Jump to content

Arauna

Creationism

Recommended Posts

On 11/30/2019 at 6:21 AM, AlanF said:

buddy Arauna seems to think it's 6,000 years, being a young-earth creationist.

I am not a creationist...... I do not believe the creation of animals and people took only 24 hours. This is what creationists believe.

I do believe that jehovah created the earth and the physical universe and the age of the rocks on earth gives one an idea of the age of the earth. Genesis 1: 1 and 2   However, the earth is not as old as the estimates given by some evolutionists. There are many problems with carbon 14 dating as well as the other methods.  Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

I do believe that the earth after its creation was left to cool down and there was water on the earth from this process - as the bible indicates. 

After this God started to prepare the earth for human and animal habitation and only now calls each period a day. He used 6 periods, called a day, to work on this.  But he also calls all the creation of heaven and earth (including its preparation) a day - one total period  in genesis 2:4.  

When you promote the idea that the layers of the earth is not in line with bible chronology you are mistaken.  You see the geological record together with the biblical record confirms the biblical history. 

Many geologists try to hide the evidence of a earthwide flood but the violent evidences of a flood is everywhere on earth - especially the animal grave yards which were mostly in gullys.   The earth tore open and released waters deep under the earth and gave way to volcanic activity and tsunamis. It was an  extremely violent event which left the earth completely changed afterwards. The earth moved considerably as water is not only heavy but extremely powerful in its movement when tectonic plates move.  The weight of one bucket of water should give one an idea of the weight and pressing down of sediment involved.  This pushed out all oxygen.... perfect for the formation of coal, diamonds etc.  Water also drew back and this can be seen in some formations.

The layers of animals packed down in the different layers of sediment is proof of a violent flood. And the same sediment layers appear all over the earth with the lighter materials higher up such as sea shells etc.

Me thinks you dismiss too much evidence which honest scientists do not ignore!  

Yea- you will most probably call me a moron.... again....but because evolutionists do not take the flood into account and the change of the earth during the flood their carbon calculations and ice age calculations could be totally wrong..... 

No I do not punt..... I have a life.  My life does not consist of sitting on internet talking to trolls who really do not care to even consider an aspect different to their own opinion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    On 11/29/2019 at 7:21 PM, AlanF said:

I am not a creationist......

 

Of course you are. Perhaps not a six-literal-creative-day creationist, but still a creationist. And you clearly hold a number of young-earth creationist ideas, such as "flood geology" -- which as I have pointed out a number of times, the Society abandoned 40 years ago.

Quote

I do not believe the creation of animals and people took only 24 hours. This is what creationists believe.

Nope. Only the young-earth kind. Intelligent Design creationists range from young-earth to old-earth.

Quote

I do believe that jehovah created the earth and the physical universe and the age of the rocks on earth gives one an idea of the age of the earth. Genesis 1: 1 and 2   However, the earth is not as old as the estimates given by some evolutionists.

The Watchtower Society accepts those figures. You know better, do you?

Quote

There are many problems with carbon 14 dating as well as the other methods.  Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth.....

Carbon 14 dating is not used for the age of the earth. Uranium dating and other radiometric methods are on extremely firm footing. You're WAY behind the times, as even the Society accepts them.

Quote

so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

Nonsense. You present no facts, no math. The half-life of the main isotope of uranium (U-238) is about 4.5 billion years. That of U-235 is 700 million years. U-235 is much less abundant that U-238. Now do the math.

Quote

I do believe that the earth after its creation was left to cool down and there was water on the earth from this process - as the bible indicates.

Ideas like these are left over from 1940s Watchtower teaching. You're WAY behind the times.

Quote

After this God started to prepare the earth for human and animal habitation and only now calls each period a day. He used 6 periods, called a day, to work on this.  But he also calls all the creation of heaven and earth (including its preparation) a day - one total period  in genesis 2:4.

I'm fully versed in these myths.

Quote

When you promote the idea that the layers of the earth is not in line with bible chronology you are mistaken.  You see the geological record together with the biblical record confirms the biblical history.

Wrong. You're harking back to the "flood geology" that the Society gave up on in the early 1980s. You won't find any such references after 1989, and hardly any after 1980.

Facts: "Flood geology" was abandoned by all proper geologists beginning in the 1820s. By 1860 or so, only a few religious holdouts held to it. About 1900 a Seventh-Day Adventist preacher name George McCready Price began a career of defending SDA young-earth creationism by publishing books defending his version of "flood geology" and so forth. In the late 1940s the Watchtower Society began using some of his ideas, as well as those of that arch-crackpoot Immanuel Velikovsky and others. In 1961 a baptist theologian named John Whitcomb and his buddy Henry Morris published the book The Genesis Flood, which under Morris's guidance kicked off the modern young-earth creationist movement, which is now daily fare for most American Christian Fundamentalists. In 1965 the Society published material using many of Morris's ideas, including "flood geology". After that, it used many of Morris's arguments -- which were largely plagiarized from Price -- to argue in favor of Noah's Flood. Around 1980 the Society gave up on all this, but failed to inform the JW community.

I learned about the Society's duplicity in 1986, when a 100-page essay defending the Society's arguments on "flood geology" came my way. I wrote to the author to dispute some of his claims. He wrote back and sheepishly told me that he had submitted his essay to the Writing Department for comments, which informed him that they had abandoned all that stuff years earlier.

So your beliefs are at least 40 years out of date.

Quote

Many geologists try to hide the evidence of a earthwide flood

Nope. There simply isn't any. Beginning in the 1820s, what religiously based scientists had been interpreting as "Flood diluvium" was realized to be sedimentary layers left by perfectly ordinary geological processes.

Truly huge floods leave unmistakeable evidence, such as happened in the State of Washington from about 12,000 to 16,000 years ago. Look online for "missoula floods". Today even Morris's Institute for Creation Research and other young-earth creationist outfits accept that these floods happened. And they are not unique. The thing is that the flooded regions all have definite boundaries, which the flood water never rose above.

Had a huge earthwide Flood occurred just 4,400 years ago, such massive scars on the land would be everywhere, but no such thing is to be found.

Quote

but the violent evidences of a flood is everywhere on earth - especially the animal grave yards which were mostly in gullys.

Pure "flood geology" the Society borrowed from Price and Morris -- and debunked decades ago by real scientists. Such "animal graveyards" are purely the imagination of crackpot armchair geologists.

Quote

The earth tore open and released waters deep under the earth

Yow! You must be reading Walter Brown's hydroplate nonsense. Even the ICR and Answers in Genesis reject that garbage.

Quote

and gave way to volcanic activity and tsunamis.

Walter Brown alright. Although the ICR and AIG have adopted some of his ideas. But you'll find no such nonsense in Watchtower literature after 1989.

Quote

It was an  extremely violent event which left the earth completely changed afterwards. The earth moved considerably as water is not only heavy but extremely powerful in its movement when tectonic plates move.  The weight of one bucket of water should give one an idea of the weight and pressing down of sediment involved.  This pushed out all oxygen.... perfect for the formation of coal, diamonds etc.  Water also drew back and this can be seen in some formations.

Again pure "flood geology" nonsense.

Quote

The layers of animals packed down in the different layers of sediment is proof of a violent flood.

Nope. There are generally no such "layers", but occasionally pockets of fossil animals are found. For example, in Nebraska there's a place called Ashfall Fossil Beds, where hundreds of fossil animals from about 12 million years ago were buried over a period of months in a massive ash fall from where the Yellowstone hotspot was. Read about it here:

    Hello guest!
. There is no evidence for a flood; all evidence shows ash was carried in the air from what is now southern Idaho to Nebraska.

Quote

And the same sediment layers appear all over the earth with the lighter materials higher up such as sea shells etc.

