AlanF

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

The return on His Odiousness.

After a two day absence, I was getting worried. The secret to any good Western is to have a villain, and in Alan one finds a villain to make The Magnificent Seven look like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir 

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

True Tom Harley said:

Quote

 

On 1/6/2021 at 6:47 AM, Arauna said:

Apart from this - the math does not add up and I will not even go into the protein and nano-technology aspects which prove evolution a myth or a religion

 

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:

Quote

When I mentioned to Alan that various mathematicians had ruled anything other than micro evolution undoable based on probability alone, he responded: “LOL! Those mathematicians are almost ALL creationists...”

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.

Quote

Of course! The masters of that joined-at-the-hip branch of science, mathematicians, calculate all that is involved and declare the odds against it happening greater than all the atoms in the universe!

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!"

Quote

Freed from this inconvenient truth, the evolution proponent continue merrily to build their castles in the sky.

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.

9 minutes ago, Arauna said:

If you believe all the claptrap about the dinosaurs the "scientists spin. 

We have been here before on this forum - how the earth was much different before the flood..... etc.  If you did not learn anything then .... I will once again  be talking into the wind......  I have better things to do with my time,

 

LOL at the abysmal ignorance.

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Fossils and deposits of dead animals speaks about past time, but dinosaurs and similar species are much much older then 4390 years. 

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

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

This is one case

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.

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

- the majority of dinosaurs were deposited in 2 long gullies in USA with a large island in the middle.  This is the geological facts.

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.

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

One incidence does not prove the majority of fossils buried together in a long grave wrong. 

There are thousands of examples.

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I follow the newest evidence...... 

Nonsense. You follow your faulty memory.

5 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I just typed into my google and this came up: there is unbelievable amount of evidence for this! 

https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html

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?

7 minutes ago, Arauna said:

There is more than enough geological evidence.

Nope. You cannot cite even one valid example.

7 minutes ago, Arauna said:

The flood was a very violent event as I said before.  Everything on earth was destroyed.  Most of the dinosaurs were deposited in graveyards hundred of miles long which were  gullies.  The water pushed the dinosaurs into gullies. .... and it was adults which were buried.  Most adult animals had lost their babies along the way of running to higher ground as the water moved in.

LOL! Pure Young-Earth Creationist claptrap.

I've told you before: the Watchtower Society dropped that nonsense 40 years ago.

7 minutes ago, Arauna said:

All over the world the deposits of dinosaurs are found in long gullies - china, USA etc. Most of these animals are also in positions which show that they were dumped there in violence on top of one another. Their bodies often in twisted shapes.

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.

7 minutes ago, Arauna said:

There is much more evidence but if one only reads literature that proves the opposite - that is what you will believe. 

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.

2 minutes ago, Arauna said:

And let you get away with your lies - even my memory is better than your insults - which provides no evidence 

Lies? You cannot cite even one.

YOU are the liar.

51 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Lol - that is my turf.  My eyes are so bad I cannot do the research like I used to..... I write from memory alone.

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.

25 minutes ago, Arauna said:

No - but we know that they may have come from across the Mediterranean because Egypt was known as a bread basket.  Rome later on got their wheat from Egypt.  Jacob came from Canaan for wheat on more than one occasion.  

Which proves Srecko Sostar's point.

26 minutes ago, Arauna said:

By saying that you have no clue about fascism. Anything that is contrary to your thoughts is fascistic - no doubt

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.

3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Maybe think on this. If you do not believe that God could flood the whole Earth, then you may not believe that God will Cleanse the whole Earth.  Ye of little faith. 

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

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If humans are incorrigible, what do animals have to do with it? The destruction of "evil animals" that were herbivores ... and some of them became carnivores after they came out of the Ark? :))

I am of opinion how that was local flood that affected all people and animals of that particular earth where Noah lived. 

... earth was corrupt in God’s sight - Gen 6. Here we see expression tat is not literal. Earth can not be corrupt but people are what God have in mind. In Joseph's days and famine Bible text say: .

