Apparent Age & The Incredible Foreknowledge of God

ecco · Feb 12, 2016

↑ecco:

God could have just instantaneously zapped all the bad people into hell and zapped all the innocent children into heaven. No pain and suffering - no waterboarding.

Do try again.

Aman777 said:
That would have been unjust and God knows HOW to live eternally and that is to be perfectly just in every way. Our God is perfect. His name is Jesus. Amen?

It would have been unjust to instantaneously zap all the innocent children into heaven instead of cruelly drowning them? You have a really twisted view of what is and what isn't just.

You say your god is perfect and then you justify drowning innocent children when many more humane options were available. You have a really twisted view of what is and what isn't perfection.

Aman777 · Feb 12, 2016

ecco said:
Nic,
Do try to stay on track. We were discussing ships large enough to carry kangaroos and elephants to the far corners of the world.

Wood, pitch, etc. for building large ships would not have been available for many years.
Ship building knowledge was lost as evidenced by the fact that large ocean capable craft were not made until the 1200's.

Can you explain WHY kangaroos and elephants were on the Ark, especially since we find their bones long BEFORE the Ark arrived 11k years ago? http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html I think you are confused. Your dates are obviously wrong. Amen?

Aman777 · Feb 12, 2016

ecco said:
↑ecco:

God could have just instantaneously zapped all the bad people into hell and zapped all the innocent children into heaven. No pain and suffering - no waterboarding.

Do try again.

It would have been unjust to instantaneously zap all the innocent children into heaven instead of cruelly drowning them? You have a really twisted view of what is and what isn't just.

You say your god is perfect and then you justify drowning innocent children when many more humane options were available. You have a really twisted view of what is and what isn't perfection.

Your thinking has been blinded by the darkness. ALL people, whether children, adults or old people RETURN to God, since He made us. Innocent children go to a much better world without having to live into old age watching their loved ones leave this world and feeling that particular terrible pain. However, I praise God daily for allowing me to tell others of His Gospel at the end of the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation.

2Co 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Common design would not produce a nested hierarchy. The transitional fossils fall into a nested hierarchy, which leads us to the conclusion of common descent.

Let me repeat what I posted yesterday:

The theory of evolution predicts both- nested hierarchy and no nested hierarchy- which in reality means it predicts neither.

It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:

Ref.; http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/11/refuting-nested-hierarchy-as-evidence.html

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Reference?

Here is the reference you requested explaining the regulatory function of DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507326/

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Then you are using different evidence than scientists are using.

Plus a different interpretation of evidence.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Why? Where is the impediment?

Catastrophic flooding does not produce incised meanders.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
And you convinced yourself that you are right!

How am I wrong?

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Let me repeat what I posted yesterday:

The theory of evolution predicts both- nested hierarchy and no nested hierarchy-

No, it doesn't. For the complex eukaryotes that do not participate in any significant amount of horizontal genetic transfer, the theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy.

It is also worth repeating that nested hierarchy was FIRST used as evidence for a common design and all evos did when they took over was to replace archetype with common ancestor:

Ref.; http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/11/refuting-nested-hierarchy-as-evidence.html

Baloney. When we look at designed things they don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Automobiles don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Computers don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Paintings don't fall into a nested hierarchy. The only process we know of that consistently produces a nested hierarchy is evolution.

For example, what is stopping a designer from creating a species with a mixture of mammal and bird features? Why does everything with fur also have three middle ear bones? Why couldn't a designer give a species feathers and three middle ear bones? Why not feathers and mammary glands? Why not fur and flow through lungs?

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Aman777 said:
I don't know.

Then don't make the claim.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
The inability of humans, primates, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, to produce vitamin C is used by evolutionists to defend their theory of common descent. This strange behavior is attributed to a broken gene.

Here is one report defending the common design argument for origins:

"These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution. ..."

Ref.: https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...olutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/

Please stop using webpages written by lying creationists.

What they aren't telling you is that the guinea pig gene is broken in a different place than the human pseudogene, while other apes share the same mutation with humans.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
FYI, the nested hierarchies argument was originally used to support common design. Evolutionists replaced the term design with descent and bingo. Now nested hierarchies are proclaimed as a "strong" evidence for evolution! This kind of magic does not convince me.

Ref.; http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2006/11/refuting-nested-hierarchy-as-evidence.html

Common design does not produce a nested hierarchy. We can see the proof all around us.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Here is the reference you requested explaining the regulatory function of DNA:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4507326/

I requested a reference demonstrating that the majority of junk DNA had gene regulatory function that affected fitness.

Loudmouth · Feb 12, 2016

Nic Samojluk said:
Plus a different interpretation of evidence.

Since you are not using the same evidence, it hardly matters.

AV1611VET · Feb 12, 2016

ecco said:
Take the time to read it carefully. Note especially the bolded part.

LT also makes allowances for scratches, scars, tooth decay, bruises, etc.

