This is the place to continue the discussion of Evolution vs Creation to stop cluttering up the interesting reading thread. Please feel free to share your opinions or beliefs. However I would ask that you keep your replies respectful with NO personal attacks. WE CAN DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE. Thanks for your cooperation in that goal.
Respectfully,
Carroll
I thought I would post this here as well, it sort of belongs to both threads ;)
Does this explain why we have water on our planet Earth dating back some 4.5billion years? :-\
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi Carroll.
From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.22, 11:28:31
Hi Carroll.
From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?
Cheers Graham.
Yes,well i guess we now have to prove that science trumps belief,so as we can get our mythical evolution shifted to the realm of reality.
In spite of !my! beliefs,i always love watching movies such as Noah's ark,Star trek,Stargate--all those sci-fi movies :D
Brad
I've always felt that " evolution " as suggested by Mr Darwin had some pretty major flaws. Survival of the fittest does make sense however.
I would have thought that after several million years of " evolution " all the species here on earth would be very different by now ?
I have more to write but time is tight, the Beef Madras won't make itself!
Cheers Graham.
The onions are browning nicely.... There's one species that's a little different however, us!! We ARE evolving.
I would first like to look at the story of Noah and the great flood,and all that which took place directly after- up until present day.
First i would like to present the mathematics(as math is a very accurate science) on the volume of water needed to cover all the hills and mountains as stated in Genesis 7:19-20
Quote: 19- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20- Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible.
Here is probably the most accurate calculation of the amount of water needed to achieve this feat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po&t=3s
And another quicker calculation ,that is also very close to the first,and also shows how fast the animals would have to have been loaded into the ark,along with the amount of room allocated to each animal,going on the sizes of the ark provided by the bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ
So as you can see,mathematically the flood could never have happened,and the ark was just not big enough to house 2 of each kind of animal. We must also take into account that the flood lasted for 1 year and 10 days,and so enough food and water for all the animals,Noah and his family also had to be stored on the ark.
But lets say for a moment that the flood did happen,where did all that extra water go?
I mean,we are talking about over 3x that which is on earth today. ???
Brad
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.22, 12:27:01
I've always felt that " evolution " as suggested by Mr Darwin had some pretty major flaws. Survival of the fittest does make sense however.
I would have thought that after several million years of " evolution " all the species here on earth would be very different by now ?
I have more to write but time is tight, the Beef Madras won't make itself!
Cheers Graham.
The onions are browning nicely.... There's one species that's a little different however, us!! We ARE evolving.
Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.22, 11:28:31
Hi Carroll.
From my point of view the thread title shows " bias " shouldn't there be a question mark at the end?
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
Yes you are correct. The title is biased. I will admit I am strongly bias about this subject. I first became aware of the problems with the theory of evolution back in the mid 1970s. I accidentally stumbled upon a book in the library that claimed there were a lot of problems with the theory of evolution and a lot of false information being presented to support the theory. I have been looking at the scientific data for and against evolution for over 40 years now. And I am convinced the real scientific evidence suggests that evolution could not have happened.
In the other thread there were some attempts to throw a lot of other things in with the discussion about evolution. Whether we believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not doesn't change the scientific facts and evidence. So let's set the religious part of the discussion aside and concentrate on whether or not evolution could be the way we and the rest of living things on this planet got to be here.
One example I remember from that first book that really took me by surprise was to learn that there are fossils that extend from one layer of rock to another layer of rock. I remember a picture of a long leaf of a plant that was fossilized in two different types of rock. How could that possibly be if it takes millions of years for fossils and rock layers to form. There had to be another explanation. The only logical explanation is that the first part of the fossil was surrounded by some form of sediment and then almost immediately another type of soil or sediment buried the upper part of the leaf. You will never see any of these fossils presented in a book or article promoting evolution because they can't explain it and have it agree with their theory.
Take care,
Carroll
PS: I see Brad has posted while I was typing this. I will answer his post in a bit.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.22, 13:45:07
Hi Graham,
Yes you are correct. The title is biased. I will admit I am strongly bias about this subject. I first became aware of the problems with the theory of evolution back in the mid 1970s. I accidentally stumbled upon a book in the library that claimed there were a lot of problems with the theory of evolution and a lot of false information being presented to support the theory. I have been looking at the scientific data for and against evolution for over 40 years now. And I am convinced the real scientific evidence suggests that evolution could not have happened.
In the other thread there were some attempts to throw a lot of other things in with the discussion about evolution. Whether we believe in the Judeo-Christian God or not doesn't change the scientific facts and evidence. So let's set the religious part of the discussion aside and concentrate on whether or not evolution could be the way we and the rest of living things on this planet got to be here.
One example I remember from that first book that really took me by surprise was to learn that there are fossils that extend from one layer of rock to another layer of rock. I remember a picture of a long leaf of a plant that was fossilized in two different types of rock. How could that possibly be if it takes millions of years for fossils and rock layers to form. There had to be another explanation. The only logical explanation is that the first part of the fossil was surrounded by some form of sediment and then almost immediately another type of soil or sediment buried the upper part of the leaf. You will never see any of these fossils presented in a book or article promoting evolution because they can't explain it and have it agree with their theory.
Take care,
Carroll
PS: I see Brad has posted while I was typing this. I will answer his post in a bit.
I fail to see why you think this is so impossible,or has anything to do with evolution.
There is simply no relation to the same fossil being found in two different layers of sediment,and two different type fossils being found in two different layers of rock.
It is quite common and explainable to find a fossil spanning two different types of sediment layers.
But what has that got to do with finding an animal fossil that exists in one layer of rock,and in all the layers that follow, there is no trace of that animals fossil,but only to find we have different types of animal fossils that follow.
If the great flood were true,and all animals existed together at that time,then there fossil remains would all share the one layer left from the great flood. But that is not what we fine. We find instead that different types of animal fossils exist in different layers.
Brad
Hi Brad,
As we both know you can use math to try and prove almost anything. It all depends on how you want to apply the math and whether or not you have accurate assumptions to start with.
Here is a video that pretty much explains most of the reasons why I do NOT believe in the myth of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1940&v=O-tySAmdASk
This video is a little over 30 minute long so you will need some free time to watch it. I know you are pretty busy with your engine and fuel research so I don't want to pull you away from that. I have been amazed at your efforts and successes with that project. You are doing a great job there! O0
After you have had time to watch the video I would be glad to continue this discussion with you and any others that would like to join in.
Respectfully,
Carroll
PS: I see Brad posted again while I was typing. The video explains why a single fossil in two layers of rock is important.
there be giants!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_of_Castelnau
https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/skeletons-of-chinese-giants-found-in-5000yearold-ruins/
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.22, 13:29:42
Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.
Perhaps the word " allegedly " should have been used? But I'm not disputing your statement, the early fossil record clearly shows an " evolution " of Flora and Fauna over millennia.
But.... At some point in time this process stopped, otherwise we'd be talking to our animal friends by now. That's what I was trying to convey.
Cheers Graham.
We must face the facts, evolutionism is a myth. God created the world.
But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/Humour/rel/creatorCreation2.jpg)
For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.05.22, 18:35:53
Perhaps the word " allegedly " should have been used? But I'm not disputing your statement, the early fossil record clearly shows an " evolution " of Flora and Fauna over millennia.
But.... At some point in time this process stopped, otherwise we'd be talking to our animal friends by now. That's what I was trying to convey.
Cheers Graham.
The evolutionary process has not stopped Graham.
Also,why would you think that we should be able to talk to animals by now,when we (most of us)cant even talk to-or understand people that speak a different language to us-and there the same species.
We know there have been exstinction level events throughout time,which resulted in an !almost! complete restart of life on earth,otherwise we'd be walking along side Trex.
The creationist group them self clearly quote that they also believe in evolution,but there evolution is some sort of super evolution that happened over a few thousand years,and not millions of years as it really did.
Brad
Quote from: F6
...But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!
It would require some Scientific Evaluation but I'd say that the
young man's emaciated condition is the result of man's mischievous
folly and that he is otherwise genetically and physically sound.
There are, however, many humans with organic congenital defects
probably due to altered genes. I myself have a slightly asymmetrical
body and only a single kidney.
We don't know yet the full story on how developmental ailments
came into existence, or why we suffer them, but one day we shall.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.22, 13:29:42
Well when you consider that all life started from a single celled organism,i would say that there is a very large difference between species now--wouldnt you?.
Well since it is just a theory, it is not necessarily a fact that all life started from a single celled organism, as you seem to claim it is.
Mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.22, 19:41:18
We must face the facts, evolutionism is a myth. God created the world.
But there were some failures. You have to excuse him, it was his first time!
Its funny how atheists play these guilt cards on believers. Milehigh used to write to me in PM at OU.com with these sorts of messages.
If you really understood why we were put here on earth, you wouldnt dare to post such things. But, it is people like yourselves that have their parts in His plan.
That child in your comic depiction will have his place in heaven. He or she would not think the use of that pic, by the comic writer or you, was funny in the least. Shameful.
Mags
"First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution."
https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
" Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter. Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature. All living things have come about from other living things. The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds. This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life. No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded. Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?
But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life. There is still a problem for the evolutionist. The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold). At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness. How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection? There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness. Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists. This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation."
https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html
"Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered "absurd in the highest degree." There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile. We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree. If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled. Similarly with the carburetor. There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational. Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional. The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.
Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process). If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.
"A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular ... an immune system" ... and many others. If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive. Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly. While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality. The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional. Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.
Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place. The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes. There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions. Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event. This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species. Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.
"There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!" "
https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html
Mags
Whilst I strongly reject my Catholic upbringing and everything it stands for I do wonder 1. WHy do I have nipples 2. Why did our early ancestors wear animal skins 3. Why do we still have other primates. 4. Denisovians have been around for 150k years.....
Quote from: JimBoot
1. WHy do I have nipples?
Now, that is an easy one! 8)
Because our species don't lay eggs. ;)
But, this raises a related question: Do transgenders
(M to F) develop breasts which produce milk as a
consequence of their hormone treatments? ???
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.22, 21:30:30
For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
Respectfully,
Carroll
Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.
Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.22, 13:25:32
I would first like to look at the story of Noah and the great flood,and all that which took place directly after- up until present day.
First i would like to present the mathematics(as math is a very accurate science) on the volume of water needed to cover all the hills and mountains as stated in Genesis 7:19-20
Quote: 19- And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20- Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible.
Here is probably the most accurate calculation of the amount of water needed to achieve this feat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po&t=3s
And another quicker calculation ,that is also very close to the first,and also shows how fast the animals would have to have been loaded into the ark,along with the amount of room allocated to each animal,going on the sizes of the ark provided by the bible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5svTzxVa-xQ
So as you can see,mathematically the flood could never have happened,and the ark was just not big enough to house 2 of each kind of animal. We must also take into account that the flood lasted for 1 year and 10 days,and so enough food and water for all the animals,Noah and his family also had to be stored on the ark.
But lets say for a moment that the flood did happen,where did all that extra water go?
I mean,we are talking about over 3x that which is on earth today. ???
Brad
It rained for 40 days and fourty nights!!!! I live in florida and I have seen what just 1 day of rain can do...
GEN 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
'And the windows of heaven were opened up' There was a rainbow which was to be a symbol that the earth would never flood like that again. So if this was the first rainbow, then there must have been always cloudy days before this and or just a full haze, considering enough water to have the ability to rain continuously for 40 days and 40 nights straight. ;)
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' Is it that hard to believe that there may have been enough water 'in' the earth in combination with the nearly month and a half of straight rain to flood the earth?
If the fountains of the earth were broken up. that would suggest many great earthquakes at the time and yes possibilities of say mount Everest being pushed into the great heights that it is. So it is possible that the biggest mountains did not exist before that time. Would or could there have been some gasses like sulfer or otherwise from volcanos that could have caused the massive rain to occur? Is it easier to believe that some freak accident produced a first cell of life, that was capable of replication and have the intelligence to evolve into better and better circumstances for itself. What a crappy world to be born into in terms of survival. No trees, grass, nada. Water and rocks, dust and possibly other dangerous liquids. Maybe one should think we are genetically related to grass or a black berry plant? Oh, was there more than one event that 'created magically' other life that were plants that evolved on their own terms??? C.C I wonder if evolutionists believe that the atmosphere was the same as we have now when it all began. In the creationists view, the atmosphere was 'designed' just right. ;)
'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, '
I like this part. It simply shows that when it says 600yrs, it was really 600yrs. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.23, 02:00:37
"First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution."
https://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
" Life Cannot Evolve from Non-Living Matter
It would seem that the biggest leap of faith for the evolutionist is the origination of life itself from non-living matter. Such has never been demonstrated in the laboratory or observed in nature. All living things have come about from other living things. The argument is that it had to have happened because life abounds. This is the logical flaw of begging the question; that conclusion has to be based on the assumption that God does not exist, and thus, He could not have created life. No one can argue that if you assume God out of the argument from the outset that evolution is not the next-best theory; but we are not willing to be that close-minded. Why exclude the possibility of a Creator?
But for a moment let us stipulate that some weird combination of circumstances did occur that created life. There is still a problem for the evolutionist. The characteristic of consciousness does not exist in the lowest forms of life (e.g., mold). At some point this crud would have to acquire a sufficient degree of intelligence to be able to perceive that it existed, a characteristic that we call consciousness. How could such evolve from nothing other than natural selection? There is a major scientific/medical lack of understanding of consciousness and the connection between brain waves and our self-awareness. Again the only explanation for the evolutionists is that it had to have evolved because it currently exists. This circular argument begs the question once again, and again the existence of a Creator whose knowledge of such things is infinitely above ours is much a more reasonable explanation."
https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html
"Complex Interdependent Components Cannot Evolve Incrementally
Darwin confessed that stating that natural selection could account for the evolution of the eye with all of its interdependent parts had to be considered "absurd in the highest degree." There are many components of higher level living organisms that are much more complex than the most sophisticated automobile. We can all understand that a car can hardly be considered as functional unless all of its essential components function to some rudimentary degree. If we were to remove the spark plugs, for example it would become totally disabled. Similarly with the carburetor. There are many human organs that have dozens of interdependent components such as this, and they will not function at all unless every component is present and totally operational. Natural selection could not possibly take advantage of the development of some of these components unless they were all perfectly in place and functional. The presence of some and not others could even cause the organism to deteriorate.
Since there is no way that such components can evolve one at a time, the evolutionist has to claim that all of these components came about simultaneously through a process of mutation (if such can be called a process). If ten components are essential to the functioning of a given organ, for example, it would do no good, natural-selection-wise, for nine of them to somehow evolve, since the only advantage the organism could possibly have would be for all ten of them to function simultaneously.
"A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular ... an immune system" ... and many others. If a baby should be unlucky enough to be born without one of these, s/he will not likely survive. Yet we are expected to believe that such an organism did exists on the way to getting everything working together perfectly. While this is considering the entire organism, we must realize that there are any number of internal organs with such components that are all-or-nothing in their functionality. The protein motors that enable human movement are examples of organs that have a large number of interacting components the absence of any one of which will prevent the organ from being functional. Their coming into existence without their partial composition serving any function defies natural selection as being the cause for their evolution.
Unlike species cannot mate because the DNA in the male sperm must be comparable to that of the female egg for the necessary match to take place. The chromosomes and genes from the sperm have to combine with the mother's contribution. For these to join together they have to be the same number of chromosomes and contain the same number of genes. There are exceptional examples, but they are exceptions. Let us suppose that a new species is formed in a particular male by some mutation event. This could explain the evolution of a new species if it were not for the fact that the identical mutation would have to occur in the female in order for them to mate and have offspring, which is essential to the propagation of the new species. Timing and co-location is crucial – if this should happen to a male and female separated in either time or distance, successful mating could not occur.
"There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such [interdependent - dbb] systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!" "
https://www.biblethought.net/arguments-against-evolution.html
Mags
Much easier to believe some sort of magic man in the sky created every living thing that exists today, in under a week,out of nothing--hey Mags
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.23, 04:40:25
Now, that is an easy one! 8)
Because our species don't lay eggs. ;)
But, this raises a related question: Do transgenders
(M to F) develop breasts which produce milk as a
consequence of their hormone treatments? ???
Lol. I laughed at Jims nipples comment. Most all of plant species that are male and female have similar structures, shapes and features, just like humans and animals. So maybe we have evolved from grass. ;D ;D ;)
Mags
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.23, 04:51:12
Much easier to believe some sort of magic man in the sky created every living thing that exists today, in under a week,out of nothing--hey Mags
It is when you get to know the magic man. You have just decided an alternative path, for what ever reasons, they are yours. But that does not give you the right to impose theories as facts on others.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.23, 04:47:56
It rained for 40 days and fourty nights!!!! I live in florida and I have seen what just 1 day of rain can do...
GEN 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
'And the windows of heaven were opened up' There was a rainbow which was to be a symbol that the earth would never flood like that again. So if this was the first rainbow, then there must have been always cloudy days before this and or just a full haze, considering enough water to have the ability to rain continuously for 40 days and 40 nights straight. ;)
'the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up' Is it that hard to believe that there may have been enough water 'in' the earth in combination with the nearly month and a half of straight rain to flood the earth?
If the fountains of the earth were broken up. that would suggest many great earthquakes at the time and yes possibilities of say mount Everest being pushed into the great heights that it is. So it is possible that the biggest mountains did not exist before that time. Would or could there have been some gasses like sulfer or otherwise from volcanos that could have caused the massive rain to occur? Is it easier to believe that some freak accident produced a first cell of life, that was capable of replication and have the intelligence to evolve into better and better circumstances for itself. What a crappy world to be born into in terms of survival. No trees, grass, nada. Water and rocks, dust and possibly other dangerous liquids. Maybe one should think we are genetically related to grass or a black berry plant? Oh, was there more than one event that 'created magically' other life that were plants that evolved on their own terms??? C.C I wonder if evolutionists believe that the atmosphere was the same as we have now when it all began. In the creationists view, the atmosphere was 'designed' just right. ;)
'In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, '
I like this part. It simply shows that when it says 600yrs, it was really 600yrs. ;)
Mags
So they say they have found the ark in ararat.
At what hight above sea level is this !ark! resting ?
This will then tell you how high the water level would have to of been for the ark to get up there,regardless of whether or not any other mountain existed at the time.
Then once you have done that,perhaps you could tell us all where all this water draind to,to cause things like the grand canyon to pop into existance as the creationist seem to believe.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.23, 04:59:15
It is when you get to know the magic man. You have just decided an alternative path, for what ever reasons, they are yours. But that does not give you the right to impose theories as facts on others.
Mags
Perhaps you should read the topic name,and then say it is i that is imposing theory as fact on others.
I am using science and math to put forward my beliefs,and it is not my fault that the numbers are not adding up for the creationist.
It is always the same outcome.
Once facts are presented to the believers,they tend toward comments such as yours,blaming people like me,who have done nothing but present facts-hard facts,for doing so.
Religious people believe they have the right to turn up on my doorstep,and try and tell me how life started. And here you are saying i have not right to present facts that back up my beliefs.
And so it go's.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.23, 05:11:15
Perhaps you should read the topic name,and then say it is i that is imposing theory as fact on others.
I am using science and math to put forward my beliefs,and it is not my fault that the numbers are not adding up for the creationist.
It is always the same outcome.
Once facts are presented to the believers,they tend toward comments such as yours,blaming people like me,who have done nothing but present facts-hard facts,for doing so.
Religious people believe they have the right to turn up on my doorstep,and try and tell me how life started. And here you are saying i have not right to present facts that back up my beliefs.
And so it go's.
Brad
"Once facts are presented to the believers,they tend toward comments such as yours,blaming people like me,who have done nothing but present facts-hard facts,for doing so."
Thats balony. I stated that your so called fact that evolution is the only way, is not an actual fact, just theory. Its just some people that came up with 'ideas' of how it all could have started without the existence of God. That is all it is. And God made it all that way so 'you' can have the choice to believe or not. Free will. You cannot prove that life started in a pool and evolved into what we have here today. And on top of having no true evidence you have to insult by calling God the 'Magic man' etc. Evolution is all imaginary stories of alternates to creationism. To many, evolution sounds plausible in only general terms. Once you really dig, there are more crossroads than atheists arguments on God.
Night. Gotta get some sleep
Mags
I accept the evidence. CITFTA convinced me. Evolutionism is a myth because the Bible says that it is God who created the world. Here is the indisputable reasoning that proves beyond any doubt that it is the truth:
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/Humour/rel/creationistLogic.jpg)
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.23, 04:42:31
Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.
Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.
Brad
Hi Brad,
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. It clearly stated that nearly all animal species on earth were very close to the same age. How could that be if they somehow evolved? It also showed that there were clear genetic boundaries between the species. So how could that be if all animals evolved from other animals.
A quote from the article:
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
Another quote:
And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
And this one:
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
And most of the article was trying to figure out how to explain that and have it make sense and still cling to the myth of evolution. Which they were not able to successfully do.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.23, 05:49:45
"Once facts are presented to the believers,they tend toward comments such as yours,blaming people like me,who have done nothing but present facts-hard facts,for doing so."
And God made it all that way so 'you' can have the choice to believe or not. Free will. You cannot prove that life started in a pool and evolved into what we have here today. And on top of having no true evidence you have to insult by calling God the 'Magic man' etc. Evolution is all imaginary stories of alternates to creationism. To many, evolution sounds plausible in only general terms. Once you really dig, there are more crossroads than atheists arguments on God.
Night. Gotta get some sleep
Mags
QuoteThats balony. I stated that your so called fact that evolution it the only way, is not an actual fact, just theory.
And i stated the thread title !!the myth pf evolution!!,but i see you have no quarrel with that,and that is because a fellow believer said so.
QuoteIts just some people that came up with 'ideas' of how it all could have started without the existence of God. That is all it is.
What garbage. It is through 100's of years of research,understanding,and development that we now know that we evolved through time to become what we are today.
Do you really think the earth is only 10,000 years old?
Do you really think man is only 6000 odd years old?
You would believe in one single book,that cannot be backed with any evidence what so ever ,of events that !Supposedly! happened in that book,in a period no longer than 10,000 years,and disbelieve all that science knows(yes,knows) about our coming to be. :o
1 book written 1000's of years ago verses today's top scientists who are experts in so many fields---really?.
Brad
My " Bible " .... The hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
The work of Douglas Adams, made sense to me in so many areas, fictional and funny.
The Babel fish, a unique " universal translator " that you stick in your ear. Is being discussed in the quote below.
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
:)
author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74741#msg74741 date=1558603945]
QuoteI am not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. It clearly stated that nearly all animal species on earth were very close to the same age. How could that be if they somehow evolved? It also showed that there were clear genetic boundaries between the species. So how could that be if all animals evolved from other animals.
Of course there are boundaries,if there was not,then evolution could of never happened,and there would be no different species of animal. But we all have !some! common genes,as we all started from the same organisms.
This video clearly explains all you need to know as to how evolution was possible.
I hope you take the time to watch it,as i have taken the time to watch what you have shared O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU
QuoteThe study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
That is one of my points.
According to the bible and your beliefs,didn't all life start only 6000 odd years ago ?.
There seems to be between a 1666% and 3333% difference between your posted study and the bible ?.
Then there is the fact that it was 9 out of 10,where the amount of different species studied was 100,000
So what about the other 10,000 different species that may have survived through things like ice ages and the likes?. Why are they conveniently left out?.
They also gave reason for this as well,which is very understandable
Quote:A likely possibility is the occurrence of a sudden event that caused large-scale environmental trauma and wiped out majority of the Earth's species.
"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey — all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," explains Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment.
Now we know there have been such events as ice ages and the like's.
Then there is there idea of !the same time!,which is between 100,000 years,and 200,000 years.
Now,a lot can happen in 100,000.
QuoteThe absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
First we need to know at what stage did our ancestors become man?,who makes that definition?.
Second-today we have a far better understanding of how things went,due to the much more advanced equipment and ways we have developed to look into our past. Darwin had very little to help him out in this way.
And what exactly is an !in between! spesies?.
QuoteAnd most of the article was trying to figure out how to explain that and have it make sense and still cling to the myth of evolution. Which they were not able to successfully do.
When you watch the video i posted,and see how things happen in the evolutionary chain of life,then there article makes perfect sense.
What is also dose !once again!is show life existed way beyond the 6000 odd years quoted by the bible.
This is a link you provided Carroll,and for the reason above is why i asked you if you actually read the article,or if you posted the wrong one.
I am now going to finish watching the video you provided a few posts ago,and see what else the indian fellow has to say.
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.22, 14:48:20
Here is a video that pretty much explains most of the reasons why I do NOT believe in the myth of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1940&v=O-tySAmdASk
PS: I see Brad posted again while I was typing. The video explains why a single fossil in two layers of rock is important.
Ok,so i watched the video.
The first thing i noticed was the channel name--> BibleProphecyProof
Second,he also inadvertently confirms that the earth is over 4.5 billion years old.
How did he do this?, well it is very simple.
As he states in his video,uranium 238 is called the parent atom,and it decays into what is known as the daughter atom . Now,the half life of uranium 238 is when the element contains as much parent atoms as daughter atoms.
Now here is the kicker. In order for us to have such a half life element(which we have),then we also need the time that it took that half life element to be produced. Regardless of any of the other statements he made about contamination,we know that half life uranium/lead exists. As he stated in the video,maybe the half life element was placed there from some where else(contamination). But regardless of that,it first had to be made,and it is made from decaying uranium.
So,do you know how long it takes to produce this half life element ?,how long uranium's half life is?
Uranium 238's half life is 4.5 billion years. One has to wonder how this could be if the world is only 10,000 years old ???
I am also lost as to what significance finding a pot in a pile of coal dated to be over 312 million years old has to do with anything. When we take a drink of water,that water we are drinking is over a billion years old-i now have an element in my stomach that is far older than the coal the bowl was found in C.C.
If i throw a brand new cup into the ocean,then that cup is now in water that is over a billion years old.
So what exactly is the mystery of finding a bell or a bowl in a pile of coal that is 312 million years old ?.
I also see he showed some pics of what is suppose to be the arc,and he also states it is at 6500 feet elevation. So we now know how high the water had to be !at least! in order for the arc to get up there--6500 feet.
So my question still remains--where did all that water come from,and where has it all gone?.
That is enough water to surround the globe 6500 feet above current sea level.
I also find it strange that he says carbon dating is so inaccurate,and yet the method used for dating the wood from the !apparent! ark on top of mount ararat was carbon dating.
I guess it is good enough when it suits there needs O0
Brad
So where is this giant boat?
Seems the mount ararat find in 2010 was a fraud C.C
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKrEYf3QZMg
Brad
fellows
there are tonnes of problems from both perspectives ...something from nothing
never works "here" no beginning or end ...never works "here"
but if we go round and round on this we could probably do this argument for all of "our" eternity....
perhaps as time goes bye there will be more clarity to this miracle in a vacuum that we inhabit...
perhaps for now we just be grateful we're here working to do the right thing in a place which really shouldn't even exist....nor can it be explained to reasonable minds.
too many "what ifs IMO ?.
A paradox extraordinaire ...
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.23, 13:56:54
fellows
there are tonnes of problems from both perspectives ...something from nothing
never works "here" no beginning or end ...never works "here"
but if we go round and round on this we could probably do this argument for all of "our" eternity....
perhaps as time goes bye there will be more clarity to this miracle in a vacuum that we inhabit...
perhaps for now we just be grateful we're here working to do the right thing in a place which really shouldn't even exist....nor can it be explained to reasonable minds.
too many "what ifs IMO ?.
A paradox extraordinaire ...
Then of course there are people like Jordan Maxwell who have studied this problem...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcPbf34PoE&t=1597s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcPbf34PoE&t=1597s)
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&feature=youtu.be
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/Humour/rel/OUReligious.jpg)
We had a good forum to discuss free energy. It seems to be over. As everywhere, fundamentalist believers are instrumentalizing it to make their religious propaganda and ruin it.
The so-called myth of evolution is irrelevant in the context of free energy, it is totally out of place.
There is no point in talking to backward believers in the midst of their creationist crusade. Their cognitive dissonances only make them repeat endlessly their selection bias on the subject.
The Bible does not evolve, neither do their words, nor their thoughts!
Don't feed the troll!
Ok. I'll take the bait.
One has just to research the Ark of the Covenant to see the most powerful, destructful weapon on the planet.
The description talks about radiation poisoning, EMPs, resonant-reflective matter disassociation, electrocution, special suits for handling and a special group of technicians(Levites) to carry the device.
Now if the Bible is as you say a myth, then how did all of the 'Latest' technologies even have a chance to be documented in old fairy tales.
If, as the like of you nonbelievers believe, that this isn't ancient knowledge but mere contrivances my medieval conmen then answer this riddle: the contrivances still prevail any understanding of current technology.
A charge pump with a spark discharge in two established resonant fields is zero point energy. Disruption of balance is quickly equalized through reverberation. Is this usable energy? Yes. It doesn't depend on your time frame management. Because it obvious that nonbelievers dispel history to suit their limited reasoning.
The TPU is a weapon of massive capability. The little ones vibrate. Go ahead make one(like 6 feet in diameter) and turn it on by an airport. And then maybe, if you are granted privileges for good behavior and allowed on the internet, you can come back here and post about your experiences with government agencies.
Poof. You are now a frog...
I truly enjoy perusing the commentary in discussions such
as this one. It seems that we all want to know what is really
Truth and we all take somewhat different paths as we search
for answers.
The paths of Evolution and Atheism seem to be co-dependent
which is not surprising. These paths are naught more than
temporary sojourns which, if Scientific Principles are diligently
exercised, will eventually lead back to the Truth of Creation.
Sojourns where desire temporarily overcomes objectivity.
In due time as all of the evidence at our disposal is analyzed,
scrutinized and evaluated, those lost souls will find their way humbly
to the Path of Real Truth, otherwise known as the Narrow Path.
In due time.
In the meanwhile it is exceedingly fascinating to read their
thoughts which express their beliefs; thoughts which are windows
into their inner minds. Enjoy the sparring for while it may seem
to be counterproductive, it eventually leads to the sought after
prize: Truth.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.05.23, 15:17:01
Then of course there are people like Jordan Maxwell who have studied this problem...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcPbf34PoE&t=1597s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PcPbf34PoE&t=1597s)
Ron
Or a do it yourself kit! This holds the answer!
https://universallighthous.wixsite.com/loveandlight/blog/scientists-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-our-own-words?fbclid=IwAR1wwpsn7Oxra0eQLvQEvB0DNm5jRmKh4XdxvTHnZiLYrucZhUROleBgO38 (https://universallighthous.wixsite.com/loveandlight/blog/scientists-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-our-own-words?fbclid=IwAR1wwpsn7Oxra0eQLvQEvB0DNm5jRmKh4XdxvTHnZiLYrucZhUROleBgO38)
Ron
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.23, 09:32:25
Hi Brad,
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion from the article. It clearly stated that nearly all animal species on earth were very close to the same age. How could that be if they somehow evolved? It also showed that there were clear genetic boundaries between the species. So how could that be if all animals evolved from other animals.
A quote from the article:
The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.
Another quote:
And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.
And this one:
The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
And most of the article was trying to figure out how to explain that and have it make sense and still cling to the myth of evolution. Which they were not able to successfully do.
Respectfully,
Carroll
I found it strange that he claimed the article was more in his view than yours. Thats the way many twist others presentations without actually pointing out what they claim of the presented items, mostly for the readers in order try to deter them from looking into it. Milehigh was good at that...
Mags
Quote from: ronee on 2019.05.23, 23:43:39
Or a do it yourself kit! This holds the answer!
https://universallighthous.wixsite.com/loveandlight/blog/scientists-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-our-own-words?fbclid=IwAR1wwpsn7Oxra0eQLvQEvB0DNm5jRmKh4XdxvTHnZiLYrucZhUROleBgO38 (https://universallighthous.wixsite.com/loveandlight/blog/scientists-prove-dna-can-be-reprogrammed-by-our-own-words?fbclid=IwAR1wwpsn7Oxra0eQLvQEvB0DNm5jRmKh4XdxvTHnZiLYrucZhUROleBgO38)
Ron
Nice article ;) The power of suggestion is a very real thing. Ever see the commercial for turbo tax? Free. Free free free? Free, free free free. Free free, free free free. FREE? Free. Turbo tax. Free. Free free free. Just that being pounded into our heads as many times as we encounter it could be a sort of social experiment, or implementation for socialism train of thought. ??? O0
Free free free. Free. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_si7I1blII
Mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.23, 17:03:29
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/Humour/rel/OUReligious.jpg)
We had a good forum to discuss free energy. It seems to be over. As everywhere, fundamentalist believers are instrumentalizing it to make their religious propaganda and ruin it.
The so-called myth of evolution is irrelevant in the context of free energy, it is totally out of place.
There is no point in talking to backward believers in the midst of their creationist crusade. Their cognitive dissonances only make them repeat endlessly their selection bias on the subject.
The Bible does not evolve, neither do their words, nor their thoughts!
Don't feed the troll!
"We had a good forum to discuss free energy. It seems to be over"
Just because this thread exists does not mean this is not a good forum any longer.
" As everywhere, fundamentalist believers are instrumentalizing it to make their religious propaganda and ruin it."
Then dont read nor post here if it is so vile to you. You seem to spend a good amount of time, searching for cartoons and other pics to try to make fun here. If you dont like pornography, are you going to pick up a playboy magazine and read it and look at the pictures and protest in front of the playboy mansion, or would you just not pick up the magazine and choose something else to read? C.C
"The so-called myth of evolution is irrelevant in the context of free energy, it is totally out of place."
There are many many threads that you could be posting in, but you 'choose' to spend your time here in this one and seem to have interest, one way or the other. When you see this thread, does it boil your blood that it exists? ;) Do you think that it is your own thoughts that come up with what you write here against Christianity? >:-) ^-^ O0 What pushes you into the fight that you bring, when you could just ignore it by not picking up the book or even clicking on the thread? ;) Just change the channel if you dont like it. C.C
"There is no point in talking to backward believers in the midst of their creationist crusade"
Oh, but there is a point for you. That point is why you are here. >:-) O0 The emoji is there to choose, so I used it. :P
"Their cognitive dissonances only make them repeat endlessly their selection bias on the subject."
Oh really??? But when someone posts a thought or reference on the subject, neither you nor Brad etc can stay away and then do the same as you just stated. Get it together son. Dont be a hypocrite..
"The Bible does not evolve, neither do their words, nor their thoughts!"
The Bible is not intended to evolve.
Mags
Quote from: ion on 2019.05.23, 15:34:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&feature=youtu.be
love Jordan Peterson. ;) O0
Mags
Jordan Peterson delivers quite an interesting
presentation. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w&feature=youtu.be) (Link provided by Ion)
He's obviously seeking higher understanding and Truth
but he is yet unaware that his beliefs and his analysis
arise from false assumptions. His thinking is biased
in favor of theories and hypotheses no doubt because
of academic peer pressure to conform.
No matter. That he is yet lost on the Broad Way is only
a temporary inconvenience. His is a work in progress
who has not yet found the Narrow Path, but he shall.
In due time. He is sincere in his search for Truth and
will, when he's ready, discover it.
Yes, a very interesting presentation indeed. Thought provoking.
Within the realm of Human Behavior he does arrive at a
number of correct conclusions.
Quote from: F6
There is no point in talking to backward believers in the midst
of their creationist crusade
Dogmatic Institutional Indoctrination inculcates a sense of
intellectual superiority. Those who disagree with Science
Dogma are relegated to the status of "backward believers"
and "conspiracy theorists." Some would say "deplorables." :D
Institutional Delusion is a temporary phenomena. In due time
it will evaporate as Truth is made manifest. :)
That will be a really great day for Science! ;)
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.24, 00:48:16
I found it strange that he claimed the article was more in his view than yours. Thats the way many twist others presentations without actually pointing out what they claim of the presented items, mostly for the readers in order try to deter them from looking into it. Milehigh was good at that...
Mags
And so the side step begins.
The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.
I did not post this article,a person who believes the bible did.
So to say i have twisted things around is complete garbage,but i would expect nothing less from anyone who throws out years of science,evidence,and repeatable experiments for 1 single story book,in which there has not been one single solid example of Gods existance provided to validate said book-the bible.
I can hop in my car,travel 35km down the road,and show you living organisms that lived over 2 billion years ago.
I can let you talk to a living decendent of the very first humanoids to leave Africa over 60 000 years ago-my daughter is married to one.
So what evidence can you provide that is outside your own beliefs Mags, that is clear evidence that the bible is correct,and God exists ?.
Give me 1 single piece of evidence,and i will listen.
But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.24, 01:25:40
"We had a good forum to discuss free energy. It seems to be over"
Just because this thread exists does not mean this is not a good forum any longer.
...
That's exactly what it means. But this too rational idea is not within the reach of the religious mind:
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/Humour/rel/houseReason.jpg)
Would it be harmless to talk about religion off topic? Wrong!
It's opening the door to anything. Why not Islamist propaganda too, with the art of beheading, the proselytism of Jehovah's witnesses or neo-Nazi theses? Why not also here cooking recipes, gardening techniques, announcing concerts, or exchanging MP3s?
What the Bible sectarians are finally telling us insidiously is: "
We have a right to talk about something other than the purpose of this forum, but only about what we believe in. We believe in creationism, so we have the right to mess up this forum with this subject.".
Could we have a quiet discussion between believers and non-believers about free energy, leaving aside our beliefs? Not even!
One of the latter always feels obliged to inform us of his acts of faith in God and to denigrate the beliefs of others, which in this case of evolutionism is only scientific knowledge. Their religious warfare, off topic, is permanent.
