take to maintain? It would be unsustainable.

Darwinists will discuss anything but the evidence.

Anything to insulate their precious religion from scrutiny.

patrick jane
April 30th, 2016, 08:10 AM
Dear 6days,

I've found BJ to be a wily little ounce of a man, who thinks he has morals but has no God to get those correct morals to have. Will chat more later. My neck is killing me!!

Michael

MIke you have good writing skills !!

Jonahdog
April 30th, 2016, 08:19 AM
Darwinists will discuss anything but the evidence.

Anything to insulate their precious religion from scrutiny.

Interesting how you need to relate everything to religion. Difficult to think for yourself, Stripey?

Tyrathca
April 30th, 2016, 08:38 AM
Darwinists will discuss anything but the evidence.

Anything to insulate their precious religion from scrutiny.
This from the guy who only talks in insults and catch phrases nowadays? Pull the other one Stripe.

Tyrathca
April 30th, 2016, 08:50 AM
There is no such thing as an ex-christian ! Sure there are. The generally used definition meaning those who used to see themselves as Christian but now no-longer do so. Claims of them not being "true Christians" doesn't really matter.


I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that HE is able to keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day !

I know in whom I have believed=Jesus

And am persuaded= BELIEVE

that HE is able= God keeps His own

to keep that which I have committed unto Him=my eternal soul

Against that day= judgement And most of the people who once thought of themselves/called themselves Christian (but don't now) also said they thought those things. So what makes you so sure you're different from them when they said they once thought the same things you do?


Of course it is a hoax ( LIE ) ; otherwise, anyone could dig anywhere and find something in transition. What is wrong with the current examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)?

When you deny your very creator , God , to follow and believe a lie and then immerse your lies in your god of science that is exactly what Satan had planned and you fell for it, sadly. Translation: "Science is the work of Satan" says the person on their computer. Why don't you go live with the Amish rather than being a hypocrite?

dodge
April 30th, 2016, 09:08 AM
Tyrathca;4689994]Sure there are. The generally used definition meaning those who used to see themselves as Christian but now no-longer do so. Claims of them not being "true Christians" doesn't really matter.

And most of the people who once thought of themselves/called themselves Christian (but don't now) also said they thought those things. So what makes you so sure you're different from them when they said they once thought the same things you do?

What is wrong with the current examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)?
Translation: "Science is the work of Satan" says the person on their computer. Why don't you go live with the Amish rather than being a hypocrite?


I do not bow at the altar of science. Science in itself is not bad until it tries ( and in many cases succeeded )to replace God as it has done.

There are many proofs of the existence of God, but you of course ignore them all to your own eternal destruction, sadly.

Stripe
April 30th, 2016, 09:14 AM
This from the guy who only talks in insults and catch phrases nowadays?

Nope. Evidence, remember?

Wake us up when you're ready to address it. :thumb:

MichaelCadry
April 30th, 2016, 02:14 PM
Problem is that God being able to turn anyone into a pillar of salt without causing a massive explosions and or lethal radiation is not science. There simply isn't enough sodium or chloride int he body to even make much of a small pile, no amount of chemistry will help since we are talking about basic elements. The only solution is to resort to fusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion), which when dealing with the mass of a human tends to lead to literally earth shattering results.


Dear Tyrathca,

Well, look who is back? How are you doing? Ty, you must understand that God can turn anyone into anything regardless of whether it makes sense or not. When you are a Master Chemist, come tell me about it. We can only imagine what was happening in Sodom's storm that rained upon them from God. Something He did not want man to see, so He said not to look, or you would be silenced. Thus, we don't have Lot's wife to tell us what was happening. But be sure that it doesn't matter how much salt one has in their body. God can still turn them into a pillar of salt. Also, you might notice that the area of Sodom is now loaded with salt, including the Dead Sea. It is a sea which might seem like a lake, since it is surrounded by land, etc. It has a very high level of salt in it.

Have A Wonderful Day,

Michael

MichaelCadry
April 30th, 2016, 02:39 PM
MIke you have good writing skills !!


Dear PJ,

You have some yourself!! I'm impressed! I guess you get a lot of practice posting on many threads. All I can ever seem to do is try to keep up with thread, as it is. My email takes a lot of time too. It gives me computer-neck. Sore!!

Praise God And Thank Him For Everything!!

Michael

Tyrathca
April 30th, 2016, 09:48 PM
Ty, you must understand that God can turn anyone into anything regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Sure, so long as you don't call it compatible with science and anything short of a violation of physics. A "miracle" if you will. That was the point.

Also, you might notice that the area of Sodom is now loaded with salt, including the Dead Sea. It is a sea which might seem like a lake, since it is surrounded by land, etc. It has a very high level of salt in it. For which there is a natural explanation. The Dead Sea is technically not a sea but actually a hypersaline lake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersaline_lake) (regardless of the name) and not even the largest or saltiest one anyway, it just happens to be the most famous for some reason.

6days
April 30th, 2016, 10:30 PM
What is wrong with the current examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil)?
Pftttt :)
Imagine ten fossils of totally different things... Now give them to an evolutionist who can arrange them and tell stories.

I see your link lists Archaeopteryx at top of the list as a transitional.
How about you list ten reasons why you think it is transitional... Then I will list ten reasons why it isn't transitional.

You ask 'whats wrong with current examples'. Whats wrong is that your examples are all based on silly stories... and not even all evolutionists agree with these 'just so stories'. Whats wrong is shoddy interpretations of evidence.

Tyrathca
May 1st, 2016, 02:06 AM
Whats wrong is that your examples are all based on silly stories... and not even all evolutionists agree with these 'just so stories'. Whats wrong is shoddy interpretations of evidence. Couldn't that be said no matter what fossils are dug up?

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 05:35 AM
Whats wrong is that your examples are all based on silly stories... and not even all evolutionists agree with these 'just so stories'. Whats wrong is shoddy interpretations of evidence.

Not even all Christians agree with one interpretation of the Bible.

MichaelCadry
May 1st, 2016, 05:45 AM
Pftttt :)
Imagine ten fossils of totally different things... Now give them to an evolutionist who can arrange them and tell stories.

I see your link lists Archaeopteryx at top of the list as a transitional.
How about you list ten reasons why you think it is transitional... Then I will list ten reasons why it isn't transitional.

You ask 'whats wrong with current examples'. Whats wrong is that your examples are all based on silly stories... and not even all evolutionists agree with these 'just so stories'. Whats wrong is shoddy interpretations of evidence.


Dear 6days,

Thanks for posting and keeping up the good work. Please post often. Don't be a stranger!

May God Cover Your Back With Wings,

Michael

MichaelCadry
May 1st, 2016, 05:52 AM
Not even all Christians agree with one interpretation of the Bible.I know what you mean, Jonah! It's an awful shame, but one should search for the true meaning of the words. Sometimes, we won't know until we go to Heaven. Sometimes only God knows what He meant when He spoke the words.

Much Love And God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

6days
May 1st, 2016, 07:41 AM
Couldn't that be said no matter what fossils are dug up?"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." From Discovery article 'Argument over a Woman', 1990.

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 07:53 AM
"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." From Discovery article 'Argument over a Woman', 1990.

Quote mine city again. You have no shame.

6days
May 1st, 2016, 07:58 AM
Quote mine city again. You have no shame.
I don't think you know what a 'quote mine' is Jonah.

The author of that article is an evolutionist admitting the fickle nature of fossil interpretations. There is no shame in honestly admitting that. :)

Stripe
May 1st, 2016, 08:00 AM
I don't think you know what a 'quote mine' is Jonah.

He uses quote mine any time a creationist quotes an honest Darwinist. :)

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 08:05 AM
I don't think you know what a 'quote mine' is Jonah.

The author of that article is an evolutionist admitting the fickle nature of fossil interpretations. There is no shame in honestly admitting that. :)

How about a cite to the entire article, let everyone read the entire paper. It is apparently only a 1/4 century old and from a magazine of general circulation, not a scientific journal. Or did you pick that particular sentence out of some creationist list of quote mines.
Although perhaps the question should be do you accept as gospel everything published in Discovery?

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 08:07 AM
He uses quote mine any time a creationist quotes an honest Darwinist. :)

Ah, Stripey. Stripey, Stripey. What can I say? Your own particular level of intellectual honest is so, well, frightening.

Stripe
May 1st, 2016, 08:14 AM
How about a cite to the entire article, let everyone read the entire paper. It is apparently only a 1/4 century old and from a magazine of general circulation, not a scientific journal. Or did you pick that particular sentence out of some creationist list of quote mines.
Although perhaps the question should be do you accept as gospel everything published in Discovery?

:darwinsm:

Darwinists think that if you quote something, you have to agree with everything anyone ever said from that source.

This is why evolutionists are mocked.

