Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

I am going to focus more specifically on the salt lady story. Do you dare discuss how well it comports with science

Keep asking... the answer is the same.
A supernatural creation or event is a belief based on the evidence. We have evidence of divinely inspired and inerrant scripture. We have the evidence of the world around us that points towards an Intelligent Designer. We have the evidence from archaeology that supports the historical accuracy.

But,*We can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.
It seems you don't know what science is.
Science is the search for knowledge and truth. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiment. Contrary to the belief of some evolutionists..... Science is NOT excluding a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, when the evidence seems to point in that direction. There are things in the past that can't be observed, and can't be proved by experiment. For example an atheist believes that life came from non life...or perhaps that nothing created everything. Likewise with supernatural events in the Bible...we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

However, we can see if evidence supports our beliefs. For example the first 5 words of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created"... So, we can look for evidence if there really was a beginning. We can look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer. We can look for evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, and inerrant. Science is a body of knowledge and as such is always consistent with, and helps proclaim the truth of God's Word

You and Rosen toss out stupid absolutist claims like this pretty regularly. Can you honestly not think of scientific experiments specifically designed to investigate events that far pre-dated man?

I'm aware of many instances where evolutionists start with the wrong conclusion, and look only for evidence that confirms their worldview... and only later proven wrong by science.

Science does not concern itself with whether or not an intelligent designer exists, it simply investigates the natural world.

You are correct... science itself has no opinions. However atheists and most evolutionists certainly have a bias against a Supernatural Creator.*

*Over the past few centuries since science was recognized as a formal independent field of study, a vast number of things once attributed solely to your God have been shown to be quite natural.

True... sort of.
For example the Pope believed the sun revolved around the earth. Science proved him wrong...not the Bible.
But, we could also discuss how evolutionists once thought giraffes evolved long necks by stretching; and the many other evolutionary beliefs that science keeps correcting. (Psuedogenes, useless organs, coelecanth, Neandertals, junk DNA, *"simple" cells, spontaneous generation, *recapitulation etc)

*The only scientific “evidence” for your God that you allude to lies in those extreme places where science has not been successful.

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy. Physics shows us the evidence of an Intelligent Creator. Biology confirms life comes from life. Genetics confirms all humanity is 'one blood' . Bibliography helps show the accuracy of the ancient manuscripts. Geology and paleontology helps confirm the account of the flood.*SCIENCE HELPS CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD! ...and can be a form of worship.

 

[Greg Jennings]

1. You OBSERVE God create animals out of dust (as Adam did)
2. You HYPOTHESIZE that he can reduce you to dust, or salt, if he wills.

DUH!

So who observed God that we have reliable testimony from? Can you prove this invisible being exists at all? And if so, how can you verify words recorded 2000-4000 years ago and be certain that they haven't changed through the hundreds (if not thousands) of revisions and transcriptions?

Let's do a quick study: Who do you know personally who has either
A) been turned into a pillar of salt
B) has seen someone turned into a pillar of salt
?

 

[Greg Jennings]

I'm not sure how life can come from non life... Its a belief... It can't be explained scientifically.
The Bible though tells us that life came from The Lifegiver. Science also suggests that life always come from life.

You said this

For a God who can speak the universe into existence, turning a 70KG body into 700 tonnes of salt is small potatoes.*

Then I said
"Since you're a man of science, explain to me scientifically how that happens.

You pretend to care about the scientific method. So use it"

Explain to me how that works

 

[Greg Jennings]

So you ASSUME that it always grew at the same rate and nothing could ever move vasts amounts of it around. Bad assumptions.

Such little school you must've attended to know so little about this.

We have core samples drilled through miles (layers from millions of years worth of sediment deposit) to know exactly what the rates of growth for reefs were at all times in Earth's history. ALL TIMES

 

[Greg Jennings]

Correct the findings?...uh, well that is bit of a stretch. They rejected the data(212+ million years)...looked for new data to fit their beliefs, then eventually assigned a date(1.9MY).
You angrily asked for an example of how evolutionists reject data and assign dates... This was an example.

It seems like he just made a mistake that got quickly corrected by his colleagues, and I haven't found any documentation anywhere confirming (or even asserting) that this was intentionally fraudulent. I think you're trying to smear someone you dislike who made an honest mistake.

Tell me again, how does a 2 million year old skull lead you to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?

 

[Greg Jennings]

The data wasn't supportive of evolutionary beliefs is why it was rejected.*
GregJennings seemed to get angry at the notion evolutonists would do such a thing.*

Data that identifies a skull as being 2 million years old fits directly in what "evolutionists" believe: a very very old planet.

However, it directly contradicts your 6000 year old Earth.


Sorry, 6. Reality wins again

 

[MichaelCadry]

Data that identifies a skull as being 2 million years old fits directly in what "evolutionists" believe: a very very old planet.

However, it directly contradicts your 6000 year old Earth.


Sorry, 6. Reality wins again

Dear Greg J,

Evidently, you don't see the misnomer. The skull just isn't 2 million years old. Dating methods could be the factor, but I think it's possible that there are other reasons for such a mistake being made. Probably exaggeration plays a good part. And affixing a time period that is nearly impossible to decipher also plays another part. I don't mean to butt in and answering here. I hope it's okay. And I don't mean to offend anyone. I try to keep silent, really I do. I also try not to post on others' posts unless they are directed to me.