Respect, love, it is only in their speech, never in their behaviour. Outside the hypocrites, there are enough sites dedicated to religions where you can display your nonsense. Forget the others, we're talking about free energy here.
It is true that some do not believe what is written
in The Book (Bible) either in part or in its entirety.
What do people think, however, about the Church of
Satan? That many big name entertainers have
admitted to "making the deal with Satan" for fame
and fortune?
What about the Secret Societies which are devoted
to Satan? What about the survivors of Satanic Ritual
Abuse? There are many who have spoken out.
Are there any who believe that Satan exists but do
not believe that an Almighty Creator too exists?
Quote from: F6
Respect, love, it is only in their speech, never in their
behaviour. Outside the hypocrites, there are enough
sites dedicated to religions where you can display your
nonsense. Forget the others, we're talking about free
energy here.
All Energy, including Free Energy which is very abundant,
has a common origin/source. Do you know what it is yet? 8)
By the way, Dogmatic Institutional Science has itself
been transmogrified into a
Religion. :D
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
"Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
IN BRIEF
__________________
Despite definitive legal cases that have established the unconstitutionality of teaching intelligent design or creationist ideology in science class, the theory of evolution remains consistently under attack.
Creationist arguments are notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science and evidence.
Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.
__________________
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 158 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere—except in the public imagination. Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. When this article first went to press in 2002, the Ohio Board of Education was debating whether to mandate such a change. Prominent antievolutionists of the day, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of Darwin on Trial, admitted that they intended for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
The good news is that in 2005 the landmark legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover in Harrisburg, Pa., set binding precedent that the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools is unconstitutional because the idea is fundamentally religious, not scientific. The bad news is that in response, creationists have reinvented their movement and pressed on. When they lost the ability to claim that creationist ideas are valid science, they switched to arguing that they were only supporting "academic freedom." Worse, to further obscure the religious roots of their resistance, they now push for "critical analysis" of climate change, cloning research and other scientific endeavors that they paint as culturally oppressive.
Consequently, besieged teachers and others are still likely to find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism, by whatever name. Creationists' arguments are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution. Nevertheless, even if their objections are flimsy, the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. The following list recaps and rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom. These answers by themselves probably will not change the minds of those set against evolution. But they may help inform those who are genuinely open to argument, and they can aid anyone who wants to engage constructively in this important struggle for the scientific integrity of our civilization.
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty—above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution—or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter—they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.
3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time—changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in the Grants' studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.
The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.
Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist, then at the University of Washington, surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. Surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss, now at Arizona State University, were similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals—which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.
When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to Earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.
Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." A million hypothetical monkeys, each typing out one phrase a second on a keyboard, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison, then at Glendale College, wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.
The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.
More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations—sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection—for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits—and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California, Davis, demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. An amazing fossil creature from 375 million years ago named Tiktaalik embodies the predicted and long-sought transition of certain fishes to life on land. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominins (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.
Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds—it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.
Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution—what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)
Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.
Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.
The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California, San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.
Complexity of a different kind—"specified complexity"—is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of author William A. Dembski in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.
Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally."
John Rennie (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EXMKPvWqgYk/hqdefault.jpg)
That's exactely the mistake or the trickery from CITFTA writing on ou.com (it is definitely everywhere that he does his childish off topic religious propaganda):
"The eye involves several mechanisms that all have to work together and without all of them the rest of them are useless. So how could they have slowly evolved over time? And by the way this is exactly the example Darwin himself used when he clearly stated he had doubts about his theory of evolution."
More here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk
As far as life just popping into existence some 2 billion years ago not being possible,and no mixture of chemicals over any period of time could lead to life,well it turns out that in mans very short period of time here on earth,we have done just that--and computer uploaded to boot ;)
But in reading the whole article,im not to sure this is a good thing :-\
Sometimes i think we should leave the making and evolution of life to mother nature.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
Of course they had to slip the word !GOD! in there C.C
So i guess that the theory on life not being able to come about through the right chemical mixtures,under the right conditions is out the window--but we all new this day was coming.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.24, 04:16:40
And so the side step begins.
The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.
I did not post this article,a person who believes the bible did.
So to say i have twisted things around is complete garbage,but i would expect nothing less from anyone who throws out years of science,evidence,and repeatable experiments for 1 single story book,in which there has not been one single solid example of Gods existance provided to validate said book-the bible.
I can hop in my car,travel 35km down the road,and show you living organisms that lived over 2 billion years ago.
I can let you talk to a living decendent of the very first humanoids to leave Africa over 60 000 years ago-my daughter is married to one.
So what evidence can you provide that is outside your own beliefs Mags, that is clear evidence that the bible is correct,and God exists ?.
Give me 1 single piece of evidence,and i will listen.
But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me.
Hi Brad,
I posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old because of the facts they discovered from the DNA that clearly shows that all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time. And because that same SCIENTIFIC evidence shows there are clear genetic boundaries between the species just like the Bible says there are.
Which is closer to the time of the Bible? The 100,000 years the DNA appears to show or the 3 million years the evolutionists claim. They are still learning about DNA so that 100,000 years may not be totally accurate but even then it is only off by a factor of 10 not a factor of thousands like the evolutionists claim.
I did watch the couple of videos you posted. The one supporting evolution was actually nothing I had not seen before. The idea that a variation within species can somehow magically morph into a change from one species to another is only wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
The video about the fake claims about Noah's ark is no surprise. There have been many many people who have made fake claims about almost anything you can name. We have certainly seen that many times in the area of OU. But just because someone makes false claims and pretends to have something they don't doesn't mean that the real thing does not exist. It only means THEY don't have it. The video that GK posted in the other thread that you apparently did not watch was about a real expedition permitted by the Turkish government to start excavation on the site on Mt. Ararat where ground type x-ray and other equipment has shown a large ark like structure that matches perfectly the description of the ark as found in the Bible and it is within a short distance from where the Bible said it came to rest. It has apparently over the years slipped down the mountain some so it is not at the top anymore but still pretty close.
Claim: The Bible says we all, including animals, were created within a short time.
Fact: The DNA evidence says we all, including animals, came into existence within a short time.
Claim: The Bible says that the ark was a certain size and came to rest on Mt. Ararat
Fact: A large structure matching the same size as the ark described in the Bible has been found on Mt. Ararat
Claim: The Bible says the Jewish people would be scattered all over the world for a period of time and then regathered back to their homeland.
Fact: The Jewish people were displaced by the Romans in 70 AD and forced to flee to places all over the world. In 1948 they began returning to their homeland.
Claim: The Bible says the nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE day. Something that has never been seen before or since.
Fact: In 1948 in ONE day the nation of Israel was reborn.
Claim: The Bible says there was a world wide flood.
Fact: The geological evidence, the fossil evidence and world wide culture all attest to the fact there was a world wide flood.
Well Brad, I have been enjoying our discussions. I hope I have not said anything that would in any way offend you. I appreciate that you have tried to only talk about the science and your doubts without dragging a lot of emotionalism into the discussion. Unfortunately our discussion seems to be offending at least one person. Of course they don't have to read about our discussion but our just trying to have a reasonable discussion seems to be a real problem for them. If you want to continue this I will be glad to continue and they can go away or just have to put up with us. I know there is nothing you can show me that will change my mind about what I believe. I actually have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior and that will never be changed. He has proven Himself to me many many times so I have no choice but to believe in Him. That is probably a topic more suited for another type of forum. But I just wanted to make it clear I will always believe in my Creator because I have personally experienced His grace and mercy.
Take care,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.24, 11:32:41
...
Claim: The Bible says...
Claim : The Bible says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material". Leviticus 19:19"
Claim : The Bible says "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". Leviticus 9:10
Claim : The Bible says "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk". Exodus 23:19
Claim : The Bible says "When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean". Leviticus 15: 19-20
Claim : The Bible says "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand". Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Claim : The Bible says "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered." Matthew 21:18-22 NIV
Claim : The Bible says "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves". Numbers 31:17-18
Claim : The Bible says "He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.... He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since". 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". Ephesians 6:5 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Claim : The Bible says "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed". Leviticus 20:15 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD". Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
Claim : The Bible says "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries". Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV
All this is definitely very intelligent.... C.C
Oh, my God, how stupid! But the ultimate stupidity is that even today the book of these absurd, barbaric, proslavery, sexist or violent texts, which represent the customs and thoughts of an archaic era, described by men of that era, is still taken as a reference!
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.24, 10:52:19
As far as life just popping into existence some 2 billion years ago not being possible,and no mixture of chemicals over any period of time could lead to life,well it turns out that in mans very short period of time here on earth,we have done just that--and computer uploaded to boot ;)
But in reading the whole article,im not to sure this is a good thing :-\
Sometimes i think we should leave the making and evolution of life to mother nature.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/7745868/Scientist-Craig-Venter-creates-life-for-first-time-in-laboratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html
Of course they had to slip the word !GOD! in there C.C
So i guess that the theory on life not being able to come about through the right chemical mixtures,under the right conditions is out the window--but we all new this day was coming.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Very interesting link. I knew that's this was the near future but I ignored it had been already made.
Nevertheless there is no point to try to enlighten religious fundamentalists. Their only method is to use arguing.
They will tell you that without the original DNA that was copied, no life could have been created, and it was God who created that DNA.
When we succeed in doing this without DNA model, believers will tell you that it was done through the atoms and molecules of nature, and that God created them to be compatible with life... and so on.
Their principle: they put God at the limits of our knowledge. When we knew nothing about germs, they saw epidemics as divine punishment. When our knowledge improves and they realize that they will really look like morons if they maintain their old statements, then rather than learn from the past, they move their superstitions further. And since it is likely that our knowledge will never be complete, they will always find a rat hole to place their god in.
It's endless. The religious mind is a big brain bug, especially small brains severely formatted by the cultural context from which they come, without ever having been able to take a step back.
It is certainly linked to evolution: the need to find meaning is a condition for survival, but in them meaning is imaginary, and becomes nonsense. They enjoy believing in their survival after death with an almighty dad who will bring them back to life if they have lived according to rules they create themselves and attribute to God. C.C
They have never dared to think that after their death, it will be like before their birth, it is far too complicated and it takes a little courage. Cowardice of believing is much easier.
If superstition is widespread in the world, monotheists are still the worst of all religious minds, it is incredible the amount of damage they have caused in the world and still cause. This is to the point that it was necessary, as in times of war, to create resistance with atheism. When will they leave the others alone?
author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74767#msg74767 date=1558697561]
QuoteI posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old because of the facts they discovered from the DNA that clearly shows that all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time. And because that same SCIENTIFIC evidence shows there are clear genetic boundaries between the species just like the Bible says there are.
Carroll
No matter the differences we have in what we believe,you will always have my respect--please know that.
And as i have respect for you,i will be very straight forward when it comes to either questions to you,or answers for you that provide proof of my beliefs.
In saying that,we should be accurate about anything either of us post.
For example-Quote: I posted the link to the article even though it said that mankind was 100,000 years old
To be accurate,the article clearly states !between! 100,000 and 200,000 years old.
Quote:all animals and mankind came into existence at the same time.
Once again,the article stated 90% came into existence at the same time.
This leaves 10% unaccounted for.
Which is closer to the time of the Bible? The 100,000 years the DNA appears to show or the 3 million years the evolutionists claim. They are still learning about DNA so that 100,000 years may not be totally accurate but even then it is only off by a factor of 10 not a factor of thousands like the evolutionists claim.
I see you have chosen the lower of the years,being 100,000.
But what if we choose the 200,000 years as the number to use?
If we do the math then,it looks like this--
200,000/6000(bible's years)means the bible is out by a factor of 33.3
Now 3 million years--3,000,000/200,000 give us a factor of just 15
So you see how quickly things can change,depending on which part of the provided information you choose to use.
The video about the fake claims about Noah's ark is no surprise. There have been many many people who have made fake claims about almost anything you can name. We have certainly seen that many times in the area of OU. But just because someone makes false claims and pretends to have something they don't doesn't mean that the real thing does not exist. It only means THEY don't have it.
On that we can agree O0
I did watch the couple of videos you posted. The one supporting evolution was actually nothing I had not seen before. The idea that a variation within species can somehow magically morph into a change from one species to another is only wild conjecture with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
Well that is not quite true,and it depends on what was injected into the mix between two variations of the same species.
To try and explain this,i could use my recent experiments with my fuel mixing.
So gasoline and diesel maybe our similar specie-as in a large dog and a medium size dog,and they can mix.
Water will not mix with either gasoline of diesel. But when i add the right component to both the water and gasoline/diesel mix,we find that they all mix together,and we have a new fuel.
A species is defined as only being able to bread with the same of it's kind.
Like all dogs are of the same species.
We can have a large dog like the husky breed with a small dog like a pomeranian,and we get a pup called a pomsky-as pictured below. Now who'd a thought that two vastly different looking animals could bread-but they can because they are the same species.
But now check out the video's below,and see how new species can and do form in a very short time.
Now this is not fiction,this is observable fact--we were around to see it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8csCJ94kdvo
And one of the reasons i love my country,as it offers so many answers toward evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPQF9BQnw2A
But it can get even more tricky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnfaiJJnzdE
So after watching all those video's,you can clearly see how new species can form from other species well under the 100,000 years.
The video that GK posted in the other thread that you apparently did not watch was about a real expedition permitted by the Turkish government to start excavation on the site on Mt. Ararat where ground type x-ray and other equipment has shown a large ark like structure that matches perfectly the description of the ark as found in the Bible and it is within a short distance from where the Bible said it came to rest. It has apparently over the years slipped down the mountain some so it is not at the top anymore but still pretty close.
I will go and watch that video now O0
However,if it is as you say-the ark,we now know how high the water level had to be in order for it to come to rest up there. So my question still remain's-->where did all the water go ?.
Claim: The Bible says we all, including animals, were created within a short time.
Fact: The DNA evidence says we all, including animals, came into existence within a short time.
Claim: that is what the bible claims
Fact: The DNA evidence you provided clearly states 90%,leaving over 15,000 species existing beyond the 100,000-200,000 year time period.
Claim: The Bible says that the ark was a certain size and came to rest on Mt. Ararat
Fact: A large structure matching the same size as the ark described in the Bible has been found on Mt. Ararat
Claim: I believe the bible states that the ark came to rest !somewhere! in the ararat mountain range area,not the actual mountain named Mt Ararat ?.
Fact: Has it yet been proven to be the Ark ?.
Claim: The Bible says the Jewish people would be scattered all over the world for a period of time and then regathered back to their homeland.
Fact: The Jewish people were displaced by the Romans in 70 AD and forced to flee to places all over the world. In 1948 they began returning to their homeland.
I believe the indians were displaced all over there great land as well shortly after the europeans arrived.
Also Africans were torn away from there country to become slaves in another.
Dose the bible mention these examples?.
Claim: The Bible says the nation of Israel would be reborn in ONE day. Something that has never been seen before or since.
Fact: In 1948 in ONE day the nation of Israel was reborn.
Please clarify -reborn
Claim: The Bible says there was a world wide flood.
Fact: The geological evidence, the fossil evidence and world wide culture all attest to the fact there was a world wide flood.
Claim: yes it dose
fact: No it's not,and never could be. The laws of physics are very clearly defined,along with the laws of thermodynamics. These alone say a world wide flood could never-and never has happened.
The fossil evidence shows no such thing ever happening,and the only culture that believes it did happen is the religious culture.There is also no geological evidence that supports such a flood.
Here is a video of the never ending impossibilities to a world wide flood.
I believe i have asked on a number of occasions now for someone-anyone,explain to me as to where that extra water came from,and where it went after the flood. Also,i would like to see some of this fossil and geological proof of the great flood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA
Well Brad, I have been enjoying our discussions. I hope I have not said anything that would in any way offend you. I appreciate that you have tried to only talk about the science and your doubts without dragging a lot of emotionalism into the discussion. Unfortunately our discussion seems to be offending at least one person. Of course they don't have to read about our discussion but our just trying to have a reasonable discussion seems to be a real problem for them. If you want to continue this I will be glad to continue and they can go away or just have to put up with us. I know there is nothing you can show me that will change my mind about what I believe. I actually have a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior and that will never be changed. He has proven Himself to me many many times so I have no choice but to believe in Him. That is probably a topic more suited for another type of forum. But I just wanted to make it clear I will always believe in my Creator because I have personally experienced His grace and mercy.
I am happy to keep the discussion going,but i -like you,have my beliefs that will not be change.
You see,i live in the country where the very first humanoids migrated to.
Most here-in fact,most of the world think Australia is very young,as far as human population go's.
But the fact is,we are only second to Africa--we are the second oldest civilization in the world,where i am referring to the original inhabitants-the Aboriginals that we share our land with today. We are also home to an organism that lives today that was also living 2 billion years ago. I can drive there,and see them for my self. These organisms are the very reason you have air to breath.
You see,my creator is mother nature,and there is nothing more powerful than mother nature,and she adheres to all the known laws of science and physics--she makes the law of science. Mother nature is proven through science--she is the creator.
As far as those that get there knickers in a twist when they dont agree with what either of us have to say,well there are plenty of other threads for them to read. If you are to post in this thread,then post your thoughts in a respectful way.
Some of the videos i post-like the last,will have stabs toward those that believe in God. Please ignore those parts,as i only posted them due to them also including absolute science explaining as to why such things just cant and did not happen.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.24, 13:46:39
Hi Brad,
Very interesting link. I knew that's this was the near future but I ignored it had been already made.
Nevertheless there is no point to try to enlighten religious fundamentalists. Their only method is to use arguing.
They will tell you that without the original DNA that was copied, no life could have been created, and it was God who created that DNA.
When we succeed in doing this without DNA model, believers will tell you that it was done through the atoms and molecules of nature, and that God created them to be compatible with life... and so on.
Their principle: they put God at the limits of our knowledge. When we knew nothing about germs, they saw epidemics as divine punishment. When our knowledge improves and they realize that they will really look like morons if they maintain their old statements, then rather than learn from the past, they move their superstitions further. And since it is likely that our knowledge will never be complete, they will always find a rat hole to place their god in.
It's endless. The religious mind is a big brain bug, especially small brains severely formatted by the cultural context from which they come, without ever having been able to take a step back.
It is certainly linked to evolution: the need to find meaning is a condition for survival, but in them meaning is imaginary, and becomes nonsense. They enjoy believing in their survival after death with an almighty dad who will bring them back to life if they have lived according to rules they create themselves and attribute to God. C.C
They have never dared to think that after their death, it will be like before their birth, it is far too complicated and it takes a little courage. Cowardice of believing is much easier.
If superstition is widespread in the world, monotheists are still the worst of all religious minds, it is incredible the amount of damage they have caused in the world and still cause. This is to the point that it was necessary, as in times of war, to create resistance with atheism. When will they leave the others alone?
We must take care when including all religious people as being the same,as they are not
I have a few very good friends who are religious,and we get along fine,even though we have our different beliefs.
There are wicked people in all walks of life,not just in religion.
Yes, we have seen many wars fought over religion,and we have also seen many fought over oil and control by our governments.
The title of this thread calls my belief a myth,but thats all good.
If thats as bad as it gets this year,then im happy O0
I dont mind,as i have science on my side.
You see,you cannot include magic in reality when it comes to science.
I am happy that i am providing actual proof,and as yet the stories of the bible have provided none.
But oddly enough,for some reason unknown,i am really hoping that the Ark if found.
Im not sure why,but how cool would that be--a farmer of some 600 years old,manages to build a bigger wooden ship than any of our well versed engineers have ever been able to build,and get it to float-with over 1 000 000 animals aboard-including dinosaurs,and all the food and water for there 372 day journey.
But what after they finally make land fall,and the waters have receded.
What do all these animals eat and drink,due to all the plants and tree's being wiped out from the flood,and all fresh water contaminated with salt from the oceans.
There are so many facts that say the great flood could never happen,and i am yet to see one shred of evidence that it did--maybe we will?\
Brad
But again:
QuoteOne has just to research the Ark of the Covenant to see the most powerful, destructful weapon on the planet.
The description talks about radiation poisoning, EMPs, resonant-reflective matter disassociation, electrocution, special suits for handling and a special group of technicians(Levites) to carry the device.
Now if the Bible is as you say a myth, then how did all of the 'Latest' technologies even have a chance to be documented in old fairy tales.
If, as the like of you nonbelievers believe, that this isn't ancient knowledge but mere contrivances my medieval conmen then answer this riddle: the contrivances still prevail any understanding of current technology.
This simple quote is not an experiment in thinking. It is a time frame of speech where the technology described is way before any understanding.
So, when someone states: 'Prove to me there is a god', i say 'Don't you understand the impact of what the statements of technology mean and the sequence of events outside of mankind's own thinking?'
We can go into soapbox boundaries ad infinitum.
The expositions about beliefs are always the fall back when groups don't achieve what they are pursuing.
The Israelites did it for 40 years. The claim by society is they were lost in their minds and complaining all the time.
The real goal of God was wiping any trace of witness to the usability of the Ark of the covenant technology in Egypt. Then is was taken to Jerusalem.
When the marauding hordes came to take the city Jeremiah was told to hide it under the city, which he did.
To this day it waits till the final hour. The size of the Giza pyramid sarcophagus is the same size as the hole in the floor of the Temple mount.
The guy that found Noah's ark also found the Ark of the Covenant. He was a phlebotomist. The blood of above the chamber had no Y(male) chromosomes because Jesus had no earthly father. Its all documented. Know thy history...
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.24, 14:13:09
We must take care when including all religious people as being the same,as they are not
I have a few very good friends who are religious,and we get along fine,even though we have our different beliefs.
There are wicked people in all walks of life,not just in religion.
You're right. But these ones do not come to forums dedicated to any subject except religion, to talk to us... about their religious beliefs. Nor do they make sites militant against evolutionism.
I know such people, especially from a religious congregation (the Lassalians) who have responsibilities in the management of their high school network. They are very educated, and make no secret to say that the Bible is a fable written by men, not the word of God, especially the Old Testament. Not one believes that dynosaurs would not have existed or that we would be descended from Adam and Eve! Their high schools have the same programs validated by the Ministry of Education as public high schools, and of course evolutionism is part of the program, not creationism.
Quote
Yes, we have seen many wars fought over religion,and we have also seen many fought over oil and control by our governments.
There is a big difference. The governments do not preach love, while christian believers can be blamed for doing the opposite of what they say.
Secondly, there are already enough real causes of war for us not to create them artificially with religions. A religion is a cause of more war, without any added value for the rest.
Quote
But oddly enough,for some reason unknown,i am really hoping that the Ark if found.
...
Um... I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. Even the existence of Jesus Christ is questionable, so the ark....
We know more about Vercingetorix, a Gallic chief who lived before J.C, than about J.C. So if J.C. had really done everything that was said, he would surely have left his mark in the archives of the Roman administration. If he really existed, he was at most a small political agitator without any scope. But with publicity and fantasy, a myth can be made of him. If he existed he had good press attachés! And now that his sect has worked well, we call it religion. :)
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.24, 04:16:40
And so the side step begins.
The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.
I did not post this article,a person who believes the bible did.
So to say i have twisted things around is complete garbage,but i would expect nothing less from anyone who throws out years of science,evidence,and repeatable experiments for 1 single story book,in which there has not been one single solid example of Gods existance provided to validate said book-the bible.
I can hop in my car,travel 35km down the road,and show you living organisms that lived over 2 billion years ago.
I can let you talk to a living decendent of the very first humanoids to leave Africa over 60 000 years ago-my daughter is married to one.
So what evidence can you provide that is outside your own beliefs Mags, that is clear evidence that the bible is correct,and God exists ?.
Give me 1 single piece of evidence,and i will listen.
But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me.
"But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me."
Carrol posted the article here.... https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74723#msg74723
"For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
Respectfully,
Carroll "
And then you posted this in reply to Carrol... https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74731#msg74731
"Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.
Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.
Brad "
In the article it says this....
"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution."
Clearly the article is not lending itself to proof of evolution. Even some comments on the article page lean toward Carrols and my understanding of the article....
But you clearly respond to Carrol with..."Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation."
So yeah, by evidence of text here in this thread, your are saying the article explains evolution and disproves the Bible, of which it does nothing of the sort. If it is not a twist in your description of the article, then what is it? A pretzel?
You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion. And why no particulars?? Because nothing in the article proves your statement about the article.. So yes. I am calling you out on that. I dont do it because I dont like you. I do it as argument that your statement is incorrect and only a biased, what did you call it, "side step" of what the article is really about. And side step is not what I did. Im sticking to what I said
If you are going to enter conversations on these subjects, and insult God to our faces and not accept rebutals to your inaccuracies, well tough cookies. ^-^ Im not a liar as you claim. I read it exactly how it is, just as well as any readers here can see.. ;)
Mags
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.
This intolerance to me seems unreasonable. Why should
it matter at all what others choose to believe, so long as
those beliefs are non-threatening to life and limb?
Debate is one thing, but going to the extremes of passing
judgment and issuing uncomplimentary opinions meant
to denigrate the integrity of others is foolish. Especially
when those who claim to be Christian make the claim:
"You'll go to Hell for sure unless you change your ways!"
or words to that effect. Hasn't anyone noticed that we are
in Hell even now?
Here is a refreshing and entertaining talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIDykeZplU) on the subjects
presently under discussion in this thread. Enjoy!
I care not what anyone believes because all of the confusion
we suffer is only temporary. All who seek Truth will ultimately
find Truth so long as they remain sincere in their quest and do
not become ensnared in deceptive propaganda. When they become
ready in their hearts to receive Truth it shall be given them.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.24, 04:16:40
And so the side step begins.
The article was all about different species of animals ,and a time period span between 100,000 and 200,000 years.
As all life on earth!according to those that believe in god and the words of the bible!started only 6000 odd years ago,how can you possibly put said article forward as any sort of proof that evolution is a myth when it absolutely disagrees with what the bible states.
Who is to say that the Bible does not explain that there were others here before Adam and Eve? ;)
In Genesis 4:14 Cain expresses fear that someone else will be aware of his vulnerable position and kill him.
So whom was Cain afraid of? Does this prove that God made another race of people before Adam and Eve? Because the text doesn't mention any other people (except Cain's wife in verse 17).
Genesis 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now this was on the 6th day. It does not explain that this work was to make Adam and Eve specifically at that time. But it was where the idea to 'make man in our image' is first brought up. Could it mean that there were other 'men' that were not made in 'their' image before Adam and Eve? I say 'their' because the passage states ""Let
us make man in our image".
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Then...
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
How would one interpret "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" ? In the first chapter on the 6th day God says 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'. Maybe there were others before Adam and eve that were not created in 'their' likeness, Neanderthals, etc.
And there are other parts of the Bible that talk about time before Adam and Eve, and even of another full flooded earth that happened before Noahs time. ;) Can you find those scriptures? ^-^ O0
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.25, 03:23:33
"But to come here and say i twisted things around is just a lie,as all i did was point out things the article was about,an artical Carroll him self posted-not me."
Carrol posted the article here.... https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74723#msg74723
"For those that may have missed it in the other thread, here again is a link from a SCIENTIFIC website that contains some SCIENTIFIC facts that prove evolution did not happen.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
Respectfully,
Carroll "
And then you posted this in reply to Carrol... https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3776.msg74731#msg74731
"Um Carroll
Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation.
Maybe you posted the wrong link ?.
Brad "
In the article it says this....
"It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations—think ants, rats, humans—will become more genetically diverse over time.
But is that true?
"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution."
Clearly the article is not lending itself to proof of evolution. Even some comments on the article page lean toward Carrols and my understanding of the article....
But you clearly respond to Carrol with..."Perhaps you did not read the entire paper,which clearly explains evolution,and disproves the bibles story of creation."
So yeah, by evidence of text here in this thread, your are saying the article explains evolution and disproves the Bible, of which it does nothing of the sort. If it is not a twist in your description of the article, then what is it? A pretzel?
You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion. And why no particulars?? Because nothing in the article proves your statement about the article.. So yes. I am calling you out on that. I dont do it because I dont like you. I do it as argument that your statement is incorrect and only a biased, what did you call it, "side step" of what the article is really about. And side step is not what I did. Im sticking to what I said
Mags
I see you are starting to twist things as most believers do when they are proven wrong.
Quote: You only state that it explains evolution and disproves the Bible, without any particulars from the article that explain your assertion.
So lets look at the article one step at a time,and feel free to show that what i say is not in the article,or what i say is not what the bible or believers say.
Now,you and those that believe in the bible and God claim that all that lives today is only 6000 odd years old.
Now,from the article
Quote:collected from 100,000 animal species
Quote:is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today,
Quote:came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago
So from this information-->that is clearly written in the article,and provided by some one who says the bible is a true account of all that exist's,we can clearly see that the bible is false,and most that lives is at least between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.
So here in plain text's,posted by a believer,the bible and the age of man is disproven to be fact.
But there is more.
From the very same article we see that only 90% (90%) of 100,000 animal species tested where shown to come into existence some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
This leaves 10,000-->yes 10,000 animal species to be older than the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period.
If they were younger than that,they would have been accounted for in the study.
The paper also says this Quote:What they saw was a lack of variation in so-called "neutral" mutations, which are the slight changes in DNA across generations that neither help nor hurt an individual's chances of survival.
This i believe was one of Carroll's main point's,which you keep pointing out.'
But what you both also failed to point out is this Quote:Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.
"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey—all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.
"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."
Now this is often where believers get things wrong,where they think evolution and diversity should happen over a very short period of time. Although it has happened in short time scale's ,which we have observed in our time,large differences between species happens over millions of years,not fractions of it.
So the paper clearly explains as to why there is very little variation in mutations,as the time scale is very small,even though you may think it's large.
There is also the fact that over 10,000 species were outside this time scale,and there variation differences were not disclosed--i wonder why?.
So,i am correct in what i stated
The bible says,and you believe that life on earth is only 6000 odd years old--correct?
The paper presented by Carroll(not me) clearly shows the bible and you to be incorrect,and god did not create life some 6000 odd years ago.
The paper also clearly states that only 90% of the 100,000 species of animals fitted into the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period,which clearly means that 10,000 different species existed beyond that time period.
So,if god did not create all life some 6000 odd years ago as the paper clearly states,and over 10,000 species of animals already existed beyond the 100,000 to 200,000 year time period,then evolution is the only explanation--unless you have another theory of your own Mags.
QuoteIf you are going to enter conversations on these subjects, and insult God to our faces and not accept rebutals to your inaccuracies, well tough cookies. ^-^ Im not a liar as you claim. I read it exactly how it is, just as well as any readers here can see.. ;)
Where exactly did i insult God?
I believe in evolution and the power of mother nature.
Do you see the thread name Mag's?--> the MYTH of evolution
Is this not an insult to my belief's?-->why have you not said anything about that?-->do you see me constantly whining about it?.
What i posted was the exact words from the paper,so you must not have read it correctly,or you are !blinded by the light!
So no,i posted no inaccuracies at all,and you have it wrong.
But being the blind believer that you are,you will fail to recognise your mistake,and you will continue to twist the facts i post until they suit your needs,even though they are word for word from the paper Carroll presented.
So what do i think will happen now.
What will happen(as it always dose)is you will take little bits and pieces from that paper,and twist them to suit your needs. Then you will take other bits of that paper,like the time periods of 100,000 to 200,000 years,and say they got that bit wrong. So the paper will be accurate for the bits you need,and inaccurate when other parts of that paper are not inline with what you believe.
I on the other hand,took all of what the paper said,and presented it here as it reads.
So no,what i presented had no inaccuracies what so ever.
Facts--
1-the paper clearly gives a time period of between 100,000 to 200,000 years
2-the bible says life is only 6000 odd years old
3-the paper only accounts for 90% of 100,000 different species,leaving 10,000 different species already existing beyond that time period.
4-the paper disproves the bibles account of when life started by a huge margin
5-as we were not created(as shown by the paper),then we had to of evolved.
Please feel free to share with everyone here where i posted faulse information from that paper.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.25, 04:25:11
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.
This intolerance to me seems unreasonable. Why should
it matter at all what others choose to believe, so long as
those beliefs are non-threatening to life and limb?
Debate is one thing, but going to the extremes of passing
judgment and issuing uncomplimentary opinions meant
to denigrate the integrity of others is foolish. Especially
when those who claim to be Christian make the claim:
"You'll go to Hell for sure unless you change your ways!"
or words to that effect. Hasn't anyone noticed that we are
in Hell even now?
Here is a refreshing and entertaining talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIDykeZplU) on the subjects
presently under discussion in this thread. Enjoy!
I care not what anyone believes because all of the confusion
we suffer is only temporary. All who seek Truth will ultimately
find Truth so long as they remain sincere in their quest and do
not become ensnared in deceptive propaganda. When they become
ready in their hearts to receive Truth it shall be given them.
There have been many wars and atrocities in the name of religion.
As far as i aware,there have been none over evolution,mother nature, or science.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.25, 04:52:27
Who is to say that the Bible does not explain that there were others here before Adam and Eve? ;)
In Genesis 4:14 Cain expresses fear that someone else will be aware of his vulnerable position and kill him.
So whom was Cain afraid of? Does this prove that God made another race of people before Adam and Eve? Because the text doesn't mention any other people (except Cain's wife in verse 17).
Genesis 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Now this was on the 6th day. It does not explain that this work was to make Adam and Eve specifically at that time. But it was where the idea to 'make man in our image' is first brought up. Could it mean that there were other 'men' that were not made in 'their' image before Adam and Eve? I say 'their' because the passage states ""Let us make man in our image".
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Then...
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Genesis 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
How would one interpret "These are the 'generations' of the heavens and of the earth when they were created" ? In the first chapter on the 6th day God says 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'. Maybe there were others before Adam and eve that were not created in 'their' likeness, Neanderthals, etc.
And there are other parts of the Bible that talk about time before Adam and Eve, and even of another full flooded earth that happened before Noahs time. ;) Can you find those scriptures? ^-^ O0
Mags
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
On the first day,God created the heavens and earth
On the sixth day god created man and woman-Adam and Eve.
So yes,the bible clearly states there was nothing before the fist day,and Adam and Eve were the first humans.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.25, 04:25:11
It is true that the adherents of Religion, including the
Religion of Atheism/Evolution, can be quite intolerant
towards those who have differing beliefs.
Religion is faith based,evolution and science is not,nor is it a religion.
Please do not get the two mixed up
If some one said they had an overunity device,would you you believe them,and know it is real due to only faith?
-or would it only become real when scientific tests proved that it was?.
Having faith that something is real,and having scientific proof that it is,is two very different things.
We are a scientific forum,and we demand that scientific proof be provided before anything becomes a reality.
This is not Energetic forum,where OU device become reality based on words or faith.
Evolution is based purely on scientific evidence,not here say,not faith,but testable and repeatable testing over many years.
I have been watching this guys video's,and he knows his stuff.
He delivers his arguments in a very clear and smooth presentation.
He also only uses know and proven science to deliver his proof of evolution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEfj3LLNSY
Brad
Hi Brad,
Sorry I have been rather slow to get back to you. I was very busy yesterday with a lot of yard work getting ready for company for this weekend as it is our National Memorial day weekend.
I have tried to explain to you how all the flood waters went back into the oceans after Noah's flood because of major changes to the earth's topography. Here is an article that explains it much better than I can.
https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
I have not had time yet to watch the last video you posted. I may not have time today to do that either because of out of town company coming in. But I will watch it when I have time.
Take care,
Carroll
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.23, 04:59:15
It is when you get to know the magic man. You have just decided an alternative path, for what ever reasons, they are yours. But that does not give you the right to impose theories as facts on others.
Mags
To clear this up,even though science calls them theories,they are also facts--only science dose not call them facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CY0KmEk9aQ
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.05.24, 12:35:13
Claim : The Bible says "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material". Leviticus 19:19"
Claim : The Bible says "All that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you". Leviticus 9:10
Claim : The Bible says "Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk". Exodus 23:19
Claim : The Bible says "When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean". Leviticus 15: 19-20
Claim : The Bible says "When men fight with one another, and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand". Deuteronomy 25:11-12
Claim : The Bible says "Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered." Matthew 21:18-22 NIV
Claim : The Bible says "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves". Numbers 31:17-18
Claim : The Bible says "He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them.... He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since". 2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ". Ephesians 6:5 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Claim : The Bible says "If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed". Leviticus 20:15 NLT
Claim : The Bible says "No one whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off shall be admitted to the assembly of the LORD". Deuteronomy 23:1 NRSV
Claim : The Bible says "Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken ... He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries". Leviticus 21:17-23 KJV
All this is definitely very intelligent.... C.C
Oh, my God, how stupid! But the ultimate stupidity is that even today the book of these absurd, barbaric, proslavery, sexist or violent texts, which represent the customs and thoughts of an archaic era, described by men of that era, is still taken as a reference!
Hi Francois,
I have been ignoring your childish cartoons. But this post I feel deserves a reply. First, I am glad to see you have read so much of the Bible. Jesus said His Word is sharper than a two edged sword. So maybe some day it will start to reach you if you keep reading.
Now I guess what you were trying to show with your many quotes from the Bible was that the it contains a lot of strange commands. As is normal for people trying to prove the Bible is irrelevant you have taken those quotes out of context. That means you haven't shown why or to whom those commandments were directed. Those commandments are NOT for either you or me unless you are Jewish. I am not, so I know they don't apply to me. They were given by Moses to the Jewish people while they were still wandering in the desert.
Now a more important question is probably why did God give such strange commands to a group of people? In spite of the fact I read my Bible every day I am not a Bible scholar. But I do have some opinions as to why God gave those commands.