6days
May 1st, 2016, 08:25 AM
How about a cite to the entire article, let everyone read the entire paper.
Is that your admission you don't have a clue if it's a quote mine? :) (It isn't)
Stripe's comment was correct.

Interplanner
May 1st, 2016, 12:01 PM
'Conversation' book between Guinness and Lennox shows that both God and science can be believed. SCIENCE AND GOD is available through www.rzim.org

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 01:12 PM
Is that your admission you don't have a clue if it's a quote mine? :) (It isn't)
Stripe's comment was correct.
Show me I am wrong, cite the entire article so everyone can read it.
Discover 8(11) pages 52-59 August 1990. Does not seem to be on the Discovery web site. But I am certain you must have the whole article, else what you posted would likely be a quote mine to support your need to believe in your deity and a literal Bible. So just cut and paste the article. I've found the quote on several creationist web sites, but only that one sentence. Given that Christians are honest I must assume that the entire 7 pages supports that one sentence.
Unless of course you are taking a lesson from Stripe and believe that lying for Jesus is a good thing.

6days
May 1st, 2016, 02:10 PM
'Conversation' book between Guinness and Lennox shows that both God and science can be believed. SCIENCE AND GOD is available through www.rzim.org
Does Lennox compromise on scripture to try make it fit with mans opinions?

Of course science and scripture are always in harmony. But, don't mistake mans fallible opinions for the inerrant Word of God.

MichaelCadry
May 1st, 2016, 02:22 PM
Does Lennox compromise on scripture to try make it fit with mans opinions?

Of course science and scripture are always in harmony. But, don't mistake mans fallible opinions for the inerrant Word of God.


Hi 6days,

Good to see you here!! I can't say I have anything to add to your conversation with Jonahdog. I've got to take off and run to the store. Back in a bit. It's my thread so I can write what I want to.

Praise The Lord!!

Michael

MichaelCadry
May 1st, 2016, 03:47 PM
Dear 6days,

Excuse me for going off-topic. I wonder why dodge and Interplanner hsven't posted for a bit. Everyone probably scared him away. Bummer!! And where is Hedshaker?? And gcthomas?! Eeeeek!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer: :guitar: :singer:

Tyrathca
May 1st, 2016, 10:23 PM
"Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear." From Discovery article 'Argument over a Woman', 1990. So what you are saying (by way of irrelevant quote) is that you think fossils will never be able to be evidence for or against anything?

That seems a bit simple and limiting. It is data against which predictions can be measured against, just like anything else. That it is not a complete record of every organism in existence isn't news and doesn't make it useless anymore than any other data set which is not complete.

6days
May 1st, 2016, 11:11 PM
So what you are saying (by way of irrelevant quote) is that you think fossils will never be able to be evidence for or against anything?

That seems a bit simple and limiting. It is data against which predictions can be measured against, just like anything else. That it is not a complete record of every organism in existence isn't news and doesn't make it useless anymore than any other data set which is not complete.
The quote is interesting because he is admitting fossils can be interpreted so many ways. You might look at a fossil thinking it exhibits qualities to make it transitional. I might look at the same fossil, and think it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer creating creatures perfectly suited to a certain environment.

I think the fossil evidence generally, is awesome evidence of the Genesis creation and flood account.

Lon
May 1st, 2016, 11:17 PM
... your deity.... Your Deity too. You didn't make yourself.

Tyrathca
May 1st, 2016, 11:33 PM
The quote is interesting because he is admitting fossils can be interpreted so many ways. What's interesting is you think a random quote from a magazine article (which given when it was published I doubt you've actually ever read) is somehow meaningful and important.

But sure that could be said of ANY data when only looking retrospectively. The difference between interpretation and science is the making of predictions which can then be tested against data not used to make the prediction (best done with new data ie newly found fossils in this case). This could be said of any data set or any field of science (the best known examples being in physics at the moment).

You might look at a fossil thinking it exhibits qualities to make it transitional. I might look at the same fossil, and think it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer creating creatures perfectly suited to a certain environment. And which of these ways of thinking predicted the existence of fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics?

If you want to talk science then you need to talk about predictions, all you care about is retrospectively re-interpreting data so it fits your preconceived world view.

I think the fossil evidence generally, is awesome evidence of the Genesis creation and flood account. So why hasn't Genesis yielded any predictions which have later been found to match reality? What new discoveries has using Genesis found us?

Oh that's right, all it's ever done is looked at what real scientists doing real science have found and said "we could have predicted that with Genesis too!" except fort he fact they didn't until after it was found...

MichaelCadry
May 2nd, 2016, 01:27 AM
Dear Tyrathca,

You have no clue that even the Great Flood even happened and you want to know more? How about Adam being created, and also Eve being created; and cows, apes, chickens and chimps. And elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, etc. So you think man evolved from a race of apes? How dumb are you? Would you expect every one to believe that? If God created man, and apes, then He had no reason to make them ancestors of each other. He created the animals before He created man and then, woman. It tells of this in the book of Genesis. Why would God make creatures that were half human and half ape/chimp? Oh yeah, I figure you don't believe in a God. That makes things hairy because of YOU and your thinking processes!! Wise up, instead, why don't you?

Praise God!!

Michael



Michael

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 01:32 AM
What's interesting is you think a random quote from a magazine article (which given when it was published I doubt you've actually ever read) is somehow meaningful and important.

But sure that could be said of ANY data when only looking retrospectively. The difference between interpretation and science is the making of predictions which can then be tested against data not used to make the prediction (best done with new data ie newly found fossils in this case). This could be said of any data set or any field of science (the best known examples being in physics at the moment).
And which of these ways of thinking predicted the existence of fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics?

If you want to talk science then you need to talk about predictions, all you care about is retrospectively re-interpreting data so it fits your preconceived world view.
So why hasn't Genesis yielded any predictions which have later been found to match reality? What new discoveries has using Genesis found us?

Oh that's right, all it's ever done is looked at what real scientists doing real science have found and said "we could have predicted that with Genesis too!" except fort he fact they didn't until after it was found...
:nono: Overstated case. All scientists were pretty much Christian scientists until rather recently in history and all would have attributed Bible knowledge (in fact many scientist also gave a good many scripture quotes) to their process. That means a good deal of science today was done by 'real' scientists who held to a Biblical model.

There seems to be a desire amongs 'atheist' scientists to separate science from Christianity but you'll never be able to do it because it is a part of all of our history. There are a good many scientists today that are Christians and are significantly contributing to science. Don't overtly ostracize those who are actually doing good in the world, even if you are trying to use science to separate yourself from God (it doesn't work that way, a good many Brits have tried. Failed).

There isn't a lot of interest in the Bible from science (archeology is yet), but the Bible will continue to help science 1) to challenge a few longheld science beliefs, which is a good thing, even from a science perspective 2) It will be used to help the world grab truth and embrace it (as it always has) and 3) It will inspire at least Christians, to wonder at the universe and treat it with awe and respect by those Christians who become scientists, thus it will give science a productive people who love science, if not only for the fewer reasons of their secular counterparts.

Genesis, I think still gives a good challenge to science to think of a sustainable echo system as it is portrayed in chapters 1 and 2. A primordial development is significantly problematic without sustainability: As I said earlier in thread, I have tried to produce a viable eco-system lately in a tank of water. Everything has to be set right or fish and frogs die off. Somehow, a perfect balance HAD to be set up on earth for life to sustain and flourish. Reading Genesis may very well lead a scientist to ask those kinds of questions and begin working on viability as well as help us do a better job ourselves doing such. Genesis is more the springboard to these discoveries.

Another? We find in Job two beasts that resemble dinosaurs and it raises the question of man and dinosaur coexistence. Were ALL dinosaurs wiped out at the time of Job?

These are all 'science' questions that stem from a Biblical context. Would a secular scientist likely begin toward these? Probably not, but what may be found from such discovery certainly can benefit the field, even if one doesn't buy into the God from those documents. The historical part alone is enough to contribute to science and it is odd to me that a scientist could learn from Mayans or Egyptians, but want to forgo reading the Bible as if THAT God is a scientific thread. How could He be? :idunno: I believe He exists. If I'm right, He is a friend to science. It makes no sense for one to become an atheist 'because of' science. It does make sense reversed, however, that one who wants no god, would hide behind science or anything else that would allow that denial.

An atheistic repainting is also failing to recognize that the field of science, is not, in fact, atheistic at all. There are a great many Christians in the field of science. I think a few atheists are overtly optimistic and overtly given to gross exaggeration, though there is a trend in academic science circles to oust Christians. Such is against at least our rules here in the U.S. and must stop. we don't allow discrimination based on religion here. Some would likely toss our Constitution.

