Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[XRose]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sure.   According to YE creationists there are.   Let's see if you think so.   Do you believe that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are from the flood?

Being a Catholic you cannot have the clairty of thinking that Christians have.

Plus you are a prime example of Dunning-Kruger Inferior as shown by your nitpicking claim that I distorted GOD's words when I said  'The reason we do not find fossils of humans in the bottom of the fossil record is simply that GOD said He would destroy humans off the face of the Earth. Genesis 7:4. '

You then quote the same verse.

The fact is that The Flood was intended to destroy humans and it did.

You prattle your Old Earth BigBang Catholic nonsense because as Jesus said: 

Matthew 7:3-5 King James Version (KJV)

³ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

⁴ Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

⁵ Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Earth is 6,000 years old.  The Flood destroyed all humans except Noah and family. 

As for Grand Canyon deposits, of course they were all laid down during The Flood. 

The canyon itself was cut in the latter part of the drain off as the flood waters drained off the central American plateau.

If we accept Mt Ararat's present height of 16500 feet was the same as that when the Ark lodged on it, and the highest point of Grand Canyon is 8800 feet then a layer of water 7700 thick had to drain off to leave the flat plateaus around the canyon and seen all around the world.

Then as the canyon is 6000 feet deep another layer of soft sediments had to drain off the plateaus to cut the canyon.  That meant a layer of water 2800 feet thick had to drain away.  It is that water that cut the canyon - through still soft sediments - not the hardrock the monkeybrains claim.   This part of drain off lasted 54 days until the dove found a sprouted olive or a bush that had survived.

The total drain off period lasted 116 days until Noah saw the water had left the land but he stayed in the ark another 57 days while it both hardened to bear the weight of the big creatures and allowed a crop of grass to grow up to feed them all.

As Noah was looking out from a vantage point on Ararat he may not have known he was so high up and not know that areas of lower land were still under water or still soft mud. 

The Ark touched Ararat on day 197.  Ararat top visible on day 270 = 73 days draining 15 cubits of water.  Wait 40 days to day 310 to send raven and dove. Wait another 7 days to resend dove. Wait 7 days resend dove that doesn't return. Day 313 open the coverings of the Ark and look out. Wait 57 days to Day 370 step out of Ark.   Total draining 184 days to land being dry enough to stand on.

184 minus the 73 - 111 days draining during the latter part which we cannot know the Grand Canyone was cut.   (volume of spheres)

You D-K Inferiors will cling to your fantasies despite vast evidence.   

 

[omega2xx]

17 hours ago, XRose said:

  6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Always glad to learn something new.   Let's see what you have...

That's not what He said...

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

You changed His words to make them more acceptable to you.

Have you noticed when someone misquotes the Bible, it is because what it actually says does not support what they beleive.

omega, are you saying I misquoted something I don't believe?  

No!.  He misquoted the verse, you corrected him.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Xrose doubts human remains are in "flood deposits")

Barbarian asks:

According to YE creationists there are.   Let's see if you think so.   Do you believe that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are from the flood?

(Dodging ensues)

5 hours ago, XRose said:

Being a Catholic you cannot have the clairty of thinking that Christians have.

If you don't even know what a Christian is, how can you begin to tell me what creationists think?   Since you dodged the question, I'm guessing you have no idea what they think about the Grand Canyon deposits.  

OK. let's find something that might be familiar to you...

Indeed, accepting H. erectus as human, as the majority of creationists do now, was a concept that raised its own set of questions. Where did H. erectus fit into biblical history? Where did H. erectus come from and where did he go? Do we carry H. erectus genes? Was there really a wide diversity of human genes immediately post Flood? If so, how did this diversity happen so soon after the human genetic bottleneck of the Ark? Should there not have been less diversity immediately after the Flood, with diversity increasing as time went on? How did H. erectus relate to the Neanderthals? Why are there no H. erectus burials (Homo erectus 2009b)?

