Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[XRose]

Just a  moment!  Forget the dark moth for dirty England crap.  It is ludicrous to think England was carpeted with thick soot as in fact many indsutrial towns and cities were literally little black oases in lush green countryside!   I lived right in the centre of a heavy industrial area with thick fogs in cold weather but I walked to school between lush fields filled with butterflies and bees and ponds and stream sfilled with fish, newts, diving beetles and freshwater shrimps.  The moth research was faulty because many birds like moths and many birds can spot a moth, grab it and fly away in a split second.

Ditto the finch beak.  Human muscles and bones grow large and heavy through work so why not a beak to tackle tougher seeds?  If GOD created human bodies able to modify for heavy lifting - and see how older bodies shrink and weaken when a person retires? - I'm sure other creatures body can modify for particular situations.   Earth's original climate was warm and moist and all animals would have fairly short coats while today's long cold winters make many grow long thick coats that are shed again in springtime.

As for the lying, blaspheming Augustine's idea that GOD could not create the Earth until He had made the sun he was unable to understand that GOD doesn't need light to make things - and His own light was sufficient to illuminate the pre-conscious life forms - the vegetation!  All seeds will germinate in dark moist soil.  Blind people can create all sorts of things without 'light' so why should GOD need have Earth lit up to ensure He made the later things properly?  And surely GOD created the sun by somehow creating a vast quantity of hydrogen and helium in one place - assuming the scientists are correct and that's what the sun is made of.

Mention of oryxes does make me point out the sudden die-off of the Arabian gazelle (?) despite them being spread over vast distances with likely very little contact to spread disease?  My Bible says at

Zephaniah 1:² I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith the Lord.

³ I will consume man and beast; I will consume the fowls of the heaven, and the fishes of the sea, and the stumbling blocks with the wicked: and I will cut off man from off the land, saith the Lord.

⁴ I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests;

⁵ And them that worship the host of heaven upon the housetops; and them that worship and that swear by the Lord, and that swear by Malcham;'

That prediction can account for all the mysterious die-offs of fish, birds, animals we have seen in recent years.    Verse 5 applies against Catholics as they worship the sun as their god Baal and offer it cakes during mass.

[XRose]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Now, that cannot be literally true.   A circle ten units in diameter will have a circumference of 10 times Pi units.   But mathematical exactitude isn't the point of this verse.   The author gave an approximate value, or alternately, the vessel wasn't perfectly round, and actually had those dimensions.   Doesn't matter, unless you claim the the Bible must be exactly true in every respect, even to the fractional values. '

Maybe you blasphemers should understand that in the days the molten sea - the brass bath - was made there was no need for precise measurement as no high speed machines were invented or capable of being produced and so the precision of pi was not necessary?   I spent a good part of my life in precision engineering with all manner of measuring devices from simple straight edges, squares and protractors to all the manual and electronic micrometers and verniers to finishing with the computerised digital measuring systems.  GOD said to make the molten sea ten cubits and as we know cubits is based on a man's arm and hand using any two men's cubit would give different diameters of the sea and the distance round its rim.

I did once read a long silly dissertation about the sea's pi problem and the writer tried to claim maybe the measure measurement was taken under the rim at the level of filled water...   I doubt if GOD would have insisted that only a man with a cubit of an exact certain length should make the molten sea.

 

 

[omega2xx]

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Perhaps you should have considered that, earlier.  

Why? 

“Never be haughty to the humble, never be humble to the haughty.”

― Mark Twain

Quoting an atheist which makes no sense is a nice touch for Christians.

I never claimed to be superior.  

You have not said the words, but you attitude and comments makes it clear you THINK you are

Don't have to.   I merely document my claims.   That's all that's necessary.

Those comments are evidence you think you are superior.  You do not document your claims with evidence.  You only post what some say and they offer no supporting evidence to support what they say and you accept it on faith alone,

I showed you what the Church teaches.  No point in denying the fact.   You see, this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble here.

Not on your say so.  What churches teaches can be wrong.  I don' wan to bad mouth your denomination, but the Catholic church has a  lot of non-Biblical theology.  Your current pope and some popes in the past have said Protestant churches are not real churches.  All of the churches Paul and the original apostles established were no Catholic, and there is no Scripture supporting that comment.

