...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[Archaeopteryx]

see .. you are determined not to see it my way - your just not admitting it

What are you talking about? I just said that I haven't determined in my heart that I cannot possibly be wrong about theism, whereas you have.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

God could have created humanity out of ice cream if He wanted to. But all of the evidence we have found indicated evolution, and I don't believe God would have planted such evidence if it wasn't true.

AV1611VET thinks evolution, like the rest of physical reality, is the result of satan running wild. Of course, that presents him with the problem of his beloved Bible being as much a part of reality as the rest of the satan smeared universe and thus equally untrustworthy, but somehow AV1611VET manages to avoid worrying about contradictions like that. How he does this, according to his own testimony in this very thread, is by deliberately shutting his brain down and refusing to think.

Yes, it's quite an advert for his brand of religion.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

5% ... 10% ... 20% ... what's the difference?

Given that your current understanding resides at 0%, the difference would be 5%, 10% and 20%, respectively.

I would still disagree with it;

The difference would be that you would actually know what it is you're disagreeing with. Right now, you haven't a clue.

and the more I know about it and disagree, the worse it would be for me.

The fact that you view knowledge as a threat is more telling than you realize.

What if I was omniscient in the field of evolution, and said it was a joke on principle?

Be honest ... wouldn't that just make you guys that much more irritable?

If you continued to present nothing but asinine naked assertions for your case, then yes. I believe things for good reasons, you see, not stupid reasons.

 

[USincognito]

Hey look, yet another thread AV has made about himself rather than the topic...

You've wasted countless hours commenting on a subject about which you know absolutely nothing, yet you consider learning to be wasteful of your time. Hilarious.

Not nearly as many on counting threads, nor as many as others have wasted responding to him rather than just putting him on ignore.

 

[In situ]

The point is that God embedded age into His creation to prevent the earth from burning up.

I am not disputing this or anything else for that matter. I just want to know if you have an explanation for why the Earth is not a fireball?

There is no known force in physics, as of today, that can explain this. If the age of the Earth is embedded then physics tell us that as far we understand the Earth must have evaporated away in an enormous thermal nuclear explosion.

This has been recognized as the Heat Problem and even the eminent Dr. Robert Gentry which is recognized as a world leading expert and authority on YEC, and which have hold many prestigious position in the Creation Science community, has recognized this problem, but does not know how to explain this. In fact nobody knows how to explain it. So why don't you also admit you cannot explain it?

My question is: why should anyone accept a theory that cannot, in a consistent and coherent way, explain all the facts?

This mess started when Dr. Gentry made an experiment measuring helium diffusion in tiny little small crystal found in rocks. He concluded that the diffusion rate indicated that the rocks was at most 6 thousand years old. From here he then concluded that the only explanation for this must be explained as radioactive decay rate are not constant in time.

This is where all the problem starts...

If we for a moment just assume his measurement are done properly; there was not methodical errors, like bad sampling, no flaws in his statistical analysis and definitely no fraud or biased thinking involved then for some reason the only explanation Gentry could come up with was that radioactive decay rates can vary with time. This is an explanation that just happens to match his own beliefs. However, there also exists other explanations that does not require use to turn physics upside down and can be explain within the current frame work of our understanding of physics and chemistry. Dr Gentry rejects any other alternative explanations that does not require use to rewrite physics and in so doing he must explain the Heat Problem.

Now assume Dr Gentry result of for Helium diffusion is correct. Gentry then ask "why could decay rates not change in time?" Dr Gentry never answer this question, but then says it does not has to be in that way and by so doing he ignores the fact of the fine tuned universe. He is supposed to know this as he is an educated man in physics. So I will hold him responsible for this. Dr Gentry knows if we fiddle around with the constant of the universe then it will cease to exists as we know it. In particular if we fiddle around with the radioactive decay rates. It is not only the Earth that should not exist, according to our understanding of physics, but the entire universe cannot exists as we know it. Anyone which has studied physics and learned what physics has to tell us knows this, including Dr Gentry.