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/

AIG has a point.   Obviously, if there was a flood that wiped out all humans on Earth other than a man and his sons (with their wives) there would not be enough genetic variety to have Neandertals, H. erectus, H. ergaster, and all the rest.   Those fossils would be pre-flood and therefore in flood deposits.

Your unfortunate resentment against Catholics is preventing you from thinking clearly.    Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved.   Your faith, if you love God and love man, will save you just as well.    Let it go, and you'll find it easier to accept Him.

 

 

 

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Apparently you don't understand what evidence means in science.   Wise, for example, gave you dozens of examples, backed up by many, many articles which he cited for you.

I get that you feel a need to pretend that he did not, but anyone who goes to the link will find all those citations.   There's really no point in you denying the fact.

This can be easily settled.  Post the evidence he presented and lets see  if it is really evidence or just the usual evo talking points. Just  one example will be enough,bu more if you want to.

 

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

That would explain why you changed it.

Since I didn't  post it, I didn't change it.  You posted the verse incorrectly and Rose corrected it.

That is adding to God's word, which is not allowed, but maybe you are not familiar enough   with God's inerrant word to know that.

 

[XRose]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

(Xrose doubts human remains are in "flood deposits")

Barbarian asks:

According to YE creationists there are.   Let's see if you think so.   Do you believe that the deposits in the Grand Canyon are from the flood?

(Dodging ensues)

If you don't even know what a Christian is, how can you begin to tell me what creationists think?   Since you dodged the question, I'm guessing you have no idea what they think about the Grand Canyon deposits.  

OK. let's find something that might be familiar to you...

Indeed, accepting H. erectus as human, as the majority of creationists do now, was a concept that raised its own set of questions. Where did H. erectus fit into biblical history? Where did H. erectus come from and where did he go? Do we carry H. erectus genes? Was there really a wide diversity of human genes immediately post Flood? If so, how did this diversity happen so soon after the human genetic bottleneck of the Ark? Should there not have been less diversity immediately after the Flood, with diversity increasing as time went on? How did H. erectus relate to the Neanderthals? Why are there no H. erectus burials (Homo erectus 2009b)?

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/

AIG has a point.   Obviously, if there was a flood that wiped out all humans on Earth other than a man and his sons (with their wives) there would not be enough genetic variety to have Neandertals, H. erectus, H. ergaster, and all the rest.   Those fossils would be pre-flood and therefore in flood deposits.

Your unfortunate resentment against Catholics is preventing you from thinking clearly.    Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who w ill be saved.  Your faith, if you love God and love man, will save you just as well.    Let it go, and you'll find it easier to accept Him.

QUOTE: 'Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved.'  You must be joking! Is that what popey tells you! You haven't a cat in hell's chance of avoiding slaughter when Jesus returns and the second death on Judgment Day!   Get  down on your knees in front of Ishtar and Tammuz and ask the plaster and maybe an invisible demon will say 'of course you are saved!'. 

You prattle on about fossils in the Grand Canyone so can you tell us what you think are the origins of the canyon and what monkeyman fossils have been found and how deep they were found . 

Then you call GOD and Jesus liars (Nothing unusual for a Catholic to do that!) by prattling about Noah and sons being unable to repopulate Earth.  This can only mean you believe UFO-aliens (aka demons) seeded a few million humans around the other side of the world where Noah couldn't see them.

BUT IF YOU HAD THE SMALLEST GIFT OF WISDOM AND DISCERNMENT FREELY GIVEN TO ALL CHRISTIANS you would be able to read Genesis 10 and see that Noah's sons had 6 or 7 sons each and who knows how many daughters! The Mexican catholics have gone from 'The population has quadrupled between 1933 and 1980 and has had its ups in years like in 1950, where the growth was 4.6%, and in 1970, where it recorded 7.2%. !'    If Catholics can breed so fast why not Noah's family?