MichaelCadry
May 2nd, 2016, 01:54 AM
:nono: Overstated case. All scientists were pretty much Christian scientists until rather recently in history and all would have attributed Bible knowledge (in fact many scientist also gave a good many scripture quotes) to their process. That means a good deal of science today was done by 'real' scientists who held to a Biblical model. There seems to be a desire amongs 'atheist' scientists to separate science from Christianity but you'll never be able to do it because it is a part of all of our history. There are a good many scientists today that are Christians and are significantly contributing to science. Don't overtly ostracize those who are actually doing good in the world, even if you are trying to use science to separate yourself from God (it doesn't work that way, the Brits have tried. Failed).

There isn't a lot of interest in the Bible for science, but it will help to continue to use it 1) to challenge a few longheld science beliefs as a good thing 2) It will be used to support good science as well as help the world grab truth and embrace it (as it always has) and 3) It will inspire at least Christians, to wonder at the universe and treat it with awe and respect by those scientists, thus it will give science a productive people who love science, if not only for the fewer reasons of their secular counterparts. Genesis, I think give a good challenge to science to think of a sustainable echo system as it portrays as well. As I said, I have tried to produce a viable eco-system lately in a tank of water. Everything has to be set right or fish and frogs die off. Somehow, a perfect balance HAD to be set up on earth for life to sustain and flourish. Reading Genesis may very well lead a scientist to ask those kinds of questions and begin working on viability as well as help us do a better job ourselves doing such. Genesis is more the springboard to these discoveries.

Another? We find in Job two beasts that resemble dinosaurs and it raises the question of man and dinosaur coexistence. Were ALL dinosaurs wiped out?

These are all 'science' questions that stem from a Biblical context. Would a secular scientist likely begin toward these? Probably not, but what may be found from such discovery certainly can benefit the field, even if one doesn't buy into the God from those documents. The historical part alone is enough to contribute to science and it is odd to me that a scientist could learn from Mayans or Egyptians, but want to forego reading the Bible as if THAT God is a scientific thread. How could He be? :idunno: I believe He exists. If I'm right, He is a friend to science. It makes no sense for one to become an atheist 'because of' science. It does make sense reversed, however, that one who wants no god, would hide behind science or anything else that would allow that denial.


Dear Lon,

Excellent post!! You're very right!! I'm so glad we had this time together!! Just to have a laugh or sing a song!! I know, I sound like Carol Burnett, eh?! Couldn't help myself. Thanks so much for ALWAYS being THERE!! You never cease to amaze me. What you've written is quite awesome and I am well pleased. I could not have done it better myself. I think you are incomparable. Like 6days! I couldn't ask for more!! Thanks so much Lon!!!!

Michael

Tyrathca
May 2nd, 2016, 01:57 AM
:nono: Overstated case. All scientists were pretty much Christian scientists until rather recently in history and all would have attributed Bible knowledge (in fact many science publicastions came with scripture quotes) to their process. I was under the impression that Christians were still the majority among scientists unless you were only taking about the most prestigious echelons. Am I wrong? Even looking back at science from last century I still fail to see where they claimed to base their science on the bible. Most Christian scientists did and do believe in evolution rather than a literal Genesis.

Scripture quotes is hardly the same thing. Note that when I said "real scientists" I didn't mean "atheist scientists" despite you assuming this.

That means a good deal of science today was done by 'real' scientists who held to a Biblical modelReally? Who were these scientists? Which century were they?

Christian + scientist =/= biblical model scientist.

There seems to be a desire amongs 'atheist' scientists to separate science from Christianity but you'll never be able to do it because it is a part of all of our history. And biblical creationists seem to have a desire to separate "christian" scientists from evolution. The reality is that this is not the case and real scientists, regardless of religion, haven't used a literal Genesis for centuries because no one has managed to make any meaningful or useful predictions (i.e science) with it.

There are a good many scientists today that are Christians and are significantly contributing to science. Don't overtly ostracize those who are actually doing good in the world, even if you are trying to use science to separate yourself from God (it doesn't work that way, the Brits have tried. Failed).As I said above I never meant real scientists to mean atheist scientists, i meant real scientists to mean people who do actual science. As convenient as it may have been for your worldview to dismiss this as an atheists vs christians dichotomy...

I have no idea what you were referring to with the Brits.

Ask Mr. Religion
May 2nd, 2016, 01:58 AM
Well said, Lon.

24130

AMR

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 02:09 AM
I was under the impression that Christians were still the majority among scientists...
As I said above I never meant real scientists to mean atheist scientists, i meant real scientists to mean people who do actual science. As convenient as it may have been for your worldview to dismiss this as an atheists vs christians dichotomy...
I think this a good concession. You already hit upon it in your previous post, but 'checking your work' is the job of the Bible, and for both of us. It is great for me to look at what I've held in the way of interpretation. It also helps at least that majority of scientists who are Christians, also check their interpretation of data as well.

In this case, the challenge is against Genesis. As I said, I think when hypothesizing about a 'primordial ooze,' Genesis would benefit the scientist to think more critically about a sustainable eco-system. To me, it naturally leads to a Designer, but as you said, the majority of scientists are Christian, so that isn't a problem. BUT I think Genesis does give a good pause for reworking some scientific models and I also see that as necessarily a good thing. -Lon

Tyrathca
May 2nd, 2016, 02:10 AM
Dear Tyrathca,

You have no clue that even the Great Flood even happened and you want to know more? How about Adam being created, and also Eve being created; and cows, apes, chickens and chimps. And elephants, rhinos, hippos, crocodiles, etc. I am well aware of Creationists claiming this. None of it is true and some of it (i.e. the flood) is in complete contradiction with the geological and fossil records (unless we invent magical sorting flood water, but then that makes Yahweh a trickster god)

So you think man evolved from a race of apes? That is the best fit for the evidence and fossil finds and genetics in recent decades have matched that hypothesis.
How dumb are you? Not nearly as dumb as you :)

Would you expect every one to believe that? Almost all scientists do, perhaps I am asking to much of the intelligence and/or logic of the rest of humanity.

If God created man, and apes, then He had no reason to make them ancestors of each other. He created the animals before He created man and then, woman. It tells of this in the book of Genesis. Why would God make creatures that were half human and half ape/chimp? I don't much care how you rationalise why your god caused reality to be the way it is.

Oh yeah, I figure you don't believe in a God. That makes things hairy because of YOU and your thinking processes!! Wise up, instead, why don't you? :chuckle:

Tyrathca
May 2nd, 2016, 02:17 AM
I think this a good concession. Is it really a concession when it was never a position I held? OK sure if it makes you feel better I have conceded that your straw-man version of me was wrong "you win" :)

You already hit upon it in your previous post, but 'checking your work' is the job of the Bible, and for both of us. It is great for me to look at what I've held in the way of interpretation. It also helps at least that majority of scientists who are Christians, also check their interpretation of data as well. -Lon Uhhhh sure..... This doesn't really help the whole Genesis = science argument though so I'm not sure I see your point given the context of what I responded to and this thread in general :idunno:

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 02:27 AM
Is it really a concession when it was never a position I held? OK sure if it makes you feel better I have conceded that your straw-man version of me was wrong "you win" :)
Er "granted" and in this case between us.

Uhhhh sure..... This doesn't really help the whole Genesis = science argument though so I'm not sure I see your point given the context of what I responded to and this thread in general :idunno:
Not only "isn't" but "can't" be presently in 'secular' space. No secular institution would allow a Christian to publish what scriptures might be involved or have driven his/her inquiry. Then we are penalized as null and void for the prohibition?

Read a few of the old quotes from the old scientists. You can barely see where scripture started and science ended with some of them, and including quotes from Genesis. And Genesis is what you were talking about.

6days
May 2nd, 2016, 07:47 AM
The quote is interesting because he is admitting fossils can be interpreted so many ways.
What's interesting is you think a random quote from a magazine article (which given when it was published I doubt you've actually ever read) is somehow meaningful and important.

A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science.



You might look at a fossil thinking it exhibits qualities to make it transitional. I might look at the same fossil, and think it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer creating creatures perfectly suited to a certain environment.
And which of these ways of thinking predicted the existence of fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics?

Again..... bones can sing any song you want them too.

There is a long history of bold transitional claims by evolutionists trying to make apes more human like..... or, humans more ape like. I'm sure you are aware of examples but can gladly discuss some if you wish.



If you want to talk science then you need to talk about predictions, all you care about is retrospectively re-interpreting data so it fits your preconceived world view. And that explains why evolutionists so often have egg on their face. They start with their preconceived world view, and end up making poor predictions (Junk DNA, pseudogenes, Neandertals, poor design arguments, Darwinius masillae. ETC ETC ETC)



So why hasn't Genesis yielded any predictions which have later been found to match reality? What new discoveries has using Genesis found us? You must get your incorrect info from atheist web sites? You might want to study a little history, or archaeology seeing how evidence keeps proving the naysayers wrong. Perhaps study a little evidence from genetics....or look at coal seams, polystrate fossils, warped and bent strata, sudden appearance, fossil grave yards etc etc etc to see how it matchs what we expect in the Biblical creation and flood models.