Except where it displeases you.   That's how the "life ex nihilo" error came into your belief system.

That comment comes from a lack of understanding what the scripture.  As I told you before "created" is used 5 times in Genesis 1.  In each o f those verses, something was created that did not exist before.  THAT IS EX NIHILO.  Why do you continue to ignore the evidence?  You have one verse that says "the earth brought forth something.  Since what was mentioned did not exist at that time, what made from the earth was also ex nihilo.  WE have the same thing with plants(Gen 1:12).  The earth was formless and void until God started creating and forming things.  Something that had s soul, were created.  Things without a soul, were formed.  WE have the same thing with Adam.  In Gen 1:27 Adams' invisible parts,  includin his soul  were created.  In Gen 2:7 his visible parts were formed, but his sould did not become active until God brethed lief into him.

No.  It is ex nihilo, if it is created from nothing.   As I showed you, God says life was brought forth by the Earth.   Hence, not from nothing.   By definition.   That's what He said; no point in you denying it. 

Even the verse you hang your hat on is ex nihilo.  There were no beast of the field or things that crawl until God  made them.  That is ex nihilo.  You just don't understand the concept and you keep ignoring he verses that use "created"

If you take it literally, it does...

1 Kings 7:23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Those are actual measurement.  That verse does not mention pi.  "Someone who wanted to find errors in the "Bible, made up something that does not exist, and you accept they are right.  Do you think the Bible has errors?

Now, that cannot be literally true.   A circle ten units in diameter will have a circumference of 10 times Pi units.   But mathematical exactitude isn't the point of this verse.   The author gave an approximate value, or alternately, the vessel wasn't perfectly round, and actually had those dimensions.   Doesn't matter, unless you claim the the Bible must be exactly true in every respect, even to the fractional values.

The measurement given in that verse are not connected.  Each measurement is separated from the others.  Also the measurements are given in cubits, not units. The exact length of a cubit is no known for sure.  Therefor, you can't say what the actual measurements are. Do you think there are errors in the "Bible?  If you do, don't call it holy.

 

 

8 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

If you weren't paying attention, I've pointed out that I'm Roman Catholic in a number of places.   However, I don't see that Presbyterians are any less Christian than Catholics are.Those who try to push others away from God only succeed in removing themselves from God. 

 

I realize that this is a very controversial subject in your denomination, which has not been able to resolve it. 

Seems like it is:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evolution-and-the-presbyt_b_5563724

A few years back,  my denomination did not support evolution. We like the Catholice said members could accept evolution if tghe wanted to.

Since John Paul II, at least, popes have personally recognized the fact of evolution, even common descent.   But that's not doctrinal; it's merely their recognition of the evidence.   Catholics are not in any way obligated to accept evolution.

There are no facts supporting evolution, and your popes are not scientist.

Love. peace joy

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, XRose said:

Oh my!  I have to step in here to correct a few of Barbarians barbarities.

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.  It is logical to accept that means all trace of humans would disppear.    With modern experience of mass death and disappearances of bodies during tsunamis we know that human fossil would not exist.   

And on another point - the lowest fossils are the foremins aka plankton which GOD created first to cleanse and recycle all detritus that would flow down to the sea beds from later vegetation and creatures.  I once tried to get this across to another non-Christian who swore that there must be fossils below the foramins despite the foramins being found resting on the bedrock!

Also the flood put many fossils out of order. WE find sea shells on mountain tops and the Lebrea tar pits has many fossils out of order.

Love, peace, joy

 

[XRose]

45 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Also the flood put many fossils out of order. WE find sea shells on mountain tops and the Lebrea tar pits has many fossils out of order.

I cannot count the number of times I have told evolutionists that!   

I tell them just watch a few flash flood or tsunami videos to see how soil, trees, humans and animals are washed along and smashed to pieces before finally settling.   And I say a second flash flood or tsunami from further away would wash more mixed debris onto the first!

In last three weeks there have been continuous floods in southern England and goodness knows what debris has been swept along or how it has or will finally settle.