Therefor we have very good reason to think decay rates does not vary in time as there is no known force that would prevent the universe from falling apart if they did. Dr Gentry knows this, still he never informs anyone of this. This make on suspect that Dr Gentry perhaps came to his conclusion because of a biased belief; he knows (by revelation) the Earth must be young so he looks for a result that confirms this revealed knowledge and discard any other explanation that tells otherwise because he has already proof, from the Bible, that the Earth is young, therefore he just need to find something, anything, that confirms to what he already know is true. Any other explanation can be safely be discarded or ignored because Dr Gentry is only interested to validate an assumed truth he has. This come to the cost of our entire understanding of physics; Dr Gentry explanation suggests that everything we know is wrong, but nobody knows why or what is wrong. This "small" detail seams not to bother Dr. Gentry the slightest, but I think it should bother you and me.... and anyone else that is looking for the "truth".

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not disputing this or anything else for that matter. I just want to know if you have an explanation for why the Earth is not a fireball?

If God wanted the earth to be a fireball, the earth would be a fireball.

What keeps water from blowing up?

Water is Hydrogen & Oxygen, both volatile gasses; yet when combined in the right proportion, put fire out.

There is no known force in physics, as of today, that can explain this.

Physics is so earthly minded it is no Heavenly good.

 

[In situ]

If God wanted the earth to be a fireball, the earth would be a fireball.

Look if you want to say "god did it by snapping his fingers" that is fine with me. Because then I know that your are only interested in explanations, just like Dr Gentry, that confirms to your own presumed truth and biases beliefs and willfully ignores all, and any, other evidence which are contrary to your own beliefs and assumed "truths".

What keeps water from blowing up?

Energy...

Water is Hydrogen & Oxygen, both volatile gasses; yet when combined in the right proportion, put fire out.

And your point is?

 

[In situ]

Physics is so earthly minded it is no Heavenly good.

Physics works because it is about reality, your beliefs are not...
..and that is why your beliefs in an embedded age and young Earth is intellectual junk and rubbish...

 

[In situ]

Originally Posted by In situ

There is no known force in physics, as of today, that can explain this.
​

Physics is so earthly minded it is no Heavenly good.

This was as far you read my post and then you pressed that reply button, didn't you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Does this post look to you like I condemn scientists?

I wasn't asking about that post. I was asking in relation to the post where you said "I don't use what God has given me against Him, like most scientists do."

This followed my query as to why you did not use your God given powers of intelligence and reasoning to explore the nature of the world. It seems pretty clear to me there that you are condemning scientists, well certainly most scientists and specifically those who use their intelligence and reasoning to explore the nature of the world.

Since William Paley, the foremost Christian apologist of the first half of the 19th century, did exactly that, I wanted to know how you reconciled that. You have now provided an answer - thank you for that - here it is:

William who?
Outside of anyone in the Bible, Charles Spurgeon was the greatest preacher to ever walk this earth; arguably, in my opinion.

Setting relative merit aside, I had presumed that your ignorance was restricted to the knowledge held by scientists, especially - or perhaps exclusively - those pesky evolutionists. I had not expected it to extend to your own 'field' of Christianity.

Being a believer in a literal interpretation of the Bible and not knowing who William Paley was, is akin to being a student of evolution and never having heard of Charles Darwin. It's surprising to say the least.

Since Paley makes an impassioned case for beliefs that seem very close to your own, perhaps you could read it without being at any risk of contamination by evolutionists. My post count prohibits me from posting links, but you can find an online version here- naturaltheology.us/category/all-text-of-paley-natural-theology. (Just copy and paste into your browser).

If you choose to read it I would be interested to know if you would still condemn Paley in the same way you condemn most scientists. Let me know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just want to know if you have an explanation for why the Earth is not a fireball?

If God wanted the earth to be a fireball, the earth would be a fireball.

