Convince me

[Mallon]

It sounds like you subscribe to the principle of accommodation, bibleblevr. If so, we're on the same page.

 

[Calypsis4]

Caly4 wrote:

Do you know what the word “million” means? Whether it is a max or not isn’t relevant, as it is included in the range, which is well more than the 6,000 years allowed by a literal reading.

Here we go again...a refusal to deal with the issue honestly.

Example: A man looking for a job saw a sign in the window: applications available. Maximum age qualification: 45.

Now, tell me how old the man was.

Oh, yeah – I forgot that all these Christians have a deep seated bias against Genesis (or as Caly says, a deep "seeded" bias).

Quite. I meant what I said but more importantly the Lord meant what He said when he confirmed what Moses wrote in Genesis (Mark 10:6 & Luke 24). You are responsible before God for accepting a philosophical system that denies the plain truth of scripture and even worse is against natural law that God made for our world.

That must also go for the Hindus, Buddhists and others who don’t care one way or the other about forcing a literal reading on things, but are simply going where the data leads. Science is made up of people from many different paths, including the Christian path, who agree to go where the evidence leads.

God will give them a just judgment whatever that might be. You need to worry about you.

Physical tests are more reliable than eyewitnesses anyway. That’s why a DNA test holds more weight in court than a witness. Come on, you know this. You are really arguing that if a tree falls in the woods and no one sees it, that it doesn't fall? We both know that physical evidence is more reliable than either eyewitness or hearsay.

The RATE creationists are well known to distort and mislead. Referring to them doesn’t help your case, but actually hurts it. Many people know of D. Humphrey’s bogus “lab”.

You aren't telling the truth. It is evolutionists who lie and distort the truth about the origins of our world. We are on to them and we aren't hesitant to say so.

What 'bogus lab'? Document it.

Well, being that mine are consistent with the scientific consensus, you can always use a normal science book. However, asking for a reference is always good. So here is one:

Gemini (no.18, pp.6-8), 1988. You’ll notice that the date is 1988, and if you look at this reference, it shows that there is no significant net shrinking of the sun from 1715 to 1988. Other studies support this, while your single creationist line is from a preliminary study in 1979.

The 'scientific consensus'? Does NASA qualify as part of that 'consensus'?

Quote - (April, 2001) "We have analyzed the full set of Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) Michelson Doppler Imager (MDI) f- and p-mode oscillation frequencies from 1996 to date in a search for evidence of solar radius evolution during the rising phase of the current activity cycle. Just as Antia et al. in 2000, we find that a significant fraction of the f-mode frequency changes scale with frequency and that if these are interpreted in terms of a radius change, it implies a shrinking Sun. Our inferred rate of shrinkage is about 1.5 km yr-1, which is somewhat smaller than found by Antia et al. We argue that this rate does not refer to the surface but, rather, to a layer extending roughly from 4 to 8 Mm beneath the visible surface. The rate of shrinking may be accounted for by an increasing radial component of the rms random magnetic field at a rate that depends on its radial distribution."
Does the Sun Shrink with Increasing Magnetic Activity?

You don't have your facts straight. You aren't even trying to get the facts straight. You are just attempting to push your pet theory of Darwinian evolution.

Dendrochronology is a legitimate science but the assumptions they sometimes make are not. First, many studies have shown that the “double ring” issue is solved by correcting for it by other methods, and is too rare to make a significant difference anyway. Plus, and worse, you apparently didn’t even bother to read the article or know what you are talking about, because it wasn’t based on dendrochronology anyway.

I already answered this. Why did you bring it up again? I read that article about a year ago.

But I said it didn't make any difference whether they used tree ring dating or not. Here is why:

Living tree ‘8,000 years older than Christ’ (?)

Um, the magnetic field reversal is well known to science and doesn't support your position. Hopefully you know that many field reversals have happened, (Oh? When was the last one? Date it please!)...and they are well taken into account. Citing an irrelevant article and calling it "proof" hardly helps your position, and certainly doesn't affect the bogus work of Humphreys.