Oh that's right, all it's ever done is looked at what real scientists doing real science have found and said "we could have predicted that with Genesis too!" except fort he fact they didn't until after it was found...

You are uniformed. And, you use illogical and circular arguments found on atheist websites like 'talkorigins'.

Modern science is largely the result of a belief in the Bible as literally true history. "Real science" was, and still is possible based on the belief that our universe has been formed in a rational way making science possible. Even evolutionists admit this like Loren Eiseley "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

BTW... If you are interested in predictions from Biblical creationists... don't just trust atheist web sites. If you google, you can easily find predictions from Biblical scientists.

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 10:46 AM
The quote is interesting because he is admitting fossils can be interpreted so many ways. You might look at a fossil thinking it exhibits qualities to make it transitional. I might look at the same fossil, and think it is evidence of an Intelligent Designer creating creatures perfectly suited to a certain environment.

I think the fossil evidence generally, is awesome evidence of the Genesis creation and flood account.

Do you think all interpretations are equally valid?

chrysostom
May 2nd, 2016, 10:49 AM
Do you think all interpretations are equally valid?

first you have to ask if they understand interpretations

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 10:55 AM
There are a good many scientists today that are Christians and are significantly contributing to science. Don't overtly ostracize those who are actually doing good in the world, even if you are trying to use science to separate yourself from God (it doesn't work that way, a good many Brits have tried. Failed).

I wish you creationists would make up your minds. Half the time you are grousing about science being part of some sort of anti-God agenda, such that a lot of what they do and say can be dismissed as biased against the Bible.

Yet now you're saying there are all these Christians in science doing good work and contributing. Well, if that's the case, then if those Christian scientists have concluded that the earth is 4+ billion years old, there was no recent global flood, and all life on earth (humans included) shares a common evolutionary ancestry, is that at all meaningful and/or compelling to you?

Or do you only accept the conclusions of Christian scientists when they agree with what you already believed?

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 10:58 AM
A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful.

Really? So what do the vast majority of scientists say about 1) the age of the universe, 2) the age of the earth, 3) whether or not a recent global flood occurred, and 4) the origins of H. sapiens?

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 11:40 AM
I wish you creationists would make up your minds. Half the time you are grousing about science being part of some sort of anti-God agenda, such that a lot of what they do and say can be dismissed as biased against the Bible.

Yet now you're saying there are all these Christians in science doing good work and contributing. Well, if that's the case, then if those Christian scientists have concluded that the earth is 4+ billion years old, there was no recent global flood, and all life on earth (humans included) shares a common evolutionary ancestry, is that at all meaningful and/or compelling to you?
Sure it is. Science is great though, it encourages questioning and inquiry. Only an atheist in scientific guise would be bothered?

Or do you only accept the conclusions of Christian scientists when they agree with what you already believed? That's where two worlds necessarily collide. A bible literalist is going to always question what doesn't sync. Does science care? Apparently not, only when we are occasionally forced to dialogue or one of us comes to the other's website. How often does creationism or more specifically YEC actually come up at work for you? I'd guess, other than water cooler conversation, not much at all?

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 11:48 AM
Sure it is.

Are those scientific conclusions compelling to you in a meaningful way, to the point where you figure they must be accurate?


That's where two worlds necessarily collide. A bible literalist is going to always question what doesn't sync. Does science care?

All that matters is how you do your work...how you collect your data, how you analyze it, and how you demonstrate how all that supports your conclusions.


How often does creationism or more specifically YEC actually come up at work for you? I'd guess, other than water cooler conversation, not much at all?

Never. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant. Has been for well over a century.

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 11:57 AM
Are those scientific conclusions compelling to you in a meaningful way, to the point where you figure they must be accurate? No, science isn't concerned with that. Theory is utilitarian in science, if it works, don't fix it. If it isn't applicable, there is no demand that comes with it. Until it 'matters' if I come from an ape, there is no necessity to be persuaded one way or the other. A scriptural view that man alone is made in the image of God, however, impacts the way we treat each other, treat our families, and live as a society.


All that matters is how you do your work...how you collect your data, how you analyze it, and how you demonstrate how all that supports your conclusions.
Which, as far as I understand, leaves a lot of this discussion and conflict of interest a bit more on the academic side.


Never. Creationism is 100% scientifically irrelevant. Has been for well over a century.
I think that true of you, not Christians who are also scientists. Relevancy in this case is in the eye of the beholder.

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 12:07 PM
No, science isn't concerned with that.

What "that" are you referring to?


Theory is utilitarian in science, if it works, don't fix it. If it isn't applicable, there is no demand that comes with it. Until it 'matters' if I come from an ape, there is no necessity to be persuaded one way or the other.

Well yeah it matters; it's how we figure out what the functions of genetic sequences in the human genome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/).


A scriptural view that man alone is made in the image of God, however, impacts the way we treat each other, treat our families, and live as a society.

Irrelevant in science.


Which, as far as I understand, leaves a lot of this discussion and conflict of interest a bit more on the academic side.

Good. So for future reference, I can count on you to not switch your narrative to one where science is part of some sort of anti-God agenda?


I think that true of you, not Christians who are also scientists. Relevancy in this case is in the eye of the beholder.

Nope, sorry. As I described earlier, science is about results. Creationism hasn't produced a single scientific result in well over 100 years. It is absolutely irrelevant.

6days
May 2nd, 2016, 01:24 PM
Do you think all interpretations are equally valid?Obviously not.....
* Evolutionary interpretations have been consistently wrong.
* They have actually hindered medical progress.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in a pygmy put in a zoo with a chimp.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in scientific racism.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in Australian aborigines being killed, stuffed and made into museum displays.
* Evolutionary interpretations / beliefs have resulted in scientific fraud.
* Evolutionary interpretations have contributed to the holocaust and genocides.

Meanwhile..... If a person starts with an interpretation based in the absolute truth of God's Word, we will understand that God created all humans as equals..... we are all one blood. Instead of believing sloppy design, we will look for purpose and design. God's Word tells us that we are "wonderfully made".

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 02:01 PM
Obviously not.....

Then how do we tell the difference between valid and invalid interpretations?

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 05:33 PM
What "that" are you referring to? I explained it in that paragraph.



Well yeah it matters; it's how we figure out what the functions of genetic sequences in the human genome (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/). Remember the Lego analogy? All living things have cells which is a relation, but that doesn't mean my greatest great uncle was a house-plant. Sharing commonality doesn't necessarily mean derivative to me. Something sets us apart from all creation called imago deo (image of God).
Genesis is either misleading or we translated Hebrew incorrectly, or we misinterpreted or science interpreted data incorrectly...


Irrelevant in science. Perhaps but no scientist is merely interested in science and so whatever else comes to bear will bring meaning, significance, and purpose and so I applaud you discussing these matters on TOL even, as a scientist.




Good. So for future reference, I can count on you to not switch your narrative to one where science is part of some sort of anti-God agenda? Yes but I think there are organizations piggy-backing on it for that agenda. Certainly it is the main-vehicle for atheists and perhaps that bothers you just as much as it does me.


Nope, sorry. As I described earlier, science is about results. Creationism hasn't produced a single scientific result in well over 100 years. It is absolutely irrelevant.
Well, accordingly, maybe it never did, or always did as the case may be (read AMR's article (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117577-Creation-vs-Evolution-II&p=4691538&viewfull=1#post4691538) for instance).

patrick jane
May 2nd, 2016, 06:08 PM
Obviously not.....
* Evolutionary interpretations have been consistently wrong.
* They have actually hindered medical progress.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in a pygmy put in a zoo with a chimp.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in scientific racism.
* Evolutionary interpretations have resulted in Australian aborigines being killed, stuffed and made into museum displays.
* Evolutionary interpretations / beliefs have resulted in scientific fraud.
* Evolutionary interpretations have contributed to the holocaust and genocides.

Meanwhile..... If a person starts with an interpretation based in the absolute truth of God's Word, we will understand that God created all humans as equals..... we are all one blood. Instead of believing sloppy design, we will look for purpose and design. God's Word tells us that we are "wonderfully made".

POTY nominee !!!

MichaelCadry
May 2nd, 2016, 10:58 PM
POTY nominee !!!

I agree, patrickj!! How do we go about entering it??

Much Love, In Christ, and Godspeed,

Michael

MichaelCadry
May 3rd, 2016, 04:39 AM
Dear Lon,

I love your Post #175!! POTY nominee!! Even AMR noticed it. It was wonderful. Keep up the good work for our God!!