Complete nonsense. Not even the Society used to publish such nonsense. Where are you getting this from?

Quote

Me thinks you dismiss too much evidence which honest scientists do not ignore!

Wrong. I'm far more familiar than you are about creationism in its various forms.

And again, you have never read a proper scientific book on modern geology or the evidence for evolution. All you've read are creationist publications. Prove me wrong, if you dare, by listing whatever real scientific books you've read.

Quote

Yea- you will most probably call me a moron.... again....

Willfully ignorant is a better term.

Quote

but because evolutionists do not take the flood into account and the change of the earth during the flood their carbon calculations and ice age calculations could be totally wrong.....

Zero evidence for your claim. If you think not, then by all means give your evidence.

Quote

No I do not punt..... I have a life.  My life does not consist of sitting on internet talking to trolls who really do not care to even consider an aspect different to their own opinion.

Ah, but you do have time to take pot shots at those far more knowledgeable than you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What I would like to know, Arauna, is how the two Penguins got from Antarctica, to the launch site of Noah's Ark.

I heard some penguins travel 5000 miles (8,046.72 km) to Brazil. I have read Fire ants also make rafts to travel the oceans and survive floods with their bodies.

Animals are interesting creatures with intelligent migration programming.

It is interesting how the penguin stopped flying at a certain point. Evolution does indicate penguins flew at one point. I believe the snake also had hind legs to walk upright according to evolution.

 Was it in prehistoric times, or the Garden of Eden? Was it after the animals scattered that the penguins stopped flying? The snake was cursed by God in the garden, so creation can attest to that.

There are so many wonders, the biggest one, how god got all the animals to migrate a long distance to the Ark. I wonder if he then encouraged the animals to migrate, or were some migrations helped by humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AlanF said:

Only the young-earth kind. Intelligent Design

I happen to have a brother who did research on toxins. He became a Jehovahs witness while doing research at the largest research centre in the southern hemisphere which made vaccinations etc for race horses. He is also a brilliant mathematician. He did his degrees in "Carbon" chemistry..... which is about everything that is "living" and carbon based.

I have always had a love for science because of my brothers and a natural aptitude.

When I still lived in Africa, I had a few interesting discussions with him... Yes, unfortunately many people were awestruck when Dawkins became a celebrity...but unfortunately very little substance there..... 

My brother gave me several reasons why the mathematics and chemistry about the age of the earth is incorrect.  But you did not answer me-  why uranium has not all turned to lead?  This  is one of the simplest  questions. 

There is ample proof of the flood - the sedimentation and the layers.  When one looks at the Geologists explanation for the so-called" millions of years "between" the layers when the layers themselves are so deep, one realises quickly there is a problem. They cannot explain it away. 

The Cambrian explosion and the lack of  transition bone specimens in the development of flight. Wings suddenly appear. If only the fittest survive - there should be millions of bones of transitional animals / birds which did not survive. The bone record does not substantiate the claims of evolutionists of slow development.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Only the young-earth kind. Intelligent Design

I happen to have a brother who did research on toxins. He became a Jehovahs witness while doing research at the largest research centre in the southern hemisphere which made vaccinations etc for race horses. He is also a brilliant mathematician. He did his degrees in "Carbon" chemistry..... which is about everything that is "living" and carbon based.

I have always had a love for science because of my brothers and a natural aptitude.

 

I see no such "aptitude" in your acceptance of a mishmosh creationist ideas from various sources. Nor in your refusal to name the sources you rely on. Nor in your refusal to read real science books.

Quote

When I still lived in Africa, I had a few interesting discussions with him... Yes, unfortunately many people were awestruck when Dawkins became a celebrity...but unfortunately very little substance there.....

LOL! Some people think Newton and Einstein were loons.

Quote

My brother gave me several reasons why the mathematics and chemistry about the age of the earth is incorrect.

How long ago? 1945? And what were his reasons? My guess is that you completely misunderstood much of what he said.

Quote

But you did not answer me-  why uranium has not all turned to lead?  This  is one of the simplest  questions.

I certainly did: the half-life of U-238 is 4.5 billion years. The fact that you don't recognize that as an answer proves that you don't understand even such simple things in science. So let me try to educate you.

"Half-life" refers to the fact that all radioactive materials decay at a fixed rate such that after a period of time called the "half-life", one half of the original material is left (

    Hello guest!
). Thus uranium-238 decays ultimately into lead-206 (do you even know what those numbers mean?) through a long chain of other radioactive decays (
    Hello guest!
). Thus, if the age of the earth is 4.55 billion years, however much U-238 it had at its beginning has lost a bit more than half of its mass as it decayed into lead-206. "One half" is a good deal bigger than "none", wouldn't you say?

Now consider that all elements heavier than lithium (number 3 in the periodic table) are synthesized in supernova explosions. According to cosmologists the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. That's about 3 half-lives of U-238. Thus the original amount of U-238 in the universe would have decayed to about 1/8 as much. But elements are constantly being synthesized in the supernovas that occur in the universe all the time, and so U-238 is always being created.

Quote

There is ample proof of the flood - the sedimentation and the layers.

Nope. As I've told you several times, that's pure young-earth creationist claptrap -- "flood geology".

A careful examination of sediment layers does not show virtually instantaneous deposition, but usually a relatively slow accumulation of stuff followed by periods of no deposition, or even erosion. For example, in the Grand Canyon region there are hundreds of sediment layers now turned to stone. Many layers show evidence that, at some point, deposition stopped, the shallow sea level dropped and/or the land rose, and eroson occurred, sometimes of an unknown number of turned-to-stone lower layers, leaving erosional products such as cliffs, stream beds and cobbles in those beds.

For example, the Grand Canyon itself contains nearly 40 layers of sedimentary rock on top of the lowest Precambrian rocks (

    Hello guest!
), ranging in age from 200 million to 600 million for the sediments, and about 2 billion years old for the Precambrian basement rocks. There are some 14 unconformities (gaps) between these layers. During one ancient period of deposition, limestone accumulated in a layer that is now called the Muav Limestone, followed by deep burial for an unknown time period. Eventually this layer was exposed due to uplift of the land, and an unknown amount of the top layers were eroded away, leaving a surface cut by many erosion channels. Later, a different kind of limestone was deposited on top of all this, forming the Temple Butte layer. Roughly 65 million years of sedimentation were eroded away between these two layers. Eventually erosion stopped again for an unknown time, then another layer of limestone was desposited on top, called the Redwall Limestone. The process repeated many times.

All manner of fossil animals and plants are found in these layers, including burrows and trackways of footprints. This is impossible in a huge flood lasting a few weeks.

Near Denver, Colorado is an exposure of sedimentary rock that is tilted at a steep angle and was eroded partly away during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains. It is now a city park. Some of the individual layers in this exposure contain dinosaur footprints and trackways. There is no way dinosaurs left footprints there during Noah's Flood. The layers contain plenty of fossil animals, too.

The region north of the Grand Canyon is called The Grand Staircase (

    Hello guest!
) because as one travels north from the Grand Canyon, one sees cliff after cliff in the sedimentary layers that are piled on top of one another. Various dating methods show that the higher the layer, the younger it is. The topmost sediments in Bryce Canyon are about 40 million years old. The whole assemblage is about 3,000 meters thick.

Quote

When one looks at the Geologists explanation for the so-called" millions of years "between" the layers when the layers themselves are so deep, one realises quickly there is a problem. They cannot explain it away.

It's thoroughly explained, not explained away.

Once again, your claims are purely those of young-earth creationist "flood geology" -- which even the Watchtower Society abandoned 40 years ago. Why do you cling to this nonsense?