Best Regards,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh Michael. If only you could know how wrong you are about some things. Not all. But certainly some

Oh Greg,

So often, I'd like to butt into everyone's posts and give some answers, but that wouldn't be fair of me. If you want to know how the Lord God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, you just have to realize that God turned all of the elements and atoms within her body into sodium and chloride. We have til this day that the waters of the Dead Sea turned to salt and so did the immediate habitats of Sodom and Gomorrah. God is the Master Chemist. There are none who rival Him. NONE!! How do you think that God takes care of the changes in His creations as necessary? You remember Jesus turned water to wine? Well, that took some chemistry also. I suppose you don't believe that either.

Sincerely,

Michael

 

[Stuu]

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word. Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy. Physics shows us the evidence of an Intelligent Creator. Biology confirms life comes from life. Genetics confirms all humanity is 'one blood' . Bibliography helps show the accuracy of the ancient manuscripts. Geology and paleontology helps confirm the account of the flood.*SCIENCE HELPS CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF GOD'S WORD! ...and can be a form of worship.

And TOL helps confirm that we live in a post-truth existence, where the facts are not as important as how good the lies can make you feel.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Oh Greg,

So often, I'd like to butt into everyone's posts and give some answers, but that wouldn't be fair of me. If you want to know how the Lord God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, you just have to realize that God turned all of the elements and atoms within her body into sodium and chloride. We have til this day that the waters of the Dead Sea turned to salt and so did the immediate habitats of Sodom and Gomorrah. God is the Master Chemist. There are none who rival Him. NONE!! How do you think that God takes care of the changes in His creations as necessary? You remember Jesus turned water to wine? Well, that took some chemistry also. I suppose you don't believe that either.

Sincerely,

Michael

That's not really chemistry. It's nuclear physics.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

If you insist -

What does science say about creating an adult woman from a man’s rib?
What does science say about a river turning from water into hemoglobin?
What does science says about a snake having the necessary anatomy to create human speech?
What does science say about living for several days in the intestines of a big fish?
What does science say about transforming living flesh and blood into sodium chloride?
What does science say about sticks transforming into snakes, and vice versa?

Based on your criteria, that thing you label as “God’s Word” must be fiction.

Dear redfern,

Hi! Thanks for being so patient. I've got a bit more time 2nite, but not tons of it, so I'll be brief.

No. 1. God created woman the same way as He created man. From the dust of the earth. But also, with Adam's rib too. Do you know that rocks are alive? They grow inside producing beautiful crystals inside, and I'm thinking that no two are alike. The crystals grow in the rock. The rock has minerals and elements within it, which is also what the dirt of the ground has. God takes those elements and minerals, and produces by Chemistry, what He is creating. He can change atoms and protons, DNA, genomes, etc. according to what He wishes. If you think all of this happened by itself without a God, you are sadly mistaken.

Second, God could turn the water/river into red water, or blood. I'd have to check into the Scriptures further to answer you completely. When God said He turned the moon as blood, it just meant a red moon, like in a total lunar eclipse. So whether it was hemoglobin or not, I'd have to check it out.

Third, the snake didn't have the same anatomy or vocal chords to speak to Eve, but instead the serpent {not snake} said something to her by use of mental telepathy. In Heaven, we are spirits without a mouth to speak with like when having an earthly body with a tongue, etc. We speak telepathically in Heaven as they do in Hell, etc.

Now, it was a Serpent who spoke to Eve, not a snake. The serpent ended up losing his legs and crawling on the ground instead, licking up the dust as it goes, after it deceived Eve. God cursed the serpent to becoming a snake. Do you understand?

Next, the man Jonah, was swallowed by a whale for only 3 days. There was plenty of room in the whale's esophagus and stomach, and Jonah did not end up in the whale's intestines at all. The whale vomited out the man Jonah's body onto dry land. It is all controlled by God. If He can keep Daniel and his friends safe from the furnace fire and being burnt, then He can protect Jonah in the whale's stomach.

I've already answered the pillar of salt. God can turn anyone into anything, should He wish to. You don't know Him at all.

Lastly, staffs changing into snakes. Like I said, God can make whatever He wants to be altered in a moment. The magicians also were able by magic, to turn their staffs into snakes. But Moses snake was bigger and ate their snakes up. God can change air into water just by adding hydrogen. You've got to understand that God Created Chemistry. He is certainly able to create snakes, if He can create the Universe. Do you finally understand? You do not know Who you are messing with.

That will have to do it for now. It's late again. Will chat with you soon!!

God's Best For You,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

The data wasn't supportive of evolutionary beliefs is why it was rejected.*
GregJennings seemed to get angry at the notion evolutonists would do such a thing.*

No. It didn't match other measurements, so further refinement was necessary to bring them to agreement. When they agreed on was not passed through a dogma-filter first, but through a consistency filter.

YOU are the one who openly rejects stuff that doesn't match dogmatic and unproven beliefs. It is a part of your faith to blindly accept.