From the very beginning God has sought to have a relationship with us. He even walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden until they disobeyed Him. Many many years later God saw the Abram was very sincere in wanting to follow the Lord. So he told him to go into a foreign place and settle there. Abram obeyed God and went to the land that God led him to. Because of his obedience God told him He (God) would make Abram (later called Abraham) the father of a great nation that God would bless. And through that group of people God would bless all the people of the earth.
Now in order for that group of people to bless the whole earth that group of people had to show that somehow they lived to a higher standard than the rest of the world and they also had to survive. As a guide for them those commands you have listed were for them only. By following those commands they accomplished some things. They showed they were obedient. And they set themselves apart from the rest of the world. And a lot of those commandments helped them to survive as a separate group of people.
Now whether you agree with those commandments or not you have to admit that even after many many attempts to destroy the nation of Israel they are still in existence. So those strange commandments did have a purpose and that purpose is still being carried out today. In spite of all the efforts by Satan to destroy God's chosen people they are still here. And even after being displaced for almost 2000 years they are now back in the same land that God told Abram to go to. And the Bible says they will never be displaced again.
Do you want proof God exists? Just watch what happens when any nation tries to destroy Israel. You may even live long enough to see it for yourself as thing are looking more and more like a major showdown is coming in the middle east.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.25, 11:14:50
Hi Brad,
Sorry I have been rather slow to get back to you. I was very busy yesterday with a lot of yard work getting ready for company for this weekend as it is our National Memorial day weekend.
I have tried to explain to you how all the flood waters went back into the oceans after Noah's flood because of major changes to the earth's topography. Here is an article that explains it much better than I can.
https://creation.com/how-did-the-waters-of-noahs-flood-drain
I have not had time yet to watch the last video you posted. I may not have time today to do that either because of out of town company coming in. But I will watch it when I have time.
Take care,
Carroll
Ok,i once again took the time to read the story on the link you posted.
but first i need to know what exactly is going on here,as in,things just do not add up in terms of the bible's quote's,and the reasoning written in that page you linked.
For example,the bible clearly quote's that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights--Genesis 7:17-->or 150 days according to 7:24. So as to which one are we to believe ?. Seems the bible it self cannot decide as to how long it rained for. Then there is this--Genesis 8:3 say that the flood lasted for 150 days.
Your link states the flood lasted 371 days.
Then there is this-->Quote: Actually, the Bible tells us where the water went. By Day 150 of the Flood catastrophe the floodwaters had risen until they covered "all the high mountains under the whole heaven"
So it rained only 40 days and 40 night,but the waters continued to rise until day 150.
How did the waters continue to rise once the source of water(the rain) had stopped some 110 days before ?.
We also see in that paper that the !high! hills and mountains already existed.
So many contradictions it's hard to know as to which we are suppose to be looking into ???
Then this--Quote:Logically, the only way for the water to drain from the continents into the oceans is for the continents to rise and the ocean floors to sink. As our knowledge of the structure of the earth has grown we can appreciate how that could have happened.
Anyway,here is why it could not happen as that page states.
Now,as you know,i am no scientist,nor do i claim to be.
But even very basic and testable knowledge can see all the !no go's! in that explanation in the link you posted.
And when i make a post,it will be because i can replicate what i post as fact,or i will link pages that show scientific theories(which have been,and are retestable fact,which by now i hope Mags understands)that back up what i say.
Perhaps you or other believers could also do the same,where rather than relying on faith or beliefs,you could post repeatable actual experiments that back up your beliefs?.
First,the water will only continue to rise as long as the source(in this case the rain) continues to fall.
So if it only rained for 40 days and 40 nights,then the water would cease to rise by day 41,not day 150.
Second
Now this is one we can test on a small scale,and prove not possible.
The water pressure is suppose to have pushed up the mountains and surrounding land's,so as the depth of the sea bed increased,and the flood waters receded into the now lower sea bed--correct?.
So here is the big !no go! with that belief,and one you can test your self.
First you will need a water tight container of some sort--bigger the better,but any size will show the same result.
Now make a sea bed in that container out of sand--any sand you like.
Then make some small hills out of sand(can be the same sand,or any type you like),and throw in a couple of rocks as small mountains--any rocks you like,as we know mountains have mostly a rock content,where hills are mostly sand of some sort
Now fill your container with water,so as the water just covers the hills and mountains-as stated in both the bible and the paper in the link you provided.
Now sit back and wait.
How long do you have to wait? ,well long enough for the water to push the hills and mountains up high enough,so as there sticking out of the water,and the water can recede into the now deeper sea beds. O0
Brad
Nearly all cultures (as in petri dish?) have an account of a great flood similar to the biblical Genesis. The oldest being the Eridu Genesis from ancient Sumeria described here-
http://www.piney.com/EriduGen.html
Scholars claim numbers as well as names in our present bible have meaning. If true, what is the meaning of 40 days/40 nights? Is our view of knowledge so limited that we are unable to debate these issues?
As for me, I know nothing really!
Regards,
Pm
Quote from: TinMan
There have been many wars and atrocities in the
name of religion.
As far as i aware,there have been none over evolution,
mother nature, or science.
There is one thing
All Religions have in common:
They have
All been corrupted. All religions today
are a blend of some Truth mixed with numerous lies.
Therefore, Religions are not the Answer that People of
Good Will seek.
We all have the Option of going Directly to the Source.
We are not in need of "middlemen" who are corrupt and
in service of Deception.
Evolution has indeed become a faith based religion.
Evolution has replaced a belief in God with the belief
in Man; replaced the Book of Life with the Book of
Evolution. Is just another Religious Cult.
Evolution (Darwin/Dawkins et al) overlooks the incredible
complexities of Life and how living organisms function in
their
true to the tiniest detail processes to sustain and prolong life.Evolution remains to this day 100% theoretical yet has acquired
tremendous academic power to enforce institutional compliance.
Evolution has become a High Control Cult.
Evolution is a temporary deviance from the Path of Truth but will
eventually find Complete Truth providing it proceeds in its search
for Truth by diligently applying the Scientific Process.
Evolution, simply put, wants there to be no God. It is an Agenda.
All who have eyes to see and minds to comprehend look upon what
surrounds us in this Natural World with admiration and appreciation.
Our Living World is incredibly complex all the way from the tiniest
of living things to the greatest of living things. Evolution does not
understand Life.
Evolution is really another facet of Mind Control/Behavior Modification.
As are
All Religions which have become corrupted.Events will occur Worldwide in the not too distant future which will
shake the Earth as Truth is revealed. The Forces of Good will
overcome the Forces of Badness as their time over the Planet has
expired. The process has begun already.
There will be one last great war. Then Peace.
Death too is only temporary.
True Science would not have sought to develop the Atom Bomb.
True Science would not develop weapons of warfare.
True Science would not be in the Business of Death and Destruction.
True Science as an Institution does not yet exist.
Quote from: CITFTA
They were given by Moses to the Jewish people while they were
still wandering in the desert.
That seems to be a teaching of Christendom but is inaccurate.
The Israelites (House of Israel) that departed Egypt with Moses
along with a crowd of Egyptians who chose to accompany them,
were pre-Jewish. The nation of Israel in Palestine had not yet been
formed and the land of Judea did not yet exist. The House of Judah
came later. The Israelites and the Jews are distinctly different in that
the House of Judah was but one of the tribes within the family.
The practice of lumping them all together as Jews is a modern
political deception, unfortunately.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.25, 21:21:46
snip
That seems to be a teaching of Christendom but is inaccurate.
The Israelites (House of Israel) that departed Egypt with Moses
along with a crowd of Egyptians who chose to accompany them,
were pre-Jewish. The nation of Israel in Palestine had not yet been
formed and the land of Judea did not yet exist. The House of Judah
came later. The Israelites and the Jews are distinctly different in that
the House of Judah was but one of the tribes within the family.
The practice of lumping them all together as Jews is a modern
political deception, unfortunately.
Further more, most Jews today are Kazars. The Palestinians may have more Israelite blood in their veins.
Ron
author=muDped link=topic=3776.msg74806#msg74806 date=1558819306]
QuoteEvolution has indeed become a faith based religion.
Is just another Religious Cult.
It is neither a religion nor a faith based cult.
QuoteEvolution (Darwin/Dawkins et al) overlooks the incredible
complexities of Life and how living organisms function in
their true to the tiniest detail processes to sustain and prolong life.
Actually no.
Science looks very closely to the complexities of life,down to the microscopic level.
That is how they confirm the fact that evolution is how life developed to this day.
QuoteEvolution remains to this day 100% theoretical.
This is where so many people are confused.
There is a difference in the meaning of theory in how we(the public)use it,and what it means scientifically.
In science,fact is commonly used to refer to the observable changes in organisms' traits over generations while the word "theory" is reserved for the mechanisms that cause these changes:
So evolution is fact,and the theories of evolution are to explain the observable facts.
QuoteEvolution is a temporary deviance from the Path of Truth but will
eventually find Complete Truth providing it proceeds in its search
for Truth by diligently applying the Scientific Process.
Evolution became fact by applying scientific process.
The theory of evolution provides an explanation to those facts.
QuoteEvolution, simply put, wants there to be no God. It is an Agenda.
Evolution wants nothing.
Evolution is just a !fact! of life.
QuoteAll who have eyes to see and minds to comprehend look upon what
surrounds us in this Natural World with admiration and appreciation.
As they should.
Nothing compares with the beauty of mother nature
QuoteOur Living World is incredibly complex all the way from the tiniest
of living things to the greatest of living things. Evolution does not
understand Life.
Evolution is why life today exists.
QuoteEvolution is really another facet of Mind Control/Behavior Modification.
No,evolution really couldnt care whether man existed or not.
Life on earth would continue on without man,probably for the better.
QuoteEvents will occur Worldwide in the not too distant future which will
shake the Earth as Truth is revealed. The Forces of Good will
overcome the Forces of Badness as their time over the Planet has
expired. The process has begun already.
Just one part of the evolutionary process--natural selection.
QuoteThere will be one last great war. Then Peace.
Death too is only temporary.
As above--natural selection.
Over 300 animal species have become extinct in the last 100 year's,and most because of us humans.
Humans will probably be the only species to become extinct due to there own actions--how smart are we C.C
QuoteTrue Science would not have sought to develop the Atom Bomb.
True Science would not develop weapons of warfare.
True Science would not be in the Business of Death and Destruction.
It was man that did all the above,and used science to do it.
No bombs have ever been dropped,no weapons have ever been used,and
no death or destruction has been to defend science--this is all in the name of mans control and greed.
QuoteThat seems to be a teaching of Christendom but is inaccurate.
The Israelites (House of Israel) that departed Egypt with Moses
along with a crowd of Egyptians who chose to accompany them,
were pre-Jewish. The nation of Israel in Palestine had not yet been
formed and the land of Judea did not yet exist. The House of Judah
came later. The Israelites and the Jews are distinctly different in that
the House of Judah was but one of the tribes within the family.
The practice of lumping them all together as Jews is a modern
political deception, unfortunately.
No two religious groups will ever agree,that is why there have been so many religious wars.
Evolution on the other hand is as peaceful as the humming bird eating nectar.
The fact that you have electricity to power your home,gasoline for your car,or oil for your engine,is only possible because of evolution--unless you have found a quick way to produce !!fossil!! fuels .
Brad
The discussion gets more and more interesting
as it goes on!
Two videos which confirm historical evidence
relative to our discussion:
The real man whom Christianity is about (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAN3kQHTKWI)
The Shroud and the Jew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G4sj8hUVaY)
and one more:
A more detailed accounting of the Shroud Examination (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mke8mUKosaY)
When I was small Art Linkletter had a popular TV
program called "Kids say the darndest things!"
In discussions such as these we find that "Grownups
believe the darndest things!"
A famous person once said: "It is easier to get someone
to believe a lie than it is to later convince them that it is
not true." Or words to that effect.
TinMan,
I appreciate your responses to my statements.
Your thoughts are quite interesting. I held many
of those same beliefs as you many years ago.
Evolutionists are today placing more emphasis on
Natural Adaptability for the species rather than
Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.
In a few more years many more in Science who
are studying Evolution will come to the Truthful
Conclusion that Creation is the only possibility.
In due time. All of our minds are being changed
over time. Not because of the efforts or abilities
of others since nobody but ourselves has that
power. But, when we're ready, something awakens
within us that turns the light on and opens our eyes.
It's simply a matter of time. And the Love of our
Creator.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.26, 09:24:23
TinMan,
I appreciate your responses to my statements.
Your thoughts are quite interesting. I held many
of those same beliefs as you many years ago.
Evolutionists are today placing more emphasis on
Natural Adaptability for the species rather than
Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.
In a few more years many more in Science who
are studying Evolution will come to the Truthful
Conclusion that Creation is the only possibility.
In due time. All of our minds are being changed
over time. Not because of the efforts or abilities
of others since nobody but ourselves has that
power. But, when we're ready, something awakens
within us that turns the light on and opens our eyes.
It's simply a matter of time. And the Love of our
Creator.
I have no trouble with the fact that life was created.
If it were not,then there would be no life.
What i strongly object to is that some believe that a mythical magic being created all life,space and the earth as we know it today in 7 days.
Life was created through millions of years of what would be call trial and error,where it took millions of years to find the right combination in a chemical soup just to produce the first microbe.
It's just like winning the lotto,where almost everyone looses every time,--but every week some one wins.
I do not need time,and i have love without !god!
I already love the creator--mother nature,who made me who i am today.
There is a big !!BIG!! difference in a faith or belief and scientific proof.
Here are some of the proofs i offer
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution
Quote:For over 150 years—since the time of Charles Darwin—the Theory of Evolution has been through more scrutiny and rigorous investigation than just about any other scientific claim. And the theory has only been strengthened as more evidence has been accrued. While there are many that people who, for ideological reasons, want to make it seem like evolution is not widely accepted within the scientific community, this is not actually the case.
https://necsi.edu/evidence-for-evolution
https://www2.palomar.edu/anthro/evolve/evolve_3.htm
Quote: Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time.
Quote:Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences.
I could keep posting page after page of actual scientific proofs of evolution,but i could not post a single page providing any sort of scientific proof toward the religious account for life,as it just dose not exist.
I did know that there was some form of religious based beliefs here on this forum,but i am stupefied as to how quickly physics,science,and scientific proofs are tossed aside in the name of religion.
If this subject was about a claimed OU machine or device,we !all! would demand proof,and said device would need to be replicated,and both visually and scientifically tested over and over until absolute evidence was presented that said device was actually OU. Then after that,we would also still want to see it for our self.
Then after all that,a theory would have to be developed as to how that machine dose what it dose,and from where the extra energy was entering the device or system.
But,as soon as it comes to evolution V religion,all science and scientific proof,along with a theory in every area of that science that explains the facts,science and physics is simply tossed aside like it means nothing at all.
We are told that 100's of years of science is wrong,and you need only faith C.C
To this point,i have offered page upon page of evidence and facts that support evolution.'
As of yet,not one single piece of evidence has been produced that would stand up against all know science and physics that supports creation. In fact,the great flood has not even made it past go yet.
This is suppose to be a forum of scientific fact,where the laws of physics always apply--until it comes to religion--then we can throw all that aside.
This forum has a very strict set of guidelines,where even the thread title may not make or insinuate extraordinary claims. But here we see that the thread title is aloud to remain,even though it go's against all scientific fact and proof provided by all sections of science. In this case,the thread title is not only misleading,it is false,as evolution is a fact,not a myth.
This is why the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science,and cannot be taught as such in public schools. They did this because not one single biblical account can be scientifically tested and proven to be fact-->which means it's fiction or an untruth.
Is there really any point in continuing on with this thread?
It is very obvious that none of the believers are even remotely interested in science,or should i say the science and physics that proves them wrong.
Carroll has already said that nothing will change his mind--facts no longer matter,evidence is no opposition.
I even provided a very simple experiment,one which not one of the believers will take on,because they know that no amount of water sitting on top of rock and sand will push that rock and sand above the water level,so as the water may recede into the !now displaced! sea bed. Simple physics say it cannot and did not happen.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.26, 07:26:18
A more detailed accounting of the Shroud Examination (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mke8mUKosaY)
Or words to that effect.
It is truly amazing that out of the millions of people living in that time,they decided that it was Jesus who was wrapped in this cloth. We'll look past the fact that the carbon dating dated this cloth to be about 1200 years to young. The church was all for the carbon dating until it came back with a date that did not match up to the date of jesus living.The cloth tested was then said to be contaminated C.C
QuoteA famous person once said: "It is easier to get someone
to believe a lie than it is to later convince them that it is
not true."Or words to that effect.
Robert Lynd once said:It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that one has never heard before.
He started life as a protestant,but guess what happened-->see above.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan
What i strongly object to is that some believe that a
mythical magic being created all life,space and the
earth as we know it today in 7 days.
It is true that some "Christians" insist that Creation
was done is seven 24 hour Earth Days. This has
never made sense to me. Others believe that each
Creation Day was 1000 of our Earth Years.
I believe that the Creation Day is an unspecified length
of time which could in fact be thousands or millions or
even billions of years of Earth Time. It is very difficult
to speculate without knowing more about how Time
and Space were brought into existence.
The Book tells us that for our Creator
all things are possible.
What does that mean and what does it encompass?
There are so many things that we presently just do not know.
A significant portion of Scientific Knowledge is in reality
guesswork.
The Book does promise that one day we shall know all of
the things we can only speculate about now with our limited
understandings.
What I find most amazing about our Human Family is that
we were Created with a thirst for knowledge, we want to
know about everything.
Other qualities too. We have been endowed with many gifts.
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
~ Prof. Edwin Conklin
^-^
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.26, 23:01:23
The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.
~ Prof. Edwin Conklin
^-^
Mags
But just a little more probable than a magical being creating us from dust and water=mud,due to there being far more chemicals in the ocean than there is in mud. O0
Brad
"What i strongly object to is that some believe that a mythical magic being created all life,space and the earth as we know it today in 7 days."
"I do not need time,and i have love without !god!
I already love the creator--mother nature,who made me who i am today."
"I could keep posting page after page of actual scientific proofs of evolution,but i could not post a single page providing any sort of scientific proof toward the religious account for life,as it just dose not exist."
"I did know that there was some form of religious based beliefs here on this forum,but i am stupefied as to how quickly physics,science,and scientific proofs are tossed aside in the name of religion."
http://creationsciencetoday.com/32-Days_Noah-Second_Coming.html
"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice ["deliberately forget," NIV] that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3–7, NAS) [Bold, emphasis added]
http://creationsciencetoday.com/09-Catastrophic_Worldwide_Flood.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/31-Belief-False_Doctrine.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/05-Law_of_Biogenesis-Origins.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/.....
Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are "uphill" (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for "the" missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is "fatally flawed"—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth's lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
Mags
Climate change is sprung from the evolution mold. This worked before and we can make it happen again. Anything to go against what God has stated as Truth.The main object is that any and all Truths shall be vanquished in time through the indoctrination of possible geniuses into useful idiots.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.27, 00:40:16
"What i strongly object to is that some believe that a mythical magic being created all life,space and the earth as we know it today in 7 days."
"I do not need time,and i have love without !god!
I already love the creator--mother nature,who made me who i am today."
"I could keep posting page after page of actual scientific proofs of evolution,but i could not post a single page providing any sort of scientific proof toward the religious account for life,as it just dose not exist."
"I did know that there was some form of religious based beliefs here on this forum,but i am stupefied as to how quickly physics,science,and scientific proofs are tossed aside in the name of religion."
http://creationsciencetoday.com/32-Days_Noah-Second_Coming.html
"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.' For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice ["deliberately forget," NIV] that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:3–7, NAS) [Bold, emphasis added]
http://creationsciencetoday.com/09-Catastrophic_Worldwide_Flood.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/31-Belief-False_Doctrine.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/05-Law_of_Biogenesis-Origins.html
http://creationsciencetoday.com/.....
Evolution is contrary to natural laws (without exception) whereas creation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and law of biogenesis.
There are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are "uphill" (that is, unequivocally beneficial) in the sense of adding new genetic information to the gene pool.
Geologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
Enormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
A worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
There is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
The standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
There are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for "the" missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
Contrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
Soft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
Carbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is "fatally flawed"—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth's lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
Mags
And that is why the courts of America banned creation science from being taught in schools-all totally wrong,and not actual science.
Everything you just listed has been proven beyound doubt by both science and physics to be wrong.
Brad
Some may find this series of lectures by Richard Dawkins
rather interesting. Richard is a devout Darwinian well
steeped in the Theoreticals of Evolution:
Dawkins' lectures are from 1991. (http://www.openculture.com/2012/04/igrowing_up_in_the_universei_richard_dawkins_presents_captivating_science_lectures_for_kids_1991.html)
How much of what was believed in 1991 regarding Life and
Evolution has remained unchanged?
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.27, 04:44:42
And that is why the courts of America banned creation science from being taught in schools-all totally wrong,and not actual science.
Everything you just listed has been proven beyound doubt by both science and physics to be wrong.
Brad
HI Brad,
Using the courts of America as an excuse for the belief in evolution is a very poor excuse. Those same courts decided it was ok to kill babies before they were born. Both of those decisions were against the Constitution of the United States but unfortunately they have not been challenged properly.
An interesting quote from a former very famous atheist:
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life origination at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. It is, therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence . . . even to the limit of God." - Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astrophysicist, an atheist for much of his life, until he finally admitted the truth.
The Chance of Evolution Ever Occurring is so Remote as to be Mathematically Impossible. The theory of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening!
Respectfully,
Carroll
Here is a link to a clear example of the very flawed thinking needed to believe in evolution:
https://phys.org/news/2010-12-mathematics-plenty-evolution.html
Now at first this seems to be a reasonable argument. Except for one small detail. In the example they used they decided a single mutation would give a butterfly a functioning eye. That is absurd. Even the simple eye of a butterfly would require hundreds of DNA changes that would all have to happen at the same time or the butterfly's eye wouldn't work. Change over time simply cannot explain how complex organs such as eyes or ears could have developed. Without all the different parts working together none of the parts are of any use.
Some real scientific information about the complexity of life:
9/27/2010 – Babu G. Ranganathan –
The scientific method is used every day in forensic science to determine whether an event in a crime scene was an accident or by design and intention. Mathematical probability is a scientific argument and is frequently used in determining many issues of scientific inquiry.
The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.
If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.
The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power.
Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power (1050) or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power (1065) . That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.
Protein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won't work.
It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
Once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.
It seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.
An amazing fact is that there are left-handed and right-handed amino acids. In life all the protein molecules have to be made up of left-handed amino acids as well as be in the right sequence. If a right-handed amino acid gets into the mix the protein won't work.
DNA, the genetic code, also is made up of various smaller molecules (nucleic acids) that have to be together in a precise sequence in order for the DNA to work. There are left-handed and right-handed sugar molecules making-up nucleic acids. In order to get a working DNA molecule the various nucleic acids have to be not only in a precise sequence but they also have to contain only right-handed sugar molecules. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then the DNA won't work.
The great and well-known British scientist Frederick Hoyle showed that the probability of the simplest form of life coming into being by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. You don't have to be a theologian to respect such numbers!
In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.
All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.
Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
Natural selection is a passive process in nature.
What about natural selection? Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection can only operate once there is life and not before. Natural selection is a passive process in nature.
Even the recent news of artificial life is not creation of any life. In artificial life, scientists, through intelligent design, build a DNA molecule from "scratch" and then implant that DNA into an already living cell. Genetic engineering and artificial life projects all happen by intelligent design – not by chance. Just ask the scientists behind the projects!
Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.
But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.
The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.
HT: Pravda
author=Magluvin link=topic=3776.msg74824#msg74824 date=1558917616]
Quotecreation is consistent with natural laws—for example, creation is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis.
Really
biogenesis-->
the synthesis of substances by living organisms.
HISTORICAL
the hypothesis that living matter arises only from other living matter.
And Adam was made from dust-->non living matter.
Fail.
Quotecreation is consistent with natural laws
Natural law-->
1-a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct
2-an observable law relating to natural phenomena
So the bible tells us that human conduct got that bad that god had to flood the earth,and kill almost all of them.
So much for unchanging moral principles,if we assume god made man in his own image O0
The !creation! of man from dust was not natural,it was super natural.
3-
Quotecreation is consistent with the law of biogenesis
Biogenesis-->
Conceptually, biogenesis is primarily attributed to Louis Pasteur and encompasses the belief that complex living things come only from other living things, by means of reproduction. That is, life does not spontaneously arise from non-living material
So once again,we see that biogenesis disproves the bible,as Adam was !apparently made from non living material-dust,and we find that biogenesis adheres to evolution,where complex living things came from other living things. Perhaps you are mixed up with how life started,and the evolutionary process from that life. Both of which are two different subjects.
So a fail on all three accounts there as well for the creationist.
QuoteEvolution is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics
The 2nd law of thermodynamics-->
The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time.
And your argument ends right there,as the earth is not an isolated system.
The sun continues to add energy to earth every single day. Lets see how long life on earth lasts without the sun.
Infact, the sun delivers in excess of--are you ready for this-->Each hour 430 quintillion Joules of energy from the sun hits the Earth :o :o :o
But wait,there's more-->Every day,
QuoteEarth is bombarded with more than 100 tons of dust and meteorites.
I have not calculated the combined energy of 100 tons hitting the earth at about 30,000kph,but i would think it quite substantial,and that can also be added to the system,along with the fact that the earths mas also increases by this amount each day.
So much for your laws of thermodynamics.
QuoteThere are no known biological processes for evolution to higher levels of organization and complexity—mutations are overwhelmingly degenerative and none are "uphill"
Below are two pictures of two different people,but !apparently! both are Noah's descendant's
One is from europe,and the other from Australia.
One is Dirk Hartog,who landed in Western Australia in 1616
One is the people he found here when he arrived,the Original founders of Australia--as they look today.
Dirk Hartogs peoples level of organization and complexities was high enough to build houses,factories,and ships large enough to sail across the oceans of the world.
The Aboriginals level of organization and complexities was at a level of living in grass and stick hut's,catching food with sharpened wooden spears.
But they both had the same time to develope.
I guess all men were not created equal C.C
QuoteGeologic landforms and sedimentary features are completely consistent with a worldwide flood as described in the Book of Genesis.
Non are consistent with a world wide flood.
QuoteEnormous limestone formations, huge coal and oil formations, and immense underground salt layers are indicative of a worldwide flood—not slow and gradual processes over billions of years. Such features are satisfactorily explained by a worldwide flood and known geophysical and geochemical processes.
Once again incorrect.
A single flood cannot and did not create the layers found through the earths crust today,nor could it have placed different types of animals at different layer as we see today. All the animals would have been all mixed in together,and not placed in seperate layers as we see they are.
QuoteA worldwide flood as described in Genesis 6–8 is within the boundaries of known geophysics—see phase diagram in chapter 4 and Pangaea Flood Video at CreationScienceToday.com.
A world wide flood conforms to no laws of geophysics,mathematics,or any physics at all.
This has been proven beyond any doubt.
I gave you a simple experiment to try,so try it and see how you go.
Be the first man ever to make rocks and sand rise out of the water,using just water.
Fact--> you would need 3.5 times the water we have on earth to cover all the hills and mountains as stated in the bible.
Fact-->that water would have to go some where,and there was no where for it to go.
Fact-->To displace 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of water,we would have to have 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of earth rise up,so as we end up with the volume of water we have today--which by the way is not 4.4 billion cubic kilometers,it is still only 1.37 billion cubic kilometers.
So where is the other 3 billion odd cubic kilometers of water?
QuoteThere is no credible technique for establishing the age of sedimentary rock—fossil dating used to establish the age of sedimentary rock suffers from circular reasoning and guesswork, all based on the assumption of evolution.
Once again wrong.
There a many dating methods that give very accurate dates,such as--
Amino acid dating[5][6][7][8]
Archaeomagnetic dating[9]
Argon–argon dating
Uranium–lead dating
Samarium–neodymium dating
Potassium–argon dating
Rubidium–strontium dating
Uranium–thorium dating
Radiocarbon dating
Fission track dating
Optically stimulated luminescence
Luminescence dating
Thermoluminescence dating (a type of luminescence dating)
Iodine–xenon dating
Lead–lead dating
Oxidizable carbon ratio dating
Rehydroxylation dating[10]
Cementochronology (this method does not determine a precise moment in a scale of time but the age at death of a dead individual)
Wiggle matching
Datestone (exclusively used in archaeology)
Obsidian hydration dating (exclusively used in archaeology)
Tephrochronology
Molecular clock (used mostly in phylogenetics and evolutionary biology)
Dendrochronology
Herbchronology
QuoteThe standard geologic column with transitional creatures evolving toward more complex forms, as depicted in most science textbooks, is utterly fictitious and misleading, and does not represent the real world. In reality, it perfectly represents the aftermath of a worldwide flood.
Once again,absolute garbage.
No single flood can place different animal species at different stages of transition,in different layers within a geologic column. Do you actually read or listen to this stuff you are posting?.
Simple experiment number two
Take same container from first experiment.
Fill with a mixture of different soils,dirt,and rocks.
Add in 10 dead fly's,10 dead beatles,10 dead spiders,and 10 dead cockroaches.
Mix altogether with large amount of water,and pour into clear transparent bucket with drain holes in the bottom.
Once water has drained out,post pictures of all the different insects each in there own group in each there own layer formed.
Yes,thats how stupid it is.
QuoteThere are no transitional fossils or living forms—there is not one single example of evolution! Evolutionists look for "the" missing link—ironically, they are in desperate search for just one! But there should be billions of examples of transitional forms with transitional structures if evolution were true, but there are none. The bottom line, evolution has never been observed within fossils or living populations.
Once again-wrong.
Perhaps a simple video to explain as to how much proof we have so far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA
QuoteContrary to popular belief, evidence indicates that early man was intelligent and highly skilled with an advanced social structure. There is also evidence suggesting their belief in the existence of an afterlife.
Yes they were. But now there even smarter,more intelligent,and much more highly skilled. An example is our Australian Aboriginals. It is amazing what happens when there is a change in environment and intervention.
QuoteSoft tissues and traces of blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils supposedly 70 to 250 million years old. (Soft tissues and red blood cells have relatively short life spans.)
Lol,another attempt by the creationist to distort the truth.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
Quote:Meanwhile, Schweitzer's research has been hijacked by "young earth" creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it's not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer's data, she takes it personally:
A video from Mary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vU4FSPHfMw
So as we see,a new technique was tried using acid,and she gives the results,while fully disclosing that the bones are indeed from a Trex of millions of years ago.
Another attempt from creationist to distort the truth to suit there own agenda--but you got sprung-again.
QuoteCarbon-14 has been found in coal and diamonds supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. (C-14 has a relatively short life-span.)
Radioisotope dating suffers from multiple unprovable assumptions—the technique is "fatally flawed"—yet scientists contend as fact what they cannot prove.
Abundant daughter isotopes are indicative of accelerated nuclear decay associated with creation (expansion, stretching out, or acceleration of the universe from an extremely hot, dense phase when matter and energy were concentrated) and a worldwide flood with massive restructuring of the earth's lithosphere, not slow and gradual processes over billions of years.
Evidences of accelerated nuclear decay in igneous rocks found worldwide are helium in zircon crystals, radiohalos and fission tracks, and rapid magnetic field reversals and decay.
Over a hundred geochronometers indicate a young earth and universe.
Odd that when i look up any part of the supplied information,it always leads to creationist science sites.
Whats the chances of that C.C
QuoteBut the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
Well i must say,your god is a bit of a jerk.
Last time he drowned all but a few,even innocent children and animals.
This time he is going to burn us all to death,just because we dont believe in him.
So my children and grandchildren are all going to die,just because they do not believe in god.
Not only are you lot off with the !fairies!,you believe that a god who commits armageddon against his own creation is a loving god.
You think evolutionist's are nuts.
You lot need to get back on your med's.
And lets me take a guess at some more twisting and turning here with this one.
If God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years ago,how is it we can see the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away,or the Triangulum Galaxy at about 3 million light years ?
Oh let me guess,the speed of light was much faster back then--right C.C
What i will say is,i am so glade i got out of the religious delusion at a young age.
And the thread title says that evolution is a myth lol.
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.27, 11:17:28
HI Brad,
Using the courts of America as an excuse for the belief in evolution is a very poor excuse. Both of those decisions were against the Constitution of the United States but unfortunately they have not been challenged properly.
An interesting quote from a former very famous atheist:
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life origination at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. It is, therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence . . . even to the limit of God." - Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astrophysicist, an atheist for much of his life, until he finally admitted the truth.
The Chance of Evolution Ever Occurring is so Remote as to be Mathematically Impossible. The theory of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing. Assume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening!
Respectfully,
Carroll
.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.27, 11:17:28
HI Brad,
Respectfully,
Carroll
QuoteUsing the courts of America as an excuse for the belief in evolution is a very poor excuse.
No,it was to remove untrue science.
QuoteThose same courts decided it was ok to kill babies before they were born.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help
Quote: Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ
QuoteBoth of those decisions were against the Constitution of the United States but unfortunately they have not been challenged properly.
And letting your children die because god didnt heel them is constitutional ?
QuoteAn interesting quote from a former very famous atheist:
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life origination at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. It is, therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence . . . even to the limit of God." - Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astrophysicist, an atheist for much of his life, until he finally admitted the truth.
Oh great,an astrophysicist.
What dose he say in relation to being able to see a galaxy that is 2.5 billion light years away,when heaven and earth was only created 6000 years ago ?.
QuoteThe Chance of Evolution Ever Occurring is so Remote as to be Mathematically Impossible.
No it's not.
Who told you that.
QuoteThe theory of evolution is like placing a monkey at a keyboard and having him start typing.
And yet here we are,doing just that.
QuoteAssume the monkey never dies and give him 5 billion years to type. What are the chances the monkey will type out the entire works of the Encyclopedia Brittanica volumes A-Z in the exact order with no spelling or grammar errors? The chances of that happening are actually BETTER than the theory of evolution ever happening!
Only the monkey dose die,and in about 30-40 years.
Funny how man is living longer now than he was 200 years ago.But 4000 years ago,he lived until he was 900 years old. C.C
Funny how he is becoming more intelligent each generation.
Have you tried my experiment,and managed to get rock and sand to rise up out of water yet?.
Brad
author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74831#msg74831 date=1558957410]
.
The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.
HT: Pravda
[/quote]
QuoteNow at first this seems to be a reasonable argument. Except for one small detail. In the example they used they decided a single mutation would give a butterfly a functioning eye. That is absurd. Even the simple eye of a butterfly would require hundreds of DNA changes that would all have to happen at the same time or the butterfly's eye wouldn't work. Change over time simply cannot explain how complex organs such as eyes or ears could have developed. Without all the different parts working together none of the parts are of any use.
I really do not think you grasp the complexities of mother nature,nor the time scales we are talking about here--which is billions(billions) of years.
There are many animals that live in deep dark water caves that have eyes,but are as blind as a bat--along with the bat.
We make camera's that see better than the human eye--how's that for complex.
QuoteThe scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.
So who made God ?
QuoteThe odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power.
And yet in 2010 scientists created life using chemicals only to create DNA,which grew into bacteria which could replicate and !!evolve!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y17FhDTY2bc
So,your 10 to the 65th power is a rather small number when you consider the amount of chemicals and proteins in the oceans 4 billion years ago,and it took 3 billion years to get the right mix.
I know it must be hard to imagine a time span of 3 billion years,when you think earths time span is only 6000 years.
QuoteMathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power (1050) or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
And as i posted above,man managed it in just a short time,when compared with billions of years.
QuoteThe odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power (1065) . That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.
Like i said,we are talking billions of years of trial and error,in a sea full of chemicals and proteins mixing together.
QuoteProtein molecules are made of smaller molecules known as amino acids. In order for a protein molecule to work the amino acids have to be together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence. If they are not in the right sequence then the protein molecule won't work.
Trial and error over 3 billion years.
QuoteIt has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
Yes it has.
You are living proof.
QuoteOnce there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code (or program) and biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own DNA and protein molecules. The problem is how did DNA, proteins, and life come about when there was no already existing directing code and mechanisms in nature.
I dont know.
How did God come into existence ?
QuoteIt seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA. And without either DNA or RNA there can be no proteins, and without proteins there can be no DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence! It could not have gradually evolved! Evolutionists generally believe that it took one billion years for the first life form or cell to have evolved. That belief, although still taught as gospel in many elementary and secondary schools, cannot be sustained by modern science.
Well,as you know,creationist science was ruled out by the courts,as non of what the bible claims can be verified by modern science.
QuoteIn the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.
Oh but it has--see video above.
QuoteAll that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution.
Yes,from nothing more than chemicals,just like those in the oceans billions of years ago.
QuoteIt is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.
We owe it to our children to present them with the truth and facts that can be backed by science.
You keep telling me that the chances of live emerging from a vast mixture of chemicals and proteins is impossible,but then you expect us to believe that a magical being made man from nothing but dust,just after he made the earth and universe from nothing at all.
Which sounds more plausible ?.
QuoteBut, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design.
Well as we have seen on this thread,every bit of evidence you(or others) supplied,strongly refuted the bibles accounts. And there is no science(other than that from religious science sites) that says anything the bible states is true. These facts i have presented,which are clear and precise.
The earth is much older than 6000 years old,it's billions of years older.
The great flood never could have,and did not happen.
I gave you a simple experiment to try,but as of yet,not one single believer has tried it--why is that?
There is no proof what so ever that noah's ark ever existed.
Man cannot be made from dust.
The paper you posted clearly shows man and animals to be over 100,000 to 200,000 years old at the youngest.
That alone rules out the 6000 year option,and that is a paper you posted.
And to top it off,this thread is about evolution,which is not about the beginning of life,or how it came about.