How about the folks at Space.com? Quote - "Because it seems to take centuries for a reversal to occur, researchers agree that the next one is not imminent (from the perspective of a human lifetime, at least). Geologically speaking however, these things happen in the blink of an eye, and signals currently point to a change. Earth's magnetic field is weakening as you read this, part of a long-term process that might be leading up to a complete magnetic reversal, researchers say.
If and when this occurs, the further erosion of the protective magnetic shield will allow higher doses of cosmic radiation to bombard the planet. How our species (and others) might adapt is an open question."

Humphreys is light years ahead of you in this regard. You better let it go before you get burned any worse than you already have. Everthing in our world/solar system/universe is degenerating according to the second law of thermodyanmics and that includes the electromagnetic field.

No, it’s the scientific consensus view of real scientists using real observations of both the real scattered disk and the real full range of decay stages in real comets. I encourage you to learn some science.

I encourage you to get over your condescending, superior attitude if you wish to continue any kind of discussion with me in the future. Is that clear?

Quote - "We have calculated the number of dormant, nearly isotropic Oort cloud comets in the solar system by (i) combining orbital distribution models with statistical models of dormant comet discoveries by well-defined surveys and (ii) comparing the model results to observations of a population of dormant comets. Dynamical models that assume that comets are not destroyed predict that we should have discovered ~100 times more dormant nearly isotropic comets than are actually seen. Thus, as comets evolve inward from the Oort cloud, the majority of them must physically disrupt." Science The Mass Disruption of Oort Cloud Comets -- Levison et al. 296 (5576): 2212 -- Science

Once again, evolutionist predictions and the cold reality of the facts do not match.

So my previous statement still stands:

Actually, at bottom line, none of what you said really stands. Look at my documentation above.

OK, there are the first 6 without trying very hard. Thank you, Cal4, for being so helpful. We were discussing lying by creationists, and you stepped in and gave us a numbered list of over a dozen creationist lies! If you like, we can go into the rest of them, showing each to be a simply lie, based on at best a distortion of the evidence. This is a good example of why creationism, by making it look like Christians are immoral liars, is doing more to extinguish Christianity than any atheist could wish to do. It’s sad to see.

I believe that problem belongs to those of your ilk...that is those who do not trust what God says in Genesis. Both scripture AND the scientific facts speak of the truthfulness of His Word.

Wow, this statement is even less informed than I expected. You don't seriously think that tissue has a little timer in it, that goes off after a set time to make it fossilize, right?

I see. You don't have a clue. Well, if you remain in darkness, friend, it is of your own doing. It seems that you are determined to dwell there despite the truth you have been given.

You are aware that this can happen at very different times based on conditions, right? Have you even heard of the huge field of study called Taphonomy? It has real experiements, data, you know, all that sciencey stuff by gosh.

Where ....is....your...documentation. I am not interested in opinions.

You did a mighty poor job answering my points. You probably better stop here.

 

[Calypsis4]

You do have plenty of scripture, and I hate to take the word of science over the bible, but science can only be understood literally, and the Bible can be understood in many ways, figuratively, metaphorically and yes, at times literally.

The Bible teaches that the heart is the organ that understands, and not the brain. we now know this to be false, but the scriptures that include the word heart are still used and valued as much as ever despite becoming understood as metaphorical.

John 12:40
"He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn--and I would heal them."

Dear friend, the Lord did not describe the human brain in detail. So you are not responsible for that. But He did describe the creation of the world in detail (Genesis one) and that historical fact was corroborated by the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. You are responsible in what you believe about that.


<staff edit>

Please consider this.

Best wishes.

 

[philadiddle]

<staff edit>

Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.

<staff edit>

Genesis 1-11 is figurative, after that it becomes historical, with exceptions of course. The first 11 chapters of Genesis explain the teleology behind the rest of the story. I'm sure you aren't interested in actually learning about what the majority of theologians think, so I'll stop trying to be reasonable now.

