Creationism

[JW Insider]

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.

[AlanF]

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.

[Arauna]

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.  

[JW Insider]

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.

[Arauna]

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 .......... 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

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. 

[AlanF]

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. https://www.petmd.com/cat/conditions/cardiovascular/c_ct_taurine_deficiency ). 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.

[Arauna]

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.

[AlanF]

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.

[Anna]

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.

[Arauna]

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.

[JW Insider]

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?]