This video shows how just one cloudburst about half a mile wide devastated one small village. If further cloudbursts had occurred slightly further or wider over fifty miles the mass of debris would be very hard to sort out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxweiRNlHbo

It's just impossible for them to accept so I just shake their dust off my sandals.

Edited March 12, 2020 by XRose

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Quoting an atheist which makes no sense is a nice touch for Christians.

Wisdom is what it is, regardless of what it is.   What did Jesus say about the pagan centurion?

And I never claimed to be superior.   You claimed to be superior.   It's not just your words, but your attitude and comments that make it clear you think you are:

On 3/9/2020 at 4:41 PM, omega2xx said:

If you could ever understand real science, you would know they are right.

Instead of imagining that you are wise in things you have not learned, go look at the evidence I showed you.   Start with Dr. Wise's many links to evidence for evolution in the fossil record.  He's a young Earth creationist, but he's honest enough to admit the truth.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Those comments are evidence you think you are superior.  You do not document your claims with evidence.  You only post what some say and they offer no supporting evidence to support what they say and you accept it on faith alone,

I've linked you to all sorts of evidence that shows exactly what I'm telling you.   No point in denying the truth.  I showed you what the Church teaches.  No point in denying the fact.   You see, this is the kind of thing that gets you in trouble here.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Not on your say so.  What churches teaches can be wrong. 

I linked you to an official statement of The Church, declaring the Bible to be always true.   We'll just have to disagree on that point.   I also think it is.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Your current pope and some popes in the past have said Protestant churches are not real churches. 

They were speaking only in the Biblical sense.   In the Bible, a church was always headed by an apostle, or one delegated by an apostle.   Not all denominations are "churches" in that sense.   But of course, modern usage has a different meaning.   

Jesus made it clear that one did not have to belong to any particular organization to be saved, so it is a meaningless issue.

 

 

 

 

,

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, XRose said:

Oh my!  I have to step in here to correct a few of Barbarians barbarities.

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

2 hours ago, omega2xx 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.  It is logical to accept that means all trace of humans would disppear. 

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.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

With modern experience of mass death and disappearances of bodies during tsunamis we know that human fossil would not exist.   

And yet there are many, many fossils of humans in what creationists call "flood deposits."   You guys need to get your stories straight.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

And on another point - the lowest fossils are the foremins aka plankton which GOD created first to cleanse and recycle all detritus that would flow down to the sea beds from later vegetation and creatures. 

Foraminifera?   No.  They come much, much later.   The earliest fossils are of bacteria from much earlier times.   Forams are eukaryotes, not prokaryotes.  

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

I once tried to get this across to another non-Christian who swore that there must be fossils below the foramins despite the foramins being found resting on the bedrock!

Fossils of prokaryotes are much older and occur in lower strata than Forams.   You've just been misled about that.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Also the flood put many fossils out of order. WE find sea shells on mountain tops and the Lebrea tar pits has many fossils out of order.

You've been misled about that, too.   Mountains like the Himalayas are made of the fossils of sea shells and other shallow ocean organisms.   They were raised when India moved north and collided with Asia.   The collision is still going on; India moves north into Asia, and the Himalayas rise by a measurable amount every year.   No one is surprised by that.   But so far, no one has found fossils out of place in undisturbed gelologic columns (which do exist in totality in several places on Earth).    No bunnies in Cambrian deposits, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on.

The La Brea tar pits have only relatively recent animals.   No trilobites, no dinosaurs.    Just recent organisms.   Sabertooth tigers, giant ground sloths, etc.

 

 

 

,

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

There are no facts supporting evolution, and your popes are not scientist.

Well, let's ask your fellow YE creationists, who happen to be scientists...

Dr. Kurt Wise:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0e4d/0ab89242a5ddc40a8a74fc53361861fbcabf.pdf

 

Dr. Todd Wood:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.

http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

You've been badly misled.   If you prefer faith to evidence, that's an honest position.    It is not an honest position to deny the evidence, as your fellow YE creationist are telling you.

 

[George]

I've hidden a few posts in this thread which became personal ... please stick to the subject manner at hand!

God bless,

George

[XRose]

1 hour 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.

