ARGOSY

Diamond Member
  • Content count

    1,148
  • 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

1,360 profile views
  1. I do believe in a recent creation of biological life. And an older earth.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Thanks for the agreement. Yes creation has the empirical advantage. In my own studies I have come to the conclusion that the creationist theory that explains much of the geologic layering as flood layers is incorrect. Often each layer has its own co2 levels, oxygen levels, moisture levels and dominant fauna/flora that reflect those specific conditions. Studies in this regard are often not explained by flood theorists. I see the flood reflected in late Permian layers (disarticulated Permian fossils), at the PT boundary (a strong transgression and regression event) and in early Triassic (fossil free silting). Transgression and regression events are confirmation that the world experienced sea-level rises and flooding into the continental interiors and also a dramatic drop in sea levels as well, confirmed in the geologic record. By taking such a stance one agrees with the evidence of those geologic layers, and also has undeniable geological evidence of a worldwide flood, and also has undeniable evidence that most organisms appeared fully formed in the Cambrian.
  5. This is why there is a strong trend towards partial preterism at the moment. The more historical views see these verses fulfilled in ancient Rome, and therefore the Pope does not have to face that the scriptures STILL point to Rome as a source of evil.
  6. True, its absolutist, nevertheless their view is worthy of mockery because abiogenesis is widely accepted yet is not even at hypothesis stage. At least creationism has an hypothesis that is not disproven. Well panspermia as a source for life specifically on earth is not rationally inconsistent under the assumption that life formed elsewhere first. So my unicorn as a source of panspermia is not rationally inconsistent as an explanation for life on earth (haha it sounds like I'm proposing a theory here) I agree that common ancestry has weak support. It's projecting the observed and logical adaptability of organisms into an explanation of origins. But on the balance of logic, we do not have the upper hand merely on a faith basis. Empirically science confirms that most major phyla appeared fully formed in the Cambrian, a fact that directly favors creationism over evolution. Empirically if you delve into genetics, there is no evidence that nature can produce additional unique genes that improve fitness of a species. Yet evolution as an explanation for modern life requires every organism to have more unique genes than the original LUCA. Observation of genetics instead shows a slight reduction of active genes over time, but never shows any increased unique genes that improve fitness. So genetically it looks like organisms just appeared and are slowly devolving instead of evolving. And regarding the fossil record it appears as if organisms just appeared with no indication of where they came from. So it is not just a faith thing, empirically creation is at a huge advantage.
  7. There is a lot of truth in what you say: The eight kingdoms are: Egypt Assyria Babylon Persia Greece Rome -united Rome -divided (Constantinople/Rome) Rome - ten horns - new capital little horn (Israel) The second beast with the two tiny horns represents a kingdom with religious authority over much of earth , run by two tiny kingdoms. I believe this is also Constantinople/Rome. More specifically the Islamic Caliphate in Istanbul and the Vatican in Rome that have widespread religious and political power. The woman specifically represents Europe and its religious capital , Rome.
  8. True, all that ability already exists in the God designed DNA.
  9. That toilet example wasn't mine But even though I am a firm creationist as you may have understood from my post, some organisms do adapt rapidly. This generally reflects devolution, a downgrading over time, and doesn't support evolution. For example a mammal may have a dwarfism mutation which makes it more suitable for a limited island environment. These adaptations do happen regularly in nature without the intervention of an intelligent designer. God created organisms to be adaptable.
  10. There's some truth in your post. But it's as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that! haha Sure abiogenesis is an interesting concept, and the unicorn's flea is as well. Both are in the realm of fantasy until someone can think up a way it can work that is not impossible. Every time someone tries to conjure up a possible scenario for abiogenesis, upon analysis it is impossible. It's impossible to have competing environments existing simultaneously and this is what is required. The scientific method requires a valid hypothesis before becoming a valid theory. If the concept of abiogenesis hasn't even reached a stage of a valid hypothesis it remains in the realm of fantasy wishful thinking. Even if one has never had any supernatural experience it's easier to believe in a supernatural start to life than some "chemical cesspool" fantasy that has no scientific validity. And most of us come across at least one supernatural experience in our lives, making supernatural creation a more logical explanation for beginnings. http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis
  11. I agree things are evolving a bit, but from a genetic perspective one never observes evolving the way evolutionist theorise. Nearly every organism has MORE unique active genes than the original supposed ancestor. But one never observes these additions in reality, even if they try to induce a population of organisms with evolutionary pressure. Instead one observes the occasional deletion or inactivity of a gene improving an organism. Actual observation of genetics is showing a very slow devolving from higher life-forms. The evidence favors creationism.
  12. And all dinosaur bones are fake...... hehehe Yes there was a meteor impact , the iridium layer is there, and I believe dinosaurs did battle with the post-impact conditions. Unlike other creationists I tend to place the flood at the PT boundary, there being evidence of a strong transgression and a strong regression at that time. Most continental interiors were affected by the transgression as well as even greater loss of life than the KT boundary. There were huge sediment movements filling up the valleys across the world.
  13. Dinosaurs couldnt survive the sudden ice age and changes to atmospheric conditions. Mammals could. Simple as that. To see that event as referring to a complete new creation event is ridiculous. Many of the same birds and mammals that existed in the end Cretaceous continued to exist in the Paleogene. There is more and more evidence that a large variety of mammals and birds existed at the same time as dinosaurs which adds evidence for creation but ruins your gap theory at the KT extinction event.
  14. Its a reduction of species. But there is no sign of a sudden change in species. ie the small furtive mammals before the K-T boundary still existed after the K-T boundary. What gap? There is absolutely no sign that there was a new creation of species. Just because a disaster hit earth, does not mean creation week occurred then. It's very shaky evidence that "gap" theorists have for their theory. Neither the biblical evidence nor the geological evidence points to two separate groups of biological life separated by an empty gap.