Adam & Eve had no scars.

And for the record, a belly button is considered a scar.

ecco said:
Now please present an argument supporting Genesis and refuting LastThursdayism.

As your link mentioned, LT says the universe was created last Thursday.

Genesis says it took six days -- not one.

LT refuted by Genesis 1.

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
Interpretations aren't choices.

In a court of law, there are usually two opposing interpretations of what happened. The jury must decide between those choices. The same principle applies to the study of origins.

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
"My argument is that no one has observed a deity creating a blood clotting system."

When you find a dead person with a bullet to his head, you conclude that someone must has fired a shot at him. The lack of witnesses does not negate the fact that someone must have done this.

In the case of the blood clotting mechanism, my argument is that someone must be responsible for designing such a efficient mechanism. The suggestion that no one is responsible for this does not make very much sense.

Without the blood clotting mechanism the person with a wound is likely to die. Are you suggesting that at some point in the evolutionary process, people had no way of surviving a wound?

Nature is blind. Arguing that this happened by a happy coincidence makes no sense to me. Of course, you are free to continue believing this mythical explanation.

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Herman Hedning said:
Yes, but the whole point is that the flagellum would then function as something else.

The fact that it can function as something else is irrelevant to Behe's argument. When you remove an essential component of the flagellum it ceases to function as a flagellum and becomes a different object relative to its original function.

Herman Hedning said:
Given your motorless car example; no, it won't take you anywhere but it could function perfectly well as a doghouse.

The doghouse is not an automobile. The original design has been altered which means that Behe's argument is still valid.

PsychoSarah · Feb 12, 2016

joshua 1 9 said:
Both Science AND the Bible spend a lot of time with this issue of farming: when and where farming began. Perhaps people do not remember 50 years ago when our view of the hunter gatherer people before farming was more primitive then they actually were. Some of the older movies would deal with the stereotypes we use to have before more evidence surfaced. Still Science talks about hunter gathers before the Neolithic Revolution, before man started farming and he began to build cities. The Bible talks about Cain the son of Adam and Eve when he was building a city back in his day. Even Cain killed his brother and God did not destroy Cain. So both Science and the Bible deals with this in great detail and they do not contradict each other. What we have in the Bible agrees with the evidence that Science has for us to examine. Even just look at dogs. There is clearly a difference between hunter dogs and shepherd dogs. I have owned both types of dogs. When you take them out for a walk in the woods even they act very different. When it comes to animals we all know the difference between a domesticated animal and a wild animal. Wolves will always be wild, it is not a good idea to try and make a pet out of a wolf. There is never a time in their life when they will not chew the leg off of a person given the opportunity. Although in the wild wolves do not attack people. Only when you try to domesticate them do they become dangerous to people. Yet with dogs this is no problem. If you reject creationism then you leave it up to science to come up with a explanation as to why wolves are wild and can not be domesticated. In this case science and the Bible offers us a great deal of information. So there is no reason to reject either one. We can accept both for what they bring to the table and add to the knowledge and the understanding that we have.

Uh... some people do have wolves as pets. And, as an experiment, within less than 100 years, a group of people bred foxes to be domesticated. You can buy those as pets, they don't behave much like wild foxes anymore. People tame the ones that are the least aggressive, and wolves will only attack humans if desperate or if they have a number advantage, which they wouldn't have with ancient tribes tending to stay together in groups larger than 20. The people keeping wolves that end up attacked tend to go into pens of multiple wolves by themselves, which gives the wolves the advantage of numbers they need to feel comfortable attacking humans.

Heck, we still have a policy of killing dogs that bite people. It isn't like dog attacks don't happen. Even domesticated animals don't always behave as we want them to. They just humor us far more often than wild animals will.

Consider also the difference between animals raised by us from birth, and those caught in the wild and raised by us after. My bearded dragons have had contact with humans ever since they were born, and the interactions have always been positive. Even when I pick them up awkwardly, they have never even done the black-beard thing to show anger, let alone try to bite or tail whip me. Yet, wild bearded dragons will be aggressive should you get within a couple meters of them. One even bit Steve Irwin in the face. So how these animals behave is more strongly related to how they grew up than genetics. Same applies to domesticated animals; they are just easier to raise to behave as we want them to, it isn't a given.

Nic Samojluk · Feb 12, 2016

Loudmouth said:
You apparently believe in God, yet you can't produce a testable scientific hypothesis based on intelligent design.

Suppose you find in a desert or a cavern a rock shaped in the form of a perfectly polished cube. Would you conclude that said object was shaped by nature or that that it is the product of an intelligent agent?

Or suppose that the scientists involved in the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence locate a signal from space transmitting the value of one of Einstein's formula. Would it be wrong to assume that this would be an evidence of the existence of extra terrestrial intelligence?

Apparent Age & The Incredible Foreknowledge of God

Poster

Christian

Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Chaotic Neutral

Newbie

Similar threads