Praise God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost,

Michael

MichaelCadry
May 3rd, 2016, 05:09 AM
Dear 6days,

I want you to know that I truly realize and appreciate tons the posts you've made also. There are far too many foes here compared to allies. It's too bad, really. The vultures fly above. Eeek! Well, I'm going to call it a night and get some sleep!! Thanks again, 6days!!

Michael

Cross Reference
May 3rd, 2016, 06:12 AM
Your stomach has to produce a new layer of mucus every two weeks;
otherwise it will digest itself.

Ah, yes, evolution again bringing one of its corrections into play.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 10:45 AM
Remember the Lego analogy? All living things have cells which is a relation, but that doesn't mean my greatest great uncle was a house-plant. Sharing commonality doesn't necessarily mean derivative to me. Something sets us apart from all creation called imago deo (image of God).
Genesis is either misleading or we translated Hebrew incorrectly, or we misinterpreted or science interpreted data incorrectly...

First you said there was no need to be persuaded that you "come from an ape" until it mattered. I showed you how the understanding of evolutionary relationships between organisms (humans and apes included) is the basis for figuring out genetic function, thereby demonstrating how you "coming from an ape" does indeed matter.

Now it looks like you're trying to walk that back a bit. Is human-primate shared ancestry a conclusion that just isn't acceptable to you under any circumstances?


Perhaps but no scientist is merely interested in science and so whatever else comes to bear will bring meaning, significance, and purpose and so I applaud you discussing these matters on TOL even, as a scientist.

Ok then.


Yes but I think there are organizations piggy-backing on it for that agenda. Certainly it is the main-vehicle for atheists and perhaps that bothers you just as much as it does me.

I really don't care one way or the other. That's what makes me an apatheist.


Well, accordingly, maybe it never did, or always did as the case may be

The fact remains, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for well over a century now. What we conclude from that fact is up to each of us.


(read AMR's article (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117577-Creation-vs-Evolution-II&p=4691538&viewfull=1#post4691538) for instance).

I didn't find that at all compelling. It's little more than an assertion of belief, followed by a demand that everyone else share it.

6days
May 3rd, 2016, 02:08 PM
I showed you how the understanding of evolutionary relationships between organisms (humans and apes included) is the basis for figuring out genetic function, thereby demonstrating how you "coming from an ape" does indeed matter.
Me thinks you have eaten too many rotten bananas.

Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 02:28 PM
Me thinks you have eaten too many rotten bananas.

Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.

Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?

Lon
May 3rd, 2016, 05:19 PM
First you said there was no need to be persuaded that you "come from an ape" until it mattered. I showed you how the understanding of evolutionary relationships between organisms (humans and apes included) is the basis for figuring out genetic function, thereby demonstrating how you "coming from an ape" does indeed matter.

Now it looks like you're trying to walk that back a bit. Is human-primate shared ancestry a conclusion that just isn't acceptable to you under any circumstances?
Scientists will proceed as they feel they need to but yet in America, the # of people that question evolution is significantly high, even outside of Christian circles. "Mattering" has never been conveyed well by the science community when that is the case. Did your link convince me? :nono: More than science is the truth of Imago deo. We are made unique from all of creation. Nothing else even comes close. I don't mind sharing anything in common with animals, except this concept of being made in the image of God.


I really don't care one way or the other. That's what makes me an apatheist.
Do you have a caricature of atheist literature when you frequent atheist websites as well? Or do you avoid those?


The fact remains, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for well over a century now. What we conclude from that fact is up to each of us. Was it ever relevant in your thinking framework?


I didn't find that at all compelling. It's little more than an assertion of belief, followed by a demand that everyone else share it.
It was about 'relevance' perspective from every Christian. It doesn't have to be compelling to you, but explain why we'd disagree with you whenever you post that it isn't relevant. Compelling? It doesn't matter who rejects it but who accepts it. Our positions are irrelevant to each other.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 06:02 PM
Scientists will proceed as they feel they need to

In general we proceed with what works, and as the data shows, evolutionary theory works extremely well.


but yet in America, the # of people that question evolution is significantly high

As we covered before, the data shows that to be a result of our rather high number of fundamentalist Christians.


even outside of Christian circles.

Where's the data that supports that?


"Mattering" has never been conveyed well by the science community when that is the case. Did your link convince me? :nono: More than science is the truth of Imago deo. We are made unique from all of creation. Nothing else even comes close. I don't mind sharing anything in common with animals, except this concept of being made in the image of God.

So you aren't open to the idea of human-primate shared ancestry from the get-go. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of giving the impression that if only the idea was shown to "matter" in a scientific context (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117577-Creation-vs-Evolution-II&p=4691824&viewfull=1#post4691824) you might be persuaded?


Do you have a caricature of atheist literature when you frequent atheist websites as well? Or do you avoid those?

I don't know what you're talking about here, and no I don't go to atheist websites.


Was it ever relevant in your thinking framework?

Only in that it sometimes served as a good illustration of how to spot pseudoscience.


It was about 'relevance' perspective from every Christian. It doesn't have to be compelling to you, but explain why we'd disagree with you whenever you post that it isn't relevant. Compelling? It doesn't matter who rejects it but who accepts it. Our positions are irrelevant to each other.

Except that we're talking about science, which directly and tangibly impacts us all. And in that arena, creationism remains as it has been for well over a century....absolutely irrelevant.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 06:08 PM
Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?

Nope.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Lon
May 3rd, 2016, 06:09 PM
Where's the data that supports that? Number crunching 60 to 80


So you aren't open to the idea of human-primate shared ancestry from the get-go. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, instead of giving the impression that if only the idea was shown to "matter" in a scientific context (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117577-Creation-vs-Evolution-II&p=4691824&viewfull=1#post4691824) you might be persuaded?
We are arguing over the idea of what 'matters' at this point. Don't lose the goalpost on me.



I don't know what you're talking about hereYour avatar is a Chic Tract. Even I don't read those things.


Only in that it sometimes served as a good illustration of how to spot pseudoscience.
You are aware then, that there is political agenda behind your science interests as well then.




Except that we're talking about science, which directly and tangibly impacts us all. And in that arena, creationism remains as it has been for well over a century....absolutely irrelevant.
:nono: Not when those doubter #'s are so high.

6days
May 3rd, 2016, 07:25 PM
Geneticists may find same or similar genes provide same or similar function. That is great evidence for a common Designer... the Creator God of the Bible.
Thus by the same token, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against the "Creator God of the Bible", correct?
No..but you just seemed to have defeated your own argument. You argued that genetic similarity is evidence of common ancestry...so by your logic, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against common ancestry, correct?

Evolutionism accomodates everything. It is a non falsifiable belief system. It doesnt matter if its good design / bad design.....functional / useless.....homologous / analogous. Evoltionism is like a fog that covers any lansdscape; it isn't science

Tyrathca
May 3rd, 2016, 07:45 PM
A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science. So in other words yes your quote from an article you've probably never even read was not meaningful or important.

Again..... bones can sing any song you want them too.

There is a long history of bold transitional claims by evolutionists trying to make apes more human like..... or, humans more ape like. I'm sure you are aware of examples but can gladly discuss some if you wish. Did or did not evolution predict that there would be fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics that no other ape has? Are there or are there not fossils of extinct apes which have human like characteristics such as Australpithecus afarensis and Homo Habilis? Note I'm not asking whether you think these apes are human or not just whether you at least agree that there exist fossils for these presumed species that have some characteristics shared with humans which are not shared with other modern apes.

To me that is science, prediction made predictions confirmed. Is every prediction going to be right? Of course not, that is the very nature of science that we do not know everything. There will be many incorrect predictions and because of that the basis behind those predcitions must be adjusted in light of it and the predictions that were right. This is the case for every science. As for "bold" claims this happens to a degree in every field and is often exacerbated of the media (sometimes to the point of intentional media hyperbole), physics and medicine are the fields that I observe this the most in (my personal observation).

And that explains why evolutionists so often have egg on their face. They start with their preconceived world view, and end up making poor predictions (Junk DNA, pseudogenes, Neandertals, poor design arguments, Darwinius masillae. ETC ETC ETC) 6days you've already been shown in previous threads that junk DNA was shown to be not "junk" due to inquiries based on evolution and the label of junk was only given to it in the first place because geneticists couldn't (at the time) find its purpose not because of any evolutionary prediction. Psudogenes exist and those incorrect labelling of genes being pseudogenes are simply that of geneticists not noticing a new function of a gene. Do you expect geneticists to be right about everything they see in the genome? That's a bit unfair especially given how new the science is. I'm not sure what your objections are with Neanderthals other than perhaps evolutionists weren't (and still aren't) completely sure of their place in human evolution. Darwinius masillae? Are you referign to how the discoverers were a bit naughty and tried to advance their careers by taking shortcuts and abusing media hype? Because ultimately the scientific community did what it always does and peer reviewed the data and redid the analysis to see if they got the same result (they didn't come tot he same conclusion and the consensus seems to have settled on Darwinius masillae being a different and totally suborder than the authors claimed, OMG some scientist got something wrong!!!!!!)