Quote

The Cambrian explosion

I've explained this to you several times now: the "Cambrian explosion" lasted 20 million to 140 million years, depending on how it's defined. That is in no way an "explosion".

Quote

and the lack of  transition bone specimens in the development of flight. Wings suddenly appear.

I already explained all this to you. Certain early dinosaurs called theropods appeared at least 180 million years ago, which looked an awful lot like birds, and had feathers. Eventually primitive birds appeared about 150 million years ago. Archaeopteryx is the first known "true bird", but it was a true "intermediate" in the sense of having bird-like and dinosaur-like features. This critter was so much like the contemporary small dinosaurs like Compsognathus that two specimens were identified as such and spent a hundred years in museum drawers until the 1970s.

Don't you learn?

Quote

If only the fittest survive - there should be millions of bones of transitional animals / birds which did not survive.

There are plenty of such things. I've given you links to descriptions of them. You simply refuse to learn anything.

Quote

The bone record does not substantiate the claims of evolutionists of slow development.

Of course it does. Once again, read a good book on paleontology and evolution, like Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters.

Why do you continue to refuse to educate yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AlanF said:

relatively

It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.

All these little side issues keep you focussed on them so you do not ask the BIG questions..  Where did all the energy for this vast universe come from in the first place.  What was there before the singularity?  They keep you busy with hypothesis of 23 universes.... lol.... where they play with mathematics so they can create the illusion of better " chances" to hit the jackpot of life and it  may look a bit better in their favour.

I am glad I have a real smart brother who can do math and a researcher in carbon chemistry..... so I have access to knowledge that gives real answers.  True evolutionists acknowledge that they do not have the answers.....

Why? Because there is too many things one needs to get explanations for which  accidental order and intricacy cannot  explain.  And the records are too scanty to support it..... even if you try your hardest you know you are lying to yourself.  Honest evolutionists acknowledge there is not enough evidence - usually after they have retired......

Science is the new God. Most people do not realize that some science disciplines do really search for the truth  because replication of the tests and solid evidence is required.  BUT evolution is a religion masquerading as a science...... similar to the new science of feminism and transgenderism- where a man can now have a monthly period.   This is where evolution and transgenderism is leading the world to....... NOT TRUE SCIENCE because it is all hypothesis with little proof......  

19 hours ago, AlanF said:

times now: the "Cambrian explosion" lasted 20 million to 140 million years,

Not true - 10 million ..... the newest info.

19 hours ago, AlanF said:

plenty of such things. I've given you links to descriptions of them. You simply refuse to learn anything.

If there were plenty..... I would be convinced by now.  

19 hours ago, AlanF said:

again, read a good book on paleontology

Explain the 13 proteins found in the bones..... which points to a younger earth..... This has not been explained in an acceptable way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?

I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.

I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.

To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.

But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence. It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.

The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence. I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory. I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty. I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.

On 12/1/2019 at 2:26 PM, Arauna said:

Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?

Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.

Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?

Perhaps it was so that man would someday harness these powers and create a safe source of energy? This implies that Jehovah wanted mankind to develop technologically, and as indicated by the Tower of Babel, perhaps controlled the pace of that progress until today or some time in the near future. But if we don't really need it until the new system, why not make it in the new system, in much the same way that he provided quail or manna. And why would we need it in the new system, anyway?

I can understand how Jehovah could have made all animals subject to man such as in a Garden of Eden. Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.

But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.

I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:

Darwin wrote:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....

Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?

I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??

No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”

That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?

.........The above is from the post: 

Darwin wrote:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....

Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?

I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??

No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”

That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:

“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?

......The above is from the 2011 post: 

    Hello guest!

which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.

I think that’s sufficiently honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom, we are obviously dealing with secularized JWs who are sitting on the fence and maybe do not even really believe the bible when it says jehovah created everything with his dynamic energy..  For them, those descriptions of creation in psalms and job can be thrown into the dustbin. 

They have not really taken the time to see how irreduceably " connected " all creation is.  I have mentioned some interesting examples before.  The simplest is the eye and the brain..... without the eye the brain cannot interpret .... so which one came first? Both body parts, as they  were supposedly developing over millions of years ....... the one body part, the eye, understood that in "future" it will need a brain and without design developed a brain by pure chances of correct natural selection (hitting the jackpot of benevolent mutation billions of times) to have a brain to perfectly fulfill the purpose of the eye?  So natural selection "knows " what will be needed in future...... wow ! Without a brain it can think! 

These people are so in awe of  evolution scholars that they cannot think for themselves..... but use derogatory names on us. ..... a perfect example how university education can erode the ability to think for oneself.  Its indoctrination  of evolution - is like a religion....... and permeates everything and crowds out the really good solid logic thinking. 

I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.  Family members did help me to develop a curiosity to understand.  When thinking is faulty one must be adjusted. This is why I do like to listen to debates to hear both sides.  I still have to be disappointed in the bible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause

We all know that some of the elderly can justify their thinking for themselves..... Although elderly myself I search for realities. 

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

in the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants

I went to the London natural museum several times to look at fossils of dinosaurs.  The bone structure of most dinosaurs fall into two categories, those who resemble reptiles and those who have hollow bones and resemble birds..... and had bright feathers.  Today we have many birds who do not go into water and do not fly.  These large bird-like creatures  must have lived near water to cool down as large animals will not survive without large bodies of water.  Elephants and rhino need mud or water - even today.

Many of the mammals looked like the animals we have today such as rhino....... but just much larger than today.  This is my own deduction on this matter: that the change in the atmosphere and earth after the flood was so great that Jehovah allowed those creatures, who would not survive afterward, to die out.  Since many animals adapt to their environment (macro evolution - where they do not change specie but just appearance for adaption) they became smaller and changed to suit the environment and different food they ate.... this would affect the animal such as Darwins finches that had adaption in the beak and back again without changing DNA.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Although my own son (the math/physicist)

Tell him to speak to a nano- biotechnologists and the structure of the building blocks of the cell. 

A physicist cannot explain where the dynamic energy for the entire universe came from..... to bring all this matter into being in orderly fashion too.  Mutation and the second law of thermodynamics is now used by evolutionists in feeble way to try to explain evolution but we all know that when this occurs it 'breaks down' the existing order and does not 'build' order and structure.

If Jehovah removed his dynamic energy from the universe - I have a nasty suspicion that all would cease to exist.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

s that HONEST scientists are forced to ace

Not true - they believe the propaganda and the hype and want to remain part of the system wherein you cannot go against the accepted narrative.  Look what happened to the professor who wrote the first paper which proved that there are proteins in dinosaur bones. The top evolutionists wanted him banned. He lost his job.  it was settled out of court because people did not want this to get out.  Since then there have been more than ten papers with different proteins in dinosaur bones.

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreement

No - there are truly many inconsistencies but one has to look out for them because it is what they are NOT telling you which is important!

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

wanted mankind to develop technologically, and as indicated by the Tower of Babel, perhaps controlled the pace of that progress until today or some time in the near future.

All I can say is that Jehovah did not want this development under wicked humans because they will use it in a selfish and oppressive way.  But he held it back in time of Babel until the time of the end because the big showdown is on its way.  Perfect timing by Jehovah to draw out satan and those who think like him.  Dr Evil is taking over the technology - and we will soon see this emerging much more.  Humans were made to live in harmony with Jehovah and his wishes - not our own selfish desires for power and influence over others.  Mankind is truly wicked - we need Jehovah to flourish!

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Perhaps it was so that man would someday harness these powers and create a safe source of energy?

Yes it is still expensive to create hydrogen for cars or other machines.... but I myself would just like to live in a society where there is harmony, peace and rest. ... and interact with animals and people and tend to the earth!    Trees talk to each other chemically and they even feed their babies....young trees.   I would like to learn more about this!

