AlanF

I've given you two morons an opportunity to redeem yourselves. Let's see if you can manage something.

True Tom Harley said: It's quite clear that Arauna has no more understanding of such things than she does of the Watchtower's history of using Young-Earth Creationism to 'defend' the Bible. "The math does not add up"?? LOL! Arauna is probably not capable of calculating the probability of getting heads in a fair coin toss. As for TTH's claims: Point being that they all must take an oath to support all aspects of the religions that support their Creationism. Note that this Creationism is rooted in the same religious philosophy that gives rise to a variety of teachings that the Watchtower Society rejects: Trinitarianism, hellfire, immortality of the soul, all good people go to heaven, etc. The Young-Earth variety also requires belief that the universe was created 6,000-10,000 years ago in six literal days, Furthermore, as I've repeatedly shown, the Watchtower Society has explicitly rejected Young-Earth Creationism as unscientific and unscriptural. Note, in the following excerpts from Watchtower publications, that the Society has wrongly equated "creationism" with "young-earth creationism": The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pp. 12-13: << In recent times, some fundamentalist religions have put forward creationism as the answer to evolution. But in doing so, they make a claim that is both unscriptural and unbelievable. It is that the heavens, the earth, and everything on the earth were created by God in 6 days of 24 hours each—yes, in just 144 literal hours! This teaching has caused many to ridicule the Bible. >> Awake! March 8, 1983, pp. 14-15, commenting on the 1981-1982 "scientific creationism" trial in Little Rock, Arkansas: << Their teaching that the earth and even the universe are less than 10,000 years old contradicts all the findings of modern science. They are so far out of step that they invite ridicule from scientists. . . The time to build mountains and wear them down is measured in millions of years. For continents to drift apart and form oceans takes hundreds of millions of years. To say that all of this goes back only 10,000 years is simply absurd in the eyes of geologists. . . Physicists also protest that it is impossible to squeeze their studies into a time span of a mere 10,000 years. They point to radioactive elements like uranium and thorium that have lives measured in billions of years. The accumulation of distinctive isotopes of lead, which are the end products of radioactive decay, shows that some of the oldest rocks in the earth’s crust must have lain undisturbed for as much as 3 or 4 billion years. . . Trying to defend their arbitrary structure of “creation science” with such weak, strained hypotheses, they were soundly rebutted by the scientists’ testimony at Little Rock. They were left without any credible claim to being scientific. Creationism Discredited . . . Based on the testimony given, both by the challengers and the defenders of the law, the judge could hardly do otherwise than find that creationism is not scientific. It was clearly exposed that its proponents do not arrive at conclusions by the scientific method of gathering all the evidence and then fitting it to a hypothesis. Instead, they start with a fixed sectarian interpretation of Genesis and seek evidence to support that. Contrary evidence they try to ignore, or, when they cannot, they invent unlikely explanations for the evident conflict with hard facts. >> Awake! March 22, 1983, pp. 13-14, commenting further on the Little Rock Trial: << Creationist Doctrines Not Biblical But does the legal defeat of scientific creationism, as this movement is known, reflect unfavorably on the Bible? Are the doctrines of recent creation and a diluvial origin of geologic strata found in God’s Word? An informed Bible student would answer, No. . . The Bible says nothing at all about the formation of sedimentary layers, whether at the time of the Flood or earlier. All the voluminous writings of creationists on this subject, which came under critical examination in the trial, have been motivated by the desire to reconcile the existence of the geologic column and its fossils, dinosaurs and all, with their claim for a 6- to 10-thousand-year age of the earth. >> Obviously Arauna, and apparently TTH, reject the Society's opinion that Young-Earth Creationism is an unscriptural and unscientific religious doctrine. Next note how TTH thinks that he is able to understand how Creationist 'scientists and mathematicians' can "calculate all that is involved". Of course, he cannot say what is involved in "all that is involved". Why? Because neither he nor his favored "creation scientists" have the faintest idea. So there are some sort of "odds" against "it" happening? What is "it"? Again, TTH and his sources cannot say. The fact is that Creationists have made such bogus claims for a long time, but have been burned so badly that most of them do not even try anymore. The simple fact is that calculating the odds of nearly everything having to do with the origin of life or of evolution is impossible. The only thing that can be done is to set up an extremely narrowly defined calculation and try one's hand at that. But in practice, the Creationists who have done so invariably set up a straw man that no proper scientist has espoused. For example, how does one calculate the odds of a very simple protein molecule forming "by chance"? The simple-minded calculations that Creationists used to do assumed that, in some unspecified manner, a bunch of atoms just sort of collide and stick together and form the protein molecule, sort of like picking jelly beans out of a bag and hoping that they come out in a pre-specified order. But this shows a gross misunderstanding of physical chemistry. And of course, neither of our two Einsteins here can cite a single example of their favorite Creationist sources actually doing such calculations. The most they cite is someone saying, "it's very, very, very improbable!" This is a good example of how ignorant TTH is about what the Theory of Evolution means. It does NOT mean "soup to nuts evolution of the entire universe from nothing". It does NOT mean "the origin of life" followed by "the evolution of life by natural selection and other mechanisms". It means the latter, ONLY. Thus, any purported calculations about the improbability of "the origin of life" by natural means miss the boat entirely. Such are nothing more than great big straw men, since no proper scientists claim that they understand such an origin. On the contrary, most scientists who say anything at all plainly acknowledge that they really have no idea of the actual origin of life. But believers in the Bible God have a much bigger problem: they cannot explain the origin of their God. If their reasoning that "something cannot come from nothing" is valid, then they've clobbered their reasoning about God. And of course, claiming that "God has always existed" is mere special pleading, of the same significance as claiming that the universe in some manner has always existed. The rest of TTH's exposition is mere ranting against his straw men, and I won't comment.

