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

[Arauna]

9 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Lighten up! 😆

Your culture is different to mine..... very different.   

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

Science is now the God of this world..... unfortunately. Soon we will see a science or tech dictatorship take over the world with the "great reset" .... then you will experience the wonders of corrupt human knowledge and you whow ' your god' cannot save you

Science works tolerably well in areas such as physics and chemistry. It is on less firm ground when it goes into biology, largely because it is so easily coopted by those with monied interests (which its devotees never seem to notice).

When it veers into matters of origin it is also on less firm ground.

When it turns into social matters, the ground becomes like Jello. And when it expands into such things as evolutionary psychology, it becomes downright silly.

You'd almost think the responsible players of science would distance themselves from the upstarts, so as to preserve the overall reputation of the word. 

Walking the dog, who has more emotional maturity than Prince Charming, yesterday, I came across one of those placards that has become common in the U.S. recently, listing a few unrelated items of what "this household believes."

One item is that they 1.) believe in love, not hate. Another is that they 2.) believe that "science is true." Now, I have nothing against science so long as it does not present itself as the be-all and end-all, but it strikes me that these two items do not exactly dovetail. Love is more closely associated with spiritual things, in our case with the sayings of Jesus. Science is more closely associated with survival of the fittest, hardly a recipe for love. 

So along come the evolutionary psychologists who will spin some completely made-up and silly narrative on how love evolved because natural selection found that animals without love yawned with unconcern as predators were devouring their offspring, so they died out, and only the loving animals survived.

Fortunately, it is perfectly possible to be a scientist and not drink all the KoolAid. Many scientists believe in God.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

One item is that they 1.) believe in love, not hate. Another is that they 2.) believe that "science is true." Now, I have nothing against science so long as it does not present itself as the be-all and end-all, but it strikes me that these two items do not exactly dovetail. Love is more closely associated with spiritual things, in our case with the sayings of Jesus. Science is more closely associated with survival of the fittest, hardly a recipe for love. 

You explained almost well. :)) Also it would be quite appropriate to put parallel between "scientific methods" and "religious doctrines". 

[Arauna]

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

religious doctrines". 

Evolution is more like a " religious doctrine "  than science.  Scarce evidence is provided  for the "miraculous" claims and when one scrutinizes it closely one sees all the deep flaws. These flaws usually have been accepted by peer review because some person thought up another highly unlikely theory to explain gross inconsistencies ...... and then  it is accepted by the high priest. Its foundation and subsequent bricks is like a clump of sand. 

The biological mathematics are so messed up.  Ie. The rate of mutations ........ one can take the flu of the great war WW1. This virus has already gone extinct. Due to the number of mutations it has not survived. 

If humans are as old as they say we are, our own mutations would already have made us go extinct.  Mutations are destructive - rarely has a beneficial outcome.

But we know why mutations occur from the bible ..... and we know there is a God who will rectify  this soon. 

[Ann O'Maly]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Evolution is more like a " religious doctrine "  than science.  Scarce evidence is provided  for the "miraculous" claims and when one scrutinizes it closely one sees all the deep flaws. These flaws usually have been accepted by peer review because some person thought up another highly unlikely theory to explain gross inconsistencies ...... and then  it is accepted by the high priest. Its foundation and subsequent bricks is like a clump of sand. 

Clueless. 🙄

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

The biological mathematics are so messed up.  Ie. The rate of mutations ........ one can take the flu of the great war WW1. This virus has already gone extinct. Due to the number of mutations it has not survived. 

Influenza A/H1N1 (Spanish 'flu was a strain of this) still exists. The Spanish 'flu virus just evolved and diversified into other strains of H1N1, most notably that which caused the 'Swine 'Flu' pandemic of 2009. A lot of us are even vaccinated against this 2009 distant descendant of the 1918 strain every year. (Source.)

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

If humans are as old as they say we are, our own mutations would already have made us go extinct.  Mutations are destructive - rarely has a beneficial outcome.

And many mutations are beneficial or harmless to the organism (look at the success of viruses, for example!). 

[TrueTomHarley]

21 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And many mutations are beneficial or harmless to the organism 

That may be, but when I drive my car into a tree, it hardly matters that I have solved the rattle behind the glovebox. Nor does the solved rattle somehow stop the car from being wrecked.