Evolution is about the changes,diversity, and advancement of life through time--millions of years through time.
What i have seen in this thread,is a total disregard for science and physics when it shows that non of the biblical event could have taken place.
The idea that the grand canyon was carved out by the big flood is nothing short of impossible.
There has never been another flood that carved out rocky landscape like that before.
In fact,i had no idea as to just how far the creationist actually went in order to maintain there delusion.
And to think,you Carroll of all people,feel you had the right to call !what i know to be true! a myth.
Sad times indeed.
Brad
author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74831#msg74831 date=1558957410]
QuoteIt seems that the cell is irreducibly complex. For example, without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA.
Thats incorrect.
It is activated RNA that builds DNA
Some viruses have RNA but no DNA.
Brad
Since it seems the title of this thread was offensive to some, I have changed it. If someone wants to suggest a better title I am willing to change it again. It was never my intention to offend anyone with this discussion. If I personally have offended anyone, I apologize for that. I of course can not control what others may have posted. They have to answer for themselves for what they have posted.
I don't see any need for me to continue to post anymore about this subject. I have presented clear scientific evidence for how creation could have happened. I have also posted clear reasons why evolution is not possible even including the math from a very famous and well-know atheist who came to the conclusion that mathematically evolution was not possible. Even that has been rejected with no explanation except to say that math didn't prove evolution was not possible. So I guess math is not part of real science now.
Anyone that wants to continue the discussion is welcome to do so. But I think it is pretty obvious people are only going to believe what they want to believe. And of course that includes myself.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Hi Carroll.
Non taken.... O0
I just opened asking if a question mark should have been used, making the subject title feel less biased.
Just before I started my working career my Dad said " there's two things you should avoid talking about at work, religion and politics, guaranteed to start a fight " I guess we all have our ideas.... Each to their own eh? ;)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.05.27, 16:52:21
Anyone that wants to continue the discussion is welcome to do so. But I think it is pretty obvious people are only going to believe what they want to believe. And of course that includes myself.
Respectfully,
Carroll
QuoteI have presented clear scientific evidence for how creation could have happened.
Carroll
You,nor anyone else has presented no such evidence.
In fact,what was presented as evidence actually proved creation wrong.
QuoteI have also posted clear reasons why evolution is not possible even including the math from a very famous and well-know atheist who came to the conclusion that mathematically evolution was not possible.
No,what you did was get the starting of life mixed up with evolution.
Evolution is about how living things can and do evolve over time,and has nothing to do with how life started.
QuoteEven that has been rejected with no explanation except to say that math didn't prove evolution was not possible.
And it dose not.
The math you provided stated how improbable it was that life came into existence,and nothing to do with the evolution of already existing life over time.
QuoteSo I guess math is not part of real science now.
Yes it is--unless we use it to confirm the great flood,then it can be rejected.
Brad
We all believe what we choose to believe for a variety
of reasons. Partially because of our first 13 years of
life and what we had been exposed to within that
timeframe.
Our Creator is not too worried about our beliefs,
even though for Christendom that seems a large
issue. He is more concerned about whether we
choose to do bad things and whether we decide to
join the forces of evil. Whether we develop a love
for Truth and strive to reveal deception. Whether
we show love and compassion towards our whole
family of human life no matter what their beliefs
may be. Whether we choose good or bad.
Our Creator is very much aware of the trials and
tribulations we face and experience in our present
World. The end of Evil and Wickedness is forthcoming.
That is our present struggle until the final battle
where the Forces of Good prevail.
Not one will be lost. All will be restored to Life and
cleansed of all desire to do what is bad.
Our Creator knows why it is that some have chosen
to believe that He doesn't exist. He knows why we
have a yearning for Peace and Tranquility. His plan
is to restore what has been lost in the Rebellion.
All will be made good in due time.
We are here to learn how to live.
Quote from: TinMan
...what you did was get the starting of life mixed up
with evolution.
There are many questions which Evolution has no
answer for. The lack of Scientific Answers does not,
however, prevent the use of Guesswork to support
their underlying Agenda.
The Evolution Agenda is merely a temporary distraction.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that Evolutionists seek
answers while supporting erroneous beliefs. If they are
sincere in their research they will ultimately find Truth.
Many have already done so. Their eyes have been
opened to see how all life has been wonderfully
designed. They are able to see the enormous intelligence
which all life demonstrates in its complexity and diversity.
In the future Evolution will fade away as just another case
of the folly of man. Once our eyes are fully opened.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.27, 23:36:01
Our Creator is not too worried about our beliefs,
even though for Christendom that seems a large
issue.....
John 3:15
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
King James Version (KJV)
Mags
Quote from: TinMan
Well i must say,your god is a bit of a jerk.
Last time he drowned all but a few,even innocent children
and animals.
This time he is going to burn us all to death,just because
we dont believe in him.
So my children and grandchildren are all going to die,just
because they do not believe in god.
The Story of the Flood is misunderstood by many. When
Noah was told what was to happen he was instructed to
build the first ship upon dry land. A large one. While the
construction was going on Noah and his family also had
the responsibility to warn all the Earth about the coming
flood. In order for any to avoid the flood to save their lives
all they had to do was stop doing badness and repent of
their wicked ways. Despite several years of warning and
seeing with their own eyes the large ship under construction
the people refused to give up their badness.
The people were invited to participate in the construction
but none were desirous of letting go of their wicked lifestyles.
The coming flood was no surprise but strangely, not one of the
people at that time outside Noah's family responded to the call
for refuge.
Did any follow Noah's example by building ships of their own in
order to survive? We do not know. Many wonder.
It is true that many people died in the flood, including the numerous
giants who were upon the Earth at that time. Not to worry, all of
those people will be restored to life and made whole and good.
None will be forgotten or left out. As we learn our lessons about
how to live good, productive and peaceful lives we are rewarded
with life which will never end.
It is not about believing in God. It is about doing what is good and
forsaking all that is bad. Belief will come.
We all die because we do bad things. After we are given life again
we will be healed and made wholesome. We will be made perfect.
When that day comes in the not too distant future all will be
thankful, appreciative and filled with love. Just wait and see!
Quote from: Magluvin
John 3:15
"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
eternal life."
King James Version (KJV)
Presently there are not many in our World who sincerely
believe. They are not forced or pressured to believe by
our Creator, but they are encouraged to believe and are
helped to develop faith by asking.
In due time ALL will believe. Not because they are forced
to but because they will want to. They will finally see Truth
and will be overcome with gratitude and Love.
To late to change the thread title. The message was clear.
This title "myth of evolution" made us perfectly understand that this thread was not open to learn the truth but only to fight a well-established scientific theory, because it challenges the absurdities of the Bible and sows doubt in the most limited believers, who are the main troops of Christian sects.
The rarer Christians who are of an above-average intellectual level do not dispute evolution because they do not take the Bible literally, they are intelligent enough to reconcile it with their faith.
(http://exvacuo.free.fr/temp/darwin.png)
Respect for the genius, who was able to extricate himself from the bigoted religious thought of his time!
link=topic=3776.msg74846#msg74846 date=1559000161]
The one thing i have learned from this thread(even though i already new it to be so),is just how dishonest creationists are.
For example
Quote: There are many questions which Evolution has no
answer for. The lack of Scientific Answers does not,
however, prevent the use of Guesswork to support
their underlying Agenda.
Evolution it self provides all the answers required.
Science has no agenda as such,other than to seek knowledge.
Quote:The Evolution Agenda is merely a temporary distraction.
It is not necessarily a bad thing that Evolutionists seek
answers while supporting erroneous beliefs
Science is not a belief based system,nor is evolution erroneous.
In fact,the only belief/faith based system which continually projects erroneous beliefs are the creationist.
Quote: Many have already done so.Their eyes have been
opened to see how all life has been wonderfully
designed.
When in fact,many surveys have shown that the number of people who believe in god is dropping fast,and more are taking up the fact of evolution. Even christians them self are starting to admit the bible is a book of impossibilities.
Quote:In the future Evolution will fade away as just another case
of the folly of man.
In actual fact,as man becomes wiser and smarter,we find that religion is that which is fading away.
Quote: I have presented clear scientific evidence for how creation could have happened.
When in actual fact,not one single piece of evidence has been presented in this thread that supports creation--all here can read the thread,and see for them self.
Quote: I have also posted clear reasons why evolution is not possible even including the math from a very famous and well-know atheist who came to the conclusion that mathematically evolution was not possible.
No math what so ever has been presented to show evolution was not possible.
The math that was presented was in relation of the probability of life beginning,which has nothing at all to do with how life evolves over time.
But speaking of math,i wonder what the odds are of a super natural being creating man from nothing but dust?.
Quote: Even that has been rejected with no explanation except to say that math didn't prove evolution was not possible.
Which it did not,as evolution of life over time is not,nor has it ever been about the beginning of life.
Speaking of math being rejected,can you explain yet as to where all the water went that covered all the high hills and mountains under the heavens by 15 cubits ?.
Quote:So I guess math is not part of real science now.
Yes it is.
Can you show one thing in the bible that can be proven correct by real science ? (that excludes creation science,as that was found by the supreme court not to be real science-as most smart people already knew)
Quote:without DNA there can be no RNA, and without RNA there can be no DNA
Another untruth.
In fact,activated RNA is what makes DNA,and there are some viruses that have RNA and no DNA
Quote: Change over time simply cannot explain how complex organs such as eyes or ears could have developed.
Once again,not true.
There are many explanations of how complex organs can evolve from simpler forms over time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-origins-of-evolutionary-complexity/?redirect=1
The explanations given by science are far more probable than-poof,there you go,have some eyes made from dust. O0
Quote: The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.
And again-untrue.
Science is used every day to determine events that took place in the past.
For example,science knows that the !heavens! universe is much older than 6000 years.
The andromeda galaxy for example is 2.5 million light years away from earth. That alone tells us the the !heavens! and earth has existed for at least 2.5 million years--of course it is much older than that.
Quote:The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power.
Nothing to do with the evolution of life over time,but they are far better odds than a super natural being creating the heavens and earth out of nothing,and all living things out of dust.
BTW,i am yet to receive an answer to my question.
If all things were created,who created God ?.
Quote:It has been shown that the basic building blocks of life, such as amino acid molecules, can come into existence by chance, but it has never been shown that these basic building blocks can come together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules.
As Adam was the first man on earth,it has never been shown that man was made from dust.
Quote:In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.
No,not quite.Science has not discovered how life could have started.
But they are a lot closer than being able to create life from dust.
Quote:Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.
And natural laws fully exclude the super natural.
Quote:It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students
There is no evidence that supports intelligent design.
That is why creation science was banned from schools.
Quote:But, when all the evidence is presented it should show beyond all reasonable doubt that life didn't originate by chance but by design
And the opposite happened.
Evolution is a scientific fact,and the theories that explain the facts have also been presented,and found to be correct.
What creationist do not understand is that whether evolution is fact of fiction is no longer up for debate.
Evolution has been found to be fact many years ago,and the theories were to follow.
As i explained before,the social meaning for theory is different than the scientific meaning for theory.
In science you fist prove something to be fact. Then once that is done,you develop a theory that explains the fact.
Creation on the other hand is science fiction-->creation science.
Quote:The Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org) offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.
There is no such thing as true creation science.
Creation is a belief based system,and so creation science is not real science.
Quote:The Chance of Evolution Ever Occurring is so Remote as to be Mathematically Impossible.
All pay careful attention to this.
We are a carbon based life form-as is all life here on earth.
Amino Acids are the building blocks of life.
Lets have a look at what fell to earth in 1969-->which happens to be the year i was born,and the 28th of September was the day my son was born.whats the chances of that lol.
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6EK8H_murchison-meteorite-the-building-blocks-of-life?guid=994f64f6-12c5-4449-a1b8-4cc2653c3559
Quote:The Murchison Meteorite amazes us and like many enthusiasts we wish we were around to experience the fall. The Murchison Meteorite is one of the rarest types of meteorites known to man, and has been expensively studied. It is a carbonaceous chondrites, only 1% of all known meteorites are carbonaceous chondrites. It is estimated to be 4.6 billion years old! It contains Amino Acids which are the building blocks of life! Oh so exciting!
Now,imagine how many of these type of meteorites fell to earth over billions of years.
How's our chances looking now? ;)
Quote:How much of what was believed in 1991 regarding Life and
Evolution has remained unchanged?
And once again,another great untruth by the creationists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
And i quote: The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[18][19][20][21][22] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[23][24]
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[25] pseudoscience,[26][27] or junk science.[28][29] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[30] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[31] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".
I could keep going on and on,and continue to show just how the creationists are totally wrong,verging on the boarder of complete ignorance.
So there you have it.
Throughout this thread,and seemingly on my own,i have defended true science,and exposed religion for what it is,and how it can turn good people into those that have been !!blinded by the light!!
Religion,as you have seen,will tech you,and have you disregarding all that is true.
Tunnel vision is developed,and all science, scientific proofs,math,and physics are disregarded as being absolute rubbish once one takes in god.
Thank me i got out before it was too late.
When an idiot comes up against a master.
Man i love this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isV9hWXpNjc
Brad
http://fakescience.news/
http://www.fakescience.news/
https://www.sciencefraud.news/
https://www.cancerscams.com/
https://www.flushot.news/
Why should we trust certain scientists when it comes to evolution as how it all occurred? Why should we trust some scientists when it comes to objection to creation?
If there is science fraud in cancer, vaccines, global warming(now called climate change because we may be in for a deep freeze instead.) then why not when it comes to religion?
Go ahead. Have all your trust and faith in your Mother Nature 'Idolatry' and your 'chosen side' of science. I know, I know, all the scientists that are for creation are not really scientists according to you. That is your choice. God given free will. ;)
Mags
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.28, 17:44:56
...
Why should we trust certain scientists when it comes to evolution as how it all occurred?
...
The special cases are not significant. There will always be cranks or fraudsters even among scientists, but less than in free energy where no consensus has ever emerged for anything.
The scientific theories are only accepted and recognized when there is a broad consensus of the scientists, which is the case with the theory of evolution, so we can trust them.
That is why the means with which you express yourself on this forum, using processors, Internet networks, optical fibers etc., come only from science and neither from religious thought nor alternative pseudo-sciences.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.28, 17:44:56
http://fakescience.news/
http://www.fakescience.news/
https://www.sciencefraud.news/
https://www.cancerscams.com/
https://www.flushot.news/
Why should we trust certain scientists when it comes to evolution as how it all occurred? Why should we trust some scientists when it comes to objection to creation?
If there is science fraud in cancer, vaccines, global warming(now called climate change because we may be in for a deep freeze instead.) then why not when it comes to religion?
Go ahead. Have all your trust and faith in your Mother Nature 'Idolatry' and your 'chosen side' of science. I know, I know, all the scientists that are for creation are not really scientists according to you. That is your choice. God given free will. ;)
Mags
Mags
You will notice Mags that all the fraud cases you listed involves billion dollar industries. What money is there in evolution?.
How much money is there to be made in religion when you are high up in the ranks ?.
Go and check out the home of that preacher who was in the last video i posted. That house,and the land it sits on could feed 10,000 starving children for 10 years--where is his god given morals now ?.
Religion,cancer,global warming are all money making machines,evolution is not.
Brad
Quote from: F6
The scientific theories are only accepted and recognized
when there is a broad consensus of the scientists, which
is the case with the theory of evolution, so we can trust them.
Unfortunately, the Institution of Science has always been a
top down pressure system where all who desire to attain to
power and influence must adhere to established doctrine.
Only the most zealous among scientists are rewarded with
lucrative benefits within the world of academia.
While we are all free to make whatever choices we deem
essential to our livelihood we are not exempt from the
programs of Mind Control. Just like advertising;
propaganda works very well indeed. It is incredibly
easy to recruit followers to any Dogma. When the
Institution has the appearance of mass following many
are not able to resist its appeals.
But what is the true message of Evolution? What does it
offer for all of mankind?
The Book of Life offers life without end. Further, it
promises that all will be healed of their infirmities and
disabilities. Even those who choose not to believe will
be counted worthy. In due time. We have many lessons
to learn; How to live in Peace and Harmony.
Our present life is preparatory for what is yet to come.
We are not ready yet.
Quote from: TinMan
Religion, cancer, global warming are all money making
machines, evolution is not.
It is true that there are many Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
in the World of Religion. Corruption and Deception are
rampant. The Love of Money has taken over much.
While Evolution Science may not be a Monkey-Maker
is could be considered a Money-Depriver. Unless one
is fully supportive of Evolution in the World of Science
and Academia, one will be relegated to inferior status
and position. Such is life in that corrupt world too.
Academia itself is now a Money-Maker. The Institution
of Evolution is a subset of Academia from which it
derives its support and funding as salaries, grants and
position. Who decides who gets what?
We are all being deceived. For the time being.
The Institutions of Men have succumbed to Love of Money
over Love of Truth. In their mind "Truth is what we say it is."
It would seem that very few indeed have actually read the
Book of Life.
The belief in Creation should not be forced upon
anyone. Not all are ready to believe and that should
not be held against them.
Even Thomas did not believe until he saw with his
own eyes. Then he was ready.
Saul did not believe until he too saw with his own
eyes. Then he was ready.
Some require more proof. That is not a bad thing.
Proof will be provided to all when it is time.
All who have ever lived will be given proof as they
are given life again. Our True Living hasn't really
begun yet. When it is time we will see.
What is a Religion?
Quote from: WikiPedia
Religion may be defined as a cultural system of designated
behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified
places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates
humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements.
However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely
constitutes a religion.
Does the Theory of Evolution offer any
"supernatural,
transcendental, or spiritual elements?" What is the defined
Driving Force for Evolution?
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.29, 01:01:41
What is the defined Driving Force for Evolution?
To try to lure people away from God. Offer the ultimate alternative that 'seems' so well thought out to many, and people make a choice(free will) as to which way they will go.
The Bible tells us that many thoughts, that we think are our own, are not. Thoughts on bad things are not a sin, but to know it is bad and then make the bad thoughts actually happen is.
So when we have these thoughts, or just any thoughts, we generally know what is good or ok, and we generally know what is bad and we have to make choices on if we act on those thoughts.
I really only delve into these conversations as to not let someone stampede around with arguments represented as facts against God and creation without there being the alternative included in that conversation.
Mags
Mags, I agree with what you've said and
said well.
An Intriguing Line of Research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY8pucNaaH0)
It is a line of research that is far from complete.
Will it ultimately lead to Creation by Design?
You betcha! Jack Homer pretty much admits such in
his closing statements.
Enjoy!!
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.05.28, 17:44:56
http://fakescience.news/
http://www.fakescience.news/
I like this one
The Carbonaro effect
Quote: How "social engineering" achieves mind control for the gullible masses
"Social engineering" describes the application of verbal strategies designed to invoke the innate social conformity desires of sheeple (i.e. people who don't think for themselves but who want to fit in with the crowd). Nearly all people are actually sheeple. Very few individuals are willing to question a "consensus" put forth by others, even if that consensus is obviously false or violates the laws of physics.
Sounds just like religion.
Brad
Another great talk by Aron,for those interested in the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDi1iOxCFRI
Brad
well
As mentioned before ,I see one huge flaw in evolution ,and IMO it shows a "design feature" or intellect.
"Death" should not exist , all things here rebuild and grow ,even from horrific events ...
cockroaches can survive unimaginable exposures to radiation and whatever ,even the things we use to poison
pests become worthless in short order..
but after billions of years of "evolution" ... we still have Death to all....
As tenacious as everything is here it dies after a short lifespan ,
DNA seems to be programmed for this [for now]
Also we learned from the Swedish Chicken study that DNA can change the offspring from passive to ferocious
in one generation , and Ron pointed to an article that showed "Tones" or frequencies can alter DNA.
IMO there is much more going on here than space junk [or schmutz] growing into elaborate ecosystems.
and now we have company or visitors....witnessed by the top of the food chain [in military pilots] ...Navy pilots testifying to UFO's and close encounters...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/us/politics/ufo-sightings-navy-pilots.html
something is very fishy about this place.....
just one mans opinion.
Chet K
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever a really
serious discussion takes place, material just appears
at the critical time as if synchronistically:
http://tomatobubble.com/id1033.html
Thank goodness there are still a few who are able to
THINK objectively and honestly.
We'll all be there in due time. We're not ready yet.
Quote from: Chet K
...and now we have company or visitors....witnessed
by the top of the food chain [in military pilots] ...Navy
pilots testifying to UFO's and close encounters...
Once the pilots see the mysterious craft their beliefs
are changed. The numbers of people who have seen
them are not large as a percentage of the population,
but growing. Some of us have seen them at close
range.
Go Navy!!
Now, for an
incredibly amazing story!I too was a preemie but quite a lot larger than the 8.6 oz.
of the little girl in the story. She too had to be cared for
intensively until she attained 5 lb. before going home.
Life is miraculous! While many would consider a baby
that small to be just a fetus worthy of abortion, I cannot
go there. As far as I'm concerned, all human life is
precious, even when only two cells just united and
starting to grow.
author=Chet K link=topic=3776.msg74873#msg74873 date=1559142491]
Quote"Death" should not exist , all things here rebuild and grow ,even from horrific events ...
And how crowded would the earth be now if nothing ever died. We would grow and multiply into extinction.
Mother nature insures there is a balance-->natural selection.
Quotecockroaches can survive unimaginable exposures to radiation and whatever
And they can do this because there bodies are simple,not complex.
They have far lower cell cycles than us humans,and that is what makes us more susceptible to damage by ionizing radiation.
Quote,even the things we use to poison
pests become worthless in short order..
Of course that happens.
Animals and viruses evolve to survive in there environment.
QuoteAs tenacious as everything is here it dies after a short lifespan
Everything has a life span except 1 thing--can you guess what it is ?.
Even non living things have a life span--nothing(but one thing) lasts for ever.
QuoteDNA seems to be programmed for this [for now]
Also we learned from the Swedish Chicken study that DNA can change the offspring from passive to ferocious
in one generation , and Ron pointed to an article that showed "Tones" or frequencies can alter DNA.
Amazing how the environment can change/alter DNA O0
Quoteand now we have company or visitors....witnessed by the top of the food chain [in military pilots] ...Navy pilots testifying to UFO's and close encounters...
Wait--God made life on other planets C.C
Think about this carefully,and try and expand your mind to work in billions of year cycles.
Now think about how very small 1000 years is in say a 3 billion year time period.
Now try and imagine how much further advanced we will be in 1000 years(if we don't wipe our self out first that is). So is it not possible that another race out there in our universe may be just that very small portion of time ahead of us,that being 1000 years out of 3 billion years.
There would also be alien life that started out maybe a little behind us,and maybe there planet is inhabited by the likes of our dinosaurs.
We are alive today thanks to alien materials impacting our earth billions of years ago.
Quotebut after billions of years of "evolution" ... we still have Death to all.
Exactly,with a couple of exceptions.Both Hydra and jellyfish are biologically immortal,where they only die by injury,never by age.
If there was no death,there would be no change-no evolution.
But,if we were made by a perfect supernatural being,where we are suppose to be so complex,and made in said supernatural beings image,there would be no design flaw,and no death.
Quotesomething is very fishy about this place.....
Nothing is fishy.
Everything complies with natural laws.
There is nothing even fishy about UFO's or alien life.
Only mans ignorance would think that we are the only example of life in the vastness of the universe.
This was the view the creationists had--we are all that there is.
QuoteIMO there is much more going on here than space junk [or schmutz] growing into elaborate ecosystems.
Nope,that is pretty much it.
1 tiny seed is all it takes to produce a giant tree full of life.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.30, 00:30:13
Quotehttp://tomatobubble.com/id1033.html
Thank goodness there are still a few who are able to
THINK objectively and honestly.
Quote from said paper--Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, before you school us dumb plebes about Luca's birthplace, please prove to us that Luca even existed; and then prove how Luca "evolved" into other species; which in turned "evolved" and "evolved" millions of times into all current life forms. And by "proof," we mean observational evidence -- the very definition of the Scientific Method.
Lol.
We always hear this from the creationists,thing is,they have not-nor will they ever, provide any credible evidence that supports creation.
Science so far has proved beyond doubt that evolution is fact.
QuoteOnce the pilots see the mysterious craft their beliefs
are changed. The numbers of people who have seen
them are not large as a percentage of the population,
but growing. Some of us have seen them at close
range.
Go Navy!!
Quote: Some Christians have believed (and do believe) that humans are the only embodied creatures in creation to be made in God's image.
Good to see your not one of the above muDped. O0
QuoteLife is miraculous! While many would consider a baby
that small to be just a fetus worthy of abortion, I cannot
go there. As far as I'm concerned, all human life is
precious, even when only two cells just united and
starting to grow.
Spot on muDped O0
Brad
This mother nature of yours sounds like a pretty smart cookie , I think you built her in the shop
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.05.30, 11:10:25
Lol.
We always hear this from the creationists,thing is,they have not-nor will they ever, provide any credible evidence that supports creation.
Science so far has proved beyond doubt that evolution is fact.
Brad
The fallacy of this thread is the limitation to two categories that are both in essence, nonsense.
Dreaming, dowsing, NDE's, clairvoyance, remote viewing, UFO's. Chi, the Aether, Prana, the subconscious, should all be clues that point to a greater reality.
Ron
Ron ,
You left out déjà vu ....few persons in the population haven't experienced déjà vu
How does one explain déjà vu ?
some part of us travels through time ?
all little hints along the way...
Quote from: TinMan
We always hear this from the creationists,thing is,they have not
nor will they ever, provide any credible evidence that supports
creation.
Science so far has proved beyond doubt that evolution is fact.
The truth of Creation exists all around us: all that we are able
to see, to smell, to taste, to feel, to eat, to appreciate, to interact
with emotionally and to enjoy. The intelligence in all life in
its wonderful diversity and variety. The various ecosystems
with their symbiotic systems and subsystems. That we have
Man and Woman who are able to communicate, to build, to
question, to seek truth, to love, to relish freedom of thought
and to act compassionately as they assist those in need.
That our natural inclination is to do good and that, seemingly,
we have to learn to do what is bad. All of the evidence that
is both external and internal to us speaks for itself, if only
we have the eyes to see.
But who is it that doesn't want us to see? Who is it that has
taught us to lie and to employ corruption and love of money
to further its ends? How did wickedness and evil and
corruption and violence and war and killing enter in to
Creation? There is a great story there.
One day we will know all of those things and more.
Science today is splintered and divided. It has lost
its way. It is agenda driven and corrupt. The love
of power and money have taken a heavy toll. But
only temporarily. All of our eyes will be opened
fully before too long. Then we will at last see as
things really are. We will no longer be deceived.
Science today is highly speculative as it goes from:
Hypothesis -> Theory -> Possibility -> Probability -> Certainty -> Fact
The elusive proofs are no longer needed or even desired.
Honest Evolutionists admit that the Theory still lacks
Proof. That Science is yet in its infancy. That we
actually know very little about anything and speculate
much about what we think we know. We have a
long, long way to go before we can see with clarity
that what we accept as Scientific Truth is but a thimbleful
compared to the Mountain of Scientific Unknown.
But we shall indeed get to where we are wanting to go
in our search for Knowledge - with help from the
Great Intelligence of the Universe. Many will be
temporarily stunned and embarrassed as they finally
see how they've been deceived.
Melanie Chang's fascinating talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXPi0Jha5o) about The
Evolving Story of Human Evolution.
Melanie's choice of words is cautious and confirming of the
fact that evidence for evolution is very sparse and
difficult to examine from the standpoint of reaching
factual, truthful conclusions.
Within the category of Evolution Science, when all truly
proven facts are sifted out from the great body of
"consensus facts by vote" those truths support
Creation as much as anything else.
When Science is unable to establish truth legitimately and
then decides to cast votes instead for consensus fact;
Science has lost its integrity. In desperation our "now science"
is transformed into fantasy science.
Again, just temporary excursions from the straight path which
will be corrected in our near future.
So too is Christendom suffering the same plight. Many of the
Christian teachings regarding the Universe and Planet Earth
have been erroneous. Some of the error has been corrected
but much error is still taught and defended zealously.
Christendom was corrupted early in its history and hasn't
yet recovered fully. Considerable of its "essential doctrine"
remains in error. Again, a temporary predicament. It too
will be dealt with in the coming near future.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.30, 23:19:14
The truth of Creation exists all around us...
Wrong: circular reasoning linked to the great intellectual and cultural poverty in the religious sphere.
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.30, 17:04:55
Ron ,
You left out déjà vu ....few persons in the population haven't experienced déjà vu
How does one explain déjà vu ?
some part of us travels through time ?
all little hints along the way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks_UHmaZcSg
well
there's Deja vu
and then there are those moments that last thru the realization of a Deja vu event ,where it almost
goes into you saying the words which are about to be spoken by the other person....and are aware
of the entire Deja Vu "anomaly" during the experience.
but then it stops ...
I had a friend of ours experience one of these "Big Deja vu" moments during a conversation last year...so much so he gasped and had to comment on the spot ....and he is a very big "skeptic" with the flamboyant "Ausie teddy bear handle"
erie stuff ...
I will watch your "Guru's " vid ,
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.31, 13:40:26
well
there's Deja vu
and then there are those moments that last thru the realization of a Deja vu event ,where it almost
goes into you saying the words which are about to be spoken by the other person....and are aware
of the entire Deja Vu "anomaly" during the experience.
but then it stops ...
I had a friend of ours experience one of these "Big Deja vu" moments during a conversation last year...so much so he gasped and had to comment on the spot ....and he is a very big "skeptic" with the flamboyant "Ausie teddy bear handle"
erie stuff ...
I will watch your "Guru's " vid ,
Dont worry Chet,i have had many of the very strong one's,as often as 1 a week.
2 weeks ago i was sitting at the outdoor table with my wife,having a general chat.
I then got up,and proceeded to walk to the back door. My wife asked what i was doing,and i said--im going to make your coffee,which she replied-um,i haven't asked you yet,how did you know i wanted a coffee ?
But i was sure she had already asked me,as that is why i was going to make it ???
At that moment,i could have sworn that i had been through this very event before.
This happens a lot with me,where some times i can even finish my wife's sentences before she dose,and that freaks her out a bit lol.
I have no explanation for Deja vu,other than the possibility of a multiverse.
Brad
For interest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6A3hbM6zSg&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=x82NS2C14owHdR0K%3A6
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: F6
Wrong: circular reasoning linked to the great intellectual
and cultural poverty in the religious sphere.
Might you be referring to the
Religion of Science as it now
exists? A Religion which has in fact chosen its own god.
Perhaps you might also reveal who the chosen God of Science is?
It is not really a secret.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.05.31, 22:47:55
Might you be referring to the Religion of Science as it now
exists? A Religion which has has in fact chosen its own god.
Perhaps you might also reveal who the chosen God of Science is?
It is not really a secret.
The closest thing to what you refer to as a god in science,would be facts,as unlike religion,that is what science believes in.
The difference between science and religion,is that science is always trying to disprove it self,while religion is always trying to prove it self.
The sad thing about being religious,is you will never learn anything new that science has to offer,when it comes to mans origins.
To be religious is to be closed minded,as you already have it all figured out.
And then there is the fact that the bible was written by wacky old men 1000's of years ago,and not by any god.
All sad but true,along with being inherently dangerous to the young mind.
Brad
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.05.30, 17:04:55
Ron ,
You left out déjà vu ....few persons in the population haven't experienced déjà vu
How does one explain déjà vu ?
some part of us travels through time ?
all little hints along the way...
OK, try this one then...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZleBHyaeSM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZleBHyaeSM)
Ron
Quote from: TinMan
The closest thing to what you refer to as a god in science,
would be facts, as unlike religion, that is what science believes in.
Clues:
Quote from: former insider
Marx dedicated his book to Darwin. When Darwin came out
with evolution, they loved that. "Oh, wow! Now, we don't need
that Genesis stuff!" They believed that everything depends on
what man... What did the Greeks say? Yes, man is the measure
of all things. They believed that man decides what's right and
wrong, and they weren't going to have God get in the way. All
these people believed in eugenics, of course. Nietzsche said,
"The heck with man."
So this is what they've been doing since the end of the 19th
century. We had Ralph Waldo Emerson working on it in
America. All these forces have been converging together
against American society, which is God-based, and against the
American Constitution, which is God-based.
From the outside the Institution of Science seems so legitimate,
so respectable, so knowledgeable, so deeply concerned with
finding Truth. But, on the inside, is where the dirt is.
Don't believe it? Dare to take a look inside? It is not pretty.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I suppose that I should emphasize that the "Institution" I'm
referring to is that of The West; that portion of which is
dominated and controlled by the U.S. Hopefully, other
Institutions exist elsewhere which are not controlled or
corrupted.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.01, 04:25:55
OK, try this one then...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZleBHyaeSM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZleBHyaeSM)
Ron
Well the part about using water as a computer chip was interesting.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.01, 06:02:51
Clues:
From the outside the Institution of Science seems so legitimate,
so respectable, so knowledgeable, so deeply concerned with
finding Truth. But, on the inside, is where the dirt is.
Don't believe it? Dare to take a look inside? It is not pretty.
It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link. Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.
Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)
And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.
Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.
I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.
My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!
Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.01, 16:34:09
It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link. Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.
Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)
And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.
Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.
I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.
My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!
Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.
Ron
Some one has been watching toooo much StarGate.
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.
What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!
Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory! in science has a completely different meaning to the word theory as used in everyday chat,it still is not sinking in. Some here think that because evolution has a theory associated with it,that it is just a theory in the sense of the meaning of the word as we use it dayley-which it is not.
For those still having trouble here,the below explains the difference between the two.
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact.
The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.
So,there is rock solid scientific proof of evolution,and no proof what so ever for creation,or any of the wonderful stories in the bible,like Noah's great flood for example.
Science was not out to disprove creation,it's just that creation got flattened along the way of scientific discoveries.
So now we have creationist's calling science garbage,as science proves creation to be a myth.
Creationist's now attack science,so as they can try and keep there multi billion dollar elusion going.
This forum is a scientific forum.
We use science,scientific methods, and the laws of physics to confirm or disprove highly improbable claims.
And here we have a situation where all that is brushed aside in the name of religion. C.C
Do you ever notice that is the only time science is brushed aside C.C
Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible O0.
Evolution is based on and around natural laws.
Natural selection--
Fact 1: All species have great potential fertility - population size would increase exponentially if all individuals born reproduced successfully.
Fact 2: Populations display stability.
Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. Resources remain constant in a stable environment.
Fact 4: Populations have variability.
Fact 5: Variation is heritable.
Gene flow--
Gene Flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another. Migration of populations allows new alleles to surface in areas that did not previous contain the variations. Gene flow does not necessarily have to pertain to the movement of individuals; it can also refer to the movement of gametes. The dislocation of pollen or seeds is an example of gene flow in plants.
Genetic Drift:
A random change in the frequency of traits or genetic variants that arises across generations due to random events. Drift is most pronounced in small populations. i.e. if small group of people become stranded on an island, the genetic frequency of that population or gene pool is reflected by those individual. Over time, the population gets larger however their gene pool remains small, meaning there is very little diversity compared with that of populations from the mainland. The genetic frequency of the small population is dramatic different compare to that from the mainland.
Mutation:
Any change to the genetic sequence of an organism i.e the nucleotides A,T,G,C.
Causes of Mutations
1. There is an error in DNA replication (the difference in the DNA sequence is a mutation) -- naturally occurring
Frameshift
Substitution
Deletion
Insertion
missense
point
2. Environmental factors
-Radiation from the sun can damage your DNA, causing a mutation
Non-Random Mating, aka Sexual Selection:
when individuals of one sex (usually males) compete with each other over access to individuals of the other sex. It can lead to the evolution of traits like showy ornaments or weapons that improve an individual's chance of mating.
So there you have it--The Reality of Evolution.
Evolution is fact.
Brad
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.01, 16:34:09
It is generally recognized that the races came into existence each in their own local and their own time period, full blown. There was no "Missing link" There is no Missing link. Right off the bat this invalidates the Evolutionists.
Zecharia Sitchin does a very fair job of translating the Sumerian tablets. Jordan Maxwell and Michael, from their own sources, confirm this. That is we humans are put together by the Sons of God (the Aliens) Man is made in "OUR" image (Plural Gods)
And by simple observation as a slave race owned by a very non benevolent race of aliens, so that we were just smart enough to do the job but not smart enough to figure out the enslavement entrapment.
Mankind is not evolving, rather de-evolving. Through continual war where the brightest and most physically fit are sent away to be killed ... and through radiation, nuclear and electronic (5 G) and the deliberate introduction of poisons in the air, water and land. A continual dumbing down process.
I say simple observation because I remember a previous incarnation on another world and even my reason for coming here this time. I was told that there is no other world like earth and to be careful as it is a trap for many. But it is quite simple, we come from somewhere and when we die... return to somewhere.
My favourite vignette is a psychic's vision of Jack Kennedy dancing on top of his casket!
Life is continuous... despite the bible thumpers or evolutionists malarkey.
Ron
"
Big daddy? "
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.06.02, 12:12:47
" Big daddy? "
Quote;
The image displayed below was taken from Worth1000 (now DesignCrowd), a site devoted to hosting contests in which entrants show off their skills at manipulating photographs using digital editing programs. This particular picture was an entry from one of the site's "Archaeological Anomalies" competitions, in which entrants vied to create the most realistic archaeological hoaxes: "Your job is to show a picture of an archaeological discovery that looks so real, had it not appeared at Worth1000, people might have done a double take."
