Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Save some for me. Very tasty, lightly steamed with salt and pepper is all that I need. It is sacrilege to cook them to a soft mush!
When I grew up we had a massive garden. It started small but it grew every year. Eventually we rarely bought vegetables at all. We would freeze ours. It was quite the production line when we did. And we had a full sized freezer that was mostly for produce from the garden. Tomatoes were canned. As were beets. Almost everything else was either frozen or in the root cellar.I grew KY wonder beans this year. I wasn't expecting this big of a harvest. Just a guesstimate but it looks like 180 jars of beans. I'm new to gardening and tend to get carried away. I should have been out there early but yesterday wore me out.
Later
Okay I will bite one last time, in this case on evolution. I don't have time to debate it. Anyway, if you don't see what I feel is totally obvious here, you won't hear anything else I say either.That is not totally true. Take gravity for example. Most people only understand Galilean gravity at best. That is the good old D = (1/2)gt^2 + vt +h. That describes how an object falls near the Earth.
If a person has had a smattering of physics and calculus he can understand Newtonian gravitation. F =GMm/r^2 . That describes the motions of the planets fairly accurately. And even fewer understand Einstein's General Relativity. That is as accurately as we understand gravity today. By the way that does not make Newton and Galileo "wrong". They are merely inaccurate under certain circumstances. Very few new ideas in the sciences that are well accepted are shown to be wrong. That is why denying evolution is no different from denying gravity. The gravity that we accept every day is like the variation that is obvious in every birth. And the fact that people do not understand gravity does not stop them from using the GPS functions of their cell phones.
Shall we make death penalty just spiritual from now on and let the felon die physically later?Nope. They did die that day. Study what the scriptures teach about spiritual death which happened THAT DAY to them. Physical death came later.
Jesus certainly implied it very strongly. Here's an interesting article in that regard... from one of your favorite sites and authors.
Did Jesus Say He Created in Six Literal Days?
Yes, but the point is His references to 'creation' and the 'beginning.'That type of argument has been previously referenced in the thread: e.g. implying that since Jesus referenced past scriptures, therefore it's inferred he took them literally.
The problem is that in none of the references in question is the subject the age of the Earth or whether one has to take Genesis 1 as literal history of the Earth.
For example, AiG claims that Mark 10:6 means that Jesus things creation is young. But the context of Mark 10:6 is a discussion on divorce, not the age of creation.
Likewise, Mark 13:19 is a reference to the tribulation, not a discussion on the age of creation.
And so it goes.
Not one of their claims actually directly the idea that Jesus believed in a literal 6 day creation. They are all just vague inference based on out-of-context interpretations of the passages in question.
Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.Shall we make death penalty just spiritual from now on and let the felon die physically later?
Okay I will bite one last time, in this case on evolution. I don't have time to debate it. Anyway, if you don't see what I feel is totally obvious here, you won't hear anything else I say either.
Gravity cannot be compared to evolution. Gravity falls into the realm of empirical sciences. That is, it is testable, observable and repeatable. If evolution were a science, instead of a pseudo science religion, it would fall into the category of historical sciences which are not testable, repeatable and observable. For example, the evolutionists came up with the primal pond theory. (Don't say that they don't support it. They have workshops on abiogenesis, and it is all over their peer reviews for discussion.)
Where is the evidence for life ever coming from inorganic matter? It does not exist. It is not testable, repeatable or observable. All attempts to create life in labs - with high tech, intelligently designed materials and goals! - have failed.
The real data is always denied in evolution. Like that in every case throughout history we see that life comes from life and life of the same kind period.
The evolutionists start with something like a living cell, alter it and say "See evolution could have...must have.... probably...likely....can be inferred....to have done something like that in the conveniently invisible, unverifiable, mythical millions of years ago!"
Here is another example where we see a theory being presented by a famous evolutionist as scientific fact, though it has no supporting data and, once again, defies what is actually seen in the universe.
.Richard Dawkins teaches that everything comes from nothing. This defies common sense and universal experience, not to mention the laws of physics and thermodynamics - but, once more, in evolutionism you ignore actual data and make up stories from the unverifiable and conveniently invisible past. You put up fancy charts to prove your point which have no authenticity or verifiability whatsoever. It's all pure psuedo science b.s. smoke and mirrors. But it sells books and lecture tours for those who will believe anyone who is a scientist and hates the Lord.