 

[Calypsis4]

It was meant to let you know that I was being somewhat lighthearted. Tone doesn't come across in a forum, that's what emoticons are for.

You theistic evolutionists twist reality any way you please and then justify it with bewildering rationale. But in reality, most people know when others stick their tongue out at them they are either (a) teasing them, or (b) insulting them (as children sometimes do). Nonetheless, let it go.

No, the greater theological truth in that passage was accomodated to Job's level of understanding. What God wanted to say was said very well through the perspective of a man in a pre-scientific era.

I see, so he wasn't as smart as you are. He couldn't handle the truth.

You're the one criticizing the discovery, you need to get these documented dates. If you say that these molecules can't survive for millions of years, yet they can survive for 4,400 years, then it is up to you to demonstrate why this is.

I see. You don't have an answer. But I do, at least from the evolutionist perspective as written BEFORE Schweitzer made her shocking discovery:

The belief that "millions of years" is established fact seems here to trump the empirical evidence that biomolecules should not last longer than 100,000 years. One resilient biomolecule found in many fossils, including B. rex, is collagen. However, "in bones, hydrolysis [breakdown] of the main protein component, collagen, is even more rapid and little intact collagen remains after only 1-3x104 [10,000 to 30,000] years, except in bones in cool or dry depositional environmnents."

The quoted statement was from: Bada, J. et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354 (1379): 77-87.

Of course, I question even that conclusion but at least it reveals the terrible jump in logic from a max 30,000 yrs to 86 million yrs. But evolutionists don't care. It is the paradigm that must be saved and not the truth.

I give up, what were they?

I've got that also. But this time I'm going to insist that you do your own homework. Hint ...you won't like what you find.

 

[Calypsis4]

Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.

Fact: if indeed they are Christians then they are heretical Christians promoting a dreadful error that God's Word does not support.

Genesis 1-11 is figurative, after that it becomes historical, with exceptions of course. The first 11 chapters of Genesis explain the teleology behind the rest of the story. I'm sure you aren't interested in actually learning about what the majority of theologians think, so I'll stop trying to be reasonable now.

THAT is heresy. Jesus said otherwise:

Mark 10:5-8
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

The very doctrine of marriage is based in the historical fact that God brought Adam and Eve together according to the account in Genesis. This verifies the account of Adam and Eve as real/historical/literal.

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Here Jesus affirms the historical/literal account of the murder of Abel by Cain and compares it to the literal account of the murder by Zacharias. Did the Lord compare a storybook tale with a literal event of history in the same nuance?

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan...

Here Luke writes of Enoch as part of the family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ. This verifies the account of Enoch as historical literal.

Shall I go on? There are several more that verify that Genesis 1:11 is historical and literal just as the Exodus by Moses, the sun standing still in Joshua, or the fire coming down as seen by Elijah.

There is no justification for Christians to believe in evolution because neither the scriptures nor the actual scientific facts support it.

Plus, don't be arrogant with me. I have studied this issue for 45 yrs and I am an ex-evolutionist.

 

[philadiddle]

Plus, don't be arrogant with me. I have studied this issue for 45 yrs and I am an ex-evolutionist.

When I get home from work I'll haul out the stacks of theology papers I have on this subject. If you've been studying for 45 years then you've really narrowed your scope of sources.

I am an ex-creationist, does that somehow make my position more or less credible?

 

[crawfish]

I am an ex-creationist, does that somehow make my position more or less credible?

No, because YOU are being arrogant and condescending.

Wow, the irony in here is thick.

 

[philadiddle]

Wow, the irony in here is thick.

Ya, you would have thought that in the following quote the first sentence was meant to be a response to the second sentence.

Plus, don't be arrogant with me. I have studied this issue for 45 yrs and I am an ex-evolutionist.

 

[juvenissun]

Are people still arguing that a circle = a sphere?



It's not like a flat earth was ever envisioned to be completely 2D. It was still 3D, but more like a giant disc in space rather than a sphere.