So you cling to your monkey-to-man belief regardless?

The passage clearly said He intended to kill all land dwelling airbreathers apart from Noah's family and the Ark full of airbreathers.   He succeeded.

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

And yet there are many, many fossils of humans in what creationists call "flood deposits."   You guys need to get your stories straight.

Are you sure there are humans in flood deposits?    I seriously doubt that.  However some researchers have found old skeletons under 50 feet of sediments in Sumeria and claimed they are from the flood.  But then way out west in the dust bowl country the dusts silted up streams and houses to over fifty feet deep.  I recall reading one autobiography of a farmer renovating a dust bowl property and trying to drain a marshy valley dug down fifty feet and found a little bridge over the original stream.  If such sediment depth could occur just 85 years ago I am not surprised that it has happened in Sumeria over the years.  So depth of burial proves nothing in your example.   If you know of human bones tangled with TRex ones you might have a leg to stand on.

Foraminifera?   No.  They come much, much later.   The earliest fossils are of bacteria from much earlier times.   Forams are eukaryotes, not prokaryotes. 

 Eukaryote unicellulars may have evolved approximately 2 billion Mya, the photosynthetic algae evolved 1600–1500 Mya, and red algae, the oldest taxonomically identifiable eukaryote, evolved 1200 Mya (Hedges et al., 2004).   Prokaryote life seemingly started just over 4 billion years ago, feeding off the early carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, steam, nitrogen, hydrogen, and ammonia atmosphere.   

Too many 'MAY HAVES' and 'SEEMINGLYS' do not prove anything but you evolutionists apply them liberally like salve to a carbuncle.

You really believe such crap!    Euka are just blue-green algae, Prokas are basically the litle jelly blobs that wander about in muddy puddles and without any visible brain, eyes, muscles, mouth, digestive system  are able to feed and somehow sense and speed up to catch and consume living prey.  Prokas are an amazing example of GOD's intelligent design!

Fossils of prokaryotes are much older and occur in lower strata than Forams.   You've just been misled about that.

Really?   You really fell for the 4BYA crap?   Do you realise that if that was true there should be 8oo million inches of topsoil everywhere created by the algeas and plants turning water and CO2 into matter.  Can you organise an expedition to find that 66 million feet of topsoil?

Just out of curiosity I calculated the radius of Earth and arrive at almost 21 million feet.  If we added 4BY topsoil Earth would have a radius of  86 million feet or about 16580 miles for a diameter of 33160 miles.   Your fairy tale about ancient earth is just Satanic nonsense!    If I apply some Christian charity and suggest that the topsoil accummulation only occurred in the last 2 of the 4BY Earth would still be about 10,300 miles radius and 20,600 diameter!

You've been misled about that, too.   Mountains like the Himalayas are made of the fossils of sea shells and other shallow ocean organisms.   They were raised when India moved north and collided with Asia.   The collision is still going on; India moves north into Asia, and the Himalayas rise by a measurable amount every year.   No one is surprised by that.   But so far, no one has found fossils out of place in undisturbed gelologic columns (which do exist in totality in several places on Earth).    No bunnies in Cambrian deposits, no dinosaurs above the K-T boundary, and so on.

The La Brea tar pits have only relatively recent animals.   No trilobites, no dinosaurs.    Just recent organisms.   Sabertooth tigers, giant ground sloths, etc.

Oh dear such childish Planet of Apes beliefs and images in your immature head! The seashells on mountains are closed.  Seashells out of water die after 4-5-6 days.  On dying they fall open.  The shells on mountains are always closed - irrefutably meaning they were raised in less that 4-5-6 days?  Unless of course your friend Satan scattered them over the mountains at the end of the millions of years you believe the mountains took to climb over each other?

The seashells themselves are out of place in your imaginary geologic column?  If they were all open and fossilised you could be forgiven for believing they lived billions of years ago and are still alive as they are closed.  Can you go gather some and poach gently in white wine?