Starting with 8 people in years One or 4350 years ago and a birthrate of 1.012 todays population should be Population in 4350 = 27,110,583,559,225,000,000,000.

Obviously something is wrong with your silly idea?

Also of course it's a good job people didn't breed so much as we are presently living on just about 10% of the Earth's surface and not the 90% that GOD intended.

 

 

 

Edited March 13, 2020 by XRose

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, XRose said:

You prattle on about fossils in the Grand Canyone 

No.   I think part of your problem is not reading carefully.

1 hour ago, XRose said:

so can you tell us what you think are the origins of the canyon

Geologist know very well.  We see such canyons forming today.   It happens when an old river (with lots of meanders and loops) gets uplifted and "rejuvenated."   This locks the river into its channel,and instead of cutting new channels as old rivers do, it just cuts deeper and deeper into the existing bed.

Canyons and gorges are in the initial phase of valley development and are considered some of the most interesting valley forms. These forms result from accelerated entrenchment caused by recent tectonic activity such as especially vertical uplift. The uplift creates high-standing plateaus and as a result, perpetuates the downward erosive power of existing rivers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_rejuvenation

The most spectacular valley forms are canyons and gorges that result from accelerated entrenchment prompted by recent tectonic activity, especially vertical uplift. Canyons and gorges are still in the initial phase of valley development. They range in size from narrow slits in resistant bedrock to enormous trenches. Where underlying bedrock is composed of flat-lying sedimentary rocks, regional uplift creates high-standing plateaus and simultaneously reinvigorates the erosive power of existing rivers, a phenomenon known as rejuvenation. Vertical entrenchment produces different valley styles depending on the size of the river and the magnitude and rate of uplift. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River, located in the southwestern United States and formed in response to uplift of the Colorado Plateau, has entrenched about 1,800 metres and widened its walls six to 29 kilometres during the past 10,000,000 years. The Grand Canyon is only one of many spectacular canyons that developed in response to uplift of the Colorado Plateau.

https://www.britannica.com/science/river/Valley-evolution

 

1 hour ago, XRose said:

Then you call GOD and Jesus liars

Nope.   You just made that up.   Not unusual for people like you.   Jesus said the world would hate us, and we're used to it.

1 hour ago, XRose said:

prattling about Noah and sons being unable to repopulate Earth.

You made that up, too.   Answers in Genesis  wrote that, and they are correct that you would not have the genetic variation in one man, his sons, and their wives to produce the sort of variation we see in the different species of humans such as Cro-magnons, Neandertals, H. erectus, and others.   These were clearly "pre-flood" in creationist thinking.

2 hours ago, XRose said:

BUT IF YOU HAD THE SMALLEST GIFT OF WISDOM AND DISCERNMENT FREELY GIVEN TO ALL CHRISTIANS you would be able to read Genesis 10 and see that Noah's sons had 6 or 7 sons each and who knows how many daughters!

Doesn't matter.   As you now realize, and as your fellow YE creationists point out, the 8 people on the Ark could not have had the genetic variation to produce these different populations.

2 hours ago, XRose said:

Also of course it's a good job people didn't breed so much as we are presently living on just about 10% of the Earth's surface and not the 90% that GOD intended.

You think God didn't have oceans on the Earth?   Seriously?  As you see, there is no possible way for 8 people to have the kind of variation we see in the fossil record of humans.   And in a few thousand years, evolution could not produce enough mutations to do this.  

Why not just accept it God's way?  Then it won't bother you any more.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:

Your unfortunate resentment against Catholics is preventing you from thinking clearly.    Catholics aren't the only Christians, and we aren't the only ones who will be saved.   Your faith, if you love God and love man, will save you just as well.    Let it go, and you'll find it easier to accept Him.

2 hours ago, XRose said:

Oh my your friend and god Satan

You seem to have abandoned any attempt at rational discourse, are merely venting verbal abuse.   That should be a pretty good hint for you that you aren't being a very good imitation of Christ.