As long as you say the earth is a 3D planet, I will not argue with you.

Why is there no one dare to respond to the idea that stamping implies replication? How do you understand that part of stamping? To me, it is actually the major point of what Job said. Use this verse to argue about a flat earth is childish and missed the real message.

 

[philadiddle]

As long as you say the earth is a 3D planet, I will not argue with you.

Earth is a cube.

 

[Calypsis4]

When I get home from work I'll haul out the stacks of theology papers I have on this subject. If you've been studying for 45 years then you've really narrowed your scope of sources.

Narrow by whose standard? I've got Hawking, Asimov, Blum, Gribbin, et al on my shelf and I've studied them all. I enjoy their science but not their belief in Darwinism.

I am an ex-creationist, does that somehow make my position more or less credible?

Yes, because you rejected a clearly revealed truth that has multitudinous evidence in the writings of the prophets and the apostles and especially in the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

I am not going to continue going tit-for-tat with you on this. I think we've covered the bases on the subject.

 

[Mallon]

Use this verse to argue about a flat earth is childish and missed the real message.

Agreed. The same argument applies to the science of Genesis. Now you're an accommodationist, juvie!

 

[Partaker of Christ]

So what about those fossils that Caly4 mentioned that still had tissue on them, or blood in them yet were still considered millions of years old ..............

What about them?

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

How much truth of scripture will you deny?

Either you believe God, or accept the lie from the great delusion.

 

[philadiddle]

How much truth of scripture will you deny?

Either you believe God, or accept the lie from the great delusion.

I totally agree. All of this nonsense about the earth being suspended in space is just atheist lies pushed into our schools to try to dismantle the truth of the bible, which is that the earth is on pillars.

 

[crawfish]

I totally agree. All of this nonsense about the earth being suspended in space is just atheist lies pushed into our schools to try to dismantle the truth of the bible, which is that the earth is on pillars.

It's really a hopeless cause. You can quote scripture all day that they can't take literally, and they'll go to great pains to explore context and literary form in order to justify themselves. For some reason, that level of scrutiny is rarely applied to verses that directly support their point of view.

 

[Calypsis4]

It's really a hopeless cause. You can quote scripture all day that they can't take literally, and they'll go to great pains to explore context and literary form in order to justify themselves. For some reason, that level of scrutiny is rarely applied to verses that directly support their point of view.

That is so much hogwash. Pure tortured logic.

In my experience I've taught many yrs of history and at least one year of English. I've never had a problem being able to discern actual history from that which is symbolic or metaphor. It is the same with scripture even where symbolism and reality/literal history is combined in the same vs. (ex. Isaiah 40:22). It isn't that hard to figure out.

The tortured logic is in the ball park of the theistic evolutionist who refuses to acknowledge that Genesis 1-11 is taken literally by ALL of the prophets and apostles who mentioned it.

How in the world could family lineage of the Lord Jesus Christ be legitimate (Luke 3) if the characters of Gen. 1 - 11 were not even real people in the first place? Jesus Christ cannot be rightful heir to the throne of David if that record is illegitimate or the people listed were not real.

 

[Calypsis4]

I totally agree. All of this nonsense about the earth being suspended in space is just atheist lies pushed into our schools to try to dismantle the truth of the bible, which is that the earth is on pillars.

That was a dishonest answer.

1. The earth is suspended in space.
2. The earth is on pillars. But no one can seem the nor how they function.



Interesting picture in this light (pardon the pun).

 

[Mallon]

The tortured logic is in the ball park of the theistic evolutionist who refuses to acknowledge that Genesis 1-11 is taken literally by ALL of the prophets and apostles who mentioned it.

Citing Scripture is not the same as taking it literally.

 

[Calypsis4]

What about them?

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

How much truth of scripture will you deny?

Either you believe God, or accept the lie from the great delusion.

Right on, Partaker. You hit the nail on the head.

<staff edit>