The basis for this image was a real photograph of an excavation site near Hyde Park, New York, where scientists were working to uncover the skeleton of a mastodon. Someone then linked the altered version of the image used for the Worth1000 contest entry with a fictitious backstory based on the Islamic account of the Prophet Hud, creating the hoax quoted above — which spread especially far after being published as a seemingly real news article on the web site of The New Nation, described as "Bangladesh's Independent News Source."
A May 2007 blog entry entitled "Bhima's son Gadotkach like skeleton found" (and attributed to a 22 April 2004 Times of India article) repeated the hoax, with the locale switched from Saudi Arabia to northern India and additional skeleton photos included.
In early 2010, the same basic theme was recirculated with more hoax photos of a similar ilk, usually some version of a 1993 photograph of a University of Chicago dig for dinosaur bones in Niger, into which someone has added an image of a large human skull and accompanied by some variation of the following text:
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.02, 04:35:08
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.
snip
Brad
Repeating a lie endlessly does not instil any element of truth to it.
Creationism and Evolutionism are merely two belief systems set up by the PTB to divide people. The surprising thing is that people buy into this deception???
Wondering how I could answer was rewarded in another forum where the "incredible_mad_Scientist" was answering "H", let me quote:
QuoteYour understanding of the 'god' idea is pretty barbaric. Most gods reincarnate into human bodies. Very few remain in their ancestral shapes when interacting with humans. In fact, for the last 1000 years most have done human experiences as an incarnating soul inhabiting human bodies. The cone head graveyards of Mexico, all dating to approx 1000 years ago and the Stone building all ceasing construction at the same time exemplifies this.
This understanding of the Energy problem humans have with the Energy of the Universe surfaces when ever another god incarnates into a human with IP over the pay grade of humans. Its a god eat god world and we humans are just the Herd.
Ron
Watch it all, not very long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmJftgctuME&feature=push-sd&attr_tag=IM05tG-jyF0QmNvE%3A6
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.02, 15:42:12
Repeating a lie endlessly does not instil any element of truth to it.
Ron
Only it's not a lie.
If you choose to believe in sci-fi fictiction's ,then that is up to you.
As i live in a country that confirms the evolutionary process beyond doubt,then that is what i will believe.
So,until proven wrong(which neither you nor the creationist's can do),evolution remains fact,and stands firm.
Brad
.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.02, 04:35:08
Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact.
What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!
Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory! in science has a completely different meaning to the word theory as used in everyday chat,it still is not sinking in. Some here think that because evolution has a theory associated with it,that it is just a theory in the sense of the meaning of the word as we use it dayley-which it is not.
For those still having trouble here,the below explains the difference between the two.
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact.
The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.
So,there is rock solid scientific proof of evolution,and no proof what so ever for creation,or any of the wonderful stories in the bible,like Noah's great flood for example.
Science was not out to disprove creation,it's just that creation got flattened along the way of scientific discoveries.
So now we have creationist's calling science garbage,as science proves creation to be a myth.
Creationist's now attack science,so as they can try and keep there multi billion dollar elusion going.
This forum is a scientific forum.
We use science,scientific methods, and the laws of physics to confirm or disprove highly improbable claims.
And here we have a situation where all that is brushed aside in the name of religion. C.C
Do you ever notice that is the only time science is brushed aside C.C
Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible O0.
Evolution is based on and around natural laws.
Natural selection--
Fact 1: All species have great potential fertility - population size would increase exponentially if all individuals born reproduced successfully.
Fact 2: Populations display stability.
Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. Resources remain constant in a stable environment.
Fact 4: Populations have variability.
Fact 5: Variation is heritable.
Gene flow--
Gene Flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another. Migration of populations allows new alleles to surface in areas that did not previous contain the variations. Gene flow does not necessarily have to pertain to the movement of individuals; it can also refer to the movement of gametes. The dislocation of pollen or seeds is an example of gene flow in plants.
Genetic Drift:
A random change in the frequency of traits or genetic variants that arises across generations due to random events. Drift is most pronounced in small populations. i.e. if small group of people become stranded on an island, the genetic frequency of that population or gene pool is reflected by those individual. Over time, the population gets larger however their gene pool remains small, meaning there is very little diversity compared with that of populations from the mainland. The genetic frequency of the small population is dramatic different compare to that from the mainland.
Mutation:
Any change to the genetic sequence of an organism i.e the nucleotides A,T,G,C.
Causes of Mutations
1. There is an error in DNA replication (the difference in the DNA sequence is a mutation) -- naturally occurring
Frameshift
Substitution
Deletion
Insertion
missense
point
2. Environmental factors
-Radiation from the sun can damage your DNA, causing a mutation
Non-Random Mating, aka Sexual Selection:
when individuals of one sex (usually males) compete with each other over access to individuals of the other sex. It can lead to the evolution of traits like showy ornaments or weapons that improve an individual's chance of mating.
So there you have it--The Reality of Evolution.
Evolution is fact.
Brad
"Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact."
What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we. You take the changing of the title of the thread as some sort of win for you arguments. It is not. I preferred the original title as more truthful.
"What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!"
O really? PC culture at its best. Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.
noun
1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
Supposition. System of 'ideas'. 'Intended' to explain something. Theory is not proof of anything.
Here is Merrium Websters definition... "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
Plausible does not imply absolute fact. Body of principles 'offered' to explain 'phenomena'.....
Phenomenon:
noun
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:
So no, I do not accept your 'Offerings' of theories of evolution as fact, of which you choose to follow. I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.
"So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The
theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact."
Lol. Yes there is debate. You have been soo indoctrinated into science lies and agenda. You believe that all science is truth, but it is not. You think all religion is about power and control but all science is truth and infallible?
One day soon, you will be very surprised.
"The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years."
Curve ball thrown by creationists?? So are you saying that we all DID just appear out of nothing????? Dude I think you are loosing it.
What is dust to you? Dry skin flakes? Sand? Carbon? Granite? Copper? What specific dust do you theorize that it was, or in your case, could have been? And for your version of the beginning of life, what was your dust made of????
"Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible O0."
Why would that occur to us? It certainly has occurred to you without actually knowing for sure. Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot. You can only offer scientific 'theory' of alternative. Just one of Lucefers many deceptions. We do not have to prove God exists. We heard and we searched and we found. That is the only way. Even though Im sure you have heard, you just chose other options. And you say we force our beliefs on you???? Look at who posts the most here and ridicules us! it is you that is pushing your beliefs on us. ;) C.C Oh the hipocrisy.
You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts. It is you that are in fantasy land.
Mags
"Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.""
Hmm. Evolution is not about how life started? Is that your curve ball? From what I understand it is about how life possibly started, unless evolution belief is that life has always existed. The whole basis of evolution is that we started from some accidental simple form of life appearance that started it all and we have evolved from that. If not then what is your version?
Mags
Quote from: TinMan
Although i have tried many times to explain that !theory!
in science has a completely different meaning to the word
theory as used in everyday chat, it still is not sinking in.
Some here think that because evolution has a theory
associated with it, that it is just a theory in the sense of the
meaning of the word as we use it dayley - which it is not.
For those still having trouble here, the below explains the
difference between the two.
Science Definition of Theory
Very nice link TinMan!
Very nicely illustrates how The Agenda actually operates.
One of the key tenets of Deception involves the alteration
of the meaning of words.
The God of Institutional Science is really quite clever, no?
Sadly, America has contributed much to the deceiving of
the People Worldwide.
It is An Agenda. It has become a Cult.
The End of the Institutional Lying is close at hand.
The Beginning is near.
Hi Brad,
I have debated with myself for several days now as to whether I should make this post or not. I sincerely do NOT want to offend you or ridicule what you believe. I have a great amount of respect for you. You are clearly a very intelligent person. And your mechanical skills are simply amazing. So I do mean it when I say I have a great amount of respect for you. But I feel I really need to say the following things.
You keep making the claim that science proves evolution. I of course strongly disagree with that statement. I have provided several links to scientific articles that show that evolution is either not possible at all or is mathematically improbable as to be impossible. Now let's look at what you have provided as scientific PROOF of evolution.
I first presented an article that was the latest data obtained from the study of the DNA of thousands of animals from all over the earth. The data showed that almost all animals came into existence at almost the same time. This is clearly not possible if all animals slowly evolved over time. It also showed that the animals were the same age as humans. Also not possible if we all had evolved over time. It also showed that according to the DNA mankind and the animals were between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.
Your reply was that the article showed the Bible was wrong when it said the the earth was 6,000 years old. SO WHAT! That has nothing to do with scientifically proving evolution was real. That is called a straw man argument. It had nothing to do with the DNA evidence refuting evolution.
You then pointed out that the article said that this accounted for 90% of the animals. So what about the other 10% you asked. Well what about them? The article didn't say if they were even tested or not. It just said the DNA accounted for 90% of the life forms on earth. Another straw man argument.
I also presented a nice video explaining why creationist believe the fossil record correctly shows the results of a world wide flood and clearly showed the rock layers of the Grande Canyon and how all those layers were perfectly smooth and flat with no signs of erosion between the layers which could only have occurred if they were all laid down at the same time.
Your reply which you have reposted several times is that some mathematician claimed there was no place for all that water to go. You posted that, even though the evidence from geology shows there have been massive changes in the earths surface and the depths of the oceans can easily hold the flood waters after the flood when the tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches. And the surface if the earth is still 70% water. And again another straw man argument. Whether there was a flood or not does not prove evolution.
I presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle. He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist. His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident. Not in many many billions of years. His words said it was mathematically impossible. You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life. HUH? The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible. You also pointed out he was an astronomer. I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty. So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.
I could go on but I think you see what I mean. Instead of offering scientific proof you insist on bringing up arguments that don't really have anything to do with proving evolution. You seem to be particularly determined to prove the Bible is false. Again, proving the Bible false does NOT make evolution true.
You also seem to have a problem with the Biblical claim that God created Adam from dust. Well golly gee. If He can create the whole world from nothing then creating man from dust is a pretty small achievement don't you think. I mean that is what He does. He creates.
So here is your chance. Please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence for the following:
How can a compound structure like the eye have evolved over time?
Why have no missing link fossils ever been found?
How could all those rock layers have been laid down perfectly flat with no erosion between layers if they supposedly took millions of years to form?
How could those same rock layers have been bent perfectly smoothly like we see in some mountains without them breaking if they weren't pliable when they were pushed up into the mountain shapes.
From my point of view Brad, you don't have a real strong bias for evolution. But you do have a very strong bias against the Bible because that is what you keep going back to. But again I have to say that trying to prove the Bible wrong does not prove evolution right.
Sincerely and very respectfully,
your friend, Carroll
On a more humorous note:
The struggle against deception has some very talented
warriors.
Adult Language is employed for best effect:
An example of their work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g)
Who they are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJTMi_v6DA)
Wouldn't it be nice of this sort of work went viral?
Isn't it encouraging to see Truth emerge valiantly?
The Theory of Evolution is just one prong of a multi-pronged
attack against Truth. We're inundated with lies from every
segment of government controlled "information" and lulled
to sleep with numerous addictions, both chemical and
electronic via social media.
But not for too much longer. A new beginning is soon.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.02, 22:49:05
Hi Brad,
Now let's look at what you have provided as scientific PROOF of evolution.
So here is your chance. Please provide SCIENTIFIC evidence for the following:
Sincerely and very respectfully,
your friend, Carroll
QuoteI have debated with myself for several days now as to whether I should make this post or not. I sincerely do NOT want to offend you or ridicule what you believe. I have a great amount of respect for you. You are clearly a very intelligent person. And your mechanical skills are simply amazing. So I do mean it when I say I have a great amount of respect for you. But I feel I really need to say the following things.
No offence taken at all Carroll,and this is the reason we have threads within the forum-->to discuss things.
QuoteYou keep making the claim that science proves evolution. I of course strongly disagree with that statement. I have provided several links to scientific articles that show that evolution is either not possible at all or is mathematically improbable as to be impossible.
It was also said to be highly improbable that we could send man to the moon in 1969,but !apparently! we did.
It was also said it would be highly improbable that man would build flying machines,but we did.
QuoteI first presented an article that was the latest data obtained from the study of the DNA of thousands of animals from all over the earth. The data showed that almost all animals came into existence at almost the same time. This is clearly not possible if all animals slowly evolved over time. It also showed that the animals were the same age as humans. Also not possible if we all had evolved over time. It also showed that according to the DNA mankind and the animals were between 100,000 and 200,000 years old.Your reply was that the article showed the Bible was wrong when it said the the earth was 6,000 years old. SO WHAT! That has nothing to do with scientifically proving evolution was real. That is called a straw man argument. It had nothing to do with the DNA evidence refuting evolution.
Well yes.
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old,but you wish to use information supplied by a study that shows 90% of life here on earth is at least 100,000-200,000 years old.
The article says that !90%! of the animals were around the same age as humans,which means that !what we class! as humans have existed for at least 100,000 to 200,000 years. So if you wish to use there DNA samples as proof of anything,it would have to be proof that man has been around a lot longer than the bible states.
As we know,the earth has been through many near extinction event's,like ice ages,large volcanic activities, and meteor strikes. This is like pushing the reset button,and starting over again. But in all cases,there have been survivors (as your study clearly indicates-the 10,000 different species that were here beyond the 200,000 year limit of there study),and life continue's on from those survivors.
What i see as a common mistake here,is that creationist's think new species just pop into existence over night,when in fact it takes 10s of thousands of years for changes to take place. So between 100,000 and 200,000 years is a long time for live to evolve from those 10,000 species that survived,which your study clearly accounts for.
Now don't you find it odd that the creationist believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution ?.
Well that is because you have no choice with micro evolution,because not only have we seen it happen with our own eyes,the bible says it happens. But when the creationist's think evolutionary changes are out of sight-macro evolution,then they say it's not possible. Fact is ,evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change.
mutation
migration
genetic drift
natural selection
You simply cannot believe in one and not the other.
QuoteYou then pointed out that the article said that this accounted for 90% of the animals. So what about the other 10% you asked. Well what about them? The article didn't say if they were even tested or not. It just said the DNA accounted for 90% of the life forms on earth. Another straw man argument.
As i stated above,that 10,000 different specie of animals,over a period of there 100,000 year gap,is quite enough time for new species to evolve. As i also stated,they are not referring to an over night event here,we are talking 10s of thousands of years.
Now,if we look at what the bible says,where there were only 2 of a !kind! of each animal taken on board the ark,and in just 6000 years we have 1000's of different types of !say! dogs for example,from just a single pair of 1 type of dog(maybe a wolf),then your bible also says that big changes can happen in short periods of time.
So if micro evolution can happen in just 6000 years,on the scale we see today,then imagine the changes that can happen over 100,000 years--the gap given by the study you posted.
And the fact that we all share some DNA trait's is absolute evidence we all evolved from a single parent specie's.
QuoteI also presented a nice video explaining why creationist believe the fossil record correctly shows the results of a world wide flood and clearly showed the rock layers of the Grande Canyon and how all those layers were perfectly smooth and flat with no signs of erosion between the layers which could only have occurred if they were all laid down at the same time.
Well the grand canyon actually disproves a great flood,and conforms exactly to events over millions of years.
First up,if you take a bucket of water,and mix in a number of different materials/dirts,clays,etc,and mix them all up(as would be done in a big flood),then tip it out so as the water drains away(as it did in the flood !apparently!),then you will not get perfect layers of different sediment as we see in the grand canyon.
You will get very blurred mixings between some layer forms.
Second-another test i gave you to try,but no one took on that one either C.C
How exactly did the great flood burry different types of animals in each layer-how did it separate the different types of animals in each separate layer?. If it was a great flood that formed the layer's,then all the animals that existed back then would be in every layer together--not separated as we find them today.
Third. When floods occur,they carve straight paths through the earth,not winding valley's that we see with the grand canyon. The grand canyon was carved out over millions of years by a river,not a big flood.
QuoteYour reply which you have reposted several times is that some mathematician claimed there was no place for all that water to go. You posted that, even though the evidence from geology shows there have been massive changes in the earths surface and the depths of the oceans can easily hold the flood waters after the flood when the tectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches. And the surface if the earth is still 70% water. And again another straw man argument. Whether there was a flood or not does not prove evolution.
Once again,there is no straw man argument,but only facts.
The bible clearly states that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights,and stopped when all the !high! hills and
mountain's under the heavens were covered by 15 cubits of water. So from this,we know that the mountains and high hill already existed. We also know for fact that there is not enough water on earth to achieve this feat,nor is there anywhere for that volume of water to drain to.
Quotetectonic plates shifted and opened up the deep sea trenches.
First- i gave you a simple experiment to try,and that was to show us how the weight of water can push up rock and sand,and then post your results here.
Second,in order for that volume of water to be dispersed,the same volume of rock and sand would have to be displaced--so where is it if all the high hills and mountain's already existed as the bible quotes ?.
QuoteI presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle. He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist. His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident. Not in many many billions of years. His words said it was mathematically impossible. You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life. HUH? The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible. You also pointed out he was an astronomer. I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty. So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.
How exactly did he calculate the chance of life beginning without knowing what processes were taking place on earth billions of years ago? Could he also calculate how much rain will fall on a given day before that day is over?.
You cannot calculate chance without knowing any of the processes taking place at that time.
Evolution is just that-how life evolves over time. It is not about how life started,nor dose science claim to know how life started. But like evolution,science will one day show how life can start from the correct mixture of chemicals under the right conditions.
It's the very same situation with magnetism. We know exactly how to use magnetism,but we do not know what it is.So we know exactly how evolution work's,but do not know as of yet how life started.
Not knowing yet how life started dose not in any way disprove evolution. Just like not knowing what magnetism is dose not mean we do not know how to use it.
QuoteYou also pointed out he was an astronomer
Yes,and that brings up another question i asked you(and other believers here),that you nor anyone else has answered.
Question-->If god created the heavens and earth only 6000 odd years ago,how is it the Andromeda galaxy can be 2.5 million light years away,or Maffei 2 at 9.13 million light years,or NGC 4945 at 11.7 million light years away ?.
We know the speed of light is a constant,or are we going to change that now as well?.
QuoteI could go on but I think you see what I mean. Instead of offering scientific proof you insist on bringing up arguments that don't really have anything to do with proving evolution. Again, proving the Bible false does NOT make evolution true.
Everything i have offered is scientific proof,where what you have offered is all disproven by science.
QuoteYou seem to be particularly determined to prove the Bible is false.
Well it was you who started the thread off with the title !the myth of evolution!.
Also,it is not me trying to disprove the bible. Science just happened to do that on it's journey to finding out where we came from,and how we got here.
QuoteYou also seem to have a problem with the Biblical claim that God created Adam from dust. Well golly gee. If He can create the whole world from nothing then creating man from dust is a pretty small achievement don't you think. I mean that is what He does. He creates.
It is odd that creationist's keep saying that the universe could not just of popped into existence from nothing,but then claim god did exactly that ??? I wonder what your mathematician would have calculated those odd's at?.
Another question i asked that also remains unanswered-->If all things are created,then who created god?
QuoteHow can a compound structure like the eye have evolved over time?
Because we can clearly see how different animals eyes have evolved to suit there environment.
For example,dogs see far better than us,even more so at night,as most nocturnal animals can.
There eyes evolved over time to suit the environment they reside in,that being the dark of night.
In fact,the human eye is of medeoka quality compared to most animals.If god made us in his image,perhaps he was slightly blind ? :D
Quote:The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
The eye is not that complex.
What i mean is,we can make cameras that see better than we do.
We can transmit electromagnetic waves through the air,and then use electronics(the TV) to convert those electromagnetic waves into very high definition motion pictures.
QuoteWhy have no missing link fossils ever been found?
That is an incorrect statement used only by creationist's.
Also,what do you refer to as a !missing link!,as there are no !missing links! as you call them.
QuoteHow could all those rock layers have been laid down perfectly flat with no erosion between layers if they supposedly took millions of years to form?
They are a classic example of how the environment has change over those millions of years.
Example,if the environment was a lush green rainforest environment,and over the next 20,000 years it turned into a dry hot environment,we would see two distinctive different layers.
We would also find two very different types of animals in each layer-which we do.
We would not see erosion as you expect us to see,due to the winds keeping most everything level over those millions of years. What we would see is hills and valleys over long distances,which we do.
Once again,you are trying to cram all these events into a time scale that you can comprehend,and not the millions of years it actually happened over.
Now,if they were formed by a great flood,we would not find different species of animals in each layer,we would find them all mixed together in all layers--which we do not find.
Also erosion would be very apparent if a great flood formed those layers. The sheer volume of water running over the landscape when the flood waters were reciedding would have carved huge straight valleys into the sediment layers,but we don't see that.
There is also the fact that raging flood waters do not create definitive layers as we see.
QuoteHow could those same rock layers have been bent perfectly smoothly like we see in some mountains without them breaking if they weren't pliable when they were pushed up into the mountain shapes.
Once again,you are trying to visualise these events taking place in a time scale you can conceive,and not the millions of years it actually took. Rock is formed over millions of years from sands and particulates-it dose not just become rock once it is formed in a layer. Damp rock can be bent over time in the right conditions,just as a glass panel standing vertical over years will become thicker on the bottom,and thinner up top.
If you take a piece of copper pipe,and you bend it,it will kink at the bend. If you fill that copper pipe with water or sand,seal the ends,and then bend it,it will not kink at the bend. Can you imagine the pressures on top and below each rock layer,and the heat generated when that rock is being deformed?. When you heat rock up hot enough,it becomes a liquid,and solid rock can then be bent.
Lets say that the bend in the rock layer is a 2 meter high deformation/bend over a distance of say 5 meters.
To achieve that over a million years,the rock layer would have to deform just 2 microns (.oo2 of a mm) each year over that 5 meters.Not looking that hard now,is it. O0
QuoteFrom my point of view Brad, you don't have a real strong bias for evolution. But you do have a very strong bias against the Bible because that is what you keep going back to. But again I have to say that trying to prove the Bible wrong does not prove evolution right.
We must keep in mind here Carroll,that it was you that opened this thread with the title name-the myth of evolution. So it would seem that your bias against evolution was apparent before anyone else made a post.
You have also stated that no matter what evidence anyone provides for evolution,your mind will not be swayed.
So i responded in kind,and gave the evidence required by science to prove that evolution is not a myth,but a fact.
It just so happens that along the way,we also showed the bible and the stories within it to be the myth,and not evolution as the original thread title insinuated. In fact,you yourself helped prove the bible wrong when you posted that paper showing man and animals to be much much older than 6000 years.
So now that i have answered your questions,and provided the requested proofs of evolution,perhaps you can do the same.Your answers must be provable by known science.
1-How did the water push up enough rock and sand,so as the flood waters receded,when it cannot even raise the soft beach sand on the ocean floor ?
2-How is it that the receding flood waters carved out a winding chanel through the grand canyon,when all other floods have shown straight channels carved from the earths surface?.
3- How did the flood result in different species of animals being placed in the different layers of rock,and not all being mixed up together in all the layers of rock?.
4-If God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years ago,how is it that we have galaxies that are millions of light years away?.
5-how can you believe in micro evolution,but not macro evolution,when the only difference between the two is time?.
6-Where have all the dinosaurs gone if Noah had them on the ark ?.
If he had them on the ark,then that means they existed after the flood waters receded.
That being the case,and they died out shortly after,we should find the skeletons on the top layer of the earths surface--which we do not.
If the dinosaurs were not taken upon the ark,but existed with man,why do we not find mans fossil remains with those of the dinosaurs?.
7-If everything was created,who created God?.
I mean,if god created everything,did he exist in nothing before everything was created?.
I have many more,but will leave it at that for now.
Respectfully
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.02, 21:38:13
"Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years.""
Hmm. Evolution is not about how life started? Is that your curve ball? From what I understand it is about how life possibly started, unless evolution belief is that life has always existed. The whole basis of evolution is that we started from some accidental simple form of life appearance that started it all and we have evolved from that. If not then what is your version?
Mags
Well perhaps you should go and learn the difference between evolution,and the origin of life.
Evolution is how existing life forms evolve over time.
The origin of life is how life started.
To different subjects.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.03, 00:14:30
On a more humorous note:
The struggle against deception has some very talented
warriors.
Adult Language is employed for best effect:
An example of their work (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1efOs0BsE0g)
Who they are (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJTMi_v6DA)
Wouldn't it be nice of this sort of work went viral?
Isn't it encouraging to see Truth emerge valiantly?
The Theory of Evolution is just one prong of a multi-pronged
attack against Truth. We're inundated with lies from every
segment of government controlled "information" and lulled
to sleep with numerous addictions, both chemical and
electronic via social media.
But not for too much longer. A new beginning is soon.
I agree with everything in that video.
I always post those video's on my facebook page.
As funny as they seem,there is so much truth to them-always.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.02, 21:13:42
"Well as the thread title has change now to !The Reality of Evolution!,we can now confirm that evolution is a reality--a fact."
What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we. You take the changing of the title of the thread as some sort of win for you arguments. It is not. I preferred the original title as more truthful.
"What seems to be continually confused in meaning is the term !theory!"
O really? PC culture at its best. Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.
noun
1. a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
Supposition. System of 'ideas'. 'Intended' to explain something. Theory is not proof of anything.
Here is Merrium Websters definition... "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena."
Plausible does not imply absolute fact. Body of principles 'offered' to explain 'phenomena'.....
Phenomenon:
noun
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question:
So no, I do not accept your 'Offerings' of theories of evolution as fact, of which you choose to follow. I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.
"So,there is no debate as to whether evolution is a reality,as it is a scientific fact.
The theories of evolution give an explanation to that fact."
Lol. Yes there is debate. You have been soo indoctrinated into science lies and agenda. You believe that all science is truth, but it is not. You think all religion is about power and control but all science is truth and infallible?
One day soon, you will be very surprised.
"The other curve ball thrown by the creationist's is that !well life did not just appear out of nothing! argument.
!!Odd they should say that when they claim there god made man from dust and water C.C!!
Anyway,evolution is not about how life started,evolution is about how life has evolved over millions of years."
Curve ball thrown by creationists?? So are you saying that we all DID just appear out of nothing????? Dude I think you are loosing it.
What is dust to you? Dry skin flakes? Sand? Carbon? Granite? Copper? What specific dust do you theorize that it was, or in your case, could have been? And for your version of the beginning of life, what was your dust made of????
"Did it ever occur to you(the creationist)that maybe god did not create man,but more so man created god?.
Perhaps !creation! refers to man creating the bible O0."
Why would that occur to us? It certainly has occurred to you without actually knowing for sure. Can you prove God does not exist? No you cannot. You can only offer scientific 'theory' of alternative. Just one of Lucefers many deceptions. We do not have to prove God exists. We heard and we searched and we found. That is the only way. Even though Im sure you have heard, you just chose other options. And you say we force our beliefs on you???? Look at who posts the most here and ridicules us! it is you that is pushing your beliefs on us. ;) C.C Oh the hipocrisy.
You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts. It is you that are in fantasy land.
Mags
I see you,like most creationist's,get angry when facts are presented that appose your super natural story book.
Perhaps this is not the thread for you Mag's ?.
I also see that you too confuse scientific theory with the meaning of everyday social theory,even though i have posted the difference on a number of occasions now.
I am presenting scientific facts,and if creationism gets run over on the way,that is not my fault.
Perhaps you could answer just one question.
Lets forget about evolution for the moment,and look at space/the heavens instead.
If the heavens and earth were created just 6000 odd years ago,why do we have galaxies that are millions of light years away?. As all was created only 6000 years ago,we should not see anything that is further than 6000 light years away-but we do.
Brad
author=CITFTA link=topic=3776.msg74976#msg74976 date=1559515745]
QuoteI presented an article about Sir Fred Hoyle. He was a very famous mathematician and well known atheist. His calculations clearly show that the creation of life could not have ever happened by accident. Not in many many billions of years. His words said it was mathematically impossible. You response was that evolution was only about change over time and not the creation of life. HUH? The whole premise of evolution is that random chance is the means by which life was created and evolution is possible. You also pointed out he was an astronomer. I assume you meant by that that his math about evolution might be faulty. So you will take the math of some unknown guy on YouTube but reject the math of one of the most famous mathematicians of the last century.
I decided to look up mr Hoyle,and here is another thing i found out about him.
Quote:Sir Fred Hoyle FRS (24 June 1915 – 20 August 2001)[1] was an English astronomer who formulated the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis. He also held controversial stances on other scientific matters—in particular his rejection of the "Big Bang" theory, a term coined by him on BBC radio, and his promotion of panspermia as the origin of life on Earth
Panspermia hypotheses propose (for example) that microscopic life-forms that can survive the effects of space (such as extremophiles) can become trapped in debris ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. Under certain ideal impact circumstances (into a body of water, for example), and ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, it is possible that the surviving organisms could become active and begin to colonize their new environment. At least one report finds that endospores from a type of Bacillus bacteria found in Morocco can survive being heated to 420 °C (788 °F), making the argument for Panspermia even stronger.[10] Panspermia studies concentrate not on how life began, but on the methods that may cause its distribution in the Universe
And i posted this in post 101
All pay careful attention to this.
We are a carbon based life form-as is all life here on earth.
Amino Acids are the building blocks of life.
Lets have a look at what fell to earth in 1969-->which happens to be the year i was born,and the 28th of September was the day my son was born.whats the chances of that lol.
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6EK8H_murchison-meteorite-the-building-blocks-of-life?guid=994f64f6-12c5-4449-a1b8-4cc2653c3559
So it would seem that your mathematician agree's with how i think life started on earth,that being it arrived from space,and then !evolved! from there.
It would also seem that he dismisses creationism at the same time.
Brad
How climate changes can and did occur over time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdtcx-6OBE
Brad
Quote from: TinMan
The bible says the earth is only 6000 years old...
Hmmm. I've not found that in The Book. It does,
however, provide the lineage of mankind which takes
us back about that amount of time.
The Book tells us that Creation was accomplished over
the period of six Creation 'Days' but we have no idea
what the precise length of each of the six Creation Periods
actually was. We do not possess the original writings and
therefore we do not know whether 'day' is a correct translation
of the time period.
Mankind was placed upon Planet Earth somewhere within the
sixth Creation Period it tells us. The Doctrine regarding these
questions which was promulgated by the early Roman Catholic
Church was, like Modern Science Facts today, voted into belief
by councils of men. As we now know, many of those Doctrinal
Beliefs were in error and sadly, many men were put to death
for disputing the truth of those Doctrines.
Some 'Christians' today still believe as the early Church did
while others haven't formed any specific time-frame in their
personal beliefs. We simply do not know.
But, we shall one day.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.03, 07:49:51
Hmmm. I've not found that in The Book. It does,
however, provide the lineage of mankind which takes
us back about that amount of time.
The Book tells us that Creation was accomplished over
the period of six Creation 'Days' but we have no idea
what the precise length of each of the six Creation Periods
actually was. We do not possess the original writings and
therefore we do not know whether 'day' is a correct translation
of the time period.
Mankind was placed upon Planet Earth somewhere within the
sixth Creation Period it tells us. The Doctrine regarding these
questions which was promulgated by the early Roman Catholic
Church was, like Modern Science Facts today, voted into belief
by councils of men. As we now know, many of those Doctrinal
Beliefs were in error and sadly, many men were put to death
for disputing the truth of those Doctrines.
Some 'Christians' today still believe as the early Church did
while others haven't formed any specific time-frame in their
personal beliefs. We simply do not know.
But, we shall one day.
As no one has the original writing's,how can we know anything written in the bible has been told as it was.
If days can become years,then a small canoe could become an ark.
Perhaps this great flood was nothing more than a great local flood,like a tsunami or something.
Perhaps the farmer Noah had a canoe with a couple of farm animals in it?
When you say one thing may not be exactly as it's told,then anything written in the bible could have suffered the grape vine syndrome.
Brad
One to watch.
Mag's,at 8:35 he explains what a scientific theory is O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc
Brad
The main failure in any system that needs quantification is that the entity being measured needs a measurement graticule that exceeds the target, of which we have none.
The ants in an ant farm have no concept of the owner turning on and off the external lights.
Humans are in a system of such an immense size of four dimensions that is impossible to qualitatively make statements of quantitative exactness or precision.
The answer is still 42.
And for lower life forms the rule is 'I' before 'E' except after 'C'. Science is spelled incorrectly by our own lexical rules.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.03, 09:33:19
One to watch.
Mag's,at 8:35 he explains what a scientific theory is O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CW9G2YVtBYc
Brad
Watched it. When the guy says 'Whats the difference between a theory and a fact? Well there is no difference according to my view..' I stopped.
Some science has been perverted to achieve control over the masses. They go to great lengths to do the bidding of the PTB. Just like the Pharisees did not want his people to follow the God of Abraham because it puts a kink in his own self proclaimed greatness. And it is still that way today.
I have had many conversations on these subjects. I have found many to have been harmed, in one way or another, by their church(or people there in) to a point of hating what and who it was that caused the harm, and then they think, well this religious stuff just doesnt seem right. Well just like there are homeless beggars in the streets, some have their mercedes parked around the corner, fooling and taking from people that actually wish to help them from their lies of being homeless, AND taking something that someone else who has nothing will not get in order to pay for their ritzy life style, there are some in religion, church leaders who take advantage of many that dont have much just so they can live the rich life style. Private jets(more than 1?), fancy cars, and homes. Eating the best of the best. Sure, there are some out there that do that. And it is fairly easy, with a trained ear, to see who they are and what they are really all about, probably within the first hour of listening to them. Some people are very gullible to this and I feel for them. The one thing these people that use Gods name to profit more than preach, dont really want you to know, is the fact that they can get everything they wanted from being involved at those churches by just reading the Bible with the intent to really learn from it, and they will find what they need and what they are looking for.
Lucefers greatest accomplishment is different religions and the new God, SCIENCE. Which one do we give a chance? Which one is possibly correct? Maybe none since there are many that contradict others and get people thinking, well maybe they are all wrong and science has all the answers. Many may hear that God does not exist and creation never happened, LOOK AT OUR THEORIES! OUR THEORIES ARE FACTS!!, and they will tend to accept that, without any deep research on their own part.
Well, just looking and reading the Bible, without a real deep understanding of it as a whole by really wanting to know the truth, wont get you there. If one is to read it with bias, they will not get a good understanding, and even misunderstand it in different ways that others had misunderstood it. But with true understanding, you will find others that really understand it the way it is suppose to be understood. its just the way it is. Either you really want to know the truth, or you just use it in bits and pieces and say 'that could not have happened' and there ya go.
I had considered myself a christian all my life, but I never really read the book. Didnt feel that I needed to as I would get my info from that guy every sunday. Now if there are any catholics here, dont be offended by my story here....
I had a girlfriend that was catholic and I was raised baptist. We never really got into it for a few years about the differences. Then one day she said she was praying to Arch angel Michael about something. That raised a flag for me instantly. From what I had understood in my background on the Bible, was that we pray to nobody else but Jesus. I at least learned that much from listening to the guy on sudays. :) Like I had known that she prayed to Mary and I had not really considered the issues with that before. But now, I needed to find the truth. So I dug into my Bible for really the first time in my life, and online KJV which helped tremendously in search abilities, and when I did try to explain that what she was doing wasnt what the Bible says we should do, her answer was, "we cannot interpret the Bible ourselves, only the pope can interpret it for us. Well that just didnt stand well with me. Her church tells her to go ahead and read the Bible, but dont try to understand it, basically. We fought hard on the subject. It was like this... If I read her a verse(hypothetical) that said "And the sky was blue", as just an example, she would say, can you interpret that for me? :o :o :o :o I was astonished. There was nothing that I could do. I was afraid for her, and feeling very badly that we were being torn apart over this.
But I dug in more. And we did separate. But what I had learned from my readings instilled something in me that is here to stay. I could write page after page here on the things that have happened to me over the last 15 years that have increased my faith even more. But they would be just testimonies that some here would just say are only coincidental or even lies. I have talked to Chet and some others on that, and they get it. ;)
If you read the Bible from beginning to end, it is not until the new testament that it tells you to ask for the Holy Spirit(and seriously doing so) to help you understand it. And that was when I got hit with the whammy that reading the Bible can give you in faith and understanding. You have to really want to know the truth.
One other thing her and I argued about... Her and here sister were at the library, and she had gotten some copies made for a college class and then stood in line to pay for the copies.
Her sister told her just to go home and not pay for the copies and just go to confession on sunday and it will be ok. :o Again, I was in shock. Apparently they have this notion that this was how it was and this was ok. It was a roman catholic church in Anaheim Ca. I dont think all catholic churches teach these things, im not sure. But just because Jesus died for our sins, doesnt mean that we should be free to take advantage of that, willingly and knowingly throughout our lives as claimed believers.
So these days, I am not baptist, nor any other congregation affiliated. Im just a follower of what the Bible says, and Im sticking with that. ;)
Mags
Quote from: TinMan
As no one has the original writing's,how can we know
anything written in the bible has been told as it was.
Everyone, with critical thinking skills, should ask the same
question.
Fortunately, there are various tests which have been, and are
still being, performed on The Word to determine whether it is
genuine or not. Whether it has been corrupted or not.
Whether what it tells us is accurate.
Many of our core beliefs, our emotions, our behaviors and
the way which we process observations intellectually are
"programmed" into us by our immediate environment upon
reaching our thirteenth year.
The way we operate, for many, is decided in those first
thirteen years. That is why the Public Education System
has been so successful with its program of Indoctrination.
Most people do not discover how to "think" critically until
reaching the age of 30 or 40 years. That is when most
who are now awakened began to wake up. Overcoming
inculcated biases begins to manifest from age 40 to
age 50 as those biases break down. Unless, of course,
we refuse to wake up and continue taking the Blue Pill
of Media Disinformation.
There are exceptions thankfully. Today we see many
youth are waking up before reaching the age of 20
years. Something has changed and will continue to
change.