I have gotten rid of all earthly ambitions and egocentric desires..... and guess what ..... I am happy! 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.

Many examples in Africa! 

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

We can eat some mushrooms today but many kinds kill you quickly as the liver will shut down.  These complex proteins are now deadly to us.... but maybe before they were not.  We can eat complex carbohydrates but not complex proteins.  I do think the earth changed after the curse and also after the flood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Thanks Tom, we are obviously dealing with secularized JWs who are sitting on the fence and maybe do not even really believe the bible when it says jehovah created everything with his dynamic energy.

If you are referring to me here, then you should know that I am not disappointed in Jehovah, nor in Creation. I am only disappointed that our explanations are not able to keep up with the evidence. I can't think of another way to put it, but this is an area where we must currently reject evidence, some of which I have gone to see for myself, hoping the evidence was more ambiguous. There are many ways to resolve the existence of God and even MOST of the evidence. But we are clearly oversimplifying the process of creation if those unresolved pieces of evidence are real. 

And I have no problem with imagining that Jehovah created many thousands of species that we have not yet seen, and that creation was a much a grander and more wonderful process than we could imagine. I still think there is a good explanation out there somewhere. I am disappointed, not in the Bible, but in the fact that some WTS writers, especially in the past, had misused the writings of evolutionists instead of dealing with the evidence itself. I wasn't referring to the case that TTH mentioned. But I didn't think this point was generally in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But we are clearly oversimplifying the process of creation if those unresolved p

Agreed - especially the evolutionists are making the creation into a thing that an unthinking process can accomplish!

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

There are many ways to resolve the existence of God

Yes, an analysis of the logic, coherency, consistency and continuity of the main theme in the bible and compared to what is going on in the academic sector and the world - one can only come to one conclusion:- we need a government that is outside this universe and one which is based on much higher principles and justice than we see mankind capable of. We are truly wicked and our history proves that.  We DO have a nasty flaw as the bible says.

 

11 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I am disappointed, not in the Bible, but in the fact that some WTS writers, especially in the past,

The general public and many people are not really interested in the nitty gritty little facts - they want a quick read... something which tells them what to think. Also,  there has been an explosion of new discoveries which now are being suppressed.  Every now and then I get something interesting in  my inbox which triggers my thoughts.

Many young people are too busy raising families and struggling with a career and to keep a job in these critical times.... there is little time for research and to attend and prepare for  meetings and field service. 

If I sounded harsh - I did not mean to...... but I  do say what I think.  I think the secular humanist ideologies has softened most American's brains.  It is everywhere and leading many astray..... even Jehovah's people. We must all be vigilant. 

I believe that our fight is against a very immoral world which is getting worse and worse as we speak.  I feel for the young people who are raising children in schools where they are teaching these corrupt sexual practices and other teachings as if it is the truth. Many children cannot opt out of saying the Shahada because Islam is promoted as a religion of peace-  another lie openly promoted by satan as truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

wasn't referring to the case that TTH mentioned. But I didn't think this point was generally in question.

Somewhere in my writings I have alluded to the embarrassment one will feel upon visiting the Ithaca Earth Museum with Tom Pearlsandswine and trying to avoid the stares of others as he loudly mutters about the “wiles of Satan”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

that the change in the atmosphere and earth after the flood was so great that Jehovah allowed those creatures, who would not survive afterward, to die out.

This would mean that you think the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Also,  there has been an explosion of new discoveries which now are being suppressed.

I heard you mention a couple of these. The ones I looked up didn't pan out. The claims about them were not very scientific. And obviously this is where I would hope that new answers will show up, and hopefully this is where WTS writers will be especially helpful. While I was at Bethel there was no one who knew much of anything about this type of science. If there was, he or she didn't speak up when the Evolution book was ready for an update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Big Old Woman Arauna:

For the most part from here on in, I'm going to turn Arauna's dishonest "debate tactics" back on her: ignore some arguments, falsely claim that responses were never given, and so forth.

Quote

All these little side issues keep you focussed on them so you do not ask the BIG questions..  Where did all the energy for this vast universe come from in the first place.  What was there before the singularity?

Already answered. Now you answer similar ones.

Where did God come from? Who created God? Where did God get all his "dynamic energy" from? How long has God existed?

Quote

They keep you busy with hypothesis of 23 universes.... lol....

You just pulled that out of your ass. No one has such a "hypothesis".

I think what you've done is confuse the 11 dimensions proposed by one of the string hypotheses with some of the multiverse hypotheses. But your senile old brain isn't firing on all cylinders.

Quote

I am glad I have a real smart brother who can do math and a researcher in carbon chemistry..... so I have access to knowledge that gives real answers.

But you're too cowardly to let him evaluate answers such as I've given you about the decay of uranium-238 -- which I've given you two times now, and you've ignored each time.

Wow, not only dishonest to a fault, but cowardly and senile!

Quote

True evolutionists acknowledge that they do not have the answers.....

To some things, sure. To things like "what does the fossil record show?" they have plenty of answers. You just don't like them because they destroy your world view.

Quote

Why? Because there is too many things one needs to get explanations for which  accidental order and intricacy cannot  explain.

Like, Who created God?

Quote

And the records are too scanty to support it..... even if you try your hardest you know you are lying to yourself.  Honest evolutionists acknowledge there is not enough evidence - usually after they have retired......

LOL! Yet another creationist talking point.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    times now: the "Cambrian explosion" lasted 20 million to 140 million years,

Not true - 10 million ..... the newest info.

 

That's just one figure. And of course, you cannot name your source. And as I've carefully explained several times, the number is entirely subjective because it depends on exactly how one defines "explosion". You just don't learn.
Nevertheless, even 10 million years is a long time for life to proliferate.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    plenty of such things. I've given you links to descriptions of them. You simply refuse to learn anything.

If there were plenty..... I would be convinced by now.  

 

LOL! Yet another instance of Orwellian crimestop.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/2/2019 at 5:49 AM, AlanF said:

    again, read a good book on paleontology

 

    
We note the refusal to self-educate.

Quote

Explain the 13 proteins found in the bones..... which points to a younger earth..... This has not been explained in an acceptable way

I already did. You've again ignored what I've said because your Orwellian crimestop kicked in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arauna said:

I feel for the young people who are raising children in schools where they are teaching these corrupt sexual practices and other teachings as if it is the truth

You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on.

Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

even 10 million years is a long time for life to proliferate.

That indicates that you have not looked at the math to see how many minute changes are necessary to build only one cell - and this does not even include the whole entity with its many organs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    6 hours ago, Arauna said:

    It is propaganda...... from scholars who have a vested interest to keep things going....... just like the high priests in Jesus' time...... they like the power and the influence this system gives them.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?

 

Your mother is hopelessly out of date here. Even the Society accepts the reality of the fossil record.

Quote

I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.

What else does he have?

Quote

I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.

Your son is far wiser than most JW kids.

Quote

To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.

True on both counts. No Scientific Theory is ever final. It only becomes better and better verified over time, to the point where, as Stephen Jay Gould said, "It would be perverse not to accept it." Like the Theory of Gravity etc.

Quote

But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence.

Exactly.

Quote

It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.

Yep. And if such a maverick theory stood up to all manner of rigorous tests, as the modern Theory of Evolution has, most scientists would be happy to adopt it.

Quote

The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence.

Right. Such disagreements are normal for a dynamic field of science.

Quote

I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory.

WTS writers are so well known for this dishonesty that most scientists laugh at them.

Quote

I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty.

Exactly. I've posted about such many times.

Quote

I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.

Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock in all arenas but the echo-chamber of the JW community.
     