The Katie boundary is actually the GREY LAYER.  I.e a layer of fine rock that was the last sediments that settled out of the Flood waters 4,350 years ago.  And yes you idiots believe it marks the time the imaginary meteorite impact killed all the dinosaurs.  You're all just 64, 405, 650 years out in your calculations but no-one dare publish that in a peer-reviewed journal dare they?   They'd have the exceutive washroom key taken away!  Go stir some dirt in a bucket of water, leave to stand a week, drain off excess clear water, dry the sediments throughly then slice open and guess what!  There will be a fine GREY LAYER on top!

And the missing bunnies? BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Oldest fossil 'rabbit' unearthed. The fossilised skeleton of a rabbit-like creature that lived 55 million years ago has been found in Mongolia, Science magazine reports. Gomphos elkema, as it is known, is the oldest member of the rabbit family ever to be found.      It's only dated 54, 995, 560 years too early.  But what's that between fools?

The tarpit bones?  The tarpits are seeps of oil from buried organic matter from The Flood decomposing into oils and tars.   Naturally the sabretooths and giant sloths fell into the pits after The Flood as the pits did not exist before The Flood as almost all pre-flood land features and man made artefacts disappeared during The Flood.  Only the megalithic stones and lower walls of the Nephilim giant's cities survive although the pyramid's shape seems to have deflected the waters quite well while the nearby Sphinx had a really hard time as all the debris laden water rushed by and over it.

Let me take you back to your brainwashings about India pushing Tibet.  Here is your silly THEORY - FAIRY TALE.  Plate tectonics (from the Late Latin: tectonicus, from the Ancient Greek: τεκτονικός, lit. 'pertaining to building')^[1] is a scientific theory describing the large-scale motion of seven large plates and the movements of a larger number of smaller plates of the Earth's lithosphere, since tectonic processes began on Earth between 3.3^[2] and 3.5 billion years ago. ... The relative importance of each of these factors and their relationship to each other is unclear, and still the subject of much debate.

You've seen how I just calculated the expected radius of Earth if your fairy tales were true?  Now let me teach you about the Newtonian Fizziks that rubbish your Tectonics sillynesses.  Take your Indian plate - Wiki claims the plate is part of Gondwana and split off 140 MYA.  Or 100 MYA.  Or in Late Cretinous. Who cares about a 40MY discrepancy in fairy tales? Gondwana is where Lord sof the Rings guy lived. It bumped into the Asian plate about 55MYA. Or 35MYA.  Who cares about being accurate to 20MY?   Scientists found the Indian plate didn't fit their theory so they modified the theory to force the plate to be only half the thickness of the Asian plate. Yadda, Yadda, Yadda...

Now with the benefit of my super IQ and vast knowledge and the help of Holy Spirit I will apply Newtons Fizziks - all three of his laws apply to plate tectonics. Viz: for Indian plate to move it needs a push.  I cannot find the weight of the plate but it's more than I can push.  To push such a plate 'A' needs X force.  But to have such a force push plate A the X force must have a similar X force behind it or else plate A cannot move.  Asian plate 'B' can resist force A if it has a plate C or a force Y behind it.  If B rested on slippery ice or oil without a backstop force Y then B would just slide back if A tried to throw its weight about.  Similarly if plate A was only half the thickness of B - childish attempt at making facts fit the fairy tale theory? - it would just crumble up like a crash test shows cars crumpling when they are driven into immovable object? 

Claiming rising magma makes the plate moves is ridiculous as the vastness of India would need an equally vast lake of magma to be expanding to support the weight - and the the lake would need filling with gremlins who on cue from Satan would all push at once to try drive India over Asia.

Go buy one of those Newtons Cradle toys with 5 balls. Push ball 1 and see how ball 2 squirms aside?  Knock 1 into 2 and see 5 move? Knock 1.2 and into 3,4,5 and see 3 stand still.  Light a candle under any of the five and wait to see if any move.

I am sure earth's crust was shattered during the Flood and on Tuesday I picked up many fragments of the crust on local beach with each fragment showing how the granite was multiply fractured in several planes and then liquid quartz - that really hard stuff - flowed into the cracks to lock the bits into place again.  The crust plates have never moved except to rise and fall on GOD's command to separate all the people from Babel.

Isn't education and reasoning guided by holy spirit wonderful?

 

 

 

,

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by XRose
spelling