You have left out the answer to my question: when have you ever rejected a Bible based belief of yours in the face of physical evidence or scientific theory?

 

[MichaelCadry]

That's not really chemistry. It's nuclear physics.

Stuart

Dear Stuu,

Call it what you will! So, you're back!! You are a trooper. You've got to watch what you say in your posts so that you don't get banned again. It's good to have you here again!! Awesome!! Stuu, you are in New Zealand, right? I hope that the weather is really nice there right now. I'm here in Phoenix, Arizona, USA, and it's been great weather for November so far. Warm, but not too warm. I broke out my new winter wardrobe with long legged jeans and sweats, and I put most of the shorts into storage. It's going to be in the 70s and some 80s too this week. Well, it's getting late, so I'll have to chat with you 2morrow. Have a good day there!!

May God Fill Your Heart,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mike, like the neighbor that just can’t resist dumping some trash on your front lawn, even when asked not to, you insert yourself into conversations that you really out to stay out of. But since I have to put up with your impolite butting in, I will ask one question. Is this God you are so enamored with the same one that you said you prayed to early last year, and who confirmed to you that the rapture would in fact occur before last Christmas?

Dear redfern,

I've been over it a number of times and am not going to keep repeating myself. A person without mistakes isn't on Earth. They are in Heaven. At least, since Jesus was here on Earth. I am right 98% of the time. So whatever you want to call it. If you think that bringing up one mistake that I made whenever you need to feel stronger is going to fix it all, you are sadly mistaken. I've apologized for it over and over again.

God Help You Remain Mistake-Free,

Michael

 

[Rivers]

My understanding is that the Genesis creation story was about a local event that took place in the region described in Genesis 2:8-14 about 4,000 BC. Thus, it doesn't require that we take Genesis 1:1 to be the beginning of the entire Planet Earth or Universe. The "deep waters" in Genesis 1:2 were already there before Day One (Genesis 1:3).

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg J,

Evidently, you don't see the misnomer. The skull just isn't 2 million years old. Dating methods could be the factor, but I think it's possible that there are other reasons for such a mistake being made. Probably exaggeration plays a good part. And affixing a time period that is nearly impossible to decipher also plays another part. I don't mean to butt in and answering here. I hope it's okay. And I don't mean to offend anyone. I try to keep silent, really I do. I also try not to post on others' posts unless they are directed to me.

Best Regards,

Michael

Michael,

According to 6, the skull was originally estimated at somewhere over 200+ million years old. It is now thought to be 2 million.

6 rejects dating methods simply because they contradict everything he wishes were true: namely a 6000 year old Earth.

But let me be clear about this: 99+% of scientists accept evolution. So even though most of the community agrees, there are some detractors.
For radiometric dating, there are pretty much no detractors. There are simply no holes in radioactive breakdown. As long as you use the right method (C-14 for <75,000; U-Pb for billions; etc), are careful to avoid contamination, and repeat the process with consistent results, then the answer you get is airtight.


People like 6 can kick and scream about it all day long. That doesn't make it any less reliable

 

[Greg Jennings]

And TOL helps confirm that we live in a post-truth existence, where the facts are not as important as how good the lies can make you feel.

Stuart

The Trump factor?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Oh Greg,

So often, I'd like to butt into everyone's posts and give some answers, but that wouldn't be fair of me. If you want to know how the Lord God turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, you just have to realize that God turned all of the elements and atoms within her body into sodium and chloride. We have til this day that the waters of the Dead Sea turned to salt and so did the immediate habitats of Sodom and Gomorrah. God is the Master Chemist. There are none who rival Him. NONE!! How do you think that God takes care of the changes in His creations as necessary? You remember Jesus turned water to wine? Well, that took some chemistry also. I suppose you don't believe that either.

Sincerely,

Michael

Michael I appreciate you at least giving me an answer to my pillar of salt question. Truly I do. And on the surface, what you say sounds reasonable. Atoms are all just the same, with different numbers of protons and neutrons, right? You should be able to move around some electrons and turn lead into gold!

You're not the first person to come up with this idea. I'm sure you've heard of alchemy before. The alchemists were trying to the same (lead to gold, anyway). Of course, that proved more difficult than they imagined and it was abandoned eventually.

So maybe God did kill someone by rearranging the makeup of the atoms in a her body to transform her into a pillar of salt. But since we've never seen this happen, and have no evidence of it ever happening I can't conclude that it did myself.

Fun fact: pieces of basalt used to be called "tongue stones" because the first geologists thought they were the petrified tongues of those God had turned to stone.

 

[Greg Jennings]

My understanding is that the Genesis creation story was about a local event that took place in the region described in Genesis 2:8-14 about 4,000 BC. Thus, it doesn't require that we take Genesis 1:1 to be the beginning of the entire Planet Earth or Universe. The "deep waters" in Genesis 1:2 were already there before Day One (Genesis 1:3).

Try to tell 6days that.

 

[Rivers]

Try to tell 6days that.

It seems evident that there was already a flood covering the land (Genesis 1:2) before any of the days of Creation began. Apostle Peter alluded to this as well (2 Peter 3:5).