Quote

 

    On 12/1/2019 at 12:26 PM, Arauna said:

    Uranium breaks down into  lead  reasonably fast.... and there is still uranium left on the earth..... so if the earth is as old as they say, there would be no uranium left.

This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?

 

That's not a well thought out question. Since it's produced in supernovas, along with most other elements, it just IS. What use people put it to is a different issue.

Quote

 

Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.

Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?

 

There's a lot of radioactive materials inside the earth. Some people have proposed that the earth's core is more or less a giant reactor. In any case, this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn drives plate tectonics, which in turn has made the oceans and continents into what they are today. Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

Quote

. . . Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.

Not entirely. For that to work, God would have to chain the brains of most predators. Or perhaps assign an angel to each predator. And of course, what would meat-eaters eat? Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Quote

But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years

Half a billion.

Quote

of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

All of which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

No Scientific Theory is ever final.

No evolution theory can be reproduced and be observed because the evidence is scrappy. ..... and one can hide behind the fact that it is not final...

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

That's not a well thought out question. Since it's

The question is about the earth...... why there is still some uranium  here !  If it came from another supernova..... when and how was it replenished here on earth..... what catastrophe brough it here from that distance. The question is valid.

11 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Another argument against evolution, given in your own words.  So animals cannot adapt?  

14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn

We are not talking about the core of the earth but the crust - that has been here for a very long time..... since you do not believe I  the flood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Arauna said:

That indicates that you have not looked at the math to see how many minute changes are necessary to build only one cell - and this does not even include the whole entity with its many organs etc.

I think that this is true. So many things depend upon which scientists you listen to. Often, the scientists carrying the day at any given moment try to declare their opponents NOT reputable scientists. That way they can say: “All reputable scientists have concluded that.....”

I have stopped following the day to day development on this front, but I recall it was not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

I interacted with both atheists and evolutionists (often, though no always, the same) on my own blog. The most weighty of the posts were several years ago. I did read a couple of evolutionist books, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean Carroll and one by Carl Zimmer. They’re not nothing. I benefited by reading them. But the do not change the big picture.

In some ways they reveal the fallacy of human thinking. People have figured out some of the appropriate questions to ask and that accomplishment is enough for them to carry on as though they had discovered the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder.

 

They certainly do. This is not subjective, as your excuse claims: it is objective.

If a quote changes the meaning of the original, or misrepresents what the original author intended, it is a misquote, a misrepresentation, period. There are hundreds of examples of this in Watchtower literature.

Quote

Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.

Another straw man.

Quote

 

I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:

Darwin wrote:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances . . .”....

. . .

. . . If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?

 

Nothing -- as long as you also quote enough to show that he explained why the seeming absurdity is a misconception. That lack is why the Watchtower's misuse of Darwin's "eye quote" in the 1985 Creation book is so egregious, as are so many other misrepresentations.

This is very simple: an honest writer does not misrepresent the words or views of those he quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

OK. So maybe these radioactive materials were and are good after all.

Perhaps they are artifacts of creation to let us know that God is on a higher plane and his thoughts are greater than ours. One could surmise that the area of the original garden paradise was under God's control, and that as man would have needed to expand, the instructions for how to handle dangerous materials would have been forthcoming. Or perhaps all such dangers were safely buried until the Flood?

At any rate, I think we have to admit that animals behaved violently long before Adam sinned. Creating an environment good for man might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as small as bacteria and some of the larger animals too, like a T-Rex, Saber-tooth Tiger, or a hippo, great white shark, lion, or crocodile. Perhaps this creates a reminder of the strength and power of the God who created them. (See Job on Leviathan, Behemoth, etc.) Whether or not man would ever sin, he should still have reminders of the awesome creation and Creator. His having the animals in subjection would not be very impressive if all animals were like pet sheep, even in their natural states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.

That's why you're stuck in obsolete Watchtower teachings more than 40 years old, and continue setting forth young-earth creationist talking points.

Yes indeed, you've certainly done your own research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AlanF said:

which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants. ...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   

 

5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.

3 minutes ago, AlanF said:

you've certainly done your own research

Yes, I am an independent type of person.  That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.

9 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as sma

Adam understood that he would go to dust if he disobeyed....... animals died.  Mice live one year in the wild and three years in domestic environment.

Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.  In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material. 

Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest. But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?

I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad. But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

like a T-Rex

These ate meat? According to evolutionists who do not know animals and sit behind desks -yes.  They found in several places that herds of these animals moved about - according to the tracks.  

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.  They could have used their sharp teeth to tear fibrous plants. What is very significant is the eyes.  A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head - like T-rex.  And another problem: short arms....... cannot hold onto the prey to tear it apart or kill it.....

Mr alanF may laugh at me..... but this should demonstrate this: ... I am an independent thinker. When I saw an article about large groups of T-rex tracks.....on more than one location.... I started noticing .......... 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.

Googling it, I see that animals that move in groups "include elephants, lions, wolves, bees, and ants." So I don't see how anyone can claim that animals that move in "herds" do not eat meat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    No Scientific Theory is ever final.

No evolution theory can be reproduced and be observed because the evidence is scrappy. .....

 

Your view of science is grossly deficient. No historical sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in history. Your statement is another straw man.
By your 'reasoning', all forensic science is invalid. All history other than that written down in books is invalid. Hypocrite!
     

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    That's not a well thought out question. Since it's

The question is about the earth...... why there is still some uranium  here !

 

Do you need me to explain this a THIRD TIME?

You're such a gross liar!

Quote

If it came from another supernova..... when and how was it replenished here on earth..... what catastrophe brough it here from that distance. The question is valid.

Nope. As Wolfgang Pauli said about a colleague's misbegotten hypothesis: "It's not even wrong."

But I've already told you about this, so either you remain abysmally stupid, or you're lying yet again. Which is it?Point being: before the earth and solar system coalesced, supernovas occurred that scattered uranium and other elements over the cosmos. When the earth coalesced and was bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated that uranium and such into its structure. No more uranium accumulated, nothing was "replenished". I already told you: a supernova "brough it here from that distance". You don't think so? Argue with the so-called "pillars of creation" photo from the Hubble telescope featured on the cover of the 1998 Creator book.
     

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Cats require meat, not vegetables.

Another argument against evolution, given in your own words.

 

Nonsense.

Quote

So animals cannot adapt?

Not to their lack of ability to synthesize the amino acid taurine (cf.

    Hello guest!
). To adapt, your God would have to modify all cats to be able to synthesize taurine -- it could not happen on its own -- unless you allow that evolution could occur in one generation.
 

Quote

 

    24 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    this internal radioactivity generates a lot of heat, which in turn

We are not talking about the core of the earth but the crust - that has been here for a very long time.....

 

This is among the most ignorant statements I've ever seen.

Let's just say: It's not even wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lions and wolves are pack animals but they do not wade in water or the type of tracks one sees in large herds. Also - their eyes look forwards.  

Elephants do not eat meat and do wade slowly .... which I suspect the T-REX did..... and most probably near water to keep cool...... that is how the tracks were made. Bees and ants are insects. 

 

16 minutes ago, AlanF said:

sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in hist

Most other sciences and reproduce the experiment..... as evidence.  But evolution hides behind this impossibility.... 

16 minutes ago, AlanF said:

bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated

I am not asking "how uranium got here" .... I am asking why it has not totally disappeared because it  does not need such a long time to become lead..... so who keeps answering the wrong question?

According to you there was no flood - I believe that the earth's crust did change during the flood and teutonic plates did move.... 

But your earth's crust  is ancient - so the uranium should all be lead by now-  but is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Without those things, the earth's surface would long ago have eroded below sea level.

