ARGOSY

Diamond Member
  • Content count

    1,147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ARGOSY last won the day on February 23 2016

ARGOSY had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,420 Excellent

About ARGOSY

  • Rank
    Diamond Member
  • Birthday 04/11/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Africa
  • Interests
    Beach, bodysurfing, creationism, tennis, eschatology, history, hiking, football, rugby, cricket

Recent Profile Visitors

1,281 profile views
  1. I read this and felt it deserved a reply, but not sure how to approach it. Please be patient as I attempt to describe my personal view on science/religion. When one feels God speaking it is a strange feeling you may not have experienced yet. Someone may be at a church service and every word the preacher speaks seems directly pointed at their entire life, and God seems to be personally calling them closer. Experiences like this can be eternally life changing, a revelation of God where you know with everything in you that the spiritual call is stronger than the limitations of the brain. And it makes sense that our brain is infinitely limited compared to God if God does exist. Once that communication line is opened, one can never go back to relying on the limitations of this brain because one is communicating with a being so much greater , our own mental limitations become meaningless. BUT then you find that God is less interested in proving himself, and more interested in faith and love. Even so I love science and truth and accept the truth wherever it comes from. But because I have such confidence that God is truth, I don't have the slightest doubt in an evolution/creation debate that there will be any science that comes close to challenging creationism. And this is always born out, especially Almost every bit of true evidence supports creationism. But not being a conformist, and not being interested in popularity of my creationist peers I embrace a lot of science and the approximate geologic column and see within it creation (precambrian/Cambrian) the pre-flood world (includes Carboniferous/Permian) the flood (PT boundary), the early post-flood world (Triassic/Jurassic) and then recent history. Everything confirms the bible and favors creation over evolution. For example Wikipedia says this about the Cambrian Explosion: ""Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period."" ""The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[17] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[18] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks."" Both the fossil record and genetics favor creation over evolution. The sudden appearance of multiple life-forms with no proof of any gene-adding process to add unique genes to the gene pool. Unique alleles are added, subtle differences that can cause a genetic advantage in a certain gene position, but an entire gene with an entirely new function that adds to fitness has never been observed in nature. So even genetics favors an adapted population with some devolving (lessened complexity), not an increasingly complex set of organisms as implicitly claimed by evolutionists. Facts are facts, whether you are a believer or not, all true facts/true science will not contradict faith in God. There is a little falisifed science (not much) and there is a lot of misinterpreted science, but when one goes directly to the core evidence it supports creationism.
  2. The universe could be filled with life. But my suspicion is that God would instruct them all to stay away from this immoral rogue planet until after the second coming when the problems will be sorted out.
  3. Thanks for those verses. They reminded me that Jesus spoke harshly to hypocrites. Those who regarded themselves as having religious authority and preached harshly to others yet lacked goodness themselves.
  4. There isn't any difference between brutal honesty and being brutal. You can have kind honesty and brutal honesty. Both are expressing your view clearly. One does not need to be brutal to express one's view. Galations 5: 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited,provoking and envying each other The above is advice to me too. We can all do with more of these fruits of the spirit.
  5. Anyone can grow in humility. So my post applies to us all. Certainly to me. I am very fallible in that area.
  6. Many of the species were small. They were merely terrestrial species, not marine. So a lot could fit on the ark. And you correctly observe that many would have adapted since. The information on dogs posted by SBG explains some of that diversity. In addition marine species, or amphibuous could have been survivors not actually on the ark. ie after the flood the amphibuous types populated the earth long before the terrestrial types spread out from the Middle East. This would explain why dinosaurs were mainly of amphibuous reptile origin, or later of bird origin. These would more easily have had access to quick growing populations (eggs) in far reaching continents while the slower breeding mammals spread out from the Middle East. One can find extensive geological evidence for flooding at the PT boundary. In geological terms, a sea level rise is known as a "marine transgression". A sea level drop is known as a "marine regression". Both occurred in significant scales at the PT boundary. This and other factors have led scientists to refer to that time in history as the "great death", the greatest extinction event the earth has ever experienced.
