Intelligent Design, Science & Religion

[XRose]

2 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.

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

I just looked up the annual global sea fish catch and find from 2000 onwards it was steady around the 80,ooo,ooo tons.   That is after two centuries of heavy pollutions flowing into the seas from industries and dumping of wastes and later dumping of poison gas concentrates and nuclear accidents. 

It is likely that during the Flood the waters carried a quarter to half a billion tons of fish.  Such a mass of fish would fed quite happily on dead bodies of all creatures to ensure none survived as evidence.  Today the various sea videos we see never have any dead fish lying on the sea bed as so many creatures would eat them to carry out GOD's plan to keep the seas clean.   Empty boots lie on Titanic as proof that fish and water eradicates all traces of a human body.  Even giant blue whales are totally eaten up by shoals of hagfsh.

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

 

,

 

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, XRose said:

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.

We need to quit confusing them  with the facts. 

Love, peace, joy

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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:

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.

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.

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.

They were speaking only in the Biblical sense.

They were not/  The Bible does not give any qualifications for what is a church.

   In the Bible, a church was always headed by an apostle, or one delegated by an apostle. 

Not true.  When an apostle started a church, they would appoint deacons and elder and move on

  Not all denominations are "churches" in that sense. 

You don't get to determine what is and is not a church and neither does the pope

  But of course, modern usage has a different meaning.   

No it hasn't.

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

This is not about salvation, it is about your popes insulting real churches where members worship God in spirit and in truth as Jesus said we must do.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

,

 

[omega2xx]

3 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.
 

 

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

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

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

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.

Not true.    They they have fossil that should not be found with some of the fossils in them.  There are many example of fossils  out of place in the geologic .

 

 

 

,

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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

Jesus pointed to the Centenarians FAITH.  He was not a pagan.  You are judging, and do you know what Jesus said ab out that?

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:

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.

Here is a perfect example of you thinking you are superior.    Because you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence you think I haven't learned something., and you think whatever you believe has to be right.  I guarantee you I have studied the Bible much more than you have.  I really doubt if you study the Bible, you only reaqd it, and that is no way to learn the Bible.

You and Wise both only posted what they believe happened.  That IS NOT evidence.

I've linked you to all sorts of evidence that shows exactly what I'm telling you.   No point in denying the truth.

What you said is not the truth.  You have linked me with opinions that NEVER explain  how it is scientifically possible.

  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 true.  You have shown  me what the Catholic church and much Catholic theology is based no church traditions, not on what the Bible teaches.  You even use "the church" as if the  Catholic church is the  only true church.  The churches the apostles established were true churches and they were not Catholic.  Protestant churches are true churches weather the pope believes it  or not..

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.

I originally said I did not know the Catholic churches view on inspiration.  I did my own research and they do believe in the Bible's inspiration.  Then I looked at its belief on inerrancey.  There it seems there is 3 schools of thought.  Some say 100% inerrant; some say mostly inerrant and some say mostly not inerrant.  I could not find the pope's view  on inerrqancy.

They were speaking only in the Biblical sense. 

You continue to just make up stuff with no Biblical support.  The Bible does not give any criteria for what constitutes a church. Basically any group that meets to worship God is a church.

  In the Bible, a church was always headed by an apostle, or one delegated by an apostle. 

That is not true either. The apostles would form a church, appoint leaders and move on.

  Not all denominations are "churches" in that sense. 

Neither you or your popes do  not get to determine what is and what is not a church.  Your popes have said my church is not a true church, but it is as much as, IMO even more so a church than the Catholic denomination  is a church.

  But of course, modern usage has a different meaning.   

No it hasn't.

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

Being save  is not the subject of this thread.  The main subject is what determines what a church is and who gets to determine what is a church, and as usual, I have to correct some of you non-Biblical comments.

Love, peace, joy

 

4 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

 

 

 

 

,

 

[omega2xx]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

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.

Thanks for confirming my usual comment that you do not have a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence,  Neither of the men you mention only told what they believe happened.  Neither one of them gave any scientific explanation as to HOW   it happened.  It is not an honest position to present opinions as evidence.

 

 

[XRose]

52 minutes ago, omega2xx 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?  

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Thanks for confirming my usual comment that you do not have a clue as to what constitutes verifiable evidence,

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.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, omega2xx said:

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

That would explain why you changed it.

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, XRose said:

Are you sure there are humans in flood deposits?    I seriously doubt that.

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?

Edited March 12, 2020 by The Barbarian