If the stamp collectors had tens of thousands of beautiful meeting houses where the collectors were encouraged to congregate for study and instruction in stamp collecting each week, and they asked that their properties and activities be exempt from taxation, and the collectors wanted their hobby to be taught to all students public schools, and they sent many thousands of stamp collector missionaries throughout the world to try and increase their ranks, and had periods of open warfare against other hobbyists, then I can assure you those not dedicated to stamp collecting would do just what you itemize.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
In explaining why it helps to know the approximate age of strata that is to be radiologically dated, The Barbarian says:
I am so devoid of artistic ability that I hate to have to draw stick figures to illustrate an idea. Likewise with Untellectual and science.
To which Untellectual responds:
I fear that Untellectual was dead serious in his response. If so, then it is time to admit that if someone just can’t handle something as simple as the analogy Barbie gave, that is a pretty clear indication of the intellectual level they are limited to.
I am so devoid of artistic ability that I hate to have to draw stick figures to illustrate an idea. Likewise with Untellectual and science.
alwight
New member
If philatelists wanted to impose their stamp collecting habits on all others, who were told that if they didn't collect stamps their mortal souls would be in grave peril, or that science has it all wrong because the world as we know it has only existed since the first original stamp was magically created supernaturally by a spoken word, then we might indeed see the advent of "aphilatelist" groups everywhere.
lain:
I know enough to know that measurement devices should only be used for what they were created/designed for. And it wasn't for art.
Truly amazing. Even my analogy went right over Untellectual’s head. Move over, Michael Cadry, you’ve got some serious competition in Untellectual.
You were speaking of someone else's analogy.
Oh yes you have rejected science, big time. Look at what you said just a few posts ago:
Not even a pretense of saying “What date does science show?”
It just keeps getting deeper and deeper
It just keeps getting deeper and deeper
It just keeps getting deeper and deeper
Yup, and in so doing, I used an analogy. Neither one registered even faintly in your brain.
Because I know science can be wrong. Not science that is correct though.
A person cannot measure the age of something by its temperature.
Ah, it's "analogy" that's the problem. Here:
English Learner's definition of ANALOGY
1 a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
He drew/made an analogy between flying a kite and fishing. [=he compared flying a kite to fishing; he said that flying a kite was like fishing]
2 the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way
English Learner's definition of ANALOGY
1 a comparison of two things based on their being alike in some way
He drew/made an analogy between flying a kite and fishing. [=he compared flying a kite to fishing; he said that flying a kite was like fishing]
2 the act of comparing two things that are alike in some way
alwight
New member
According to AiG:
"The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13)."
Source
The Bible is not fallible because the Bible says so?
"All other documents written by man are fallible..." (including this one presumably.)
How do they know that the Bible isn't fallible too?
Because an anonymous author of Hebrews says that God "swore by Himself" of course.
Sceptics, we have lost, there is simply no argument against the power of that overwhelming reasoning and rationality, we may as well all pack up and go home ....Oh wait I'm home already... :liberals:
"The Bible, God’s revelation to us, gives us the foundation that enables us to begin to build the right worldview to correctly understand how the present and past are connected. All other documents written by man are fallible, unlike the “God-breathed” infallible Word (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible clearly and unmistakably describes the creation of the universe, the solar system, and the earth around six thousand years ago. We know that it’s true based on the authority of God’s own character. “Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself” (Hebrews 6:13)."
Source
The Bible is not fallible because the Bible says so?
"All other documents written by man are fallible..." (including this one presumably.)
How do they know that the Bible isn't fallible too?
Because an anonymous author of Hebrews says that God "swore by Himself" of course.
Sceptics, we have lost, there is simply no argument against the power of that overwhelming reasoning and rationality, we may as well all pack up and go home ....Oh wait I'm home already... :liberals:
If you read Hebrews I believe you will see that this verse is not talking about the authority or inspiration of the Bible, God's word. The prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. But what is this verse in Hebrews saying in context? You should look to that to see if it is not saying what you think it is.
alwight
New member
Are you saying then that AiG is fallible since they (not me) seem to think otherwise?
That verse is for the purpose it was intended as in the text itself. The verse is talking about Abraham. So the context would show you more.
But the inspiration of the scriptures is spoken of elsewhere in the Bible. I'm simply saying that we don't want to incorrectly use this verse.
6days
New member
Unlikely to you,because you think mutations create. NEWSFLASH... Mutations consistently destroy.Barbarian said:
Yes... With each passing generation the chances increase of mating with someone with the same harmful recessive increases. Geneticists know that mutations destroy and are concerned abut the "degenerative genetic process".Barbarian said:
Interestingly this is consistent with the Biblical account. Brother sister mating was not morally wrong, nor did it cause genetic problems in the beginning with a near perfect genome. God forbade incest in levitical law making it a sin.Barbarian said:
Science shows your evolutionary beliefs are wrong. You WANT and you hope and believe that mutations don't do much of anything. Geneticist Crow in PNAS article 1997 'The High Spontaneous Mutation Rate' says "each mutation leads ultimately to one genetic death"Barbarian said:
Yes...That's what geneticists tell us.Barbarian said:
Barbarian said:
You either don't understand genetics or you are obtuse. Mutations destroy ...Geneticists are concerned how mutations are corrupting our genome.
Crow says "I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but with a much longer fuse.
Barbarian said:
The reason you have difficulty accepting the science is your reluctance at accepting God created in 6 literal days.
God's Word does tell us that He spoke creation into existence ...the text is clear.
Dr Todd Beall, Professor of Old Testament, “… if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way
Dr Steven Boyd, Hebrew and OT prof. He says “There is only one tenable view of (Genesis 1): God created everything in six literal days.”
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".