Look if you want to say "god did it by snapping his fingers" that is fine with me. Because then I know that your are only interested in explanations, just like Dr Gentry, that confirms to your own presumed truth and biases beliefs and willfully ignores all, and any, other evidence which are contrary to your own beliefs and assumed "truths"..

You asked my opinion, and I gave it to you.

If you want to use my reply to mock it, that's your prerogative.

I have an explanation for why the Earth [sic] is not a fireball; it just doesn't fit in with yours.

Go mock someone else if you don't like my answer.

 

[In situ]

And I'm certainly not going to get a PhD in evolution so I can be accused of lying when I say: "God created..."

But you are certainly continue going to be willful ignorant about the facts and the evidence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But you are certainly continue going to be willful ignorant about the facts and the evidence?

That way he can only be accused of lying when he says or implies that he cares about learning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong ... but I'll let the "Judge of all the earth" decide that.

Fair enough -- when in doubt, do nothing. Pretty much the commentary on the stagnant state of fundamentalist thought.

 

[In situ]

You asked my opinion, and I gave it to you.

No I did not ask for your opinion, that is a untrue. I asked for an explanation, if you or anyone else had one, why the Earth is not a a huge ball of fire. I also asked, specifically, why anyone should accept a theory that cannot, in a consistent and coherent way, explain all the facts?

If you want to use my reply to mock it, that's your prerogative.

In what way do you feel I mock you?

I have an explanation for why the Earth [sic] is not a fireball; it just doesn't fit in with yours.

No you don't have an explanation, you have some made up reason based on nothing more than your own beliefs to keep your old beliefs in a young Earth - you admitted that yourself when you "explained" it as; "god snapped his fingers". That is not an explanation of anything but a made up story which only purpose is to serve as a mental denial of any evidence about the reality.


Btw, why do you set a "[sic]" after 'Earth' ?

Go mock someone else if you don't like my answer.

You made a claim, I asked for a clarification, but you had none. In what way do you feel that is mockery?

 

[In situ]

That way he can only be accused of lying when he says or implies that he cares about learning.

It is a honest question I made. I want to know if AV prefer to keep his own belief despite what scientific evidence tells. That would be fine with me but then I will also know that AV have no base for the beliefs he claims to be true; then he just believes whatever make him feel good and I am not the one to say that is wrong or improper to do. At most I can say I don't agree with his views and that I have sound reason to reject his view on rational grounds and, as well, that his beliefs are irrational.

 

[CabVet]

And I'm certainly not going to get a PhD in evolution so I can be accused of lying when I say: "God created..."

That would not be lying and you know it. You would however be accused of lying if you said: "Scientific evidence indicates that God created..."

 

[In situ]

You would however be accused of lying if you said: "Scientific evidence indicates that God created..."

Which is what nuclear physicist Robert Gentry, geologist Andrew Snelling and handful others intellectual dishonest scientist are claiming about polonium halos...

 

[Heissonear]

That way he can only be accused of lying when he says or implies that he cares about learning.

Why do Naturalists on this forum not want to learn and discuss their limitations and weaknesses that clearly show their foundation is based on faith and trust?

No evidence of origin. All that Naturalism promotes as evidence can be from use of matter and natural properties that were created.

Naturalists cannot prove otherwise.

Back to square one. Naturalists walk by faith. They don't like to hear that.

Or have many Naturalists on this forum failed to learn this?

Who might be failing to learn?

 

[Heissonear]

It is a honest question I made. I want to know if AV prefer to keep his own belief despite what scientific evidence tells. That would be fine with me but then I will also know that AV have no base for the beliefs he claims to be true; then he just believes whatever make him feel good and I am not the one to say that is wrong or improper to do. At most I can say I don't agree with his views and that I have sound reason to reject his view on rational grounds and, as well, that his beliefs are irrational.

Do you care to state your belief in Naturalism?

You do know that it is based on faith, don't you?