Sadly, many will not want to wake up in this lifetime.
They will awaken in our next lifetime. When all are
given life again in a World without badness.
Quote from: Magluvin
You have to really want to know the truth.
So very true. When our heart reflects our sincerity, we
are given the help we ask for. Not instantly or always to
our liking or the way we want it, but we will get it.
There are always lessons which need learning. We
experience trials and tribulations to provide the impetus to
learn those lessons. And slowly we are changed.
For the better.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.04, 00:22:58
Everyone, with critical thinking skills, should ask the same
question.
Fortunately, there are various tests which have been, and are
still being, performed on The Word to determine whether it is
genuine or not. Whether it has been corrupted or not.
Whether what it tells us is accurate.
Many of our core beliefs, our emotions, our behaviors and
the way which we process observations intellectually are
"programmed" into us by our immediate environment upon
reaching our thirteenth year.
The way we operate, for many, is decided in those first
thirteen years. That is why the Public Education System
has been so successful with its program of Indoctrination.
Most people do not discover how to "think" critically until
reaching the age of 30 or 40 years. That is when most
who are now awakened began to wake up. Overcoming
inculcated biases begins to manifest from age 40 to
age 50 as those biases break down. Unless, of course,
we refuse to wake up and continue taking the Blue Pill
of Media Disinformation.
There are exceptions thankfully. Today we see many
youth are waking up before reaching the age of 20
years. Something has changed and will continue to
change.
Sadly, many will not want to wake up in this lifetime.
They will awaken in our next lifetime. When all are
given life again in a World without badness.
So very true. When our heart reflects our sincerity, we
are given the help we ask for. Not instantly or always to
our liking or the way we want it, but we will get it.
There are always lessons which need learning. We
experience trials and tribulations to provide the impetus to
learn those lessons. And slowly we are changed.
For the better.
"So very true. When our heart reflects our sincerity, we
are given the help we ask for. Not instantly or always to
our liking or the way we want it, but we will get it."
Back nearly 13 years ago, after I got 'into' my Bible, I had gotten a thyroid issue and it was the size of a half of a large peach on the right side of my neck. It didnt really bother me other than it was highly visible. All of my family harped on me, "its cancer!" "You need to see a doctor!" And I told them that I was going to have faith. My mom was the only one that said ok. She understands the Bible the same way I do. ;) Well for 9 years I had faith, that it was either going to go away, or not affect me(and it didnt like I said), and even said, "if it kills me, then that is Gods plan". Well about 4 years ago, I was in the grocery store looking at vitamins and supplements. A bottle came into my sight and it said 'Prostate prevention'. So I bought it, thinking Im almost 50 and it might be good. Well 1 month and a half the peach was getting smaller. It soon was gone. it was selenium. I looked it up, as I had recently started taking magnesium and was looking for details on what may have occurred here. Online said nothing of magnesium and thyroid. But selenium didnt even say it was good for prostate, but it was good for thyroid. Bam. That is 1 of my miracles I had received. I had faith for 9 years. Just like you said, it may not come instantly. ;) The Thyroid thing just doesnt go away on its own. My friend Pat across the street from my shop asked me, what happened, its gone? I told her. She said 2 of her aunts had it worse than me and had been seeing doctors for years for it. She got them to try it and it began working and said the doctors didnt understand it. Then about a year later, Womens health mag at the grocery store had a big headline, "Selenium For Thyroid".
Now, that was my experience that had shown me that keeping faith, no matter how long, will pay off in the end. And even though things may not go as expected or hoped they would, there are reasons for that also. But either way, I have many testimonies that I consider to be such of faith.
I was out of work for a period. My electric was going to be shut of the next day, 110 dollars. I never play the lottery. My mom does and wins good here and there. But something told me to play 1 dollar on a 3 number quick pick. Well I won. Guess exactly how much I won. :D ;) ;D O0 What are the odds on a straight 3 number quick pic and getting exactly what I needed? No. Not a coincidence. Not a coincidence to get the thought to play something I never played and for it to work out just like I said.
That is testimony 2 from my book of them. That is just a small one. ^-^
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.04, 00:08:23
Watched it. When the guy says 'Whats the difference between a theory and a fact? Well there is no difference according to my view..' I stopped.
Some science has been perverted to achieve control over the masses. They go to great lengths to do the bidding of the PTB. Just like the Pharisees did not want his people to follow the God of Abraham because it puts a kink in his own self proclaimed greatness. And it is still that way today.
I have had many conversations on these subjects. I have found many to have been harmed, in one way or another, by their church(or people there in) to a point of hating what and who it was that caused the harm, and then they think, well this religious stuff just doesnt seem right. Well just like there are homeless beggars in the streets, some have their mercedes parked around the corner, fooling and taking from people that actually wish to help them from their lies of being homeless, AND taking something that someone else who has nothing will not get in order to pay for their ritzy life style, there are some in religion, church leaders who take advantage of many that dont have much just so they can live the rich life style. Private jets(more than 1?), fancy cars, and homes. Eating the best of the best. Sure, there are some out there that do that. And it is fairly easy, with a trained ear, to see who they are and what they are really all about, probably within the first hour of listening to them. Some people are very gullible to this and I feel for them. The one thing these people that use Gods name to profit more than preach, dont really want you to know, is the fact that they can get everything they wanted from being involved at those churches by just reading the Bible with the intent to really learn from it, and they will find what they need and what they are looking for.
Lucefers greatest accomplishment is different religions and the new God, SCIENCE. Which one do we give a chance? Which one is possibly correct? Maybe none since there are many that contradict others and get people thinking, well maybe they are all wrong and science has all the answers. Many may hear that God does not exist and creation never happened, LOOK AT OUR THEORIES! OUR THEORIES ARE FACTS!!, and they will tend to accept that, without any deep research on their own part.
Well, just looking and reading the Bible, without a real deep understanding of it as a whole by really wanting to know the truth, wont get you there. If one is to read it with bias, they will not get a good understanding, and even misunderstand it in different ways that others had misunderstood it. But with true understanding, you will find others that really understand it the way it is suppose to be understood. its just the way it is. Either you really want to know the truth, or you just use it in bits and pieces and say 'that could not have happened' and there ya go.
I had considered myself a christian all my life, but I never really read the book. Didnt feel that I needed to as I would get my info from that guy every sunday. Now if there are any catholics here, dont be offended by my story here....
I had a girlfriend that was catholic and I was raised baptist. We never really got into it for a few years about the differences. Then one day she said she was praying to Arch angel Michael about something. That raised a flag for me instantly. From what I had understood in my background on the Bible, was that we pray to nobody else but Jesus. I at least learned that much from listening to the guy on sudays. :) Like I had known that she prayed to Mary and I had not really considered the issues with that before. But now, I needed to find the truth. So I dug into my Bible for really the first time in my life, and online KJV which helped tremendously in search abilities, and when I did try to explain that what she was doing wasnt what the Bible says we should do, her answer was, "we cannot interpret the Bible ourselves, only the pope can interpret it for us. Well that just didnt stand well with me. Her church tells her to go ahead and read the Bible, but dont try to understand it, basically. We fought hard on the subject. It was like this... If I read her a verse(hypothetical) that said "And the sky was blue", as just an example, she would say, can you interpret that for me? :o :o :o :o I was astonished. There was nothing that I could do. I was afraid for her, and feeling very badly that we were being torn apart over this.
But I dug in more. And we did separate. But what I had learned from my readings instilled something in me that is here to stay. I could write page after page here on the things that have happened to me over the last 15 years that have increased my faith even more. But they would be just testimonies that some here would just say are only coincidental or even lies. I have talked to Chet and some others on that, and they get it. ;)
If you read the Bible from beginning to end, it is not until the new testament that it tells you to ask for the Holy Spirit(and seriously doing so) to help you understand it. And that was when I got hit with the whammy that reading the Bible can give you in faith and understanding. You have to really want to know the truth.
One other thing her and I argued about... Her and here sister were at the library, and she had gotten some copies made for a college class and then stood in line to pay for the copies.
Her sister told her just to go home and not pay for the copies and just go to confession on sunday and it will be ok. :o Again, I was in shock. Apparently they have this notion that this was how it was and this was ok. It was a roman catholic church in Anaheim Ca. I dont think all catholic churches teach these things, im not sure. But just because Jesus died for our sins, doesnt mean that we should be free to take advantage of that, willingly and knowingly throughout our lives as claimed believers.
So these days, I am not baptist, nor any other congregation affiliated. Im just a follower of what the Bible says, and Im sticking with that. ;)
Mags
Sad to hear that religion tore apart what sounds like a great relationship before the subject of religion came up.
Thankfully neither myself or my wife have anything to do with religion,which is probably why we have been happily married for 26 years in a loving relationship.
Nothing like the divisions of religion to destroy relationships,or cause wars between faiths.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.04, 01:29:59
"So very true. When our heart reflects our sincerity, we
are given the help we ask for. Not instantly or always to
our liking or the way we want it, but we will get it."
Back nearly 13 years ago, after I got 'into' my Bible, I had gotten a thyroid issue and it was the size of a half of a large peach on the right side of my neck. It didnt really bother me other than it was highly visible. All of my family harped on me, "its cancer!" "You need to see a doctor!" And I told them that I was going to have faith. My mom was the only one that said ok. She understands the Bible the same way I do. ;) Well for 9 years I had faith, that it was either going to go away, or not affect me(and it didnt like I said), and even said, "if it kills me, then that is Gods plan". Well about 4 years ago, I was in the grocery store looking at vitamins and supplements. A bottle came into my sight and it said 'Prostate prevention'. So I bought it, thinking Im almost 50 and it might be good. Well 1 month and a half the peach was getting smaller. It soon was gone. it was selenium. I looked it up, as I had recently started taking magnesium and was looking for details on what may have occurred here. Online said nothing of magnesium and thyroid. But selenium didnt even say it was good for prostate, but it was good for thyroid. Bam. That is 1 of my miracles I had received. I had faith for 9 years. Just like you said, it may not come instantly. ;) The Thyroid thing just doesnt go away on its own. My friend Pat across the street from my shop asked me, what happened, its gone? I told her. She said 2 of her aunts had it worse than me and had been seeing doctors for years for it. She got them to try it and it began working and said the doctors didnt understand it. Then about a year later, Womens health mag at the grocery store had a big headline, "Selenium For Thyroid".
Now, that was my experience that had shown me that keeping faith, no matter how long, will pay off in the end. And even though things may not go as expected or hoped they would, there are reasons for that also. But either way, I have many testimonies that I consider to be such of faith.
I was out of work for a period. My electric was going to be shut of the next day, 110 dollars. I never play the lottery. My mom does and wins good here and there. But something told me to play 1 dollar on a 3 number quick pick. Well I won. Guess exactly how much I won. :D ;) ;D O0 What are the odds on a straight 3 number quick pic and getting exactly what I needed? No. Not a coincidence. Not a coincidence to get the thought to play something I never played and for it to work out just like I said.
That is testimony 2 from my book of them. That is just a small one. ^-^
Mags
Odd that i have never had this faith,and never had anything wrong with me.
At the age of 50,im still as fit as a fiddle--besides the smoking--that's probably not good for me ;D
It is a good thing science was there for you when you needed those medicines O0
Brad
One thing for sure,God love's his gold.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ken-ham-sells-ark-encounter-land-to-himself-for-10_b_596e9e95e4b05561da5a5ba9
Creationist Ken Ham, the notorious owner of The Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum, has once again found a new way to swindle the good people of Kentucky out of their money.
Not satisfied enough with winning a court battle worth $18 million in tax rebates after convincing a judge that his for-profit business, which is actively using religion as a form of employment discrimination, he has now sold the land the theme park sits on, worth $48 million, to his own non-profit entity, Crosswater Canyon, for $10. You read that right, ten dollars.
https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Evangelist_Hovind_found_guilty_for_tax_fraud
QuoteEvangelist Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, was found guilty on all counts of tax fraud concerning merchandise and amusement park admission sales. The trial began at United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida on Tuesday October 18, 2006, and prosecutors rested their case against Hovind on November 1. Defense lawyers rested their case on the same day without presenting evidence or calling witnesses; Hovind claims that he runs a church, and thus should not have to pay taxes, while prosecutors claimed that he was actually running a business.
So much dishonesty and deceit in the higher ranks.
All about the money.
A truly marvelous video showing how advanced evolutionary science has become.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNPbjtej1Hk
New Forensic Evidence on the Shroud of Turin. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk)
Earlier errors of Science corrected and authenticity confirmed.
Quote from: TinMan
At the age of 50, im still as fit as a fiddle...
Then you're still quite young then! ;)
I was also fit at that young age. It wasn't until age 74 that
all of my old injuries from childhood and later began to
make themselves known with pain and swelling. Injuries
which were never treated or repaired which were no
problem physically until recently. The one injury which was
treated properly was a broken forearm at age eleven.
It was set by Dr. Broghammer and put into a cast until it healed.
Other injuries from jumping out of trees or over fences,
high school football and several military injuries which
seemed too minor to bother about have come back as
pains and swellings in ankles, knees and shoulders.
Thankfully, Cannabis Oil is now legal and readily available.
It is an almost miraculous help which eases the pain and swelling
so that I can get around pretty good again. Doesn't
take much at all; a few drops orally several times a day
and in short order almost complete relief. Even a dislocated
thumb from long ago that has gotten progressively more
and more distorted with the passing years. Looks very
weird but it still works ok so I guess I'll not get it fixed.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.04, 07:42:11
New Forensic Evidence on the Shroud of Turin. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk)
Earlier errors of Science corrected and authenticity confirmed.
Well it's good to see the creationists use science when it suits them--aint that a hoot ;D
Now all that is needed is a correct age for the cloth.
Lets hope they submit those burnt samples for carbon dating.
Once that is done,and if the correct date comes back that is the date of christ's death,then all that is needed is to some how confirm that it was christ that was wrapped in that shroud,and not one of the many other millions of people living in that time.
So no confirmation yet,but getting closer.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.04, 02:53:06
Odd that i have never had this faith,and never had anything wrong with me.
At the age of 50,im still as fit as a fiddle--besides the smoking--that's probably not good for me ;D
It is a good thing science was there for you when you needed those medicines O0
Brad
Sometimes the devil allows people to live a life free of trouble, because he doesnt want them turning to God for help.
Selenium is not a medicine created by science. It was created by God. With all of the genetic modification and chemicals sprayed on the genetically modified plants that cause a situation where the non genetically modified plants can no longer grow in that soil. Science is eradicating natural God made plants to make room for their abominations.
Corn is suppose to be a good source of selenium, but after genetic modification, it may not be any longer.
The cows are being fed genetically modified corn which causes infections in the cows, so they give them antibiotics. And then they give them steroids on top of that.
Either way, it wasnt science that led me to selenium. Or maybe you interpreted what i wrote incorrectly. Doctors are not selling selenium to their patients because they cant make any money off of it, when you can buy a bottle of 60 capsules for 4.99. They want you to be on their drugs for the rest of your life for that continuous income.
Mags
Hi Mags,
I have also learned that natural remedies are far superior to man made medicine. Several years ago I started having problems with my hands. The skin on the palms would get real thick and stiff and then start cracking open until they were bleeding. I went to two different dermatologists. They both said it was either psoriasis or excema. They said the treatment was the same for either one. Well five years later the many different treatments I had tried still weren't working. My hands would clear up for a week or so and then right back to problems.
My daughter suggested about 4 years ago that I try taking Turmeric extract which is called curcumin because it is supposed to be good for general overall health. About 3 weeks after I started taking it I noticed my hands were getting better. After 6 weeks my hands were completely healed. And I have had no trouble with them since. When my regular MD saw that I was taking it he said he had only heard good things about it and suggested I keep taking it. Of course I didn't need that advice. My hands were all I needed to convince me to keep taking it. My cardiologist is from India and he thought it was great that I was taking it. He says it is used in India as a spice because it is a strong antiseptic and very good for you.
If anyone is interested in trying it you need to get some that says it has peppercine or says it is highly bioabsorbable. The body does not absorb the curcumin easily but the peppercine helps the body to absorb it. And there have never been any bad side effects reported from taking it.
Take care,
Carroll
author=Magluvin link=topic=3776.msg75018#msg75018 date=1559690815]
QuoteSometimes the devil allows people to live a life free of trouble, because he doesnt want them turning to God for help.
Well funny you should keep mentioning this devil dude,as the bible tells of only 1 who has commited mass murder,and that is god,when he killed almost every living thing on the planet during the great flood.
One has to wonder as to who the devil actually is,as i am not aware of any mass murder being committed by Lucifer mentioned in the bible.
Also,i wonder why your god continues to allow great atrocities to be committed against his creation ?
Where is the love of god when events like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings took place,where America killed 226,000 innocent men,women and children ?,or when that idiot Hitler was killing all of gods children?.
It seems that, !according to the bible!,the only time god intervened or showed his might,was when he murdered nearly all life on earth during this great flood. C.C
QuoteCorn is suppose to be a good source of selenium, but after genetic modification, it may not be any longer.
Funny you should mention corn.
Here is how it evolved over 9000 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/science/25creature.html
3000 odd years before man was suppose to have been created,but anyway ^-^
QuoteDoctors are not selling selenium to their patients because they cant make any money off of it, when you can buy a bottle of 60 capsules for 4.99. They want you to be on their drugs for the rest of your life for that continuous income.
Now on that we can agree O0
But you would be far better off using Vitamin C as an antioxidant.
Maybe that is why i am quite healthy,as i eat a lot of oranges,and drink orange juice daily.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan
Maybe that is why i am quite healthy, as i eat a
lot of oranges, and drink orange juice daily.
Our Creator has thought of everything and made
what we need for good health abundantly
available. The foods that are good for us are in
many instances very tasty too.
That Wickedness and Evil have entered in to the
Creation is explained in The Book. While it is
indeed bad, it is necessary that we be exposed to
it and suffer it as part of our learning how to love
as we live. It doesn't seem fair to humankind and
it certainly isn't enjoyable but it is essential for our
development as we proceed from this life into the
next. While we may not appreciate our dilemma now,
we will once we've been presented with the Whole
Truth and the revelation of all lies which have deceived
us.
All will be healed of their pain and suffering. All will
be made good All will be rehabilitated and made perfect,
even the ones who've done horribly wicked things.
Sheep and Goats we are. Our paths to the New Life will
be somewhat different but we'll all get there. That is the
Promise. Even the non-believers are covered.
Saul was perhaps the baddest of the bad on our Planet. He
was enabled to see Truth and he gladly became a Believer.
We will all experience Truth in a similar fashion.
The time is coming when Death will be no more.
All of the dead will be given life again in entirely
different circumstances.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.05, 05:24:20
Our Creator has thought of everything...
...even of dinosaurs, which are very useful today, golden staphilococcus, siamese twins and cancer in babies. He obviously lacked kicks in the ass.
(https://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.541120.1452525850!/image/image.jpg)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.05, 09:05:41
...even of dinosaurs, which are very useful today, golden staphilococcus, siamese twins and cancer in babies. He obviously lacked kicks in the ass.
(https://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.541120.1452525850!/image/image.jpg)
Thanks for all the clear examples of how EVOLUTION makes things better!
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.05, 11:23:37
Thanks for all the clear examples of how EVOLUTION makes things better!
A good sign that they were not created with perfection-wouldnt you say ?.
But have you seen the video muDped posted.
Very interesting,and quite eerie seeing that image on the cloth.
I know i watch to much star trek,but the image on the cloth resembles the god in the movie- the final frontier,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HjR5xW7FU
where as i picture jesus as being a younger man--probably an image i got from another movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.05, 11:23:37
Quote(https://www.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.541120.1452525850!/image/image.jpg)
Thanks for all the clear examples of how EVOLUTION makes things better!
Evolution is the synthesis of observations. Unlike a religion, it is not an ideology. That's the way the world is.
The article explains that surgeons will separate them.
It is always necessary for man to repair divine blunders or the effects of divine sadism, which, unlike the effects of a blind nature, is criminal.
Man and science: 1
God and prayer: 0
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.05, 12:49:58
A good sign that they were not created with perfection-wouldnt you say ?.
But have you seen the video muDped posted.
Very interesting,and quite eerie seeing that image on the cloth.
I know i watch to much star trek,but the image on the cloth resembles the god in the movie- the final frontier,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4HjR5xW7FU
where as i picture jesus as being a younger man--probably an image i got from another movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk
Brad
Or....
To me, Galileo.
Allegedly, the perpetrator of the Turin shroud.
Quote from: F6
Evolution is the synthesis of observations. Unlike a religion,
it is not an ideology. That's the way the world is.
The article explains that surgeons will separate them.
It is always necessary for man to repair divine blunders
or the effects of divine sadism, which, unlike the effects
of a blind nature, is criminal.
Man and science: 1
God and prayer: 0
There was a time in our distant past when those sorts of
defects did not exist. Mankind has devolved over the
course of millennia thanks to industrial activities in
pursuit of wealth. Look at what America has inflicted
upon Viet Nam with Agent Orange as an example.
Unfortunately, Mankind has brought these very sad cases
of defect upon ourselves with toxic chemicals and careless
industrial procedures and broad spectrum warfare. We, in
reality, are
killing our Planet and all Life upon it.The Love of Money has been the cause of our distress.
The Cult of Evolution is indeed an ideology with an Agenda.
A very destructive Agenda.
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.05, 11:23:37
Thanks for all the clear examples of how EVOLUTION makes things better!
O0 O0 O0 O0 ;) Excellent response. ^-^
Mags
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.05, 21:46:02
...We, in reality, are killing our Planet and all Life upon it.
...
Life requires resources taken from the earth.
Living is always at the expense of another part of nature. For humans, the more comfortable his life is, the more it has an impact on the environment.
So go to your conclusion: either we live in small numbers, like animals, it was like that in the past, and Nature can absorb all our "pollution", or we follow the religious precept "grow and multiply", and then we come to what we see today.
Reason would, however, advise us to take an intermediate, and therefore non-religious, position: a limited population as long as we are prisoners of the earth, but living comfortably. This is likely to happen because the increase in living standards is accompanied by a decrease in births. Population forecasts indicate a decline at the end of the century.
Here again, and as in almost all areas, religion has been a bad advisor.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.05, 21:46:02
We, in
reality, are killing our Planet and all Life upon it.
!we! will never kill the planet.
Once we have killed our selfs,the planet will happily continue on.
If the KT event didnt take out the planet,man has no chance of doing so before killing him self.
Even after the KT event,life continued on,as it will when we are gone.
Mother nature is a powerful source when it comes to keeping life going--it always has done,and always will,regardless of what we do.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.06, 09:46:41
!we! will never kill the planet.
Once we have killed our selfs,the planet will happily continue on.
If the KT event didnt take out the planet,man has no chance of doing so before killing him self.
Even after the KT event,life continued on,as it will when we are gone.
Mother nature is a powerful source when it comes to keeping life going--it always has done,and always will,regardless of what we do.
Brad
Oh, so God has become "mother nature" now... or has Evolution become God/mother nature??? I am confused?
MuDped's statement is quite correct if you finish the implied statement, "We, in reality, are killing the planet and all life on it
as we have known it for the past 1000 years"Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.06, 15:20:02
Oh, so God has become "mother nature" now... or has Evolution become God/mother nature??? I am confused?
MuDped's statement is quite correct if you finish the implied statement, "We, in reality, are killing the planet and all life on it as we have known it for the past 1000 years"
Ron
Perhaps you have read only bits and pieces.
Mother nature and evolution go hand in hand-->there is no God,and i never ever said there was.
The planet will continue on with out us,it will not die.
The impact we are having on the planet is nothing compared with what it has indured in the past.
1000 years is but a second out of a year as far as the planet is concerned.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan
Perhaps you have read only bits and pieces.
Mother nature and evolution go hand in hand-->there is no God,and i never ever said there was.
The planet will continue on with out us,it will not die.
The impact we are having on the planet is nothing compared with what it has indured in the past.
1000 years is but a second out of a year as far as the planet is concerned.
Aye, Mother Nature has become the Evolutionists' substitute for
a Creator God. They've acknowledged that all life exists because
of incredible, amazing design of living systems, ecosystems and
co-dependent relationships but cannot bring themselves to admit
that a God with Behavioral Rules is responsible; therefore a Mother
Nature with No Behavioral Rules (Do What Thou Wilt) is accredited
who will look the other way as they go about their badness.
It is True that Planet Earth will not die or be destroyed, although
the coming Last Battle will get pretty close to doing just that.
Many of us will die as a result. In fact it is estimated that about
70% of Earth's people will die in the coming War.
We are having an impact on Earth's Health, however. We're
polluting soil and water with toxic chemicals, prescription
drugs, weedkillers and plastics. Those who Love Money above
all else have taken control of Governments, Media, Entertainment,
Sports, Agriculture, Commerce, Health Care and Warfare. They
care nothing about the Common Folk and have a Plan to reduce
the World Population accordingly.
They will go far with their Plan, but they will not succeed completely.
The Forces of Good will overtake them just when they think they've
got it all. Then the processes of Restoration will begin.
That will be our New Beginning. All badness will be gone.
Then we will know Who has made us. And why.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.07, 00:16:00
Aye, Mother Nature has become the Evolutionists' substitute for a Creator God.
...
Replace "evolutionists" by "environmentalists", and you could not have put it better. Evolutionists just observe the world as it works. Environmentalists have made Nature their god.
After Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other absurd ideologies based on myths full of paranormal beings, here is the religion of the god Nature whose preachers are the environmentalists who alone hold the true Truth about the future of the planet and therefore speak on behalf of future generations.
When they sometimes use science, it is because it is in line with their ideology. When this is not the case, they ignore it or manipulate it.
Religious obscurantism has many forms, and to combat it we will have to review the notion of atheism when the god is Nature.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.07, 09:49:00
Replace "evolutionists" by "environmentalists", and you could not have put it better. Evolutionists just observe the world as it works. Environmentalists have made Nature their god.
After Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other absurd ideologies based on myths full of paranormal beings, here is the religion of the god Nature whose preachers are the environmentalists who alone hold the true Truth about the future of the planet and therefore speak on behalf of future generations.
When they sometimes use science, it is because it is in line with their ideology. When this is not the case, they ignore it or manipulate it.
Religious obscurantism has many forms, and to combat it we will have to review the notion of atheism when the god is Nature.
Its the new thing. Replace words that hurt certain agendas with new ones...
"Replace "evolutionists" by "environmentalists" "
Replace Global warming with climate change
Replace boy with girl, man with woman.
Replace high fructose corn syrup with sugar( they actually tried to do that)
I dont have to change my words for what I think and believe. I just say it as it is and stick with that.
Mags
Mags
Quote from: F6
...here is the religion of the god Nature whose preachers
are the environmentalists who alone hold the true Truth
about the future of the planet and therefore speak on
behalf of future generations.
When they sometimes use science, it is because it is in line
with their ideology. When this is not the case, they ignore it
or manipulate it.
Religious obscurantism has many forms, and to combat it
we will have to review the notion of atheism when the god
is Nature.
Are you saying then that Nature has intelligence and that this
intelligence is behind the studied life processes supported by
the Theory of Evolution?
Or, are you saying that the Theory of Evolution is non-intelligent
and therefore does not require any sort of intelligent driving
force to design it and sustain it?
Aren't Evolutionists by their very nature also Environmentalists?
Another question arises: What is it about the thought of a God
and a Creator that is so repulsive to many Evolution Theorists?
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.08, 07:05:03
Are you saying then that Nature has intelligence
Certainly not.
Quote
Or, are you saying that the Theory of Evolution is non-intelligent
...
Certainly not.
You are using a fallacy: these 2 questions are not complementary, so there are other options.
The idea that nature "would use a method" is only an image, you should understand that.
I say that a method can be derived from observing how nature works, and that this method can be applied by us humans consciously to achieve results as effective as those that nature obtains blindly.Intelligence is only in the extraction of a method from the observation of the functioning of a system, not in the system itself whose way of functioning is only a corollary of its existence.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.08, 07:05:03
Another question arises: What is it about the thought of a God
and a Creator that is so repulsive to many Evolution Theorists?
It show's that even today,we have those that believe in the super natural,even although all evidence point's toward it being unrealistic.
As a child,i guess it cant hurt to much to have imaginary friend's,but come the later year's,reality should have kicked in. But as we clearly see in this thread,we have those that still reside outside of reality,and still support the !imaginary fried! senario.
But the worst part is the poisoning of young children's minds, with the false belief of a super natural creator.
This actually can brainwash children to thinking that it is actually reality,while keeping them from the reality of evolution. Thankfully the supreme courts woke up to this delusion,and banned creationist science from school's,as they know it is junk science.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.08, 07:05:03
...
Another question arises: What is it about the thought of a God and a Creator that is so repulsive to many Evolution Theorists?
It's a matter of allergy to stupidity.
Some are immune to it, as can be seen among creationist preachers, or Islamists who hope that 72 virgins will wait for them in Allah's paradise, after they have slaughtered innocent people.
On the contrary, some people are very sensitive to it, and as in all cases of allergy, the one with the stupidity has the same remedy: to fight the allergen and those who spend their lives distilling it.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.08, 11:09:31
It show's that even today,we have those that believe in the super natural,even although all evidence point's toward it being unrealistic.
snip
Brad
I would not call a study of the paranormal "unrealistic" It is a vibrant exciting study. It explains this world and the next.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.08, 16:06:25
I would not call a study of the paranormal "unrealistic" It is a vibrant exciting study. It explains this world and the next.
Ron
It is realistic like studying the sex of angels and it explains nothing more than an imaginary fantasy.
You can study unusual or strange phenomena, observable facts, but not "paranormal", because if you put your conclusion before starting the study, it is no longer necessary. :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.08, 16:37:23
It is realistic like studying the sex of angels and it explains nothing more than an imaginary fantasy.
You can study unusual or strange phenomena, observable facts, but not "paranormal", because if you put your conclusion before starting the study, it is no longer necessary. :)
Have you ever had an " experience " in your life that you couldn't explain " scientifically " ?
It is always a fascinating experience to share beliefs
and to observe how beliefs are defended emotionally.
It is fascinating to see how many are open to exploring
numerous possibilities without fear while others seem
to be trapped in their beliefs and fear looking elsewhere
for possible answers.
It is fascinating to see how we judge each other based
upon beliefs and our emotional convictions/attachments.
Critical thinkers should be fearless in pursuing Truth.
True Scientists should not fear what their colleagues
may think of their personal beliefs.
Living within an exclusionary box with only like-minded
colleagues will not lead to Truth.
Coming soon: Truth Revelation. We shall all experience it!
It will be a very good thing, but many will not feel good when
they realize how they've been deceived by those in whom
they've placed their trust.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.08, 16:37:23
It is realistic like studying the sex of angels and it explains nothing more than an imaginary fantasy.
You can study unusual or strange phenomena, observable facts, but not "paranormal", because if you put your conclusion before starting the study, it is no longer necessary. :)
No, you are being silly. Michael Newton has a number of videos out that describe life after death and or life between incarnations.
It is well to prepare yourself for your death and the death of loved ones close to you and is not wasted study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ)
take care
Ron
Quote from: Grumage on 2019.06.08, 17:04:14
Have you ever had an " experience " in your life that you couldn't explain " scientifically " ?
People under the influence of narcotics have daily "experience" of phenomena that actually only exist in their heads. The four senses are also easily misled.
Before talking about anything, it is necessary to check the reality of objective facts. If there is to be a study, it is a priority for that.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.08, 19:14:32
It is always a fascinating experience to share beliefs and to observe how beliefs are defended emotionally.
It is fascinating to see how many are open to exploring numerous possibilities without fear while others seem to be trapped in their beliefs and fear looking elsewhere for possible answers.
...
This is the reason for their constant failures.
These so-called "open" minds are in fact completely closed, and you say it yourself: they do not fear others. They deny the objections of others, the evidence and the good reasons for disagreeing with their ideas.
Those who claim to explore many possibilities without fearing others who are supposedly trapped by their beliefs, are in fact those who believe and attack those who know. They confuse explanation and hypothesis. They imagine explanations in advance, whereas an explanation must be the result of the analysis of the observations, which they are unable to do because, as you say, their "beliefs are defended emotionally". That's why no technology has ever come out of their delusional ideas.
It's really crazy to see that you give the exact reason for the failure of your method by projecting your own belief system.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.08, 23:40:04
No, you are being silly. Michael Newton has a number of videos out that describe life after death and or life between incarnations.
It is well to prepare yourself for your death and the death of loved ones close to you and is not wasted study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ)
take care
Ron
Pure expression of blind faith.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.09, 08:52:21
This is the reason for their constant failures.
These so-called "open" minds are in fact completely closed, and you say it yourself: they do not fear others. They deny the objections of others, the evidence and the good reasons for disagreeing with their ideas.
Those who claim to explore many possibilities without fearing others who are supposedly trapped by their beliefs, are in fact those who believe and attack those who know. They confuse explanation and hypothesis. They imagine explanations in advance, whereas an explanation must be the result of the analysis of the observations, which they are unable to do because, as you say, their "beliefs are defended emotionally". That's why no technology has ever come out of their delusional ideas.
It's really crazy to see that you give the exact reason for the failure of your method by projecting your own belief system.
I do believe you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote what I have highlighted. Most people fear what they don't understand and attack what they fear. The question is why does someone fear what they don't believe in? That doesn't make sense. If I started posting about my belief in pink unicorns I doubt anyone would attack my position. They might not believe in pink unicorns but they wouldn't feel threatened by my belief. Yet as soon as I post about my belief in a creator I am attacked and ridiculed. I am convinced those actions are motivated by a deep seated fear that what I am saying is actually true. Please keep posting. You are revealing a lot about your true character.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Carroll wrote.
" If I started posting about my belief in pink unicorns I doubt anyone would attack my position. "
More likely blame it on " Narcotics " abuse!! :)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.09, 09:20:31
Pure expression of blind faith.
Nope, been there, done that.
Just because you have totally forgotten is not reason enough to dismiss the concept.
I was not looking for converts, just attempting to plant a seed. My failure lies more in the nature that seeds don't germinate on stony ground.
Did you watch all of the video? How many times did you watch it? Are not intending to die?
What it does is set out a hypothesis that you yourself can prove or disprove when the time comes for you to return to the other world. It gives you a leg up so to speak.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk5bSG78pbQ)
Ron
Again I ask: How could man invent the Ark of the Covenant concept back when it was introduced and David was told the exact engineering specifications?Where did that concept, technology and engineering come from if man is so self sufficient? And like back in the day 3000 years ago, you know, before evolution?
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.09, 12:13:51
I do believe you must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote what I have highlighted.
...
As you also believe in creationism and other religious superstitions, I'm not surprised to see that what you believe about me is of the same level of absurdity.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2019.06.09, 17:52:25
Again I ask: How could man invent the Ark of the Covenant concept back when it was introduced and David was told the exact engineering specifications?Where did that concept, technology and engineering come from if man is so self sufficient? And like back in the day 3000 years ago, you know, before evolution?
"engineering" ? ;D There is nothing complicated about it at the time.
The Egyptians did much better, and their pyramids is History, not tales of the Bible. Would that mean that Isis and Osiris would have inspired them in engineering?!
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.09, 16:12:56
...
What it does is set out a hypothesis that you yourself can prove or disprove...
Ron
This hypothesis is irrefutable in Popers' sense, and therefore operationally useless.
If I say "elves exist, they walk in the forests at night when they know they are not being observed", that is also a hypothesis and no one can prove otherwise.
So what?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.10, 09:04:44
This hypothesis is irrefutable in Popers' sense, and therefore operationally useless.
If I say "elves exist, they walk in the forests at night when they know they are not being observed", that is also a hypothesis and no one can prove otherwise.
So what?
You didn't allow enough time to prove or disprove the hypothesis. I was saying when you die you can tell me whether I was right or wrong. Your elves and angels are distortions or at least distractions. I am saying "Life" (Soul) is continuous. The body dies and passes back into its components but the animating energy... YOU... do not die.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.10, 15:14:10
...
I am saying "Life" (Soul) is continuous.
...
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclid
So I say: "Life" (Soul) is not continuous.
Discussing the sex of angels is of no use, one can say one thing and its opposite with the same (non-)relevance, it's to waste our time in an intellectual vacuity.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.10, 17:16:06
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclid
So I say: "Life" (Soul) is not continuous
snip
Ah, but *proof* is not always black or white. Sometimes there is a grey area where seeming lack of proof is not conclusive because of the host of anomalies that support the controversial subject.
Whereas mere denial does not constitute absolute disproof.
"Science is about opening your mind to something new" (about 27:37)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=99&v=CkKGEkr0v1Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=99&v=CkKGEkr0v1Q)
Ron
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.10, 17:16:06
"What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof".
Euclid
So I say: "Life" (Soul) is not continuous.
Discussing the sex of angels is of no use, one can say one thing and its opposite with the same (non-)relevance, it's to waste our time in an intellectual vacuity.
I could really care less about the sex of angels, but you keep bringing it up as if it is some proof on your part for whatever reasons.
See, if you had really read the Bible and were really searching for God and answers, you should have found them. And also you would understand why in Gods plan that he would not be detectable through science. If Science were able to simply establish the fact that god exists, then the mystery would be dissolved and everyone would know for sure. But guess what? I believe there would still be some that would be against him and there still would be issues between the ones that are for God and the ones that are not that take Lucifer's view. But then there would not be any science that is against Gods existence or against his words or creation. There would be just fighting over, well, all kinds of other things instead of the way things are. But the way things are, are how it was planned.
Everything is set in place to either believe in him, or, believe in sciences explanation excluding him and/or even to just question his plan, as if they are better and more righteous than God. Whether the dinosaurs were there on this world and actually lived, or if the earth was created with all that installed for science to to be able to come up with alternatives to God and creation. To me, it doesnt matter which.