Dr Ting Wang biblical Hebrew lecturer Stanford University
“Often, people will use the old argument that we should concentrate on preaching the Gospel, rather than get distracted by ‘side-issues’ such as Creation. But if we cannot believe the record of Creation, then why believe the record of the New Creation If we cannot believe in the First Adam, why believe in the Last Death came through the First, life through the Last
Dr Robert V. McCabe, M.Div., Th.M., Th.D.,teaches Old Testament and Hebrew. “Genesis is the foundation for the remaining 65 books of the Bible. It reveals a number of subjects that have an impact on people of all ages: God’s existence; His goodness in creating the heavens, the earth and all things in both over the space of six, consecutive normal days; His direct creation of His divine image bearers, the first human beings Adam and Eve, on Day 6
6days
New member
How many tree rings were in the apple trees in the Garden of Eden?
Should Christians count the rings... or believe the tree is days old?
We accept God's Word as our ultimate source of truth...period.
If you were right, we'd all be destroyed. Each of us has many of them. A few are quite destructive, but as you learned, most don't do much of anything, and a few are useful. As Kimura showed, natural selection acts on any that are useful or harmful, preserving useful ones and removing the harmful.
Barbarian observes:
It is, however true that all of us carry a large load of harmful recessives, that will be a problem if we mate with someone carrying any of those recessives.
Which, has the net effect of removing those recessives from the population. Any harmful recessive that becomes common enough, is removed from the population. Would you like to see the numbers?
I showed you that the greatest of modern geneticists, Kimura, the scientist who founded the neutral theories you're discussing, pointed out that these were generally not a problem due to the fact that any which became harmful would affect the phenotype, and therefore be removed by Darwinian natural selection.
Barbarian observes:
Hence, the incest prohibition.
"Near perfect genome" is, of course, a creationist addition to scripture. God never said that.
Barbarian observes:
As you learned, most of them don't do much of anything. If any of them do eventually become significantly harmful, natural selection then acts on the phenotype, and they are gone, as Kimura said. That's the part your people withheld from you.
Nope. I can see you're unhappy to learn that even neutralist geneticists don't agree with your beliefs.
See above. It comes down to evidence. Science has it. You don't.
One death to each mutation in a population would be rather unlikely. Since each person has about 60 of them, that would mean for every human born, sixty people would have to die. Mathematical impossibility. I'm sure you can figure out why, if you thought about it.
Barbarian observes:
You claimed mutations destroy.
Nope. As you learned, geneticists realize that mutations are an important source of useful traits.
Barbarian observes:
And yet, you have about 60. If even a small percent of them actually destroyed, most of us would be dead. You can't have it both ways.
Nope. I've just taken a lot more coursework in genetics than you have. I'm guessing, since you don't know even many fundamental things about genetics, that you never even took an introductory class in genetics.
As you know, even if a few percent of them destroyed, almost all of us would be dead.
Well, let's take a look...
Genesis1:11 "Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Barbarian observes:
Nothing about "reproducing according to kind." As you just learned, that was a modification of God's word by creationists, seeking to make scripture more compatible with their new beliefs. As you see, it doesn't give the details on how God used nature to make new species. It just says that He did.
The reason you have difficulty accepting the science is your reluctance at accepting the way God actually created living things. Creationists have to make up new things to put in the Bible, because it doesn't support their beliefs.
It is also clear that God created life by the earth bringing forth living things. Creationist claims that He created living things from nothing is another of their additions to Scripture.
Endorsements by modern revisionists don't really mean much to me. The ancient Christians, like St. Augustine, knew even then that Genesis was not a literal history, and the "days" (which in Hebrew were used to mean "24-hour day", or "in my time", or "an era" or "unspecified length of time", were not intended to be taken as actual days.
Cadry Aiding the SEXIST
Cadry Aiding the SEXIST
Michael, when Mark SeaSigh posted:
Cadry Aiding the SEXIST
Michael, when Mark SeaSigh posted:
You quickly suggested he use your sister’s name:
Congratulations. Mark is a blatant sexist who has a strong history of using women’s names and female gender words as terms of mockery against his opponents. And you have personally volunteered your sister’s name to permit Mark to expand his mocking by the use of your sister’s name. Do you think you sister would be really proud of you recommending her name be used as a term of derision? If a pimp asked, would you willingly give her address to him?
Dear Davis,
Don't freak on me. Mark is harmless calling someone Barbie or Betty. I've seen worse 'sins.' You don't even believe in God. Don't you know that that is a worse sin that what Mark does?? You're not even close. My sister Sue would feel fine about it. She loves people a lot, just like me. No, I wouldn't give her address to a pimp. You're a big outrageous there. There are many posters here that are really men, but they use a feminine girl as an Avatar. And so you think they're girls, And you find out they are not. What a surprise!! With Armageddon looming closer and closer, what Mark does is last priority. God's not going to send Mark to everlasting Lake of Fire (our Sun, presently) for what he's doing. It's trivial.
Now if Barbarian is upset with it and says so, then that's another thing. He and all of us would stand behind him/her. Mark is one of the lightness and comical guy on this thread. You All make a wonderful addition to this thread. Everyone does their part and it is good to get both sides.
It's just that Christians know what happens if you believe, and they know what happens if you don't believe. So it's only natural that they would hate to see someone's soul burn in fire for eternity. That is why we try so hard to talk some sense in them/you!! It isn't for ourselves, it's for you all. If we were heartless, we wouldn't give a rat's behind about you going to Hell and then, the Lake of Fire. We just are softies, that's what the problem is, or maybe it's not a problem. Even if we can get one atheist or other to come to the side of the winners, then we rejoice.
God Be With You, Davis,
Michael
:wazzup:
:think:
- Status