You must get your incorrect info from atheist web sites? You might want to study a little history, or archaeology seeing how evidence keeps proving the naysayers wrong. Perhaps study a little evidence from genetics....or look at coal seams, polystrate fossils, warped and bent strata, sudden appearance, fossil grave yards etc etc etc to see how it matchs what we expect in the Biblical creation and flood models. It's been a long time since I looked at any such websites. As for history, archaeology, genetics etc... could you be a any more vague?

You are uniformed. And, you use illogical and circular arguments found on atheist websites like 'talkorigins'. I'll take your word for it that what I say is mirrored on talkorigins.

Modern science is largely the result of a belief in the Bible as literally true history. "Real science" was, and still is possible based on the belief that our universe has been formed in a rational way making science possible. Even evolutionists admit this like Loren Eiseley "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption." So? You are talking about the origins of scientific philosophy not actual scientific method and understanding. Regardless this should be evidence that there was a bias towards biblical creationism in science rather than the common creationist narrative of secularists biased against the bible. And if there was such an obvious bias among the original people starting to do science why then did it so quickly diverge from the biblical literalist narrative?

The timeline seems to show this: Biblical literalists start doing science -> Results of science cause them to stop being biblical literalists -> Ex-biblical literalists doing science propose non-biblical explanations -> Results repeatedly concur with non-biblical explanations so they continue to present day.

What about that helps your argument? Kudos to you for being a stalwart proponent of a belief system that was at a time used by ancient scientists but is now woefully obsolete?

BTW... If you are interested in predictions from Biblical creationists... don't just trust atheist web sites. If you google, you can easily find predictions from Biblical scientists. Tried google, seems to be easy to find claims of biblical scientific foreknowledge (ie. no better than history being said to fit with prophecy, even though no one predicted the history based on the prophecy) or of claims that yes they can predict but then giving no examples of biblical knowledge leading to scientific predictions. Best I could find was AiG (https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/does-the-creation-model-make-predictions-absolutely/) patting themselves on the back for saying Neanderthals and humans have a recent common ancestor but despite claiming they did so with biblical creation assumptions the rationale they give (very brief and don't provide their original prediction just an citation which is not available for public reading) is that they based it off evolutionist data about mtDNA and made an extrapolation from what was observed without at any point saying where/how biblical creation lead them.

So where is the biblical creation model predicitons then?

6days
May 4th, 2016, 12:19 AM
A single scientist making a claim would not be very meaningful, nor important. But, when numerous scientists say similar things, it does become more meaningful. What really shows the truth of that quote ('bones can sing any tune you want them too'), is when evidence bears its out. The examples are almost endless of an evolutionist making fantastic claims about a fossil, only to be disproven later by science.
So in other words yes your quote from an article you've probably never even read was not meaningful or important. I pretty much said the opposite of that. Likely every paleontologist will admit similar things. ('Bones will sing the song you want'). Evidence bears out the truth of that quote. There always is a bias and differing opinions every single time a fossil is claimed to be "important". Even the evolutionists hear the same bones whistling opposing tunes.



Did or did not evolution predict that there would be fossils of extinct apes with varying degrees of human like characteristics that no other ape has? Are there or are there not fossils of extinct apes which have human like characteristics such as Australpithecus afarensis and Homo Habilis? Note I'm not asking whether you think these apes are human or not just whether you at least agree that there exist fossils for these presumed species that have some characteristics shared with humans which are not shared with other modern apes.
The problem is .... we still come back to bones being made to sing a certain song... which many / most hearing different songs. An evolutionary paleontologist always emphasizes human like characteristics of apes (ex. 'Lucy'). And, they try dehumamize fossils that appear to be human. (Ex. Neandertals)



To me that is science, prediction made predictions confirmed. Is every prediction going to be right? Of course not, that is the very nature of science that we do not know everything. There will be many incorrect predictions and because of that the basis behind those predcitions must be adjusted in light of it and the predictions that were right. This is the case for every science. As for "bold" claims this happens to a degree in every field and is often exacerbated of the media (sometimes to the point of intentional media hyperbole), physics and medicine are the fields that I observe this the most in (my personal observation).
We agree on much of that.


6days you've already been shown in previous threads that junk DNA was shown to be not "junk" due to inquiries based on evolution

False. Non coding DNA was shown to be functional by scientists who didn't dismiss it as biological remnants / vestigial leftovers etc. When they looked for functionality, they found it. If non functionality was evidence of common ancestry; then, does functionality provide evidence of a common designer?



and the label of junk was only given to it in the first place because geneticists couldn't (at the time) find its purpose not because of any evolutionary prediction. It seems you are trying to whitewash history, and remove egg off the face of evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins and many others used non coding DNA as a selling point for their belief system. For example, he said, "Leaving pseudogenes aside, it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.". Fortunately, science has proved him wrong. (Again)


Psudogenes exist and those incorrect labelling of genes being pseudogenes are simply that of geneticists not noticing a new function of a gene.

No, that isn't really the story. 'Psuedogenes' is a misnomer based on a false belief system. For decades research was essentially abandoned on these genes because universities taught that they were functionless relics from non human ancestors.

If "Broken DNA" is evidence against the Biblical Creator, then non broken, sophisticated, functional DNA is evidence for our Creator. Prominent evolutionists such as Francis Collins and Karl Giberson said that it is "not remotely plausible" that "God inserted a piece of broken DNA into our genomes."

However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes. In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"

The article closes with warning similar to what creationists have been saying for years not to assume that pseudogenes are "nonfunctional relics"because that has caused them to be "overlooked in the quest to understand the biology of health and disease":
RNA, Vol. 17:792-798 (2011).








Neanderthals other than perhaps evolutionists weren't (and still aren't) completely sure of their place in human evolution.

They simply are one more example of science correcting false evolutionary beliefs... and affirming the truth of God's Word.

God created humans as humans. Evolutionism needs and wants transitional fossils to show that humans evolved. In order to try fill this void, evolutionists often try to emphasize human characteristics of ape fossils, and the opposite with human fossils.
Neandertals are a good example of how evolutionists use their assumptions arriving at faulty conclusions. Neandertals are fully human but with a few distinct variations. In today's world we have many isolated people groups who have developed distinct variations, and this is no different than the Neandertals.
Neandertals were once in kids text books, showing them to be beastly looking. Articles discussed them as being inferior to us and claimed they likely didnt have language. They were depicted as stooped over and hairy... dimwitted. Over the past several years, science has come closer and closer to acknowledging that the creationist position is correct. Neandertals were not 1/2 human. There have been many good science articles in recent years upgrading the status of Neandertals. Here is the most recent article discussing Neandertal ingenuity and tool making. ( too bad the article stilll uses a 'picture' showing that dimwitted look... there are much better pictures... and there are articles discussing how there looks would blend in with todays humans)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14677434



Darwinius masillae? Are you referign to how the discoverers were a bit naughty and tried to advance their careers by taking shortcuts and abusing media hype? Because ultimately the scientific community did what it always does and peer reviewed the data and redid the analysis to see if they got the same result (they didn't come tot he same conclusion and the consensus seems to have settled on Darwinius masillae being a different and totally suborder than the authors claimed, OMG some scientist got something wrong!!!!!!)

Haha..... yes, a "bit naughty". They had a nice fossil of an animal about the size of a racoon. They gave it a nice human name 'Ida' and many evolutionists and media around the world were willfully ignorant believing the missing link had been found. Amazing that people were so gullible when it was plain for all to see that Ida was simply a small lemur / monkey type creature.

Cross Reference
May 4th, 2016, 04:42 AM
Man left to himself will always destroy himself. Evolution supports that more than anything. I wonder why, [I realy don't] they wont admit that?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:12 AM
Number crunching 60 to 80

You're going to have to be more specific than that.


We are arguing over the idea of what 'matters' at this point.

Do you think figuring out the various functions of our genetic sequences matters?


Your avatar is a Chic Tract. Even I don't read those things.

Why does my avatar bug you so much that you bring it up almost every time we interact?


You are aware then, that there is political agenda behind your science interests as well then.

There is? What is that agenda and what evidence do you have that it exists?


Not when those doubter #'s are so high.

As we covered before, the data shows that to be a result of our rather high number of fundamentalist Christians.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:13 AM
Nope.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

Then what would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:15 AM
No.

Then what would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?


You argued that genetic similarity is evidence of common ancestry

Specific types of similarities (e.g., shared redundancies, errors), yes.


so by your logic, different genetic sequences being used for similar functions would be evidence against common ancestry, correct?

It would be evidence that the taxa are more distantly related.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 10:39 AM
What would be evidence against the "creator God of the Bible"?