OK. So maybe these radioactive materials were and are good after all.

 

Yes.

Quote

Perhaps they are artifacts of creation to let us know that God is on a higher plane and his thoughts are greater than ours. One could surmise that the area of the original garden paradise was under God's control, and that as man would have needed to expand, the instructions for how to handle dangerous materials would have been forthcoming. Or perhaps all such dangers were safely buried until the Flood?

The more likely explanation is that there is no such God.

Quote

At any rate, I think we have to admit that animals behaved violently long before Adam sinned.

Tell that to your young-earth creationist friend Arauna.

Quote

Creating an environment good for man might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as small as bacteria and some of the larger animals too, like a T-Rex, Saber-tooth Tiger, or a hippo, great white shark, lion, or crocodile.

This harks back to the 1943 book "The Truth Shall Make You Free", which ridiculous book had chapters on how the earth was formed. An amusingly cartoonish romp.

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Harry Peloyan, editor-in-chief of Awake!, once told me why they do it: they enjoy making secularists look bad. Apparently it didn't dawn on him that such tactics make the Watchtower Society a laughingstock

I've interacted with Harry Peloyan, and thought him to be honest.

 

He was in his attempts to get the Governing Body, in the 1990s, to take the child molestation business seriously.

He was thoroughly dishonest in his writings about evolution/creation, the notion that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and many other things. I'm in the middle of an essay that examines various Watchtower publications on the evolution/creation question and so forth. Peloyan clearly wrote a thoroughly dishonest Awake! article on this in 1963. From the writing style and the repeated false arguments and the overall manner of dishonesty, I can also see that he wrote the 1967 Evolution book, the 1985 Creation book, the 1998 Creator book, and several W/G articles along the way.

Quote

But I do believe the Evolution book (1967) was almost entirely his own work. He never told me, but he dropped enough hints. Do you think he was behind the 1985 book?

Of course. Several ex-Bethelites told me about that, and Peloyan didn't deny it when I challenged him about the dishonesty in that book.

Quote

I can believe that Peloyan enjoyed making secularists look bad. I find it hard to believe, however, that Peloyan admitted that he used "dishonesty" to make secularists look bad.

He didn't admit it -- he rationalized that misquoting was not actually dishonest.

Quote

But he did make it through Harvard, and I therefore can't believe he didn't realize what he was doing was wrong. Today, one could be kicked out of Harvard for some of the same quoting tactics.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arauna said:

A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head

So then predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could focus on prey, and herbivores were created with eyes on the side of the head so they could keep a better watch for those predators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Anna said:

predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could

Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators. 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.  This us not something evolutionists ever talk about.  They ignore it.  It is the facts that are hidden which are important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

I'm a bit confused then. The eyes of both predators and prey didn't being moving (evolving?) until after Adam's fall, 6,050 or so years ago??  [or post-Flood, 4,400 years ago?]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    59 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    which goes to prove my contention: the Bible Creator is not loving.

Which proves my contention about the diversity of animals which CAN eat poisonous plants.

 

Are you really as dumb as you sound? How does what you said have anything to do with what I said?

Quote

...... where did this new DNA suddenly come from which made a poison their food?   

Totally clueless. Both animals that tolerate poison and the poisonous plants evolved together, at the same time and by small steps over a long period of time.

Quote

 

    41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

    not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.

True, some mathematicians indicate that the entire time given by evolutionists for the diversity of animals to come about by the chance of beneficial selection is not  enough time to build one folded protein..... the chances are zero.

 

LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists, like Berlinsky. The rest are evident crackpots in the field of evolution.
     

Quote

 

    34 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    you've certainly done your own research

Yes, I am an independent type of person.

 

That was sarcastic, Einstein.

Quote

That is why I do not lap up your gobbledegook.  I am also not prone to make gods out of men.  So mommy watchtower is not my only source of information.

No, you also lap up young-earth and ID-creationist nonsense. And you remain stuck in 40+ year old Watchtower teaching.
     

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    might have required a lot of death and destruction of very minute things as sma

Wild animals could be put in sanctuary areas.... but personally.... I believe animals can be tamed and animals can adapt to a new diet.

 

Not cats.

Quote

In the Brazilian jungle there are dogs that get no meat. They mostly eat plant material.

So? Their bodily systems can handle it -- those of cats can't. Look at modern pet foods.

Quote

Carrion eaters can be tamed but maybe they were created to keep the earth clean from dead animals. ...so we will soon see.

All well and good for carrion eaters, but most such critters are also active predators.

And then you have the many pure predators such snakes of all sorts, spiders, centipedes, scorpions, etc. etc. etc. Why do you think they have nerve and muscle toxins? Why are constrictor snakes obviously designed to kill by constriction?

Quote

 

    35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    like a T-Rex

These ate meat?

 

Of course. Huge serrated, steak-knife teeth? What do you think those were for?

Quite a number of prey animals have been found, such as Hadrosaurs, that had bites taken out of them, which healed, as shown by the growth of new bone. Do you think that God resurrected them?

Quote

According to evolutionists who do not know animals and sit behind desks -yes.

LOL! Most paleontologists and many other scientists do a great deal of fieldwork. You're too ignorant for words.

Quote

They found in several places that herds of these animals moved about - according to the tracks.

And?

Quote

Animals that move in herds do not eat meat.

Duh.

But even that's wrong: ever hear of the packs of wild dogs of Africa? And packs of hyaenas?

Quote

They could have used their sharp teeth to tear fibrous plants.

Obvious herbivores have teeth very different from obvious carnivores. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

What is very significant is the eyes.  A predators eyes look straight ahead - to focus on the prey.  Look properly at herd animals - their eyes are on the sides of the head - like T-rex.

Wrong. "The eye position of Tyrannosaurus rex was similar to that of modern humans." (

    Hello guest!
)

Quote

And another problem: short arms....... cannot hold onto the prey to tear it apart or kill it.....

Apparently its huge jaws were sufficient to dispatch prey.

Quote

Mr alanF may laugh at me.....

You don't know the half of it.

Quote

but this should demonstrate this: ... I am an independent thinker. When I saw an article about large groups of T-rex tracks.....on more than one location.... I started noticing ..........  

What is the source for this?

T-Rexes are now known to have been somewhat social animals in that they cared for their young, but so far as I'm aware there is no evidence that they lived in groups larger than immediate family groups.

Quote

Lions and wolves are pack animals but they do not wade in water or the type of tracks one sees in large herds. Also - their eyes look forwards.

Your point?

Quote

Elephants do not eat meat and do wade slowly .... which I suspect the T-REX did..... and most probably near water to keep cool...... that is how the tracks were made.

You know this how?

Quote

Bees and ants are insects.

Noooo!!!

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    sciences can reproduce anything that happened just once in hist

Most other sciences and reproduce the experiment..... as evidence.

 

These are not historical sciences. As I already explained, historical and observational sciences like physics are different animals and by their nature, must follow different rules.

Quote

But evolution hides behind this impossibility....

Nonsense. Evolutionary Theory takes full advantage of historical science. I've already given you links on this, which you've duly ignored. Such as how historical science helped with the 2004 discovery of that most incredible intermediate fossil Tiktaalik (

    Hello guest!
)
     

Quote

 

    14 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    bombarded by smaller bodies, it incorporated

I am not asking "how uranium got here" .... I am asking why it has not totally disappeared because it  does not need such a long time to become lead.....

I've told you TWICE already: U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. With the earth 4.55 billion years old, a bit less than half the original amount remains.

Why do you keep pretending that I have not already answered you? Are you completely senile?

Quote

so who keeps answering the wrong question?

You keep asking questions I've already answered several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Arauna said:

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible. 

I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to

    Hello guest!