Here is another example of that approach...
Richard Dawkins also teaches that you came from bacteria.Now we have a world overflowing with data on bacteria. It has been observed since 1670, ancient fossilized examples have been found, and for centuries it has been studied around the clock, around the world. What does the data show - you know, data, what real science uses? it shows that no matter how much bacteria change, they stay bacteria in their bacterial domain.
Where is the data showing that you came from bacteria, then? Well, it doesn't exist. Yet you are led to believe it does exist, and is gawd's truth scientific fact. But hey, if you are willing to believe everything came from nothing, I guess you'll buy it that you're nothing but a bacteria update, too.
On this web page you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, and other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. These Quotes Reveal The Credulity Of Evolutionists
Let's look at the "Bible" of evolutionism, The Origin of Species. Maybe because it is so mind numbingly boring, people rarely notice something, namely that it never shows the origin of anything! Darwin's finch beaks are supposed to support goo through the zoo to you, but what do they really show? Zero.
Living finches, and their fossils, are all over the planet showing various size beaks, varying sizes of body parts, and many other physical differences. They are all nothing but finches. The fossils and living evidence that Galapagos Island Turtles et al have ever been or ever will be anything but turtles et al? Zero again. In evolutionism you always ignore the real data, or spin the actual evidence, and then make up data-free stories from the conveniently unverifiable, invisible, ancient past.
Oh, and btw, as usual in evolutionary theory you are being told one thing while the opposite is true, as about natural selection. It does not lead to evolution as Darwin claimed. It only shuffles, or sometimes eliminates, pre existing information that has always been in the genes. It never creates original strands of DNA as would be necessary, for ex., to turn a fin into a foot or a leg into a wing. Nothing ever observed creates original strands of DNA. All DNA is just a copy of a copy of a copy which can be altered by things like mutations - to a very limited extent.
Beneficial mutations? They are said to be the second force for evolution. However, Charles Muller, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on them, said "The good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
Darwin was nothing but an armchair theorist who, unlike his contemporary Mendel, never supported his theory through the scientific method and cast doubts on it himself. Yet he is an icon of evolution, like another contemporary, a lawyer named George Lyell, who came up with the totally fictional Geologic Column.
The GC exists only in art work. The real evidence? Fossils are jumbled, in no neatly organized pattern whatsoever. There really are no such things as Cambrian, Jurassic, and so on "periods." Like the GC those are just fictions presented as facts. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains, the Sahara and a desert in Chile. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils, such as sea shells and mollusks, are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops - like the world's highest, the Himalayans. Fossils of ocean floor trilobites are found in the hills of mid America and countless other places world wide, high and far inland.
Take a look. Notice the brown, somewhat egg shaped, fossil on a greyish background in the middle, 2nd row. That is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. Marine Fossils On Mountains - Bing images ) Notice the exquisitely preserved details on it. Now some claim "plate tectonics" moved those vast stretches of ocean dwelling, bottom floor, marine life fossils to travel for millions of years and then wrap around the tops of mountains, completely intact and with perfect detail as you see in the link. It's like they never even heard of erosion.
If you wnnt to convince me there is a Geologic Column, please link close up photos. They should show lowest level "Cambrian" fossils at the bottom and higher level "era" fossils ascending upwards from there to match the GC. Now, I don't mean far off, distant photos of piles of rocks and mountain ranges which they CLAIM have a GC in it, but, again, close up photos.
The Bible says that flood waters completely covered the whole earth after, for one thing, "the fountains of the deep broke forth." (Did you know there is an ocean below our commonly known oceans, or have you seen the mid Atlantic ridge which looks like it used to be a great crack on the ocean floor? Probably not.). The fossil record shows that marine life fossils are at every level on the planet, everywhere around the globe, and that, in fact, over 99% of the fossils on land are marine. And they say the Bible is not historical and not backed by science. And btw there are almost 300 Great Flood legends around the world. For example, the one by the Aborigines of Australia is virtually identical to what the Bible reports.