Moreover, people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy from Joseph, because the famine had a strong grip on all the earth- Gen 41

Do you really think how people from China, India, North America, Africa, Australia etc. came to Egypt to buy grain?

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.

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course! This will be on your grave marker.

It is like the cute story of when my 5-year-old walked away from the door and said, “Why did that lady say there is too much of me?” What she had actually said was, “You’re too much!”

But in your case, the 5-year-old’s reasoning is spot-on, proving that wisdom comes from the mouths of babes: There is too much of you.

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:

Quote

 On 1/6/2021 at 12:53 PM, AlanF said:
The problem is what it applies to, and its beginning and its end.

Quote

Yes, and can we know for sure?

The beginning -- as I've explained several times -- no. The end -- as I've explained several times -- YES: 539 BCE.

Quote

 

  On 1/6/2021 at 12:53 PM, AlanF said:
  Quote
Anna: The return, and/or the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which according to your table was 538/7) seems indicative that the 70 year period of desolation/captivity/servitude was definitely ended.

AlanF: Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to.

. . .
  
Right, but as you said it's all up to the definition, and it depends whether you are going to use servitude or desolation as your decisive circumstance.

 

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?

Quote

If you are going to use desolation, as Daniel did, then it could be said that Jerusalem was desolate until the Jews returned and started building.

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.

Quote

It seems there is quite a bit of ambiguity and leeway in the interpretation of the beginning and even the end,

The beginning, yes. But not the end.

Quote

and even the number of years. (Although the number of years in my opinion seem to be quite definite and I don't see a reason why they should not be literal).

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.

Quote

I do not see it a big problem with just a couple of years plus or minus on the beginning or end of the exile/servitude 
I think its difficult to completely rely on something that was recorded over 2500 years ago (I am talking mainly about secular archeological finds, not the Bible) to be accurate to the year or month. Yes, definite months might be mentioned and are, but it's difficult to discern what really happened on a particular date.

You've just argued away the Watchtower's arguments for the 70 years having an exact beginning and end.

Quote

 

. . .

So when WT prefers to view the 70 years as literal, and start them in 607, and wants to call them desolation, would that not be acceptable? 

 

No, because that view directly contradicts a number of Bible passages, as described above and elsewhere.

Quote

However, a 20 year difference in WT neo Banylonian chronology is too much. I will have to look at that next...

That's a big deal alright. And it comes about precisely because the WTS needs to maintain the 1914 date.

2 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is impossible that a master taunter as yourself would not understand, knowing your political views, why I would refer to you as a “Proud Boy.” 

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

5 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

Mr Harley has a habit of bringing politics into a discussion.   But lets be honest here the biggest Proud Boys are the Governing Body of the Watchtower / JW org.  Those Proud boys on the streets are fighting the US governemnt, BUT, the GB proud boys  are fighting against God and Christ. 

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.

12 hours ago, Anna said:

The only way anything to do with the flood and the aftermath is possible, is that supernatural powers had to be involved.

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.

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

so says our own resident Proud Boy

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.

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

so says our own resident Proud Boy, whose primary skills are emitting insults and taunts

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

26 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Are koalas clean or unclean animals?

But more important questions are:

How did seven pairs of koalas (or two pairs) travel from Mount Ararat to Australia? And what did they eat along the way? It is very picky in food and eats only the leaves of certain species of eucalyptus. For Koala this is actually the only food and survives, as well as two species of opossum , exclusively feeding on this plant.  Koalas consume up to 400 grams (14 oz) of leaves a day.

"Polar bear", who was not polar bear in pre-Flood time ..., Why and how did the "polar" bear leave Ararat to live at the North Pole, when they had never seen snow and ice? When did he change the color of his fur?

Did fecal gases harm human and animal health in period of 1 year captivity of Ark? Where did Noah throw the animal and human feces in that 1 year period?

..... and so on and so on?

 

Don't expect rational responses from these dodos.

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

What do you mean “waste of time?” Short of being crucified, there is no better way to test ability to keep oneself “restrained under evil.”

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

14 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In other words, they are whatever you want them to be. Your video says just the opposite. 

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:

Quote

16 hours ago, AlanF said:
links I already gave

Quote

 

In one of the links you say: 

"Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah......"