You could insist that non-material reality is illusory.

We're not discussing evidence for God, a non-physical, relational being, unless you want to talk about Jesus Christ — God incarnated on Earth.

We're talking science. You have an idea about the physical universe and you defend it.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:42 AM
'Psuedogenes' is a misnomer based on a false belief system. For decades research was essentially abandoned on these genes because universities taught that they were functionless relics from non human ancestors...

...Once again demonstrating how it is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
However, over the past few years evolutionists have started shying way from using junk DNA as a proof and now they are losing pseudogenes.

Just as I predicted, you continue to repeat false information even though you've been corrected on it before (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution&p=4606148&viewfull=1#post4606148). All you did was wait a while, hope everyone would forget, and post the same lies all over again.


In the science journal RNA, a new article says:
"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation. Pseudogene transcripts can be processed into short interfering RNAs that regulate coding genes through the RNAi pathway. In another remarkable discovery, it has been shown that pseudogenes are capable of regulating tumor suppressors and oncogenes by acting as microRNA decoys. The finding that pseudogenes are often deregulated during cancer progression warrants further investigation into the true extent of pseudogene function. In this review, we describe the ways in which pseudogenes exert their effect on coding genes and explore the role of pseudogenes in the increasingly complex web of noncoding RNA that contributes to normal cellular regulation"

Yeah, we went over that (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?94434-Creation-vs-Evolution&p=4606148&viewfull=1#post4606148), remember?

Why do you continue to repeat this false information? Is that just what creationism forces you to do? Can't they give you any valid arguments?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:44 AM
You could insist that non-material reality is illusory.

We're not discussing evidence for God, a non-physical, relational being, unless you want to talk about Jesus Christ — God incarnated on Earth.

We're talking science. You have an idea about the physical universe and you defend it.

You claimed that creationism is indeed science, so I'm asking....what potential evidence would go against the "creator God of the Bible"?

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 11:24 AM
You claimed that creationism is indeed science, so I'm asking....what potential evidence would go against the "creator God of the Bible"?

And you got an answer. Did you think my answer would change if you asked again?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 11:47 AM
Thanks for your time.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 12:03 PM
Thanks for your time.
Ah, the wail of the defeated Darwinist.

Lon
May 4th, 2016, 12:50 PM
Do you think figuring out the various functions of our genetic sequences matters?
Yes. Does it matter that you think it means derivative of an ape? No.


Why does my avatar bug you so much that you bring it up almost every time we interact?
Bug me? No, just to remind you that your chosen icons and sig aren't as disinterested as you sometimes try to portray. They are both, I assume, carefully chosen to convey your exact sentiments.


There is? What is that agenda and what evidence do you have that it exists?
Read your own sig lately? If you've softened, bravo, change 'em. If not, I'll continue to intelligently assume...

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 02:04 PM
Yes. Does it matter that you think it means derivative of an ape? No.

This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered. But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.

Like I said before, if human/primate share ancestry is simply a non-starter for you and is something you cannot accept no matter what, then just be honest and say so.


Bug me? No, just to remind you that your chosen icons and sig aren't as disinterested as you sometimes try to portray. They are both, I assume, carefully chosen to convey your exact sentiments.

Why do you feel the need to constantly remind me about my avatar though? Like I said, you seem to bring it up just about every time we start a conversation. To me, that says it bugs you.

And FYI, I use it because it cracks me up. I love Chick Tracts because they're so hilariously cheesy, and being a scientist I thought I'd use the image Jack Chick and his readers apparently believe best represents the typical scientist.


Read your own sig lately? If you've softened, bravo, change 'em. If not, I'll continue to intelligently assume...

So that's the extent of your evidence for some "political agenda" behind science? "Some guy on an internet forum has a signature line that I don't like"?

Great job there Lon. :rolleyes:

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 02:39 PM
This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered. But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.Nope.

This is you demanding the primacy of your idea and ignoring the possibility of a competing idea.

DNA similarities are a result of common design, not common ancestry.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 03:14 PM
This is you demanding the primacy of your idea and ignoring the possibility of a competing idea.

No, that was me demonstrating the supremacy of evolutionary theory as evidenced by its utility in discerning genetic function.


DNA similarities are a result of common design, not common ancestry.

In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I say so!!

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 03:34 PM
No, that was me demonstrating the supremacy of evolutionary theory as evidenced by its utility in discerning genetic function.Nope. Assuming the truth of your ideas and refusing to consider alternatives is the essence of anti-science dogma.

You make demands and when challenged use the intellectual equivalent of "because I say so."

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 03:41 PM
Nope. Assuming the truth of your ideas and refusing to consider alternatives is the essence of anti-science dogma.

Which is why I demonstrated the supremacy of evolutionary theory by showing its utility in discerning genetic function. Rather than merely assume common ancestry, geneticists put the idea to a test and came up with extremely useful results that continue to be used today.

Meanwhile, creationism has contributed...............absolutely nothing...........in well over a century.

But I'm sure your next post will be you merely saying (with no supporting evidence) that the opposite is true, black is white, and up is down.

Such is the delusional nature of creationism.

Lon
May 4th, 2016, 03:49 PM
This is where your emotional/religious bias against human/primate shared ancestry is very apparent. You started off by saying there wasn't a need for you to really think about it unless it mattered.
Bingo.


But since I pointed out that the evolutionary relationships between humans and other organisms is the entire basis for figuring out the functions of genetic sequences (comparative genomics), you've been scrambling around, doing everything you can to not have to deal with that information.
:nono: It only 'matters' to a scientist like yourself. Further, it doesn't but show relation, not derivative. Again, plants have cells as I do.


Like I said before, if human/primate share ancestry is simply a non-starter for you and is something you cannot accept no matter what, then just be honest and say so.
When I see a chimp-boy I'll be forced as it were, to re-examine but I just don't foresee that ever happening. Further, it doesn't matter.
"Mattering" isn't your call to make.


Why do you feel the need to constantly remind me about my avatar though? Like I said, you seem to bring it up just about every time we start a conversation. To me, that says it bugs you.
Nope. It is just you. That's how I see you.


And FYI, I use it because it cracks me up. I love Chick Tracts because they're so hilariously cheesy, and being a scientist I thought I'd use the image Jack Chick and his readers apparently believe best represents the typical scientist.Yeah, but then you went and chose them as your avatar! :doh:




So that's the extent of your evidence for some "political agenda" behind science? "Some guy on an internet forum has a signature line that I don't like"?

Great job there Lon. :rolleyes:
Um, again, that is an agenda and you chose it to represent you as well.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 03:57 PM
Which is why I demonstrated the supremacy of evolutionary theory by showing its utility in discerning genetic function.Nope. You assumed the truth of your Darwinism and refused to consider an alternative. You're an anti-science bigot.


Rather than merely assume common ancestry, geneticists put the idea to a test and came up with extremely useful results that continue to be used today.And they could have discovered the exact same results approaching the problem with another theory.

Finding useful techniques is not evidence that your theory trumps another, especially when you will not even admit that another possibility even exists.

Evolutionism has contributed absolutely nothing ever. Looks like YECs win. :up:

But I'm sure your next post will be you merely saying (with no supporting evidence) that the opposite is true, black is white, and up is down.

Such is the delusional nature of Darwinists.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 03:59 PM
It only 'matters' to a scientist like yourself.

Then why do you keep discussing it?


Further, it doesn't but show relation, not derivative. Again, plants have cells as I do.

See? If it doesn't matter to you, why do you feel the need to keep posting lame excuses for waving away the data?

Looks to me like you're not being honest with me, or with yourself. You want to discuss human/primate evolution, but only from your denialist perspective. As soon as it turns to an actual discussion of the actual science, suddenly "it doesn't matter".

So, does it matter to you or not? If it doesn't, then why keep talking about it? If it does, then deal with the data. Stop trying to have it both ways.


When I see a chimp-boy I'll be forced as it were, to re-examine but I just don't foresee that ever happening. Further, it doesn't matter.
"Mattering" isn't your call to make.

See? That's nothing more than "If the data was there, I'd notice. But if it ever does show up, it won't matter to me".


Nope. It is just you. That's how I see you.

Then you can stop bringing it up.


Yeah, but then you went and chose them as your avatar!

Sheesh, pay attention. I chose it because it's funny to me.


Um, again, that is an agenda and you chose it to represent you as well.

Your empty, baseless assertion is noted.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 04:02 PM
And they could have discovered the exact same results approaching the problem with another theory.

Then why aren't creationists doing exactly that?

Finding useful techniques is not evidence that your theory trumps another, especially when you will not even admit that another possibility even exists.


Evolutionism has contributed absolutely nothing ever. Looks like YECs win.

Just as I said...


Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. Every single biotech firm operates under the paradigm of evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization that has voiced their opinion on the issue has unequivocally stated that evolution is reality. Every single biological journal publishes multiple papers per year expanding our understanding of how evolution works, how it proceeded in the past, and uses that information to add to our scientific knowledge. And when you get into "billions of years" it's just as clear. IOW, in the earth and life sciences, evolution and "billions of years" are an essential part of the entire framework and have been for a very long time.

At the same time, not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. Creationism hasn't accomplished or even contributed to anything science in well over a century. From a scientific standpoint, creationism is 100% irrelevant and has been for a very long time.

So the state of the issue from a scientific perspective couldn't be any more clear, right? There is no debate, there is no controversy, there really isn't even anything to discuss.

Yet if you come into forums like the one I showed you, you encounter all sorts of Christians who will tell you...apparently with a straight face and in all seriousness (if you could see them)...that the exact opposite is true. Evolution is failed and/or disproven, and has not only failed to contribute anything to science in any way at all, it has actually "hindered science". Creationism is the superior explanation, has produced all sorts of wonderful contributions to modern science, and is without any doubt perfectly in line with all the evidence.

Lon
May 4th, 2016, 04:09 PM
Then why do you keep discussing it?
You engaged me.


See? If it doesn't matter to you, why do you feel the need to keep posting lame excuses for waving away the data?
You engaged me.

Looks to me like you're not being honest with me, or with yourself. You want to discuss human/primate evolution, but only from your denialist perspective. As soon as it turns to an actual discussion of the actual science, suddenly "it doesn't matter".
You engaged me.

So, does it matter to you or not? If it doesn't, then why keep talking about it? If it does, then deal with the data. Stop trying to have it both ways.
You engaged me.



See? That's nothing more than "If the data was there, I'd notice. But if it ever does show up, it won't matter to me".
You engaged me.



Then you can stop bringing it up.
You engaged me.



Sheesh, pay attention. I chose it because it's funny to me.
AND adopted it as your persona. It isn't for you to look at every time you come to TOL. It is rather how you wanted to be thought of, no?

Your empty, baseless assertion is noted.You engaged me.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 04:14 PM
Then why aren't creationists doing exactly that?They are.

It's game over for your implication that Darwinism is the only player. Time to learn how to be a real scientist. :up: Pretending that popularity and being part of the establishment makes you a scientist just gets you mocked.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 04:58 PM
You engaged me.

Then we can be done. Thanks for your time.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 04:59 PM
They are.

Then please show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 07:27 PM
Then please show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

Now that you've tacitly admitted your failing, how about you withdraw the assertion that only evolution can explain genetic features. :up:

6days
May 4th, 2016, 07:41 PM
Nope. You (JoseFly)assumed the truth of your Darwinism and refused to consider an alternative. You're an anti-science bigot.
Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',

MichaelCadry
May 4th, 2016, 09:57 PM
:think: Dear Jose Fly,

I will butt in here just a bit and let you all get back to things. I really don't like talking with you, but will grin and bear it for now. We just strongly disagree with each other. Just because some in the scientific community think that evolution is true doesn't make them right. You are just following the popular, not the true. When God said 7,000 or so years, that's what He meant. Not billions, just because it sounds better to you. God could have been adding to the Universe for the past 7,000 years, and that is plenty of time for Him to create very much indeed. Billions of years are not necessary, though it sounds nice to talk about something you can't prove regardless of theories or incompetent methods of dating whatever you wish to date, using so-called 'fail-proof' methods.

You go ahead and figure that God started the Earth a few billion years ago. Like who was doing the counting? Evolutionists most likely, right? Not Creationists. Just because everyone has jumped on the evolution bandwagon doesn't make it so. Billions of years is just a guess, a hyperbole, an estimate, a joke, a misnomer. I could go on. If you want to believe whatever, go for it. Doesn't make it the truth. Who's going to measure or prove that it has been billions of years? How about one billion? Who's going to measure that also. That's a joke too, but whatever.

'There were giants on the Earth in those days, and also after that...' See Gen. 6:4KJV. So we are taught there were super tall men and quite likely, beasts, in those days. It is a matter of speculation to decipher those words, but we don't just say billions of years, as you'd like. Well, I am done talking about it. Evolution is a theory only and I doubt it's validity extremely. Why would God 'lie' to us? Would you rather believe in God or Darwin? Yes, I know what you'd like. That doesn't make it true. If He meant something else, then we will find out soon enough, for it is written that 'in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets." See Rev. 10:7KJV. So lets just give things a goodly amount of time before making a declaration, I would think. We can see things happening in the Earth that Jesus spoke of in the Scriptures when He was down on Earth last; words preemptive of a big change in the Earth and His Returning. Don't write it off just yet!! Whether I think that I know when it is or not, does not make it any less true.

Have A Good Day,

Michael

Jonahdog
May 5th, 2016, 03:49 AM
Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',

Rats, you broke my irony meter again.

DavisBJ
May 5th, 2016, 05:52 AM
Sadly, he is unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his 'religion',
Says the fellow whose religion says it is fine to live inside of a fish, and to talk with snakes and donkeys, and who has no issues with rivers filled with H2O turning into rivers of hemoglobin, and doesn’t flinch at seeing a staff become a serpent.

6days
May 5th, 2016, 06:19 AM
Says the fellow whose religion says it is fine to live inside of a fish, and to talk with snakes and donkeys, and who has no issues with rivers filled with H2O turning into rivers of hemoglobin, and doesn’t flinch at seeing a staff become a serpent.
My 'religion' also tells how my creator humbled Himself and became a man. That Creator loves me.... He loves you too Davis.

DavisBJ
May 5th, 2016, 08:29 AM
My 'religion' also tells how my creator humbled Himself and became a man. That Creator loves me.... He loves you too Davis.
You were saying that sadly, Jose Fly was unwilling to follow evidence when it leads away from his “religion”. Sadly, you are equally unwilling to follow the evidence I mentioned away from your “religion”.

Jose Fly
May 5th, 2016, 12:28 PM
Now that you've tacitly admitted your failing

What in the world are you talking about? :idunno:


how about you withdraw the assertion that only evolution can explain genetic features. :up:

Only if you show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

But we all know you won't. I guarantee it.

Jose Fly
May 5th, 2016, 12:35 PM
Just because some in the scientific community think that evolution is true doesn't make them right. You are just following the popular, not the true.

How do you suggest we determine what scientific claims are true?


When God said 7,000 or so years, that's what He meant. Not billions, just because it sounds better to you. God could have been adding to the Universe for the past 7,000 years, and that is plenty of time for Him to create very much indeed. Billions of years are not necessary, though it sounds nice to talk about something you can't prove regardless of theories or incompetent methods of dating whatever you wish to date, using so-called 'fail-proof' methods.

Why do you think a non-Christian should adopt and advocate a religious belief that's held almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christians?

Isn't that about the same as a Mormon expecting you to adopt and advocate their beliefs about history?


Billions of years is just a guess, a hyperbole, an estimate, a joke, a misnomer.

In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I said so!!

Stripe
May 5th, 2016, 12:40 PM
Only if you show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

I've already explained this to you. Try to keep up. :up:

Jose Fly
May 5th, 2016, 01:05 PM
I've already explained this to you. Try to keep up. :up:

Told ya. You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't.

I guarantee it.

6days
May 5th, 2016, 03:25 PM
You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't. Discerning genetic function is performed using the scientific method by atheists, Muslims, Biblical creationists and Catholics. Their beliefs about the past are different, but their science is the same

Jose Fly
May 5th, 2016, 03:45 PM
Discerning genetic function is performed using the scientific method by atheists, Muslims, Biblical creationists and Catholics. Their beliefs about the past are different, but their science is the same

That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.

And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

6days
May 5th, 2016, 05:58 PM
That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.
And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

Another money back guarantee? :)

How about you start by quoting what Stripe said... This way we know you aren't creating another strawman.

6days
May 5th, 2016, 06:13 PM
Specific types of similarities(are evidence of common ancestry).
It (differences) would be evidence that the taxa are more distantly related.
In other words, the evidence doesn't really matter...its all evolution no matter what? Evolutionism is not science. Its simply a method of explaining evidence within a belief system.

MichaelCadry
May 5th, 2016, 06:39 PM
How do you suggest we determine what scientific claims are true?







Why do you think a non-Christian should adopt and advocate a religious belief that's held almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christians?

Isn't that about the same as a Mormon expecting you to adopt and advocate their beliefs about history?



In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I said so!!


Dear Jose,

Now you want me to figure out ways to date everything? Aren't you kind? And of course, I don't think the moon is made of cheese. Only you would be among those who said such odd things. Your post is a total waste as far as essence or worthiness, and time.

Michael

Stripe
May 5th, 2016, 07:20 PM
Told ya. You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't.

I guarantee it.


That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.

And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

Darwinists hate reading.