Jump to content
The World News Media

Creation-Evolution-Creative Days-Age of the Earth-Humanoid Fossils-Great Flood


Arauna
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member
8 hours ago, Arauna said:

Jehovah allowed humans to rule themselves

In truth though, has God ever allowed humans to rule themselves ? 

Who is the ruler of this 'world' ?  Satan the devil. He even told Jesus that he had authority over the world, because he offered all the kingdoms to Jesus as a bribe.  So humans have always had a ruler over them.  Firstly it was God, then it was/is Satan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 8.5k
  • Replies 625
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This helped me to see the source of Alan’s enmity towards me. It is pure envy.

I'm making a catch-all place for the discussions on these topics that were currently under different topics/subjects. As I move old posts into this new topic, the oldest ones will appear to identify the starter/owner of this topic, even though that person didn't create this topic.

For the life of me, I cannot take this fellow seriously. With a level of abuse (granted, I provoked it here, but it is just so much fun. And this is not really an example of it) that is off the charts, it is virtually the only thing about him worth mentioning. I can’t imagine why the Librarian (that old hen) puts up with him, when she has dropped the abuse hammer on others. Poor CC suffers it every time you turn around—not necessarily unjustly, but certainly no worse than this fellow. Even

Posted Images

  • Member
2 hours ago, Arauna said:

Negating the main reason I used this example  in the first place..... typical evolutional thinking. Negate the real issue and answer a side issue.  

Let's try again. You said the Spanish Flu virus doesn't exist anymore - it had gone extinct because mutations are harmful.

My point (supported by the science if you bother to check) is that the Spanish Flu was one strain of the Influenza A/H1N1 virus group which still exists today. Not only that, but the 2009 'Swine Flu,' according to my sources, is a descendant of the Spanish Flu strain. Therefore, the Spanish Flu strain survived long enough to reproduce and mutate, i.e. evolve, into new strains over the next 90 years. Coming to your quote, the original Spanish Flu H1N1 strain has been extracted from human remains (those that died from the disease in 1918) and its genome sequenced ... which has helped virologists trace the 1918 strain's evolution into modern H1N1 strains. Get it?

I know most of this paragraph will go over your head but pay close attention to the part in red bold. 

"Although the pandemic influenza viruses of 1957, 1968, and 2009 are all descended, via different pathways, from the 1918 virus, only the 2009 pandemic virus expresses an antigenically similar hemagglutinin (HA) (

    Hello guest!
). All influenza A viruses (IAV), including the 1918 virus, possess a segmented single-stranded RNA genome and can evolve by the accumulation of selected mutations (“antigenic drift”) or through the exchange of gene segments by reassortment with other influenza viruses (“antigenic shift”). Sequencing the 1918 virus provided the basis for the subsequent understanding that the key 2009 virus HA gene, after having apparently been transmitted from humans to pigs in or about 1918, had been maintained in pigs over the past 90 years or so as a separate lineage from the 1918 human pandemic H1N1 virus (
    Hello guest!
), a lineage that has long been recognized as the “classical” swine H1N1 influenza virus. When the 2009 pandemic virus emerged in humans with a swine H1 HA gene descended from, and still closely related antigenically to, the 1918 pandemic virus, extensive cross-protection between the 2009 and 1918 pandemic viruses was demonstrated in experimental animals (
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
    Hello guest!
). " (
    Hello guest!
)

Thus, what you initially said was, at best, misleading. The Spanish Flu virus didn't die out. It changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Arauna said:

I do not believe that other "thinking " creatures equal to humans exist.  The bible tells us about angels and demons and humans who can understand "morality".  

I can life with the thought that they could, other areas in which the Creator planted life. What of the verses that such-and-such is being played out before all creation? Possibly that is relatively speaking, just as “in all the inhabited earth” can mean all the earth they knew about at the time. 

It is speculation of no practical significance. If we ever did contact any aliens, they would say, “Mind your own business! Straighten up your own act before you try to export your plague-like thinking elsewhere!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 1/9/2021 at 9:40 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

many other people of his time lived together with dinosaurs, tyrannosaurus and many other prehistorical animals?? 

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,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

LOL at the abysmal ignorance.

 

7 minutes ago, AlanF said:

This is a good example of how ignorant TTH is

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
36 minutes ago, AlanF said:

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. . .

Didn't Arauna comment that the Supercontinent (Pangea) disintegrated in the Flood? And how new configuration of land with highest mountains are built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Didn't Arauna comment that the Supercontinent (Pangea) disintegrated in the Flood? And how new configuration of land with highest mountains are built?

Yes. That's why she's a complete moron, out of touch even with 40-year-old Watchtower "new light".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
34 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Did you know?...

92% of the world’s atheist evolutionists play drums.

But they will only do Also Sprach Zarathustra 

About what I expected -- zero content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share





×
×
  • 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.