LOL at the abysmal ignorance.

Yes, about 13,000 years old or less, according to Watchtower tradition. But birds and such are as much as 20,000 years old.

Yes, that is one case. There are thousands like it. Cases like these, where a Flood scenario is impossible, prove that there was no global Flood. Nonsense. You don't even remember your Young-Earth Creationist claptrap properly, because they don't claim such nonsense. And of course, you can cite no such claptrap or evidence of any kind. There are thousands of examples. Nonsense. You follow your faulty memory. So what? A big herd of Centrosaurs drowned in a huge, local flood. Two problems with your interpretation: (1) Centrosaurs lived about 75 million years ago and did not survive the great Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction of 66 million years ago; (2) the article you cited explained that the same kind of drowning happens today: << Coastal floodplains such as those seen in modern Bangladesh can cover vast areas, with flooding killing hundreds of thousands of livestock, not to mention the human tragedies that occur. >> I'm curious: why do you hang on to the Young-Earth Creationist ideas that the Society gave up on 40 years ago?

Nope. You cannot cite even one valid example. LOL! Pure Young-Earth Creationist claptrap. I've told you before: the Watchtower Society dropped that nonsense 40 years ago. Totally wrong, as proved by the fossils. Here's a case where a predatory dinosaur and a vegetarian dinosaur were fighting and killing one another, but were caught in a landslide and buried: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530090-800-stunning-fossils-dinosaur-death-match/ . Not possible during a violent Flood. And here's a case where an ankylosaur was somehow washed out to sea and quietly buried in fine sediments: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/a-dinosaur-so-well-preserved-it-looks-like-a-statue/535782/ . There is no way that critter was violently killed -- its remains are almost complete. I've had as many as 50 Creationist books in my library, and have read or skimmed all of them. The evidence they cite always turns out to be crap -- just like what the Watchtower author did with the Berezovka mammoth: a gross lie about what was actually found.

Lies? You cannot cite even one. YOU are the liar.

No wonder you get almost everything wrong. Try acting within your limitations. Perhaps you can remember how Gallic and Aryan plates relate to Teutonic plates.

Which proves Srecko Sostar's point.

I'm perfectly aware of what a fascist is. And the attitude of the GB proves that WTS leaders are fascists at heart. That's why they define "apostasy" as disagreement with them -- not just disagreement with God, but with them.

The point here is not whether a god could flood the earth, but whether the Bible God did flood the earth.

One or more local floods most likely contributed to the Flood legend over a long period of time. As the story was retold, as happens with all legends, it got bigger and badder. It was a cool story to tell over the campfire, and as travelers went their way they told the story to those they met. Thus the story was propagated around the world.

Continuing with the inept and inapt, cute little stories and metaphors. I've sometimes wondered at the desolate mindscapes of people like you. Life is simple -- as if they're barely above chimps.