Have you been told that there are huge cities found on ocean floors around the world? At least one such city has a pyramid bigger than those in Egypt.
So you've been told a book showed the origin of species, but it didn't. You've been told G.I. animals show evolution but they only show they are having, at most, minimal changes that leave them basically what they were before, still turtles, finches, etc.
You were told there is a Geological Column, but there is not one on the planet. You're told over and over that natural selection shows evolution when it actually just somewhat modifies the organism through shifting already present information, or sometimes through loss of information in the genomes, leaving it essentially what it was before. It may eventually become a new species of fish, or bee, or tree, etc., but it will always stay a fish, a bee or a tree etc. We see no evidence whatsoever of any species moving up to the next step on the Animal or Plant Kingdom, to become a previously unknown family, order class, phylum or kingdom.
We have trillions of life forms out there. So why don't we see mutations causing any Lifeform A to turn into a Lifeform B? After all, their ancestors have supposedly had hundreds of millions of Darwin years to make the switch and be moving around as part A and part B. But fish are staying fish, birds and are staying birds, flowers are staying flowers, mold is staying mold, trees are staying trees, monkeys are staying monkeys, bacteria are staying bacteria, etc., no matter how much they change. Again in the real world we see new species but we never, ever see a species turning into the next step up on the animal kingdom (plants ditto), a different family. Yet that would have had to have happened for evolution to occur, and it is claimed, with no evidence whatsoever, that it did happen over and over and over.
What else does evolutionism offer besides unsubstantiated theories, in fact theories that defy the real evidence, presented as facts? Logical fallacies. Logical fallacies always, always, undergird evolutionism defense.
The favorites are Correlation Does Not Imply Causation and Presuming Omniscience, though it uses many.
Correlation Does Not Imply Causation goes like this: Fossil A is seen to have some similarity to Fossil B. There is no evidence whatsoever that Fossil A or B, or C etc. ever had a single descendant that was significntly different from themselves, but still we are told that they all led to one another. Parrots are bipedal, sing and dance, and sometimes speak appropriately, like humans. Sharks and dolphins have "similar homology". Spiders and octopuses have 8 legs radiating out of their round bodies, etc. etc. So it goes in nature. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
That leads right into the Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. Another example of a use of that fallacy is when an evolutionary paleontologist will pick up a fossil from the ground and tell you with absolute authority that they know all about what happened to it's invisible "descendants" in the untestable past - for over 100 million Darwin years!
"Missing links" is a Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy phrase. How do you tell missing links from never existed links? Have...faith...brothers and sisters! And be so grateful that YOU ain't religious!
Learn how to spot logical fallacies and you will see them in every defense in evolutionary literature.
Pile theories presented as facts on top of logical fallacies, ignore the real data or try to spin it away, and stir well with sophistry. Then you have evolutionary theory.
Anyone with eyes to see and a heart that loves truth and true science: You're not a fish update. You have a Creator Who made you and loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him too. Don't trade that in for pseudo science mumbo jumbo.
Again, I don't have time to debate. Sorry. Again, if you don't see what is in print above, you won't see anything else I print either. "Let those see who have eyes to see."
Blessings and bye.
Yes, but the point is His references to 'creation' and the 'beginning.'
If this helpsIs this where I have to insert something that shows that our understanding of facts change? Come on, you understand the point I was making.
I have to go out and pick a ton of green beans shortly. Let's continue this at a later time. I don't understand how they grow but I do understand that they taste good
A lot of people say a lot of things. Just go with your understanding and trust in God to deal with the rest.
Yessss?? Your point being...?Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
Well, no, it probably doesn't tell you anything, but it should make Christians ask, " Why did Jesus reference it... if it's not the case?"Which tells us nothing about whether one has to treat Genesis 1 as a literal 6 days of creation.
Well, no, it probably doesn't tell you anything, but it should make Christians ask, " Why did Jesus reference it... if it's not the case?"
Not correct.What we knew as fact yesterday is no longer valid today. I will just except that we are here and God created us.
I believe the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and most especially the Gospels.. I believe it to be the inspired and authoritative word of God. the point I am making here is that I am offended by biblical literalists who insist that their reading of Genesis is the only possible one for a Christian to the point of being abusive about it like you just were.Not sure of the point you're making here. Just curious... is it just the OT you do not believe, or do you not even believe the gospels?