One problem is that this showed up:

In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel!

Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times, which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

a bit confused then. The

Yes you may be confused.... my answer was brief.  Animals were created in a certain way and remained that way.... ate what they were created to eat ... .but after the flood some of them turned to a different diet than before...... because plants, availability and climate changed......and their size could have become smaller too because the abundance and sources, that they were best suited for, changed (the entire earth is now under duress Rom 8)  

After the flood, some animals were then more suited to hunting since their previous source of food was no longer there.  They filled a niche. Eyes that look forward or can see in the dark are more suited to hunting.  They also use teeth that previously could have torn large plants.  After the flood not all animals would have made suitable predators. Jehovah allowed those who would not have survived after the flood to die. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arauna said:

But your earth's crust  is ancient - so the uranium should all be lead by now-  but is not.

Maybe this will help? Note the last line especially. But also note that HALF-LIFE doesn't mean that all of a substance is gone, does it? It means that HALF of it will be gone in that time.

    Hello guest!

The Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. The half-life of uranium-238, the dominant isotope in natural uranium, is also 4.5 billion years. When the earth was young, there was twice as much uranium-238 as exists today. Moreover, there was more than 64 times as much uranium-235 at that time than exists today (the half-life of uranium-235 is 704 million years).

    Hello guest!

As uranium-238 decays into lead-206, it will sometimes decay into a different isotope of its parent uranium isotope and sometimes it will decay into an isotope of a totally different element than its parent. This series of alpha and beta decays is known as the uranium-238 decay series..

Uranium-238 Decay Series
Radioactive Isotope
Half Life
Type of Decay
Uranium-238
4.5 billion years
α
Thorium-234
24 days
β
Protactinium-234
1.2 minutes
β
Uranium-234
245,000 years
α
Thorium-230
75,000 years
α

 

 

[skipped a few]

Polonium-210
138 days
α
Lead-206
(stable)

 

Each radioactive isotope is the parent of the progeny isotope listed below it. Each progeny isotope has a much shorter

    Hello guest!
than uranium-238. This radioactive series will require a little over 6.5 billion years to complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arauna said:

Quote

 

    23 minutes ago, Anna said:

    predators were created with eyes that look ahead so they could

Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

 

Oh, so some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teeth and lots of other apparatus, redesigned their digestive systems, and installed new, predatory instincts.
Do you have the faintest idea how ludicrous your claims are?
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

    the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?

They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

 

What "grave pits"? Provide source references. Your memory is crap.


JW Insider said:

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    Animals today do this because they are best suited to fill this gap in this system of things. It does not mean they were originally created to be predators.

I'm a bit confused then. The eyes of both predators and prey didn't being moving (evolving?) until after Adam's fall, 6,050 or more years ago??

 

That's what she's saying, although she's too stupid to know it.

Quote

 

    31 minutes ago, Arauna said:

    They have found dinosaur bones together with other animals in the large grave yards...... so I will not say it is impossible.

I tried to find some of that info and Google led me to

    Hello guest!

 

Note that this is another young-earth creationist website, and suffers from most of the usual problems: most of the sources are hopelessly out of date (1945, 1966), the arguments leave out important facts, etc. -- pretty much the same dishonesty as you find in Watchtower literature.

Quote

 

One problem is that this showed up:

In 2005 researchers in China identified a small dinosaur known as Psittacosaurus amongst the stomach region of a fossilized furry mammal that resembled a Tasmanian devil. (Hu, Y. et al., “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature: 433, 2005, pp. 149-152.) To find such an advanced predatory mammal came as a surprise to these researchers. The evolutionists had long maintained that the only mammals alive at the time of the dinosaurs were very small, like the supposed human ancestor that resembled a squirrel!

 

Recent fossil discoveries have shown that there were a lot more types of mammals living before the dinosaurs died out. All were no bigger than a raccoon, and most were the size of a mouse. That appears to be true all the way back to when relatively modern mammals appeared toward the end of the Triassic Period, around 200-220 million years ago.

Quote

Nothing in this article could show that some of these other animals ONLY lived in "modern" times,

Right. But the article clearly tried to give the impression that fully modern mammals and birds lived with the dinosaurs.

Quote

which takes us right back to the problem of animals eating other animals.

Which goes back half a billion years.


Arauna said:

Quote

 

    18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

    a bit confused then. The

Yes you may be confused.... my answer was brief.

 

Less complimentary terms are warranted.

Quote

Animals were created in a certain way and remained that way.... ate what they were created to eat ... .but after the flood some of them turned to a different diet than before......

You know this how?

Quote

because plants, availability and climate changed......and their size could have become smaller too because the abundance and sources, that they were best suited for, changed (the entire earth is now under duress Rom 😎

Ah, 10,000x sped up evolution in action!

Quote

After the flood, some animals were then more suited to hunting since their previous source of food was no longer there.

Yes, they just magically decided to change themselves. LOL!

Quote

They filled a niche. Eyes that look forward or can see in the dark are more suited to hunting.  They also use teeth that previously could have torn large plants.

T-Rex teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation. There are plenty of examples of ancient animals whose teeth are clearly made for eating vegetation.

Quote

After the flood not all animals would have made suitable predators. Jehovah allowed those who would not have survived after the flood to die.  

According to Hezekiah chapter 23? Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.)

Who do you think started the evolution scheme if not from a self-made God? However, not knowing the strength of the oceans current in the flood that science can't prove or disprove, deposit of materials can be logically inferred throughout the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, César Chávez said:

Who do you think started the evolution scheme if not from a self-made God?

Do you think that's a solution, though? Positing that Satan deposited these fossils to trick us would certainly explain some things, but it also seems like a stretch to me.

14 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

However, not knowing the strength of the oceans current in the flood that science can't prove or disprove, deposit of materials can be logically inferred throughout the world.

It's a bit like me claiming that I can lift 100 tons, and then sticking by that claim just because you can't prove that I can't. I already believe that evolutionists can't prove all their claims, but it would be nice if there were some evidence of this depositing that could not be explained better in other ways. For that matter, the fact that so many areas of the world still have UNdisturbed layers of sediment bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Do you think that's a solution, though? Positing that Satan deposited these fossils to trick us would certainly explain some things, but it also seems like a stretch to me.

The way I would characterize it is by looking at the evidence. While science can only speculate on the power of God, creation can define it. This would suggest that when God ended existence with the flood as scripture indicates, Genesis 7:10 water arose from the ground as well as the heavens. What power did God use to force inward water out? Any material within that power could be deposited elsewhere. 2 Peter 3:5

If Satan was willing to give Jesus all the kingdoms of this world? There is no telling how much power Satan had to influence the need to see a different structure for man’s creation if not by evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

Genesis 7:10 water arose from the ground as well as the heavens. What power did God use to force inward water out? Any material within that power could be deposited elsewhere. 2 Peter 3:5

OK. I have long believed this explains a goo part of the issues. The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things. I just have never made the time to study the evidence. I'm sure a worldwide flood would be expected to create a lot of shifting and catastrophic changes. We've even made claims (like Young Earth Creationists) that the pre-Flood atmosphere would have allowed less of certain types of dangerous radiation in, and that the post-Flood radiation would somehow have changed Carbon 14 dating accuracy. I don't think we ever figured out a scientific way this was possible though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

OK. I have long believed this explains a goo part of the issues. The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things. I just have never made the time to study the evidence. I'm sure a worldwide flood would be expected to create a lot of shifting and catastrophic changes. We've even made claims (like Young Earth Creationists) that the pre-Flood atmosphere would have allowed less of certain types of dangerous radiation in, and that the post-Flood radiation would somehow have changed Carbon 14 dating accuracy. I don't think we ever figured out a scientific way this was possible though.