  7. I would tend to disagree that the evidence has increased for evolution. Observation of any adaptation is restricted into "clades". Short term adaptation into similar organisms with obvious common ancestry. One can see this in for example, the radiation of trilobites out from Siberia, and some specialisation/adaptation is recogniseable in each direct. From a genetic perspective there are also challenges for evolution. Evolutionists claim that both increasing complexity and decreasing complexity in the DNA are proof of evolution. But they fail to emphasize that EVERY organism has a NET INCREASE in complexity according to their theory, to explain every organism there has to be a gene adding process over time. Only problem is this is never observed in reality. Even when they try to induce mutation in fast breeding e-coli over some decades they never observe even one mutation that adds a unique favorable gene. So the genetic evidence, like the fossil record, supports organisms somehow existing, and then diversifying a bit. On a genetic level the observation is regular decreases in complexity with no increase in the number of unique favorable genes.
  8. Kindness is rarely expressed via being brutal. You need to learn how to express the same logic in a more fruitful manner.
  9. Your emphasis on the "wider scientific community" is illogical. Science progresses through challenges to the wider scientific community. You will find that new theories often gain slow acceptance in the scientific community as various individuals debate their position and the new theory becomes more widely accepted. The problem with the theory of evolution is that Darwin wrote a very logical and well written book. However his theory should have been challenged more, instead the theory was prematurely accepted. Now if one looks at the evidence it clearly favors creation, yet the (un)scientific community still embraces evolution. As an independent thinking man, be honest about whether this favors creation or evolution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion ""Almost all present animal phyla appeared during this period"" ""The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the "Primordial Strata" was noted by William Buckland in the 1840s,[17] and in 1859 Charles Darwin discussed it as one of the main objections that could be made against the theory of evolution by natural selection.[18] The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly, without precursor, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin of animal life. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures remaining in Cambrian rocks."" If you are an intelligent independent thinker you should immediately doubt the evidence for evolution, based merely on the above facts. The rest of the article is filled with assumptions of evolution but no actual fossil evidence for how all these phyla just appeared.
  10. Sometimes it's not opinions that matter, but kindness. It is through love and kindness that the lost are reached. You may find that people are drawn to the kinder posts, and truly bypass the unkind posts.
  11. Sometimes people are so opinionated no amount of explanation will reveal their pride to them. Pride comes before a fall. In this way I feel sorry for the lessons the proud must go through to learn humility. It is a long hard road. Ephesians 4: 1-3 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2 Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3 Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. Romans 14: 19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.
  12. Just like you , I believe these so-called scientist's evolutionary assumptions have no validity. Unlike you I believe in a lot of their evidence, but not their conclusions. I see no reason to doubt their analysis of for example oxygen content or co2 content in old layers. I see no reason to doubt that there was a time and reason why huge insects were on the earth and not now. If conditions were always the same, those insects would still be around. therefore the geologic column as a record of the dominant species for changing environments over time makes perfect sense. What evolutionists deny yet the evidence increasingly supports is that the other less dominant species were always around in niche environments and never actually evolved.
  13. This is what evolutionist have been taught. BUT anyone with the slightest logic can look at the wikipedia article on the Cambrian Explosion and see that most phyla appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no signs of any predecessors/intermediates between those phyla and the original eukaryote they are hypothesied to have evolved from. So looking at the actual fossil record, it shows a sudden appearance and NOT evolving. So even though evolutionists explain away their lack of evidence, the sudden appearance still favors creation. Then on a genetic level there is no sign of the appearance of a unique gene adding value to an organism. Any abnormalities involving new genes reduce an organisms ability to breed a healthy set of descendants. This is what the genetic evidence shows. So evolution's assumption that a eukaryote evolved into modern organisms that nearly all have more unique genes than an eukaryote makes no sense due to the complete lack of evidence for such a process. What is observed is that DNA is slowly/gradually reducing in complexity. ie devolving, NOT evolving. This is what genetics observes. So this idea that the evidence favors evolution over creation is not supported in the fossil record or genetics.
  14. Yes the body of correct evidence keeps growing, even if they misinterpret that evidence. As someone who respects some of the evidence of experts in the fields of paleontology and geology I have come to enjoy looking at the pre-flood world , with it's huge insects and huge amphibians and higher co2 levels and oxygen levels etc. That world was closer to creation than our dryer less habitable world. Something that many creationists miss out on because they dispute too much of the correct evidence of science.
  15. Why does it seem that you debating me when we are on the same side, haha