I did glance very quickly over the first part of your post. Nothing I said was incorrect. You act like the scientific method is your big defense for evolution. No the scientific method involves an...expeeeriment! Since, again, evolution is not based on real science or real empirical evidence, and involves the invisible and evidence-free past, it has virtually nothing to experiment on.I am sorry, but you got your definition of science from a lying source. Science is knowledge acquired by following the scientific method. And your source (AiG) actually requires their workers not to follow the scientific method. The scientific method is basically: Ask a question. Observe. Form a testable hypothesis. Test that hypothesis and adjust as necessary. And publish. There is no "historical science". That is a lie from AiG. You should have asked where AiG requires their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.
Not true. Again, you need to understand the scientific method and the concept of evidence. And your claim about what has been done in labs is misleading and incorrect. Worse yet you just admitted that evolution is correct by moving the goalpost.
I am sorry, but this is nonsense and a strawman. Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of kind and evolution does not propose a "change of kind".
Now now, you know that is a falsehood. You can do better than this.
I am ignoring all the rest of this since it has all been refuted countless times before and is an obvious copy and paste.
Instead of using lying resources why not try to learn the basics of science? It is obvious from your post that you do not understand either the scientific method or the concept of scientific evidence. If you did understand you were openly lying and I do not think that you were lying. There is no one "scientific method" but here is a very useful general flowchart that shows how science is generally done:
Would you care to discuss that? You will find that Ken Ham's version does not match that.
And here is a definition of scientific evidence:
"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."
Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.
I can find many other sources that have essentially the same definition. When someone presents what they claim is scientific evidence all you have to ask is "do they have a testable hypothesis" you might have to ask how a hypothesis is tested to find out. The second question is "does the evidence agree with the hypothesis". If the answer is yes to both questions they have scientific evidence for their idea. There is no "yeah but". If you understand both of those you will see that there is evidence for both evolution and abiogenesis and there is no evidence for AiG's sort of creationism.
No the scientific method involves an...expeeeriment! Since, again, evolution is not based on real science or real empirical evidence, and involves the invisible and evidence-free past, it has virtually nothing to experiment on.
I did glance very quickly over the first part of your post. Nothing I said was incorrect. You act like the scientific method is your big defense for evolution. No the scientific method involves an...expeeeriment! Since, again, evolution is not based on real science or real empirical evidence, and involves the invisible and evidence-free past, it has virtually nothing to experiment on.
The very few experiments for evolution have flat out failed. They bombarded fruit flies with radiation for many generations and all they got were deformed or dead...fruit....flies! But they still hailed those experiments as showing the wonders of evolution. In the 60s Miller & Urey did experiments to show how life supposedly comes from inorganic matter. They got some amino acids. Big whup. Amino acids are all over the place, even on some moons in our solar system and some asteroids. We have them in our bodies. Where is there a shred of data showing they can assemble the other parts needed for a single living cell? Nowhere. All those trillions and trillions of amino acids are doing noting but staying amino acids! And oh yeal, the kinds of amino acids M & U got kill life. And yet some still want to say M & U's experiments show how life can come about from inorganic material? The usual pseudo science spin and b.s.
You seem to feel no one can think for themselves. Why if we disagree with you, it must only be because we've been brainwashed by the evil AIG! Uh, that site is just one of many scientific resources our there with real science. They don't say things like gravity and evolution are comparable. They don't just act like they understand science, they really do understand it. If they talk about the scientific method they actually understand what that means, that it entails experiments. They actually give real scientific data from real scientists.
I don't have time to go through your whole post.
Believe what you want. If you want to believe you are nothing but a bacteria update, who am I to burst your bubble?
Blessings and bye!
Dictionary definition for the scientific method easily found on Google or in any 5th grade science text book:Science and the scientific method isn't strictly based on experiments. It's based on observations. Experiments are just one method to gather observations.
If the only way to do science was via experiments, then we'd never be able to use science to study things like the Earth, stellar objects or a whole host of other physical phenomena.
The cold, hard fact is that evolution is real science and is based evidence gathered via scientific investigation. Including experiments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?