Anna said: The beginning -- as I've explained several times -- no. The end -- as I've explained several times -- YES: 539 BCE. You have no choice -- IF you believe the Bible. Once again: Jeremiah 25:12 and 2 Chronicles 36:20 decisively settle the issue: servitude of ALL the nations to Babylon ended when Cyrus conquered it and the Persian Empire came to power. Don't you believe what the Bible says? Daniel did NOT use desolation as the end of the 70 years. What Daniel said about the 70 years is AMBIGUOUS. About half the commentators I've read understand his words to mean that, now that Babylon had fallen, and based on Jeremiah's words in Jer. 29:10 and most likely 25:12 and chapter 27, the 70 years had just ended, and Jehovah would go about restoring the Jews to Judah. The Watchtower and others get the cart before the horse, claiming that Daniel anticipated the soon-to-come fall of Babylon based on his 'understanding' that the 70 years were about to end. But that notion makes several assumptions that are not stated anywhere in the book of Jeremiah, because Jeremiah said nothing about 70 years of desolation. In other words, it's a fallacy of assuming the conclusion. The beginning, yes. But not the end. The Bible often uses a specific number to describe an approximate period. "70 years" works with the dates 609 to 539, 605 to 539, etc. You've just argued away the Watchtower's arguments for the 70 years having an exact beginning and end. No, because that view directly contradicts a number of Bible passages, as described above and elsewhere. That's a big deal alright. And it comes about precisely because the WTS needs to maintain the 1914 date.

I understand perfectly. That's precisely why I've said you're completely stupid -- your comparison is inept and inapt.

The comparison between the Proud Boys and anyone else, as several posters have done here, is completely stupid. Those idiots are extreme right-wing types politically, largely racists and white-nationalists. Fundamentally they're Fascists. On the other hand, the GB is mostly politically neutral -- but they're certainly Fascists in their worldview.

That's right. ALL of the rationalizations for the reality of a global Flood 4,400 years ago evaporate in the face of physical facts. But think about the implications of the use of supernatural powers. The world of mankind was so wicked that God decided to destroy it, along with nearly all animal life. That's using a hydrogen bomb to swat a fly. After all, didn't just one angel kill 185,000 Assyrians in one night? Why wipe out everything? This doesn't even touch the fact that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for a recent global Flood. What kind of physical evidence should be present globally? Do a little research on the "MIssoula floods" that occurred some 12,000 to 18,000 years ago in the U.S. in Washington, Idaho and Oregon. The devastation from even those huge floods is small compared to what a global flood would have produced worldwide.

A better example of projection could hardly be found, from a pro-Trump moron. You yourself have accused me of being a Leftist. You're so stupid you can't even get your insults straight.

Like I said, don't expect rational responses from these dodos.

Don't expect rational responses from these dodos.

It's mightily entertaining watching two dummies high-fiving each other. Although you're probably an order of magnitude brighter than Arauna.

I think that most people can figure out who has the syndrome. It ain't rocket science -- except to its sufferers. Just like most people can see who is really dumb in the old Jay Leno videos, where he interviews people so dumb they can't locate U.S. on a world map. Or who can't figure out the answer to "who's buried in Grant's tomb?"

Anna said: No one is suggesting that the 70 years be ignored. The problem is what it applies to, and its beginning and its end. Remember that all three things happened at various times from 609 through 538 BCE. Servitude of ALL Middle Eastern nations to Babylon began in 609 when Nabopolassar's forces under Nebuchadnezzar conquered the last remnant of the Assyrian army at the battle of Harran. More specific instances of servitude began, first in 605 when Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem and took Daniel and others captive, then in 597 when Jehoiachin and the majority of Jews were taken captive, again in 587 when Jerusalem was destroyed and most of the remaining Jews were taken, and finally in 582 when an unspecified group of Jews were taken. Each of these events is a deportation, a captivity and the start of an exile. Desolation occurred in connection with each event. Why desolation? Because the Hebrew word chorbah does not exclusively mean "without inhabitant". Basically it means "ruined" which can be ruined physically or metaphorically. Thus, after Daniel and company were taken captive in 605, and Temple implements were taken, Jerusalem was properly described as "ruined" (chorbah) or "desolated" in at least a spiritual or religious sense. Such "desolation" ended when the Jews returned in 538 BCE. Note, on the other hand, that servitude to Babylon ended in 539 BCE when Babylon was conquered and its kings Nabonidus and Belshazzar were "called to account" (Jer. 25:12; Dan. 5). At that point, one can say that servitude to the Persian Empire began and continued for a few months (2 Chron. 36:20). Also note that captivity in Babylon ended about Nisan 1, 538 BCE when Cyrus issued his proclamation of freedom. But the "desolation" of Jerusalem ended some four months after the Jews set out to return to Judah, which was by Tishri (Sept/Oct), 538. And obviously, the four exiles ended either when the Jews began or ended their return journey, depending on how one defines "end of exile". Thus, the periods of servitude, captivity, desolation and exile do not necessarily correspond. Finally, since the Bible does not state the beginning of the 70 years, but only its end, no one can be dogmatic about it. A beginning in 609 results in exactly 70 years. A beginning in 607 or 605 gives approximately 70 years, just like the life span of a human is about 70 years. Some authors define the 70 years somewhat differently, but again no one can afford to be dogmatic. As mentioned above, that assumes that the 70 years was an exact period. Since the Bible does not say, and there are many instances where some number is obviously approximate, we cannot be certain. And of course, Jer. 25:12 and Dan. 5 are clear, beyond rational argument, that the 70 years ended in 539 BCE. Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to.