Now dont take this badly, but a lot of the arguments against God presented here are filled with what seems like hatred. I dont just come in here or over at OU and just start preaching. Im not here or there pushing my beliefs on others. But I do have the right to give my arguments and views on these things when the subject does come up. I dont post to ridicule and make fun of your beliefs like you guys do to us. If thats a big part of your argument, then your argument is in a big part just insulting us like childish bullies in school. Eventually the bullies end up being seen as the fools, instead of scholars of truth. So go on and do as you shall. If you think all the funny cartoons and name calling helps and is important for others to accept your so called facts, then so beit. that is your act, not mine
As for what seems to be hatred for God and religion, I know many that have had bad experiences in certain churches and I get it. But they are not all like that, and I pray for those that have ridden that path and succumb to it. The pains and sufferings that we endure here in our time on earth are meant to test us and provide us with choices. if One refuses God from the get go, they may just live a happy and healthy life without the thought or need of having faith. if we look at the book of Job, he was close to God and Lucifer challenged God that he could make Job turn on God, Even though he knew he did exist! Im not going to post the whole book, but it is an important lesson in how we can be pushed away from God, even though we know he does exist. These days it is more about does he exist at all as a ploy to get people to turn the other way before they ever got to know him.
Mags
Once again, you've said it very well Mags.
Our Creator understands why there is the seeming hatred
and He knows that it is because of our being deceived about
many things.
That is why His Plan of Restoration includes ALL. Not
only ALL of Humankind who live upon the Earth but also
ALL of the Angels who followed Satan in the Rebellion
including The Adversary himself.
We are living on Earth in the midst of the Rebellion.
It is necessary that we experience all that we experience,
both the good and the bad, to prepare us for the life to
come. We have been given the freedom to make choices;
we may choose to do good or to do bad as our hearts
develop; we effectively choose to become Sheep or Goats.
The Son of God became the Son of Man for a reason. He
had to experience all of the temptations that we experience;
He had to finally be condemned to Death by those who hated
him, for a reason.
His death was the worst possible way of dying at that time.
Crucifixion was for most a very slow and painful death over
a period of up to nine days. Why did the Son of Man die so
quickly after being nailed and hung on the cross?
I believe that as the Roman guard was softening up the Son of
Man for His crucifixion they came to realize who He truly was.
He did not protest or struggle as He was being beaten and scourged,
He did not fight with the guard in any way. Rather He forgave them
for what they were doing to Him and took the beating silently.
The Romans must have realized that His behavior was very, very
unusual. They must have come to realize that He truly was the
Son of God. What then could they do as an act of mercy?
They could hasten His death by beating Him severely. Realizing
that unless they did He would suffer in excruciating pain for
possibly several days. They beat Him nearly to death so that His
suffering on the cross would be for only a short amount of time.
As it was foretold in prophecy.
The Roman guard who watched over His death did indeed say that
He truly was the Son of God.
It is very difficult for most on Earth to believe. No matter. They are
covered never the less. When it is time and when they are ready they
shall believe because they will want to. They will see the Truth with
their own eyes.
One day all of our trials and tribulations, our difficulties, will all make
sense to us and we will be grateful. Some few already are.
The Story we are all a part of will have the very happiest of new beginnings.
We are all loved. We will all be healed. We will all be given new life.
We shall all receive the most wonderful kind of Free Energy.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.11, 00:45:27
I could really care less about the sex of angels, but you keep bringing it up as if it is some proof on your part for whatever reasons.
See, if you had really read the Bible and were really searching for God...
If you had really read Darwin and today's science on evolution, you wouldn't need a superfluous god mythology.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.11, 06:29:00
...
Our Creator understands...
If you understand anything about the understanding of a creator, you would also be a god, unless the understanding of a god is as limited as human understanding, which is in fact what the Bible shows.
Quote from: F6
If you understand anything about the understanding of a creator,
you would also be a god, unless the understanding of a god is as
limited as human understanding, which is in fact what the Bible shows.
The Book does tell us that our ability to "understand" and to acquire
wisdom is limited. There is too much that we yet are not able to
comprehend. Only temporarily though. One day we shall know.
The Book does reveal quite a lot about Our Creator though.
Answer from Pierre-Simon Laplace, the mathematician and physicist, to Napoleon I, who asked him why his treatise on cosmology did not mention God:
"There is No Need for God as a Hypothesis"
This applies to everything related to science. In terms of overunity, there is no need for God as a hypothesis either.
Here is my prayer. Believers, leave the free thinkers the hell alone, with your preaching, your religious wars, your imaginary beings, your sophistic or inconsistent arguments, your books from barbaric periods, your demands on the behaviour of others, your proselytism, your totalitarian ideology, and your superstitions as children afraid of death.
Your place is in churches, temples, and on prayer mats, to pray in vain and to repeat your immutable absurdities over and over again to convince yourself; not in laboratories.
Have you just declared the Doctrine and Dogma of
your Religion?
Fascinating sentiment. So you do believe in something.
But why do your words sound so hateful? Is there no Love?
It is True that there is no need for God as a hypothesis in
order to apply the Scientific Method. As Science is fully
discovered it reveals the Truth that there is indeed a
Creator whose works we observe. The evidence speaks
for itself.
The Institution of Science seems now determined to vainly
deny the existence of a Creator. It prefers to promote an
Un-Scientific Agenda of confirmation bias. It has closed
its eyes.
It does seem though, that a certain component of Science
ought to be interested in finding the Source of All Energy.
Recent studies of our Sun seem to be pointing in that
direction.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.11, 08:06:38
Answer from Pierre-Simon Laplace, the mathematician and physicist, to Napoleon I, who asked him why his treatise on cosmology did not mention God:
"There is No Need for God as a Hypothesis"
This applies to everything related to science. In terms of overunity, there is no need for God as a hypothesis either.
Here is my prayer. Believers, leave the free thinkers the hell alone, with your preaching, your religious wars, your imaginary beings, your sophistic or inconsistent arguments, your books from barbaric periods, your demands on the behaviour of others, your proselytism, your totalitarian ideology, and your superstitions as children afraid of death.
Your place is in churches, temples, and on prayer mats, to pray in vain and to repeat your immutable absurdities over and over again to convince yourself; not in laboratories.
But F6, we haven't begun to elucidate reincarnation and you want to shut off the discussion?
Ron
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.11, 06:29:00
Once again, you've said it very well Mags.
Thanks.
All we can do is reply in our way, and all they can do is reply in their way.
F6 says it is like an allergy to him. Lots of hatred there. But he keeps on reading and replying, so maybe he likes the burn. I dunno. The attacks are intended and it is not just for us to react to them, it is for the readers. But only the bully type would look at the attacks as cool or enjoyable. But those that are not see it all for what it really is.
keep up the 'good' works. ;) O0
Mags
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.12, 02:03:42
Thanks.
All we can do is reply in our way, and all they can do is reply in their way.
F6 says it is like an allergy to him. Lots of hatred there. But he keeps on reading and replying, so maybe he likes the burn. I dunno. The attacks are intended and it is not just for us to react to them, it is for the readers. But only the bully type would look at the attacks as cool or enjoyable. But those that are not see it all for what it really is.
keep up the 'good' works. ;) O0
Mags
Mags
O0 O0 O0 :)
Carroll
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.12, 01:42:21
But F6, we haven't begun to elucidate reincarnation and you want to shut off the discussion?
Ron
We should all seek our own proofs of course but when we come here we are "supposed to" forget. Some do this very well, some carry it to extremes.
Some cheat.
I cheated, nothing unusual as the literature is replete with examples. I remember another world and the reason that triggered my choosing to come to this world. I remember meeting with the guardians and being allowed to come down in spirit to see what it was all about. I was then shown several vignettes of what a possible life would be like.
I remember coming to first consciousness in the womb. I was doing a math formula. It took me several go's to get it complete but then it was just so natural to drift off in bliss. This is rather strange, in that math this time, is one of my weakest subjects.
When my father died I was three and I had a visit from an angel to tell me that this was an accident, not part of the plan that my father and I had put together. Therefore I could stay or I could return, I'll stay, I said, with little hesitation. This has always been a comfort to me over the rough spots.
So it should come as no surprise that I started read occult/paranormal books at an early age to find out what was going on.
I have found my answers and am at peace. I write to attempt to bring this "life is continuous" subject to the foreground as it is not taught or honoured in present day society, just money and war, ugh
Ron
I am on Dave Lawrence's list also and after my post I read this... it is so beautifully set out that I feel I must share:
"We begin from the outer boundary of the universe, project inwards to the earth sphere and move into a 5th density body form.
When we are totally polarized to the creation side of life on this world we are allowed to access the 4th density, and discover the protocols for 3rd density entry. Lower 4th has only one objective, to create and maintain order that life can continue to operate. Life always wins in the physical.
We enter into the physical, when the conception happens, but do not enter the baby. We circle around the adults for a time first, when the baby is developed enough we then enter it's brain through the pineal access.
If we remember the birth canal, it is a solid memory. Before this we will remember being outside the body of the baby and orbiting around the mothers center of consciousness.
From the physical life we can now learn to access all three levels, and this is the only place where this becomes possible, as we are alive and working on all three levels to exist here as consciousness.
At death of the body we cannot access the lower astral anymore in the creative side. We go only up to the 5th density light again and the cycle is complete.
There will then be a choice as to go back to the outer boundary to look at the entire universe and possibly select a different world, or to enter again with a new plan in the physical once we decide to polarize towards creation again on this world." D L
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.12, 01:42:21
But F6, we haven't begun to elucidate reincarnation and you want to shut off the discussion?
Ron
Is reincarnation a method of "overunity"?
Perhaps you were not aware that this forum is dedicated to this research.
The purpose of the forum is certainly too complicated for the lost believers here. They think they are at Mass and their pack floods us with their obscurantism and anti-science rearguard battles.
I'm not stopping them from doing it, but elsewhere.
Do I go to churches to preach relativity?! Everyone has his place.
You really have no sense of ridicule or respect, militant believers.
Quote from: F6
Is reincarnation a method of "overunity"?
Perhaps you were not aware that this forum is dedicated
to this research.
The purpose of the forum is certainly too complicated for
the lost believers here. They think they are at Mass and
their pack floods us with their obscurantism and anti-science
rearguard battles.
Life itself is overunity. Has this thought ever occurred to you?
Life is the most efficient sort of "machinery" ever seen by the
human eye.
Are you saying that those who you consider to be "believers"
are against Science in some way? Perhaps it would be nearer
the Truth to think that Believers are against False Science,
Deceptive Science, Manipulative Science and all that is wrong.
We all crave Truth. We have seen how Love of Money corrupts
Institutions and how those institutions then resort to deceptive
practices to enhance their "bottom line." In a word, we are being
Lied to.
Is the process of exposing lies coming from the Institution of Science
to be thought of as being against Science? No, not at all.
What is desired is an Institution of Science that is Honest, Trustworthy,
Scrupulous in all things.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.12, 17:04:11
Is reincarnation a method of "overunity"?
Perhaps you were not aware that this forum is dedicated to this research.
The purpose of the forum is certainly too complicated for the lost believers here. They think they are at Mass and their pack floods us with their obscurantism and anti-science rearguard battles.
I'm not stopping them from doing it, but elsewhere.
Do I go to churches to preach relativity?! Everyone has his place.
You really have no sense of ridicule or respect, militant believers.
"Is reincarnation a method of "overunity"? Perhaps you were not aware that this forum is dedicated to this research. "
Have you ever thought that if you keep replying that we may keep replying back and this thread will continue on? ???
"The purpose of the forum is certainly too complicated for the lost believers here. "
lol. That is a garbage statement. Just more insults based on falsehood.. C.C I expect nothing less from you, and most likely more to come. ;)
"They think they are at Mass and their pack floods us with their obscurantism and anti-science rearguard battles."
Their pack floods us? What, Carrol? Ron? Mud? Me Mags? Lol. If 4 people are a flood, then 40 days and 40 nights of rain could surely cover the earth. ^-^
Who said we were against 'real' science? Its the fake science drawn up by the likes of you we worry about. ;)
Its funny. When science gives answers that agree with your ideals, it is real science to you. But when science goes against your ideals, then that science must be fake. It goes both ways bud, both ways.
"I'm not stopping them from doing it, but elsewhere."
Sure seems like you are trying to stop us, from the rest of your post here. C.C
"Do I go to churches to preach relativity?! Everyone has his place.
You really have no sense of ridicule or respect, militant believers."
I dont know if you do. Why ask a question that you know that nobody here can answer? You should just simply state that you dont. Maybe you do seeing how you pounce in here at every opportunity. ;) With that allergy you have, probably the sight of a church may cause you a rash, so probably not. ;) You keep saying we shouldnt be having this discussion here, but here you are, helping it continue on... And bully name calling. >:( Seems like that is mostly all you have. O0
Mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.12, 17:04:11
Is reincarnation a method of "overunity"?
Perhaps you were not aware that this forum is dedicated to this research.
The purpose of the forum is certainly too complicated for the lost believers here. They think they are at Mass and their pack floods us with their obscurantism and anti-science rearguard battles.
I'm not stopping them from doing it, but elsewhere.
Do I go to churches to preach relativity?! Everyone has his place.
You really have no sense of ridicule or respect, militant believers.
Gee, golly, holy cow, with a Header like "The Reality of Evolution" I thought I was on safe ground.
OK here it is the "The Final Secret of Over Unity"
I have been following Patrick Kelley's Chapter 32 on The Samsung motor as driver for an alternator or generator that is self running and OU. I bought a Samsung washing machine that was toast and cut the drum out to get a motor ($50) I the cut down the hub, cast an aluminum stand for it and this is progress to date
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UUSCQKRzCrRH3EK8A (https://photos.app.goo.gl/UUSCQKRzCrRH3EK8A)
My other concurrent project is the mad scientist's AquaChi foot bath... I am building a Power supply for it, made the PCB this morning but had to go out to the university this afternoon to see my son in law graduate.
Better? This is just to prove your statement, "You have no sense of ridicule" as false, :P
Ron
Si i see that there isn't 1 single creationist willing to answer any of my questions,but expected me to answer and provide proof to there questions.
I also see that the creationists keep saying that real science is junk science,and there (the creationist) junk science is real science.
How twisted around you have things.
But we know that comes with being a creationist.
Brad
@Ron
"At death of the body we cannot access the lower astral anymore in the creative side. We go only up to the 5th density light again and the cycle is complete." C.C
It's also from you, right before that, isn't it?
So Patrick Kelly's reading will not help you any more than the Bible or the Saṃsāra reading, you mix everything up with anything believing in irrefutable tales.
People like Kelly who have never produced a free energy device at all and claim to teach us, are as useless and hypocritical as those who wrote the Bible in archaic times. Let me give you this advice: burn your idols and think for yourself, lean on the shoulders of giants rather than preachers like Kelly, leave faith in the cloakroom when you enter the lab, you'll have a better chance than Kelly of finding something.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.13, 01:41:32
I have been following Patrick Kelley's Chapter 32 on The Samsung motor as driver for an alternator or generator that is self running and OU. I bought a Samsung washing machine that was toast and cut the drum out to get a motor ($50) I the cut down the hub, cast an aluminum stand for it and this is progress to date
A motor that drives a generator that drive the motor.
Sounds exactly like Gerard Morin's setup to me.
Nothing like trying to lift your self up off the ground by your own shoe laces.
F6
Here is an OU motor/generator setup :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOLnf_gP7K8
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.13, 08:15:29
@Ron
"At death of the body we cannot access the lower astral anymore in the creative side. We go only up to the 5th density light again and the cycle is complete." C.C
It's also from you, right before that, isn't it?
So Patrick Kelly's reading will not help you any more than the Bible or the Saṃsāra reading, you mix everything up with anything believing in irrefutable tales.
People like Kelly who have never produced a free energy device at all and claim to teach us, are as useless and hypocritical as those who wrote the Bible in archaic times. Let me give you this advice: burn your idols and think for yourself, lean on the shoulders of giants rather than preachers like Kelly, leave faith in the cloakroom when you enter the lab, you'll have a better chance than Kelly of finding something.
Not sure as I understand the question? Everything in quotes is from DL
Patrick Kelley is a competent professional writer. He writes to inspire people. I worked with him when he did a write up on my John Bedini device. His questioning is prodigious. The point being that sometimes hidden away in his stuff is a little gem of truth that can lead to somewhere. One needs to balance one's cynicism.
Ron
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.13, 14:45:43
A motor that drives a generator that drive the motor.
Sounds exactly like Gerard Morin's setup to me.
Nothing like trying to lift your self up off the ground by your own shoe laces.
snip
Brad
True it does sound like Gerard Morin's setup but you are leaving out several that supposedly do work, both here and in Europe.
Nothing ventured nothing gained. I have even tried some of your's that didn't work.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.13, 16:13:55
...
Patrick Kelley is a competent professional writer. He writes to inspire people.
...
Over and over again a matter of faith. Kelly didn't do anything conclusive. He is no more competent than anyone else with the same educational background.
It's full of people like that who position themselves as inspired gurus pretending to reveal the Truth to others (Wesley is another one).
The inability of the less competent to see the flaws and trickeries in their gurus' speeches, their ease in being bluffed, their propensity to be among the initiated and their unhealthy enjoyment in believing that they understand what the IQs of 140 to 160 of the great physicists would not understand, make them manipulated and zealous disciples. They become ready to buy their idols' books, attend their paid conferences, or invest in them.
And of course not one has ever managed to obtain free energy thanks to the teaching of these gurus, but it doesn't matter, they want to believe and they repeat to others the mass they heard. Faith is the height of vanity and makes the dominant background noise in the free energy field.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.13, 01:41:32
Gee, golly, holy cow, with a Header like "The Reality of Evolution" I thought I was on safe ground.
Snip
Ron
OK, to return to the subject, I think Buddhism better defines reincarnation than does the bible.
Quote: "The Lesson
We can learn a valuable lesson from the teaching of reincarnation.
In what realm do you now live? If you are hungry for power, love, and self-recognition, you live in the Preta world, or hungry ghosts. If you are motivated only by thirsts of the human organism, you are existing in the world of the beast.
Consider well then your motives and intentions. Remember that man is characteristically placed at the midpoint of the ten stages; he can either lower himself abruptly or gradually into hell, or through discipline, cultivation and the awakening of faith rise to the Enlightened state of the Buddha."
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.13, 18:24:26
OK, to return to the subject, I think Buddhism better defines reincarnation than does the bible.
Quote: "The Lesson
We can learn a valuable lesson from the teaching of reincarnation.
...
Certainly not. No "teaching", no "lesson", no facts, it's not a knowledge, just psychological deviation and infantilism of phantasmagorical fantasies.
We can learn, but no more than from the tale of "the Three Little Pigs" or at the very least from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.14, 11:52:24
Certainly not. No "teaching", no "lesson", no facts, it's not a knowledge, just psychological deviation and infantilism of phantasmagorical fantasies.
We can learn, but no more than from the tale of "the Three Little Pigs" or at the very least from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.
On the contrary, religion (creationists) half admits that we go somewhere on death (leaving the body)
Whereas Buddhism says we come from somewhere and return to some where on death of the body.
I have provided links and personal experience to show that both creationists and evolutionist miss the mark on reality, particularly the evolutionists with it's barren agenda.
Non local awareness is perhaps the key to understanding what I have half halfheartedly tried to put across. A simple study might bring a better understanding of reality. A easy first step would be, Russel Targ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBl0cwyn5GY&t=20s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBl0cwyn5GY&t=20s)
Or even, Grant Cameron:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbBpJ1ans38 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbBpJ1ans38)
But the literature is full of examples.
Hopefully this makes my presentation more complete?
Ron
Serendipity? Wondering what to say next and this comes my way. It often happens like that.
So continuing on with the remote viewing subject and this, part three of three by Lyn Buchanan, pops into view.
(about 27:00. 28:00) ...any self doubt dwindles ... when you come to the realization that all this thing that was created... you were created with it, and you are a part of it, as integral and as important as every other part.
I am a soul that possesses a body
Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6LyNZ7mARM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6LyNZ7mARM)
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.15, 01:17:49
...
I am a soul that possesses a body
...
The solar system says:
"I am the law of gravity that possesses sun and planets".
It is about reversing causes and effects.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.15, 07:43:36
The solar system says:
"I am the law of gravity that possesses sun and planets".
It is about reversing causes and effects.
Nonsense, you just trivialize everything I say, that hardly makes for an intelligent discussion.
Actually Part One and Two are good sources of info that could be read either before or after Part Three.
Interesting take on how the subconscious mind has no language to talk with the conscious mind and rather startling to hear him call the Subconscious mind a CHILD, and that spiritual development of the entity will bring the Subconscious into adulthood.
I am sorry, it was just that with my memory of other worlds and memory of coming here his, "All this was created, and you and me with it" (not an exact quote) it just rang like a bell. I don't think I have posted anything that contradicts that? Truly beautiful.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.15, 15:13:15
Nonsense, you just trivialize everything I say, that hardly makes for an intelligent discussion.
...
There is no intelligent discussion on the objects of personal faith.
"De gustibus non est disputandum".
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.15, 15:26:38
There is no intelligent discussion on the objects of personal faith.
"De gustibus non est disputandum".
Your loss.
Ron
Even psychiatrists are often crazier than their clients, so when it comes to low-level psychology, which is supposed to be an "intelligent" explanation of how the brain works, we fall into complete delirium.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.15, 16:39:16
Even psychiatrists are often crazier than their clients, so when it comes to low-level psychology, which is supposed to be an "intelligent" explanation of how the brain works, we fall into complete delirium.
psychiatrists
There is some science for ya :o :D
If you think that science is all truth and honesty, then you are in a very tiny box that you cannot see out of.
Here are some quotes from Einstein about God.
"Behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force is my religion. To that extent, I am in point of fact, religious."[8]
"Every scientist becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men."[9]
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man."[10]
"The divine reveals itself in the physical world."[11]
"My God created laws... His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking but by immutable laws."[12]
"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts."[13]
"What I am really interested in knowing is whether God could have created the world in a different way."[14]
"This firm belief in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God."[15]
"My religiosity consists of a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit, ...That superior reasoning power forms my idea of God."[16]
Mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.15, 16:39:16
Even psychiatrists are often crazier than their clients, so when it comes to low-level psychology, which is supposed to be an "intelligent" explanation of how the brain works, we fall into complete delirium.
But there again we are not discussing how the brain works, rather how the world/universe works.
Why are some people so firm in believing what they have been taught is the truth, is that not an article of faith?
Yet these same people are frightened to investigate scientifically proven subjects such as Non Local Awareness or Controlled Remote Viewing. Is it a lack of curiosity or just rigid thinking?
Ron
Quote from: Ronee
Yet these same people are frightened to investigate scientifically
proven subjects such as Non Local Awareness or Controlled
Remote Viewing.
Is it a lack of curiosity or just rigid thinking?
For any Prestigious Scientist who has swallowed whole
The Agendait is
career ending to pursue non-approved research projects.
Aye, Rigid Thinking by Control. Science has become just another
High Control Cult where certain Truths are taboo.
Fear is the most
powerful tool in the arsenal of
those who Love Money above all.
The Honest Scientists are held down or destroyed financially.
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.15, 21:45:25
Why are some people so firm in believing what they have been taught is the truth, is that not an article of faith?
Ron
When irrefutable proof has been show and confirmed in so many different way's,such as has been provided to back the !!fact!! of evolution,and none what so ever proof has been put forth to back the myth of creation,then it really is a no brainer.
But oddly enough,so many here still blinded by there faith,and cast solid science aside,so as to keep there elusion going.
Science is the way forward,where as faith has no future of advancement.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.15, 18:20:50
...
Here are some quotes from Einstein about God.
...
Which god?
I fear that your religious conditioning will make you believe that your god would be Einstein's, and that your view of his religious and philosophical position (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein) is no better than that of his theory of relativity.
"
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever.""
He's Einstein, neither the superstitious little monk of a monastery nor an evangelist preacher, his thinking is on a completely different and higher level.
To complete the culture of the needy on this subject, it is necessary to know that the god of Spinoza is a "singular self-subsistent Substance", i. e.
Nature. So too is Einstein's.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.16, 01:10:28
For any Prestigious Scientist who has swallowed whole The Agenda it is career ending to pursue non-approved research projects.
...
Evidence to the contrary:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1256-6
The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
Mags
Very good Mags. I love that!!! :) :) :) O0 O0 O0
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/science-and-god.html
I think it is fascinating that virtually all the early scientists historically were professing Christians. They were, in the words of Johannes Kepler, "thinking God's thoughts after Him" in their scientific explorations. Modern science arose near the end of the medieval period. The early scientists believed that a rational God had made a rational universe, and it was their job — using the words of Kepler, "as priests of the highest God" — to try and catalog what laws of the universe He had created.
Isaac Newton, the discoverer of gravity and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, wrote more about the Bible and about Christian theology than he did science. Said the great Newton: "I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
The father of modern chemistry was Oxford professor Robert Boyle, born in 1627. Boyle was not only a diligent student of chemistry, but a diligent student of the Bible. In his will he left a large sum of money to found the "Boyle lectures" for proving the Christian religion.
19th century American Matthew Fontaine Maury is credited as the father of oceanography. He got his idea that the sea has "lanes" and currents from a verse in the Bible. Psalm 8:8 speaks of "the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas."
One time Maury gave a speech at the inauguration for a college in which he said, "I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg your pardon: the Bible is authority for everything it touches." That includes, he said, "physical geography, the earth, the sea and the air."
Indeed, as science professor Marcelo Gleiser points out, "science does not kill God." Far from it.
The late Dr. Robert Jastrow was an astronomer and a planetary physicist with NASA, and he wrote a book called, God and the Astronomers.
Jastrow noted, "The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
As for whether Einstein believed in a personal God, he most certainly did not mean that there is no God. In his statements I had listed, he surely believed in a creator of intelligence higher than man behind the 'nature' of things. The way a lot of science is today on the subject, I wouldnt be surprised if he were pressured into other things he said later on, or if he himself even said them at all. How would we ever know.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.17, 01:17:32
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/science-and-god.html
As for whether Einstein believed in a personal God, he most certainly did not mean that there is no God. In his statements I had listed, he surely believed in a creator of intelligence higher than man behind the 'nature' of things. The way a lot of science is today on the subject, I wouldnt be surprised if he were pressured into other things he said later on, or if he himself even said them at all. How would we ever know.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html
Just some things Einstein did say..
"Albert Einstein received instruction in both Christianity (at a Roman Catholic school) and Judaism (his family of origin). When interviewed by the Saturday Evening Post in 1929, Einstein was asked what he thought of Christianity.
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.""
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."5
"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. 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 arrangements 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."
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.16, 22:51:17
The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".
The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.
Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.
The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"
The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"
The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."
"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."
Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."
The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."
After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.
The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN.
Mags
Did you know that Albert Einstein could not work out how the drinking bird worked :o
The greatest mind in the world unable to solve the workings of a simple heat engine.
Just some trivia I thought I'd share.
Brad
All of the Scientific Knowledge acquired in the study
of living organisms and life support processes, in all
forms of living bodies, neither proves Evolution nor
disproves Creation.
Hence the Scientific Necessity to equate Theory to Fact.
How else would it be possible to "convince" anyone of
anything?
There is still a long, long way to go for Scientific Study to
reach a definitive solution to the Question.
Also, an old, old saying:
A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.17, 08:15:24
All of the Scientific Knowledge acquired in the study
of living organisms and life support processes, in all
forms of living bodies, neither proves Evolution nor
disproves Creation.
Hence the Scientific Necessity to equate Theory to Fact.
How else would it be possible to "convince" anyone of
anything?
There is still a long, long way to go for Scientific Study to
reach a definitive solution to the Question.
Also, an old, old saying:
A man convinced against his will,
is of the same opinion still.
Seems everything i have posted has fallen on death ears.
I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than a myth.
I am truly amazed at just how blind those that have faith are.
It go's far beyond the limit i expected.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.06.17, 08:15:24
All of the Scientific Knowledge acquired in the study of living organisms and life support processes, in all forms of living bodies, neither proves Evolution nor disproves Creation.
...
False. All processes prove evolution.
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3776.0;attach=32030;image)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.17, 09:12:43
False. All processes prove evolution.
https://futurism.com/three-main-pieces-of-evidence-supporting-evolution
Ha Ha Ha
Thanks for the laughs. What a great example of circular reasoning. And not one single piece of real science in the whole article. Just a bunch of misguided attempts to make reality fit a false belief system.
Here is a part the basic premise of the article:
What's so powerful about learning these three basic facts about evolution is that you now have the ability to look at any species and ask yourself these questions:
Does this species share similarities with other species that might suggest that they are closely related?
Are there progressions of change for this species that we can see in the fossil record, recorded history, or across geography?
Does this species have any traits that are the remnants of past generations?
Those three simple questions can, if you let them, transform the way you look at the biological realm around you. Go ahead. Ask away. Biology will never look the same.
Let's look at the 3 claims.
Of course there are similarities between species. Just like all vehicles that travel down the road have some type of wheels then it only stands to reason that living creatures would have similar features. We all have to breath so we have lungs. We all have to eat so we have mouths. We all have a lot of the same features and characteristics because we were designed by the same creator. DUH! That argument proves creation more than it proves evolution.
The second one is even more foolish for an evolutionist to claim. If change over time created all the different creatures then why have there NEVER been found any missing links or transitional fossils been found? Not one single fossil that is an example of an animal that is somewhere between one species and another. With all the millions of fossils that have been found there are still no missing link fossils. Even Darwin said this was a problem with his theory. He was hoping they would someday be found. But they haven't been.
The last statement is simply wishful thinking. Trying to claim some species have remnants from the past is wild conjecture. We don't know enough about so much in this world that we don't know why some species have unusual traits. The duck-billed platypus is a good example of a strange animal. Evolution can't explain such an animal any better than creation can.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.17, 08:21:20
Seems everything i have posted has fallen on death ears.
I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than a myth.
I am truly amazed at just how blind those that have faith are.
It go's far beyond the limit i expected.
Brad
Ya know Brad, I had never intended on bringing it up, but since you choose to make little of Einsteins intelligence with the bird tipper, what about your grammar? Just to correct you on that, the word is 'deaf' not death. Grammar should be so much simpler than the physics of the tipping bird, but after many others have tried to correct you on that in the past with your use of dose instead of does, you still dont get it. So think first before you use that sort of argument in your losing debate here.
Mags
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.17, 08:21:20
Seems everything i have posted has fallen on death ears.
I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than a myth.
I am truly amazed at just how blind those that have faith are.
It go's far beyond the limit i expected.
Brad
Just to keep it simple... when you start a project it starts with an idea, right? Then you maybe draw it out to check the fit dimensions, then you build it.
Then and only then does evolution kick in, Mark 1/2/3 or version 1/2/3 etc.
That is the problem with "evolution", who thought up the original model???
Ron
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.17, 11:03:00
Ha Ha Ha
Thanks for the laughs. What a great example of circular reasoning. And not one single piece of real science in the whole article.
...
Certainly not. Your remarks are as inconsistent about rhetoric as in science.
Thats a lot of water from just 1 cloud. ^-^ Imagine 40 days and 40 night of that. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaDBoH9JnJk
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.17, 14:18:15
Ya know Brad, I had never intended on bringing it up, but since you choose to make little of Einsteins intelligence with the bird tipper, what about your grammar? Just to correct you on that, the word is 'deaf' not death. Grammar should be so much simpler than the physics of the tipping bird, but after many others have tried to correct you on that in the past with your use of dose instead of does, you still dont get it. So think first before you use that sort of argument in your losing debate here.
Mags
1st off mags,i have never claimed to be an expert in anything,and grammar means very little to me.
But-2nd. The word i wrote is correct !death! ears.
If you did not understand the meaning behind that statement,then i guess it must be an Aussie thing,and not known around the world.
I will try and keep it to a level we both get from now on O0
However,it is great thay you can still read my terribly written posts without any trouble.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.18, 01:32:15
Thats a lot of water from just 1 cloud. ^-^ Imagine 40 days and 40 night of that. ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaDBoH9JnJk
Mags
Oddly enough,the amount of water that cloud dropped was the exact amount of water the ocean gave to it in the first place.
So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water.
Total gain in sea level =0.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.17, 16:51:25
Certainly not. Your remarks are as inconsistent about rhetoric as in science.
I think we're flogging a dead horse F6FLT.
But to be expected.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.18, 05:07:36
I think we're flogging a dead horse F6FLT.
But to be expected.
Brad
Hi Brad,
Thank you for the idiom. Expressions are what I need most to express myself in English. To say the same about the uselessness of an action, French is more vulgar, it's "you might as well pee in a violin". But sometimes it is a relief. ;).
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.18, 07:27:10
Hi Brad,
Thank you for the idiom. Expressions are what I need most to express myself in English. To say the same about the uselessness of an action, French is more vulgar, it's "you might as well pee in a violin". But sometimes it is a relief. ;).
Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.
However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.18, 18:35:43
Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.
However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.
Ron
Right on:
"You're all just pissing' in the wind. You don't know it but you are. And there ain't nothing' like a friend who can tell you you're just pissing' in the wind." - Ambulance Blues --Neil Young.
take care, peace
lost_bro
Quote from: ronee on 2019.06.18, 18:35:43
Very expressive! An English idiom that might be closer to the French is, "pissing into the wind", in expressing something futile, pointless, or to waste one's time.
However much of the really good ones have died out with the advent of the baby boomers and now gone with the Dodo Bird as the 'Millennial's" mangle what is left of the language.
Ron
One way of " getting your own back " ;)
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.18, 04:53:14
1st off mags,i have never claimed to be an expert in anything,and grammar means very little to me.
But-2nd. The word i wrote is correct !death! ears.
If you did not understand the meaning behind that statement,then i guess it must be an Aussie thing,and not known around the world.
I will try and keep it to a level we both get from now on O0
However,it is great thay you can still read my terribly written posts without any trouble.
Brad
I suppose you just dont get it. ???
You claim that science proves evolution. I bring up quotes from famous scientists like Einstein, and you rebuttal is that he couldnt figure out the tipping bird as an example that 'oh, well he is just stupid' or whatever you meant by it.
So what now? Because of your statement about Einstien, we should just ignore anything he has ever said?
Well then why is it that we shouldnt judge you for your shortcomings and just say 'well, I dont know if Brad has it all together, so why should we take anything else he says seriously?' especially when it comes to this subject??
Just saying, if that is your argument against Einstein, then maybe you should be put under the same scrutiny for things that are just as frivolous as the tipping bird.
It goes both ways.
When I was a kid, my grandfather had the tipping bird. I didnt knopw how it worked at the time either, and it wasnt explained to me as maybe my grandfather didnt know either.
And since you stated it about the 'death ears', I did some searching. Cant find a lick about it being a common aussie saying. I even found this that should have had it in the list if what you say is so....
https://nomadsworld.com/aussie-slang/
Searched yesterday and today before I wrote this.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.18, 22:33:27
I suppose you just dont get it. ???
You claim that science proves evolution. I bring up quotes from famous scientists like Einstein, and you rebuttal is that he couldnt figure out the tipping bird as an example that 'oh, well he is just stupid' or whatever you meant by it.
So what now? Because of your statement about Einstien, we should just ignore anything he has ever said?
Well then why is it that we shouldnt judge you for your shortcomings and just say 'well, I dont know if Brad has it all together, so why should we take anything else he says seriously?' especially when it comes to this subject??
Just saying, if that is your argument against Einstein, then maybe you should be put under the same scrutiny for things that are just as frivolous as the tipping bird.
It goes both ways.
When I was a kid, my grandfather had the tipping bird. I didnt knopw how it worked at the time either, and it wasnt explained to me as maybe my grandfather didnt know either.
And since you stated it about the 'death ears', I did some searching. Cant find a lick about it being a common aussie saying. I even found this that should have had it in the list if what you say is so....
https://nomadsworld.com/aussie-slang/
Searched yesterday and today before I wrote this.
Mags
What i was saying is that no one gets everything right,or knows everything.
The simplest of things can stump the smartest of people.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.18, 23:35:56
What i was saying is that no one gets everything right,or knows everything.
The simplest of things can stump the smartest of people.
Brad
Ok. But, you seem to disagree with your own statement when it comes to evolution and you completely dismiss the possibility that science may be put forth to make it look like God doesnt exist let alone created the heavens and the earth. Just as you and F6 vehemently attack and strike down any talk of god or religion, there are people in science that do the same. Like your not satisfied with what you should be content with and have to hammer on the ideals of others that do not agree with you on this. It seems to really bother you 2 sooo much, I find it very interesting as to why. I venture to say, as I had said before, that you had some bad experience with religion in the past, in order for you to have such animosity toward it. If so, Im not asking you to open up about it. But I find it odd that there is a lot of hate behind it all and it cannot be just about who is right and who is wrong, otherwise why do you care so much about what someone says about it to a point of, well look at this thread.
In contrast, I find having conversations with liberals about Trump to be even more reactionary, as just the mention of his name and they either step back away from me or come out of the woodwork and yell, 'He is a liar!' (what most say at first) And I ask, what did he lie about? Mostly they first say about the crowd size at his rally's. Oh really? And when you try to show proof otherwise, they dont want to see it. And they dont have any real substance as to why they hate Trump. They just simply shout off statements from CNN, MSNBC, etc. But they really dont know anything but what they hear from these propaganda news stations day in and day out. If I try to say, well look at the economy and the stock market, lowest unemployment rate, etc, and many of the promises he has kept, they say that Obama is responsible for all that. Even Obama says it. Then I say, well if trump is soo bad, why hasnt all this good that has come not fallen since Trump has been in office, as it would or should with a lying, treacherous president as you claim he is? But they dont have any answers to that, as it seems they only believe the headlines and dont do their own research. And, most will not talk to me any further and treat me like I am an enemy.