2 hours ago, XRose said:

I'm a really Fundamentalist Chrsitian while you catholics are devilworshippers!

Most of the fundamentalist Christians I know recognize that Catholics are their brothers in Christ, and none of them I've encountered so far are as foolish as to claim other Christians are devil worshipers.   You should probably calm yourself and try to act in a Christian manner.   I won't  report you for your behavior, but other people might.

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, XRose said:

I'm beginning to realise there isn't a single Christian among all those creations at answersingenesis.

They have a lot of YE creationists with them.  Perhaps you're the one who is out of step.

 

[A Christian 1985]

I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. ANY school of thought which has ANY supernatural mechanisms as a means is inherently disqualified to be a scientific discipline. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

           

...The more famous subject of Darwin's uniformitarianism, usually termed  "evolution," comes to the front. This is always a controversial and emotional subject, and is usually discussed in a quasi‑scientific manner. ¹²⁸

 

Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. Evolution itself is a logical explanation of the information that it correlates, and the evidence of the appropriate scientific fields have consistently verified the mechanisms necessary for substantiating the validity of evolution. Evolution, while it is not a proven process in the strictest sense, is completely valid in its viability and is the only logical process (i.e., one amenable to scientific analysis) so tenable.

 

 Modern humanists, increasingly anti‑Genesis in outlook, were growing in numbers and in positions of importance, especially in academic circles. To Voltaire, for instance, any mention of the Flood was offensive; it implied too much of God, or of judgment, or of the Judeo‑Christian heritage. Despite evidence left by fossils and sedimentary strata, as well as literary heritages, a Biblical Flood was taboo to him, and to many others.

Voltaire was somewhat typical of the anti‑spiritual humanists of his day. He was thoroughly anti‑Christian and anti‑Judaistic. He felt that the burial of the Bible in general and the Genesis record in particular, would be a great service to mankind.¹³⁰

 

The human error in the promotion and promulgation of evolution was, and still is, of two aspects: Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution­- Uniformitarianism‑ is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism was founded on insufficient and incomplete data, and the motives for its adoption were more anti‑Genesis than they were pro‑scientific.

 

Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy “Uniformitarianism” which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.

The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in 2004):

1. In the past decade (1990's) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.

2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).

3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: “Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up”.

4. Gentleman, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.

“Creationism” per se in all of its multi-fared manifestations, invoking to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, thus by its very nature cannot nor ever can be a scientific discipline. That being the case, “creationism” has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.

                            

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti‑spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything. Evolution is merely a process and is not an explanation of actual creation; the explanation of creation per se does not lie within the realm of scientific explanation.

 

 The only distinct meaning of the word "natural" is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as such requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once.¹³²

 

The author of the above is referring to the implications of natural as is connotated by the term "natural selection." The very working mechanism of evolution implies intelligence behind such a process no less so than does that of a supernatural divine creation.

 

 I see no good reason why the views given in this volume (the Origin of Species and the Descent of Mari) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.... A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as liable a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws. ¹³³

(These are Charles Darwin's own words here)

 

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

 

Evolutionists for non­scientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

 

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-­Creation" argument.

 

The orthodox Christians escaped the greater error altogether; but, nevertheless gave clear testimony to the influence of the popular belief in their interpretation of the commencing chapter of Genesis. For they made the first verse signify the creation of a confused mass of elements, out of which the heavens and earth were formed during the six days, understanding the next sentence to be a description of this crude matter before God shaped it. And their opinion has descended to our days. But it does not appear to be substantiated by Scripture, as we shall presently see, and the guile of the serpent may be detected in its results. For how great a contest has it provoked between the Church and the World!

 

            For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.

                Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.¹³⁹

 

Today, to be pro‑spiritual and to appreciate the Judeo‑Christian heritage, one must, it seems, be anti‑scientific. This is a common consensus; it is a mirage.¹⁴⁰

 

To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4^th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.