Although there was not a single deportation, and the desolation of Jerusalem and Judah occurred  in stages, doesn't mean that we should disregard Jeremiah's 70 years as one continuous block of time, I don't think.

 

No one is suggesting that the 70 years be ignored. The problem is what it applies to, and its beginning and its end.

Quote

That was the time set for a specific period, with a beginning and an end, regardless whether it meant captivity, desolation or servitude (since surely these terms would all apply to a people who had been invaded by a foreign army).

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.

Quote

It might be difficult to pinpoint the start of the 70 year period (because of the said various deportations) so for that reason I still do not see a problem with counting from the end of the 70 years, since the end of that period is easier to identify.

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.

Quote

The return, and/or the rebuilding of Jerusalem (which according to your table was 538/7) seems indicative that the 70 year period of desolation/captivity/servitude was definitely ended.

Of course -- but the time of servitude ended in 539 BCE when there was no longer a Babylonian Empire to be in servitude to.

49 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible don't speaking nothing about elements you put in focus (tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanos erupting and major movement of Teutonic plates). Bible speaking only about water!

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

You focus on one  spelling mistake

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

because you do not have real proof of fossils

There are billions of fossils. What planet are you living on?

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

 

- how invertebrates suddenly became vertebrates,

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

how the wing suddenly developed....

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

how the Cambrian explosion produced fully developed animals

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

when only a few trilobites could be found in the previous layer

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

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

...... so NO progressive development found (no fossil record) in the millions of years in between the two layers....

Complete nonsense.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

and suddenly we find rhino and dinosaur and various animals together

Utter nonsense. Prove it.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

-  conveniently left out of all evolutionary records.

There's that defective memory again.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

 And don't bother to answer with another "theory" which cannot be proved ....or the insults -  which are the only thing you are really good at..  

Yes, suggesting that you read reputable sources rather than nonsensical, dishonest Creationist crap is highly insulting.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not waste my time any longer on a person like you who can only insult and cannot provide empirical  evidence.

Read the books I suggested.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Peer reviews  are also not acceptable because it just means that scientists stand together to protect their turf and do not have any respect for the truth. It is a religion masquerading as a science and playing beautifully into the hands of satan's goals.

Yes, your usual conspiracy theory garbage.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Unfortunately I have lost respect for many of the sciences..... they now produce results which their money sponsors desire.  Just look at the global warming fiasco for one.... example

Ah, yes -- a perfect proof of conspiracy theory nonsense. And that you're reading Creationist nonsense.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Apart from this - the math does not add up

Do the math and prove it.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

and I will not even go into the protein and nano-technology aspects which prove evolution a myth or a religion ....

That's rich, coming from someone too ignorant to know the difference between "Teutonic" and "tectonic".

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

because one needs a lot of imagination to find merit in  this theory (but so do a lot of novels have imagination) and a lot of blind faith to stick to it. 

Nowhere near as much faith as demonstrably false Bible and Watchtower stories.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I am not ashamed of the homework I have done on the subject and for that matter any other bible subjects.

Homework? LOL! Creationist sources -- condemned even by Watchtower writers -- is rather bad homework.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

The contents of the first protein would have dissipated into the surrounding fluids without a membrane......... . . .

[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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

The millions of miracles (each random change which happened by chance) which is  needed to happen  in evolution is more far-fetched than the few miracles mentioned in the bible. Mathematics has proven that it would take more years than the universe has existed to create one protein chain......

Nonsense. Point us to your sources for the math. Oh yeah, it's just more Creationist crap.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Mathematicians have written about the deceit in the mathematics of evolution

Oh? WHICH mathematicians? Members of the Creationist Discovery Institute like William Dembski, Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, and David Berlinski? Committed Creationists all?

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

and the tests to determine the age of fossils.

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.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

I believe i gave you the name of the book I was reading at the time of our previous discussion on the subject. 

 

Not that I'm aware. Give it to me again. I probably already have it in my library.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Your distain does not bother me......  I have only pity for you....  and those with your kind of mindset.

Spare me.