Arauna is grossly ignorant of even Watchtower teaching, much less science generally. She seems to have got stuck in what the WTS was more or less teaching 40 years ago and more. By 1983 the WTS was condemning Young-Earth Creationism as "unscriptural" and unscientific. Today's YECs, following the completely nutty Walter Brown's "hydroplate theory", claim that all phenomena of plate tectonics were caused by a rapid movement of the tectonic plates just 4,400 years ago -- ludicrously and physically impossible.

You made far more than a mere spelling mistake -- you made a gross conceptual mistake. You proved -- contrary to your implied claims -- that you've never read one iota about plate tectonics, or even geology, from reputable sources. There are billions of fossils. What planet are you living on? Not suddenly. Over tens of millions of years. Read the book Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin. It will give you a lot to chew on. It didn't. Wings developed over many tens of millions of years. First in insects, later and independently in pterosaurs, still later in the dinosaurs that morphed into birds, and finally in bats. And of course, the fossil record of these creatures completely disproves "the order of creation" stated in Genesis -- a subject you carefully avoid. Amphibians appear in the fossil record of some 365 million years ago -- some 130 million years before the first pterosaurs. Dinosaurs first appear some 230 million years ago -- some 70 million years before the first more-or-less birds like Archaeopteryx. True mammals first appear some 200 million years ago -- 150 million years before any bats. Yet Genesis says that ALL flying creatures were created before ANY land creatures. It did not. I've corrected you several times on this. The Cambrian period began about 541 million years ago -- something like 90 million years after a great number of pre-cambrian creatures first appeared. Read about the Ediacaran fauna, for example. Once sufficient oxygen accumulated in the atmosphere, animals with little teeth and small shells appeared in the earliest Cambrian, then animals with bigger teeth and shells -- all over a period of some 20 million years. You've been misled by your Creationist sources. I suggest reading The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Erwin and Valentine as an antidote. NO trilobites have been found in pre-cambrian strata. Obviously you can't even remember what your Creationist sources say. Trilobites appear some 20 million years AFTER the beginning of the Cambrian Period: https://www.amnh.org/research/paleontology/collections/fossil-invertebrate-collection/trilobite-website/the-trilobite-files/the-first-trilobites Complete nonsense. Utter nonsense. Prove it. There's that defective memory again. Yes, suggesting that you read reputable sources rather than nonsensical, dishonest Creationist crap is highly insulting. Read the books I suggested. Yes, your usual conspiracy theory garbage. Ah, yes -- a perfect proof of conspiracy theory nonsense. And that you're reading Creationist nonsense. Do the math and prove it. That's rich, coming from someone too ignorant to know the difference between "Teutonic" and "tectonic". Nowhere near as much faith as demonstrably false Bible and Watchtower stories. Homework? LOL! Creationist sources -- condemned even by Watchtower writers -- is rather bad homework. [Nonsensical blah blah blah deleted ] More proof you don't know what you're talking about: the origin of life -- abiogenesis -- is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution. Despite what the Watchtower and Creationists would have you believe. Nonsense. Point us to your sources for the math. Oh yeah, it's just more Creationist crap. Oh? WHICH mathematicians? Members of the Creationist Discovery Institute like William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski? Committed Creationists all? Ah yes. But not Discovery Institute members, who generally accept the old age of the earth and life, but nonsense from the Young-Earth Creationists. Again, you're so ignorant even of Watchtower teaching that you don't understand that the Society explicitly condemned YECism nearly 40 years ago. See Awake!, March 8, 1983, p. 12. Not that I'm aware. Give it to me again. I probably already have it in my library. Spare me.