It would depend on how clear the atmosphere was back then as compared to now. I would say, today’s world is exposed to more radiation than back then, if we don't anticipate God’s power that also includes radiation as part of his power and was not in use.

All calculations are man made. It would have to be acceptable if God receded the waters by force. Pressure with radio particles could yield different carbon dating.

If science could separate the pre-flood oceans, science could determine by mineral deposits what kind of catastrophic the flood event was. It would also conclude which new oceans were made by the flood. The unfortunate thing, early man was not interested in measuring earth events to use as a guide to for modern man. Now archeology is based on mathematical computations driven by man’s history. The universe is surmised by man’s computation. Science has never been clear as to a good starting point to give such calculations, a degree of absolute certainty.

If we accept intelligent design, then what prompted a void to explode which is now the Big Bang theory? If by that explosion, microbes began to form, why didn’t it sustain life closer to that event? Instead, those microbes traveled billions of miles in order to stick to a tiny galaxy surpassing all others. If Astronomy has found what appears to be suns in another part of the universe, why didn’t those microbes settle there? The first thing, how did a microbe began from nothing? There has to be a starting point to intelligent design. Thus giving an acceptable outcome to evolution. All those materials are made by God. God's power that can cause a rock to melt, along with pressure could conclude a younger universe than what man claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

All calculations are man made. It would have to be acceptable if God receded the waters by force. Pressure with radio particles could yield different carbon dating.

Bingo!   Most of the evolution dates of rocks assume perfect conditions like in a lab.... in other words - no contamination. They also assume that rocks were formed without any of the daughter isotopes around- which affects the age dating of the rock.   They also assume "goldilocks conditions" on earth - which is impossible.

 

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

The first thing, how did a microbe began from nothing? There has to be a starting point to

Mathematically it is impossible.  Billions upon billions of "beneficial" changes by chance just to build the orderly "  factories" within the cell. Separate DNA in the mitochondria..... and a membrane to hold it all in place so the contents does not dissipate.  Without a membrane the first cell would not exists because the chemical nano particles  will dissipate in the watery soup.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The Flood has been pointed to for a lot of things.

Those massive birds (dinosaurs) could fly in the atmosphere we had here on earth before the flood.  Major changes were brought about by the flood - much greater than we can imagine.    But evolutionists do not except the event - so it is not in their "goldilocks" calculations.  Lab conditions are perfect but nature is not.  

Creationists point to events such as an extreme flooding event in America in 18th century where the sediment built up suddenly during the flood and it looks similar to that if the Grand Canyon.  Now that is evidence in real time!  But this evidence is not good enough for evolutionists..... they prefer  experiments in perfect lab conditions and fake dates.

Creationists also point to the incorrect dating of major recent events such as Vesuvius volcanic eruption.    Dates come back from labs which are billions of years - yet we know the date of these catastofic events as recent.   There are many many examples of this around.  It is the method of calculation and "faulty"  assumptions before the dates are calculated.  

So yes, if one listens to evolutionists - their postulations is a reality and they are "scientific".  But bring them contrary recent evidence from real time - modern times -  and you are a "moronic" creationist.  Does that sound like they are running after ego or the truth? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists.

Many are!  ......... especially if the understand the structure of the cell.   Have you ever asked yourself the question: why?   

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

some animals just decided to eat meat, rearranged their teet

As an evolutionist you disappoint me...... what about adaption to new diet like Darwins finches? ?  They use the same teeth, same eyes they used before but now go after a new diet because they can....

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

grave pits"? Provide source references

America itself has two great gullies that are hundreds of miles long - full of  dinosaur bones.  Probably pushed in there by the flood...... you will know about this if you read some creationist material.  As I said before...... it is what the evolutionists don't tell you and keep quiet about - that is really the important info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AlanF said:

10,000x sped up evolution in action!

No proof of goldilocks conditions on earth .... evolution can only happen in a lab.... there are natural disasters in real nature such as flooding etc.  Food sources disappear or change - remember Darwin?  His little birdies changed their diet.... and back again when the food source changed.  

7 hours ago, AlanF said:

teeth are not suitable for eating vegetation.

Not the plants we have today ..........  and don't even try and say - where is the evidence that different plants existed or that plants did not grow more lush before the flood.   There was much more water and the earth must have been like an ideal hothouse  why?  The dinosaurs which ate plants must have had an abundance (tons)  of plant food per day to feed those massive bodies. Usually large animals are plant eating such as elephants,  rhino,  hippo's...... and this us from my own  scientific "observation "  by looking at what is around me right now!  Lions, wolves are not as large as elephants.  So yes, T-rex could have used those teeth to eat fibrous plant material...... maybe even holding it with those little claws.  Now there is postulation for you but based on evidence around us today! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

bit like me claiming that I can lift 100 tons, and

Lift up a large bucket of water and see what it weighs..... and the power it can wield. Small little floods are devastating  An isolated tremor high on the Richter scale  could bring a tsunami to Japan that devastated much - crushing and mauling everything in it's way.  Now think of water on the entire earth - covering mountains and its weight.......pressing down and forming instant sediment layers. Carrying vast amounts of trees and animals as it moved, depositing them where there were obstacles (next to gullies while the animals were still intact)  and then moving on - later swaying to and fro.  (The mountains where I live now in Tbilisi look like they were formed by water swaying to and fro creating wave-like patterns. When water pulls back it creates more movement. Teutonic plates moved throughout this process - not inches but moved inches per second.  New mountains pushed up and new depths in the sea.   Volcanos erupted. It was violent not a peaceful little flood.  The calm after the flood must have been wonderful.   Since the same sedimentary layers are found all over the earth..... it is a glaring tell-tale sign of a catastrophe. The massive deposits if animals in gully graves that are hundreds of miles give proof of world-wide flood that was powerful (not local floods)

Some animals survived the flood such as saber tooth tiger, large sloth, etc because they have been found with human remains and other animals in bitchumen pits. They must have died out by other means.

Coal and oil is formed where there is no oxygen.  Heavy water , pressing down on buried animals and tons of vegetation and trees,  removed the oxygen. We find vast coal reserves and oil all over the earth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Arauna said:

Creationists point to events such as an extreme flooding event in America in 18th century where the sediment built up suddenly during the flood and it looks similar to that if the Grand Canyon.  Now that is evidence in real time!  But this evidence is not good enough for evolutionists..... they prefer  experiments in perfect lab conditions and fake dates.

It should be understood that science itself made it to where everything needed to be absolute. Therefore, with evolution everything needs to be specific and with creation everything is possible. Creationist didn’t make that rule, science did. Now science needs to defend it at all cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 1:02 AM, Arauna said:

The mountains where I live now in Tbilisi look like they were formed by water swaying to and fro creating wave-like patterns.

Some do. Like the Rainbow Mountains, and some of the Caucasus (Svaneti) look more like rocky Alps. I'd love to see those mountains, and I planned to visit Georgia within two or three years if possible. I've never been to Georgia, the closest so far has been to northern Turkey (Ankara, Zonguldak, Samsun).

On 12/4/2019 at 1:02 AM, Arauna said:

The calm after the flood must have been wonderful.

If Jehovah did not intervene, and nature was left to itself, moving the tectonic plates would have caused thousands of violent aftershocks and tsunamis for quite some time after the floodwaters settled. Even on water, during the Flood, the Ark would have to be given divine protection. Settling on a high mountain might protect from tsunamis but not the quakes.

On 12/4/2019 at 1:02 AM, Arauna said:

The massive deposits if animals in gully graves that are hundreds of miles give proof of world-wide flood that was powerful (not local floods)

I'd like to look up some info on these. Where should I start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.