I hope he gets another 4 yrs in 2020.
But some do come to see the light. Check out #walkaway movement. People that have some sense and find their own party members seem to have just gone batty.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ/videos
Many of the vids are of real people explaining why they have walked away, and most all for the same reasons. And many say because they have done their own research.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 00:26:39
Ok. But, you seem to disagree with your own statement when it comes to evolution and you completely dismiss the possibility that science may be put forth to make it look like God doesnt exist let alone created the heavens and the earth. Just as you and F6 vehemently attack and strike down any talk of god or religion, there are people in science that do the same. Like your not satisfied with what you should be content with and have to hammer on the ideals of others that do not agree with you on this. It seems to really bother you 2 sooo much, I find it very interesting as to why. I venture to say, as I had said before, that you had some bad experience with religion in the past, in order for you to have such animosity toward it. If so, Im not asking you to open up about it. But I find it odd that there is a lot of hate behind it all and it cannot be just about who is right and who is wrong, otherwise why do you care so much about what someone says about it to a point of, well look at this thread.
In contrast, I find having conversations with liberals about Trump to be even more reactionary, as just the mention of his name and they either step back away from me or come out of the woodwork and yell, 'He is a liar!' (what most say at first) And I ask, what did he lie about? Mostly they first say about the crowd size at his rally's. Oh really? And when you try to show proof otherwise, they dont want to see it. And they dont have any real substance as to why they hate Trump. They just simply shout off statements from CNN, MSNBC, etc. But they really dont know anything but what they hear from these propaganda news stations day in and day out. If I try to say, well look at the economy and the stock market, lowest unemployment rate, etc, and many of the promises he has kept, they say that Obama is responsible for all that. Even Obama says it. Then I say, well if trump is soo bad, why hasnt all this good that has come not fallen since Trump has been in office, as it would or should with a lying, treacherous president as you claim he is? But they dont have any answers to that, as it seems they only believe the headlines and dont do their own research. And, most will not talk to me any further and treat me like I am an enemy.
I hope he gets another 4 yrs in 2020.
But some do come to see the light. Check out #walkaway movement. People that have some sense and find their own party members seem to have just gone batty.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ/videos
Many of the vids are of real people explaining why they have walked away, and most all for the same reasons. And many say because they have done their own research.
Mags
Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth. So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science.
It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp,and after reading this thread you can plainly see as to just how far creationists will go to keep there elusion going.
The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes.
If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact.
When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's a no brainer as far as im concerned.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.19, 05:06:17
Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth. So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science.
It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp,and after reading this thread you can plainly see as to just how far creationists will go to keep there elusion going.
The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes.
If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact.
When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's a no brainer as far as im concerned.
Brad
"Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth."
But it was you guys that took a comment in the other thread and created this conversation, and then the conversation was moved to here. :P
"So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science."
Tell me, where are we twisting things? Discredit? And you did not try to discredit Einstein as a reply to my posts on Einsteins statements about God? Come on Brad. If you now think we should take your 'twist' that your bird tipper post was not a form of discrediting Einstein because I had shown his positive views on intelligent design, then I have to say you are either delusional or dishonest. How could anyone here read that and not see it exactly for what it was. You are doing just fine discrediting your self here.
"It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp"
lol. Show me our dishonesty!!! Show me where I have lied here!! You really have a lot of nerve Brad. Show me we lied! Lied like you lied about the 'death ears' being an aussie thing, of which I have found NO reference to such, and I doubt anyone can or will. And you say we are twisting and dishonest. I have just lost a load of respect for you here and now.
"The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes."
You are a complete hypocrite Brad. You really think you can just reduce what you said of Einstein, and meant by it, to a bit of nothing and then try and prop up what I said to be the bad guy. You still dont get it. I used it as an example. You insulted his intelligence to downplay his words about god. It was very very clear that this is what you were doing. See, for you it seems to be ok and alrighty then to do so, but when it is done to you, well we cant have that, can we, Mister Twister.... The word hypocrite was used in the Bible, and for the same reasons I have used it here.
"If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact."
Well I dont agree with 'your' facts that there is no God that you choose to believe. So to me, evolution 'THEORY' is a myth when it is put in place of intelligent design and creation.
"When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's a no brainer as far as im concerned. "
Yes it is. It doesnt take any brains to accept evolution over creation. ;) There is some twist. Made it myself.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 06:56:51
"Only it wasn't either myself or F6FLT that started this thread,nor was it any other that believes the facts of evolution. So it would seem that those whole believe in god are those not content, as it was one such person that started this thread,claiming evolution was the myth."
But it was you guys that took a comment in the other thread and created this conversation, and then the conversation was moved to here. :P
"So once again we see the creationist twisting things around in an attemp to discredit those that believe in true science."
Tell me, where are we twisting things? Discredit? And you did not try to discredit Einstein as a reply to my posts on Einsteins statements about God? Come on Brad. If you now think we should take your 'twist' that your bird tipper post was not a form of discrediting Einstein because I had shown his positive views on intelligent design, then I have to say you are either delusional or dishonest. How could anyone here read that and not see it exactly for what it was. You are doing just fine discrediting your self here.
"It would also seem that there is so much dishonesty in the creation camp"
lol. Show me our dishonesty!!! Show me where I have lied here!! You really have a lot of nerve Brad. Show me we lied! Lied like you lied about the 'death ears' being an aussie thing, of which I have found NO reference to such, and I doubt anyone can or will. And you say we are twisting and dishonest. I have just lost a load of respect for you here and now.
"The fact that you choose to pick on my few spelling and grammar mistakes speaks volumes."
You are a complete hypocrite Brad. You really think you can just reduce what you said of Einstein, and meant by it, to a bit of nothing and then try and prop up what I said to be the bad guy. You still dont get it. I used it as an example. You insulted his intelligence to downplay his words about god. It was very very clear that this is what you were doing. See, for you it seems to be ok and alrighty then to do so, but when it is done to you, well we cant have that, can we, Mister Twister.... The word hypocrite was used in the Bible, and for the same reasons I have used it here.
"If you choose to live believing in the super natural,then so be it,but when a thread is started that claims my understandings are a myth,then i will defend what i know to be fact."
Well I dont agree with 'your' facts that there is no God that you choose to believe. So to me, evolution 'THEORY' is a myth when it is put in place of intelligent design and creation.
"When there is so much evidence that supports evolution,and none that supports creation or a god,then it's a no brainer as far as im concerned. "
Yes it is. It doesnt take any brains to accept evolution over creation. ;) There is some twist. Made it myself.
Mags
In the other thread,god and religion was thrown in there,where it had no place to be there.
Now,go and read the entire thread,and then you will see all the dishonesty. I provided solid evidence to the so called !missing links!,and still it is still put up as some form of bogus argument to back creation.
So here is the deal Mags--
I'll supply countless pages of proof (solid proof) of evolution,and you supply the same solid proof of god.
Now,we both know who can deliver,and who cannot.
So enough of the baloney posts,lets put up the proof.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.18, 04:57:25
Oddly enough,the amount of water that cloud dropped was the exact amount of water the ocean gave to it in the first place.
So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water.
Total gain in sea level =0.
Brad
Well if much of the water at the time were in the sky, then there would be a lot of land to flood. You believe in all these fantastical abilities of your deity, 'nature', but cant believe that the land could have been much flatter before the floods, and when the bible says God opened up the fountains, your argument might be, heh, there is no water under ground. Well you nor anyone else knows exactly what could have been back then.
Mags
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the "explanatory filter," a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will
1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern
Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins' observation that, "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a "razor's edge" for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.
It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.
Recommended Resource: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.
Mags
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/evidence-for-intelligent-design.htm
Evidence for Intelligent Design
So, how do I connect the dots between the organic and inorganic world? Evidence for Intelligent Design is obvious upon close examination of any mechanical machine. The concept and design inherent in a machine, whether simple or complex, is self-evident. Whether a machine is high quality or low quality, its designer is both necessary and apparent. Information Theory states that concept and design can only result from a mind. Even the diminished quality of a poorly constructed machine cannot obscure the necessity of an intelligent designer.
Machines, as defined by French Biochemist and Nobel Laureate Jacques Lucien Monod (1910-1976), are "purposeful aggregates of matter that, utilizing energy, perform specific tasks." 1 By this authoritative definition, living systems are also recognized as machines. A living organism fulfills the definition of a machine all the way down to the molecular level.
Back in the mid-1700's, David Hume successfully invalidated the "machine" analogy in biologic systems because we could only guess at what existed at the molecular level. 2 However, the phenomenal discoveries in the last few decades have finally and unequivocally demonstrated that living systems are, in fact, machines - even to the deepest, molecular level! 3
It has only been over the past twenty years with the molecular biological revolution and with the advances in cybernetic and computer technology that Hume's criticism has been finally invalidated and the analogy between organisms and machines has at last become convincing... In every direction the biochemist gazes, as he journeys through the weird molecular labyrinth, he sees devices and appliances reminiscent of our own twentieth-century world of advanced technology. 4
Because of the metaphysical implications of life resulting from "Intelligent Design", a surprisingly large number of us seek to reject the foregoing statements and find a mechanism by which complex biologic machines may arise naturally by random chance.
However, I was now seeing a tremendous inconsistency...
When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance! 5
H.S. Lipson, a Professor of Physics at the University of Manchester (UK), continues:
In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it.6
Mags
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm
Miracle of Life
So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time...
Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.
In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.
In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:
The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.
Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4
Mags
I really liked this one, especially the part about the frog in the blender. Genius.
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/creation-of-life.htm
Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"
Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1
There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.
After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...
"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."
He stared at me with that look...
"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."
I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"
He thought for only a second...
"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.
"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."
In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 07:20:37
Well if much of the water at the time were in the sky, then there would be a lot of land to flood. You believe in all these fantastical abilities of your deity, 'nature', but cant believe that the land could have been much flatter before the floods, and when the bible says God opened up the fountains, your argument might be, heh, there is no water under ground. Well you nor anyone else knows exactly what could have been back then.
Mags
No,but we know what couldn't of happened,and that is the sudden appearance of nearly 4 times the volume of water as existed back then.
The bible says that the water covered all the mountains and high hill's,so obviously the land was not flat.
And the ark is suppose to be atop a mountain in Ararat,so that mountain was obviously already there.
Todays science can also tell us how long the mountains have been about,and how they were formed.
So the great flood is one of the junk creationists sciences i am talking about.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 07:27:37
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Biology
In recent years, William Dembski has pioneered a methodology which has become known as the "explanatory filter," a means by which design can be inferred from the phenomena of nature in particular living organisms. The filter consists of a sequence of three yes/no questions that guide the decision process of determining whether a given phenomenon can be attributed to an intelligent causal agency. Based upon this filter, if an event, system or object is the product of intelligence, then it will
1. Be contingent
2. Be complex
3. Display an independently specified pattern
Thus, in order to be confident that a given phenomenon is the product of intelligent design, it cannot be a regularity that necessarily stems from the laws of nature, nor can it be the result of chance. According to Dembski, the explanatory filter highlights the most important quality of intelligently designed systems, namely, specified complexity. In other words, complexity alone is not enough to indicate the work of an intelligent agent; it must also conform to an independently specified pattern.
Among the most compelling evidence for design in the realm of biology is the discovery of the digital information inherent in living cells. As it turns out, biological information comprises a complex, non-repeating sequence which is highly specified relative to the functional or communication requirements that they perform. Such similarity explains, in part, Dawkins' observation that, "The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like." What are we to make of this similarity between informational software—the undisputed product of conscious intelligence—and the informational sequences found in DNA and other important biomolecules?
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Physics
In physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning gives further support to the design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a "razor's edge" for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
Besides that, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be finely balanced to a degree of one part in 1040. If this value were to be increased slightly, all stars would be at least 40% more massive than our sun. This would mean that stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven to support complex life. If this value were to be decreased slightly, all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun. This would render them incapable of producing heavy elements necessary to sustain life.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – From Cosmology
With modern discoveries in the field of cosmology, the concept of a definitive beginning of the cosmos has been demonstrated almost beyond question. The Kalam argument states that
1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause apart from itself.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause apart from itself.
It thus appears from the data that an uncaused first cause exists outside the four dimensions of space and time, which possesses eternal, personal and intelligent qualities in order to possess the capability of intentionally bringing space, matter—and indeed even time itself—into being.
What is the best evidence/argument for intelligent design? – Conclusion
This article is but a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference. The purpose is to demonstrate the wide body of support for intelligent design from a large range of disciplines, including biology, physics and cosmology.
Recommended Resource: Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design by Stephen Meyer.
Mags
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski
Quote: William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher and theologian. He was a prominent proponent of intelligent design (ID) pseudoscience,[1] specifically the concept of specified complexity, and was a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC).[2] On September 23, 2016 he officially retired from intelligent design, resigning all his "formal associations with the ID community, including [his] Discovery Institute fellowship of 20 years."[3]
In 2012, he taught as the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Science and Culture at the Southern Evangelical Seminary in Matthews, North Carolina near Charlotte.[4]
Dembski has written books about intelligent design, including The Design Inference (1998), Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999), The Design Revolution (2004), The End of Christianity (2009), and Intelligent Design Uncensored (2010).
Intelligent design is the argument that an intelligent cause is responsible for the complexity of life and that one can detect that cause empirically.[5] Dembski postulated that probability theory can be used to prove irreducible complexity (IC), or what he called "specified complexity."[6] The scientific community sees intelligent design—and Dembski's concept of specified complexity—as a form of creationism attempting to portray itself as science.[7]
Seems he even came to his sensors eventually.
Nuff said C.C
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 07:32:40
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/miracle-of-life.htm
Miracle of Life
So, I'm going to look at this "miracle of life" one more time...
Could life evolve randomly from inorganic matter? Not according to mathematicians.
In the last 30 years a number of prominent scientists have attempted to calculate the odds that a free-living, single-celled organism, such as a bacterium, might result by the chance combining of pre-existent building blocks. Harold Morowitz calculated the odds as one chance in 10100,000,000,000. Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the odds of only the proteins of an amoebae arising by chance as one chance in 1040,000.
...the odds calculated by Morowitz and Hoyle are staggering. The odds led Fred Hoyle to state that the probability of spontaneous generation 'is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a Boeing 747 from the contents therein.' Mathematicians tell us that any event with an improbability greater than one chance in 1050 is in the realm of metaphysics -- i.e. a miracle.1
Harold Marowitz, an atheist physicist, created mathematical models by imagining broths of living bacteria that were superheated until all the complex chemicals were broken down into basic building blocks. After cooling the mixtures, Marowitz used physics calculations to conclude that the odds of a single bacterium reassembling by chance is one in 10100,000,000,000. 2 Wow! How can I grasp such a large statistic? Well, it's more likely that I would win the state lottery every week for a million years by purchasing just one ticket each week.
In response to the probabilities calculated by Marowitz, Robert Shapiro, author of Origins - A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, wrote:
The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.3
Sir Fred Hoyle compared the probability of life arising by chance to lining up 1050 (ten with fifty zeros after it) blind people, giving each one a scrambled Rubik's Cube, and finding that they all solve the cube at the same moment.
Regarding the origin of life, Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology for his work with the DNA molecule, stated in 1982:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 4
Mags
I wonder exactly how your !scientists! made there calculations?
Now lets look at it the correct way.
There is (that we know of so far) around one hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe.
Each galaxy has between 100 to 340 billion stars(suns).
Our milky way alone has over 100 billion planets.
So whats the chances now that life may start on one of those 10's of trillions of planets out there ?
The odds look pretty good now. O0
So that is just idiotic guesses some ex-spurts took,without having much substance at all.
They calculate the odds of life starting on one planet,where it should be the odds of life starting on 1 of 10,000,000,000,000 + planets.
So now the odds are far better,and more in favour than a super natural being mixing up some mud,and making man--oh,and everything other living thing that exists on our planet today.
So that is that one out.
Brad
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.19, 07:36:24
I really liked this one, especially the part about the frog in the blender. Genius.
https://www.allaboutthejourney.org/creation-of-life.htm
Creation of Life - A Final "Experiment"
Remarkably, right before I finished this chapter, a friend confronted me with "proof" for the creation of life in a "random" laboratory experiment. After a little discussion, I realized that my buddy was pointing to the "spark and soup" experiments of the 1950's where guys like Harold Urey and Stanley Miller passed mixtures of boiling water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen through elaborate "electric spark systems" of beakers and test tubes. In those experiments, they were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids -- the "building blocks of life" -- and therefore, the media hailed these as proof for the possibility of spontaneous generation on a prebiotic Earth. 1
There were many unreported problems with these "designed" experiments. Dramatically, the greatest byproducts of these soups were tar (85%) and carboxylic acids (13%), both of which are toxic to living systems. Notwithstanding all the other issues, producing a trace amino acid in a laboratory experiment would be similar to producing a clay brick and declaring that we just figured out how to randomly design and build a New York skyscraper.
After discussing a little more of the science stuff, I turned to my friend and decided to toss him a nice graphic illustration...
"Take a frog and put him in a blender. Turn the blender on for seven minutes, or until whipped to a frothy consistency."
He stared at me with that look...
"Pour the mixture into an open container and place the container in the sun for a few million years. After a few million years, retrieve the container and examine the contents..."
I gave him a nod, "Do you have a frog?"
He thought for only a second...
"Nope, you still have frog soup," he laughed.
"You're absolutely right," I agreed. "How can you have anything but a soupy mixture containing the building blocks of frog life. With no information code to tie it all together, you have nothing resembling any kind of self-existing organism."
In this simple (yet graphic) illustration, I gave every potential to create a frog. I provided every chemical, amino acid, protein and molecule that makes up the frog's organic structure. However, if I placed this illustration in the context of a "prebiotic soup" on primitive Earth, we'd be lucky to see even one trace element or amino acid develop over the same time period -- let alone the biologic components of an entire frog!
Mags
And that is exactly the type of idiotic examples we can and do see from. creationists
Oddly enough,after the fist clay brick there came multiples of clay bricks.
Not long after that,the clay bricks formed sturdy building's.
A true account of the evolution of the clay brick O0
Brad
The reality of what creationists want us to believe.
The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there.
The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that.
Why is it that the creationists think such large changes are ok over a short period of time,and yet such small changes are a no go over an extremely long period of time-->!!millions of years!!
This is what we are being asked to believe C.C
Brad
As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein
Quote: The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Quote: the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.19, 10:50:05
The reality of what creationists want us to believe.
The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there.
The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that.
Why is it that the creationists think such large changes are ok over a short period of time,and yet such small changes are a no go over an extremely long period of time-->!!millions of years!!
This is what we are being asked to believe C.C
Brad
"The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there."
This can be a factor of breeding. Nuff said
"The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that."
Oh goody! Cartoons! yay. Great proof Brad. You win! C.C lol But the one below is better than yours. ^-^
Mags
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.19, 12:01:57
As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein
Quote: The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
Quote: the man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equality for social or moral religion.
Brad
"As Einstein was mentioned ,here are some actual words from Einstein"
Milehigh has taught you well, and the dark side is powerful in you lord vader. Lol. You use the term 'actual' as if your quotes are real and the others are not. Tricky lil twister.
Thats all for tonight. Was up till 4am last night with all this and need sleep tonight. I have more for tomorrow. ;D
Mags
Woopsy. Forgot one.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2012/10/27/what-our-most-famous-evolutionary-cartoon-gets-wrong/drKMD5121W6EUxXJ4pF0YL/story.html
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.20, 01:55:14
"The first picture below shows two vastly different dogs that have evolved from 1 other type of dog in just 6000 years. We are told by creationists that this is ok,no problem there."
This can be a factor of breeding. Nuff said
"The second pic shows how man evolved over millions of years(yes,millions of years),but the creationists say no way in hell,it just cant and did not happen C.C.
There is no way one animal can change like that."
Oh goody! Cartoons! yay. Great proof Brad. You win! C.C lol But the one below is better than yours. ^-^
Mags
Cartoons yes,but also a pictorial of reality.
You could always post some !real! pics of Noah's arc if you like,or perhapz of the mighty man him self :D.
Easy to criticize,but hard to deliver the real deal on your end aswell-yes?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan
I have provided page upon page of proof that evolution is a fact,
and countless pages of proof that creation is nothing more than
a myth.
To be Scientifically most accurate in accordance with the
Scientific
Method one must say:
"...of what I believe to be proof that..."A
True Scientist would argue that all which has been proven to date
is insufficient to prove the Origin of Life and especially Evolution.
He would say:
"Our Theory at this time still remains theory supported by speculation
and conjecture.
"Proof does not yet exist."
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.20, 02:42:08
Cartoons yes,but also a pictorial of reality.
You could always post some !real! pics of Noah's arc if you like,or perhapz of the mighty man him self :D.
Easy to criticize,but hard to deliver the real deal on your end aswell-yes?.
Brad
Hi Brad,
I don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark. Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen. You can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative. But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen. Can you please explain why you think there is a connection? I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that. But even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth. You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information. Can you please post that again. Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.20, 13:25:03
Hi Brad,
I don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark. Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen. You can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative. But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen. Can you please explain why you think there is a connection? I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that. But even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth. You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information. Can you please post that again. Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?
Respectfully,
Carroll
Because he thinks that if he can get others to believe what he says about the flood, then he can discredit the whole book. Just like he tried to discredit Einstein. And in all he discredited himself by making up a story that Death Ears was an aussie thing. ;) It is a common tactic used by atheists. But when the tables are turned, it gets nasty.
Ever watch Judge Judy? If you lie to her once, she will no further believe anything else you say. ;)
Keep up the Good works Carrol. O0
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.20, 19:21:17
Because he thinks that if he can get others to believe what he says about the flood, then he can discredit the whole book. Just like he tried to discredit Einstein. And in all he discredited himself by making up a story that Death Ears was an aussie thing. ;) It is a common tactic used by atheists. But when the tables are turned, it gets nasty.
Ever watch Judge Judy? If you lie to her once, she will no further believe anything else you say. ;)
Keep up the Good works Carrol. O0
Mags
What garbage Mags.
I have not got nasty in this thread,so it is you that is lying.
Nor did i try and discredit Einstein,i merely showed that because you are great in one area dose not mean you are great in another.
And isn't it odd that you insist that the theory of evolution is just some sort of guess,and yet Einsteins theories are rock solid proof he was a great man. So to you,some scientific theories are garbage,and some (when it suits you) are evidence of a great mind who knows all. This is the same as we always see from creationists,where you pick and choose as to when scientific theories are good or wrong.
So rather than try and discredit me with garbage i never did,try sticking to the truth.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.19, 09:36:52
No,but we know what couldn't of happened,and that is the sudden appearance of nearly 4 times the volume of water as existed back then.
The bible says that the water covered all the mountains and high hill's,so obviously the land was not flat.
And the ark is suppose to be atop a mountain in Ararat,so that mountain was obviously already there.
Todays science can also tell us how long the mountains have been about,and how they were formed.
So the great flood is one of the junk creationists sciences i am talking about.
Brad
Mount Ararat is number 48 out of the top 100 highest mountains. And who is to say that it was even that tall before the floods, or even maybe the tallest at the time. If God said he opened up the fountains of the earth in order to create such a flood, we can only imagine that there were some very great disturbances in the earth in doing so at the time.
And I did not say the earth was flat at the time as you 'twist'. I said flatter! Go back. Check it. You present my words as something that I did not say to try and make my argument more out of touch than what I actually said. That is exaggeration and quite frankly dishonest. But that is how you argue here. Im going to eat and then Ill post my next reply. It is part 2 to this post. ^-^
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.21, 02:20:32
Mount Ararat is number 48 out of the top 100 highest mountains. And who is to say that it was even that tall before the floods, or even maybe the tallest at the time. If God said he opened up the fountains of the earth in order to create such a flood, we can only imagine that there were some very great disturbances in the earth in doing so at the time.
And I did not say the earth was flat at the time as you 'twist'. I said flatter! Go back. Check it. You present my words as something that I did not say to try and make my argument more out of touch than what I actually said. That is exaggeration and quite frankly dishonest. But that is how you argue here. Im going to eat and then Ill post my next reply. It is part 2 to this post. ^-^
Mags
Well as i stated also,the bible said it rained until all the mountains and high hills were covered by water.
So lets say the highest mountain was say only 100 meters high.
That is very low im sure you'd agree.
Now,calculate how much excess water is required to cover our planet so as we have an extra 100 meters diameter.
Then explain as to where all that extra mass (water) went.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.06.21, 02:43:57
Well as i stated also,the bible said it rained until all the mountains and high hills were covered by water.
So lets say the highest mountain was say only 100 meters high.
That is very low im sure you'd agree.
Now,calculate how much excess water is required to cover our planet so as we have an extra 100 meters diameter.
Then explain as to where all that extra mass (water) went.
Brad
On earth today, water covers near 71% vs land. And at any time the average amount of water in the atmosphere is near 37.5 million billion gallons of water. What is that, 37,500,000,000,000,000 gallons. That is only enough to cover the earth about 20mm, oceans and land.
So as brad said about the rain cloud post I made, then the rain on the land drains back into the ocean, said here in post 256 "So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water. So the actual rise would be little more than 20mm. But nobody knows what was what back then. There is no other written account that the atheist has that can object to the Bibles account. We have to agree that if after the flood that the first rainbow was seen by man, that the skys must have been so full of water(clouds) that there was no breaks in the clouds for sunlight to directly penetrate. There may have been higher global temps back then, and possibly no glaciers.
Most days around the world, the skys are clear. Just look at sat images. Now if the atmosphere were fully clouded, we could at least figure a minimum of total water in the fully clouded sky of that time before the flood.
Maybe the earth was 'flatter. Brad said in post 5 "As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible."
Just because the bible said that hills and mountains existed, that doesnt mean that there wasnt any new ones or even extrusions of existing hills and mountains due to earthquakes and plate shifts like even Carrol presented earlier as to how the water could have risen from and where it drained into when all was said and done. What? Couldnt have happened?? Never has happened? Does not happen today? Oh, could never be that much of it going on at the time???? As i said earlier, if God opened up the fountains of the earth, then the earth must have really shook. But for the atheist it is always cant happen, couldnt have happened, isnt possible, no way. But they can believe in a magical happening of accidental life formation that could survive an environment that was barren(frog in a blender post), not even any vegetation and 'survived' and developed into every living thing on earth. lol, and all they have is theories and missing links but hold to their beliefs as strong or even more than religious people do. Like was said by someone earlier, mother nature is their god, science is their church and theory is their bible. And they say the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by man. But their theorys, stories written by men, are truth. Funny aint it? ^-^
But ya know, 'we' as christians and creationists dont really have to go through all this figuring out of what ifs and hows in the manner we are trying to. God did it. God is able to do whatever and anything. Why does there need to be a requirement for how much water is in or on or above the earth? He is God. He can make it appear just like he could perform a big bang! Why not? Why is it that atheists think God has limitations?? They give us all these scientific odds, numbers and theories that propose that even if there was a God, he was limited to say, the amount of water on earth in order to flood it, effectively saying 'Even God could not do it!' lol
We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...
1 God does not exist.
2 Prove the accidental creation of life
3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.
I wonder Brad. Which came first, the chicken or the eggplant?? It is amazing how your evolution created by your mother nature(imaginary being) did it all. Well, yesterday you were going to show us proof. Well prove that God does not exist. If all you have is incomplete bits and pieces via theories, well thats not good enough.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.21, 05:29:35
...
We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...
1 God does not exist.
Certainly not, you're reversing the burden of proof, it's a classical sophism or paralogism of the religious mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
God is defined only by the believer (and so badly, not operationally, that it is irrefutable in the Poper's sense). The believer is the only one with the burden of proof.
Quote
2 Prove the accidental creation of life
3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.
We don't have to prove it to reject God. God is rejected as explanation without proof. 'What is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof.' (Euclid).
And it's another fallacy: to make us believe that there would only be two possible choices.
Your demands are nonsense.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.21, 05:29:35
On earth today, water covers near 71% vs land. And at any time the average amount of water in the atmosphere is near 37.5 million billion gallons of water. What is that, 37,500,000,000,000,000 gallons. That is only enough to cover the earth about 20mm, oceans and land.
So as brad said about the rain cloud post I made, then the rain on the land drains back into the ocean, said here in post 256 "So the ocean level went down when filling the cloud,then went back up once the cloud dropped the water. So the actual rise would be little more than 20mm. But nobody knows what was what back then. There is no other written account that the atheist has that can object to the Bibles account. We have to agree that if after the flood that the first rainbow was seen by man, that the skys must have been so full of water(clouds) that there was no breaks in the clouds for sunlight to directly penetrate. There may have been higher global temps back then, and possibly no glaciers.
Most days around the world, the skys are clear. Just look at sat images. Now if the atmosphere were fully clouded, we could at least figure a minimum of total water in the fully clouded sky of that time before the flood.
Maybe the earth was 'flatter. Brad said in post 5 "As i recall,Carroll said the earth was mostly flat,and the hills and mountains were formed due to the waters pressure. But as you can read in the bible it self,the hills and mountains already existed-as we know they did,and the 40 days and 40 nights of rain supplied enough water to cover them by 15 cubits-->22.5 feet, according to the bible."
Just because the bible said that hills and mountains existed, that doesnt mean that there wasnt any new ones or even extrusions of existing hills and mountains due to earthquakes and plate shifts like even Carrol presented earlier as to how the water could have risen from and where it drained into when all was said and done. What? Couldnt have happened?? Never has happened? Does not happen today? Oh, could never be that much of it going on at the time???? As i said earlier, if God opened up the fountains of the earth, then the earth must have really shook. But for the atheist it is always cant happen, couldnt have happened, isnt possible, no way. But they can believe in a magical happening of accidental life formation that could survive an environment that was barren(frog in a blender post), not even any vegetation and 'survived' and developed into every living thing on earth. lol, and all they have is theories and missing links but hold to their beliefs as strong or even more than religious people do. Like was said by someone earlier, mother nature is their god, science is their church and theory is their bible. And they say the Bible is just a bunch of stories written by man. But their theorys, stories written by men, are truth. Funny aint it? ^-^
But ya know, 'we' as christians and creationists dont really have to go through all this figuring out of what ifs and hows in the manner we are trying to. God did it. God is able to do whatever and anything. Why does there need to be a requirement for how much water is in or on or above the earth? He is God. He can make it appear just like he could perform a big bang! Why not? Why is it that atheists think God has limitations?? They give us all these scientific odds, numbers and theories that propose that even if there was a God, he was limited to say, the amount of water on earth in order to flood it, effectively saying 'Even God could not do it!' lol
We dont have to prove anything. It is you the atheist that has to prove beyond the shaddow of a doubt that...
1 God does not exist.
2 Prove the accidental creation of life
I wonder Brad. Which came first, the chicken or the eggplant?? It is amazing how your evolution created by your mother nature(imaginary being) did it all. Well, yesterday you were going to show us proof. Well prove that God does not exist. If all you have is incomplete bits and pieces via theories, well that's not good enough.
Mags
Well as usual,you have it all ass about.
When making extraordinary claim's(such as the creationists do),then you have to back up those claims with evidence-->yes,it is up to you.
I do not have to prove the non existence of something that dose not exist--how stupid is that.
And you say mother nature is an imaginary being C.C,which no one ever said mother nature was a being at all--it just is what it is-->life.
And even so,a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Mother nature is real,we live with her every day,we see her at work every day,and you call her imaginary,while trying to tell us all a super natural being made everything only 6000 years ago lol.
Quote3 How evolution developed into all existing life, including all animals, mammals, 'Grass', pine trees, etc.
Funny you should say that.
I mean even the creationists have to admit to change over time-and they do.
Even though i have posted many video's and links to how life evolved over millions of years in this thread,i will do it again just for you.
But first--about your big flood
1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0J5WMmykEs
2-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MeHmWapM4Y
3-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA&t=586s
4-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc
5-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po
6-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B42dWY88Ir4
7-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&t=5s
8-https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
9-https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
10-https://www.livescience.com/44442-noahs-ark-true.html
I could keep going,and supply 100's of pages of evidence to show the great flood and Noah's ark an impossibility.
Now,evolution,and how it happens--again.
1- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
2- https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#790639e62d8d
3- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/?redirect=1
4- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
5- http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
6- https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
7- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
8- https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
9- https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
10- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-aGAX27SIo
11- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA&t=370s
12- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
13- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
14- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfKZlTRNjA
And so on and on and on.
Now,where is your scientific proof of the great flood,man and all animals were created only 6000 years ago, and of God's existence ?.
And i mean real science--not creationist garbage science that was banned from all schools in the USA.
Brad
Quote from: CITFTA on 2019.06.20, 13:25:03
Hi Brad,
Respectfully,
Carroll
QuoteBut even if the flood is not responsible for the fossil record, the fossil record clearly shows there are no transitional animals found in the fossil record as evolutionists believe there must have been for the slow change over time that is needed to account for all the varied forms of life on the earth. You posted to Mags that you provided proof of the missing links but I haven't found that information. Can you please post that again. Do you have pictures of any of the missing links or some other scientific proof of their existence?
A false age old argument used by creationists all the time,but as always-totally incorrect.
1- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03
2- https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#790639e62d8d
3- https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/?redirect=1
4- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
5- http://www.vce.bioninja.com.au/aos-4-change-over-time/evolution/evidence-for-evolution.html
6- https://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
7- https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
8- https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
9- https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4
10- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-aGAX27SIo
11- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA&t=370s
12- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
13- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfTbrHg8KGQ
14- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GfKZlTRNjA
And there is thousands more if you wish.
QuoteYou can't prove the flood didn't happen because you can't prove a negative.
Of course i can and have proven the great flood never happened,along with Noah's ark.
But a few more,as it seems you cannot find the ones i have already posted,even though there are many in this thread C.C
1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0J5WMmykEs
2-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MeHmWapM4Y
3-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWZtbZGtiGA&t=586s
4-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4OhXQTMOEc
5-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QJ7yZ9L1po
6-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B42dWY88Ir4
7-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sD_7rxYoZY&t=5s
8-https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
9-https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
10-https://www.livescience.com/44442-noahs-ark-true.html
So,solid proof of both of which you claim against.
There was no great flood that covered the world in water,and never ever could have been--it's just a physical scientific impossibility--and that's a fact.
Then there is also the engineering fact that a wooden boat that large would never be sea worthy nor possible,and built by a farmer and his sons makes it nothing more than a wild fantasy.
QuoteI don't understand your obsession about the flood and the Ark. Even if you could prove the flood didn't happen that does not prove that evolution did happen. But even so I don't see how you think that proves evolution did happen. Can you please explain why you think there is a connection? I understand that creationists believe the flood is responsible for the fossil record and I agree with that.
It's much like detective work,where if you eliminate the impossible,then no matter how improbable,what remains must be truth.
Your argument against evolution is creation-is it not?
So what evidence do you have against evolution?
What scientific verifiable evidence can you provide for creation ?
What actual pictures can you provide to show photographic proof of creation,such as i have provided for evolution,via the fossil records we have today?
And 1 more thing i would like from you.
If the great flood happened,then there should be millions of human fossils buried in that flood layer.
This would be whole cities of people killed all in one hit.
With those human fossil's will be every animal that has ever existed on earth,and this would include the dinosaurs.
So could you please provide any links to any web pages that show human fossils right alongside dinosaurs.
If the creationists are correct,and the great flood caused all the layers found,then mixed in all those layers should be fossils of all the animals that have ever walked the earth right alongside human fossils,and there should be no sorting of different types of animals in each layer,as they all died at the very same time.
Brad
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.06.21, 10:03:08
Certainly not, you're reversing the burden of proof, it's a classical sophism or paralogism of the religious mind. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
God is defined only by the believer (and so badly, not operationally, that it is irrefutable in the Poper's sense). The believer is the only one with the burden of proof.
We don't have to prove it to reject God. God is rejected as explanation without proof. 'What is affirmed without proof can be denied without proof.' (Euclid).
And it's another fallacy: to make us believe that there would only be two possible choices.
Your demands are nonsense.
Indeed O0
Quote from: Magluvin on 2019.06.20, 19:21:17
Just like he tried to discredit Einstein.
Mags
And what was so good about Einstein?
Einstein had many discoveries, but he is perhaps best known for his theory of relativity and the equation E=MC2, which foreshadowed the development of atomic power and the atomic bomb
What dose Mags think about scientific theories?
Quote post 139: What a load of garbage. Only you feel confirmed on your acceptance of theories, not we.
Just like many things these days, the definitions of words are being distorted to forward agendas. Theory is theory and that is all that it is.I will not accept your 'new' definitions of what theory is. You just want to try and eliminate the true meaning of theory as it hurts your arguments. You have proven nothing.You have put all this time and energy into trying to get people to accept the assumptions and theories you claim are facts.
So what is so good about Einstein Mag's,as all he had were theories,which according to you are not fact's C.C
As i said,you choose to accept science when it suits you,and when it go's against your belief's,then you call it garbage.
How creationist's of you C.C
So whether or not you like it,scientific theories are based on fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nny7Bd1Yhtc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uzsuCFUQ68
https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
And so on and so on--->
So,the !theory! of evolution is based around fact's,unlike creation,which is just pub talk theory.
Brad
Because of the emotionalism that has gotten interjected in this thread and the possibility of friendships being hurt I am going to lock this thread. I think everyone on both sides of the discussion have had plenty of time to share their thoughts.
I very much do appreciate those that have tried to be respectful in their replies. I sincerely thank YOU!!! O0
Take care all,
Carroll