[AlanF]

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

I read two or three articles you wrote this morning. Great. If such enormous amount of water stayed at earth surface in liquid state than nothing could be frozen, neither plants nor animals nor people. If they found few frozen animals, why they didn't find frozen people that died in Flood?

Exactly. Up to about 1980, WTS writers were parroting Young-Earth Creationist writings including their so-called Flood Geology. These included the crackpot SDA writer George McCready Price and the founder of modern "Scientific Creationism" Henry Morris. Another interesting crackpot they used was Ivan Sanderson, who was one of their main sources of nonsense about "frozen mammoths" and such. Another was Henry Howorth, a mostly crackpot armchair explorer of the late 19th century who wrote the book "The Mammoth and the Flood", as well as other ridiculous works.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

According to Genesis book Noah's ark floated on the water for months. So nothing was frozen , neither at the time of the outbreak of the Flood nor months later. "Sudden freezing" did not occur. How law temperature is required and how much time is needed for so much water to be frozen in minutes??

 

A temperature of several hundred degrees below zero would have been required. Ivan Sanderson wrote about such nonsense in an early 1960s Saturday Evening Post article, which WTS writers quickly picked up on.

All of this garbage is contradicted by actual discoveries of frozen animals, which were NOT "quick frozen". A 1970s discovery in Alaska permafrost was of an extinct bison that was killed and partly eaten by lions. One lion broke off a piece of molar in the frozen flesh.

Recent discoveries in Siberia show how the freezing process worked: the summer sun melted potholes in the permafrost, leaving holes filled with cold water and mud, and often covered by thin vegetation. An animal would step on the surface, plunge into the mud/water, get stuck, then die and eventually freeze. Nothing particularly surprising.

The famous Berezovka mammoth excavated by Russian scientists in the early 1900s is a good case in point: its remains indicated that it fell and broke a leg, then drowned, and gradually froze. WTS writers largely ignored the details and then used it as a prime example of "quick freezing".

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

Law temperature will cause health problem for people and animals in Ark. They would not be able to survive because all would be frozen, not just few animals (found in, imagine, Siberia...., and not in Africa or some other area !!??)

Good points!

[AlanF]

20 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

That may be, but when I drive my car into a tree, it hardly matters that I have solved the rattle behind the glovebox. Nor does the solved rattle somehow stop the car from being wrecked.

Again descending into gibberish.

[AlanF]

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

Evolution is more like a " religious doctrine "  than science.  Scarce evidence is provided  for the "miraculous" claims and when one scrutinizes it closely one sees all the deep flaws. These flaws usually have been accepted by peer review because some person thought up another highly unlikely theory to explain gross inconsistencies ...... and then  it is accepted by the high priest. Its foundation and subsequent bricks is like a clump of sand. 

The biological mathematics are so messed up.  Ie. The rate of mutations ........ one can take the flu of the great war WW1. This virus has already gone extinct. Due to the number of mutations it has not survived. 

If humans are as old as they say we are, our own mutations would already have made us go extinct.  Mutations are destructive - rarely has a beneficial outcome.

But we know why mutations occur from the bible ..... and we know there is a God who will rectify  this soon. 

As physicist Wolfgang Pauli once said: "It's not even wrong!"

[AlanF]

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

I speak 6 languages-  and you?  Tech tonic. .... you focus on words or spelling mistakes when you cannot answer ..... is that  a "scholarly"  tactic? 

Complete nonsense. The fact is that you ignore nearly all answers, and then claim no answers were given. Like your partner in intellectual crime ScholarJW Pretendus, you're a pathological liar. Nothing new here; most JW apologists do exactly the same.

I've given you explanations about Plate Tectonics as well as a link to a Wikipedia article. The fact that you managed to get "Teutonic" out of "Tectonic" proves that you never read or absorbed the material. Perhaps you skimmed it, looking for something you could use against science. Yet you think to make pronouncements upon the science. Such a fake!

[TrueTomHarley]

6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Again descending into gibberish.

Don’t you have any sense of metaphor at all? Are you nothing more than an insulting tabulation machine....or a tabulating insult machine?

They don’t survive, is the point—just as the beneficial mutation (my solved rattle) does not survive the hundreds of deleterious mutations (my towed-away car).

[Ann O'Maly]

What, in your metaphor, was analogous to a living organism, @TrueTomHarley? You, the driver? What mutation did you spontaneously develop that caused you to lose control of the car? 🤪