Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

The OP was questioning his belief in evolution and how it fits with the OT....

Giants in the OT and in actual proven facts and archaeological finds backs up the OT....

Hoaxes are not facts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The OP was questioning his belief in evolution and how it fits with the OT....

Giants in the OT and in actual proven facts and archaeological finds backs up the OT....

See the connection.

The fact that there were actually a race of Giants in the Middle East and in the Americas, long before the natives came here, is unnerving to many. It destroys our written false history and amplifies the truth of the Biblical accounts.

There were no giants.
You have been taken in by internet falsehoods and a poor reading of the Bible.

 

[JacksBratt]

Is it just me or does it seem that, no matter the original thread topic, JacksBratt always manages to work it back to his love of giants?

It was not I that started on this topic.

In one of the very first posts this was stated:

essentialsaltes said: ↑
It's hard to reconcile killing every living thing on earth but for one family and a few lucky animals with compassion, graciousness, or mercy, no matter how long someone preached beforehand.


I simply responded to the statement with the reasons behind it. It all escalated from there.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was not I that started on this topic.

In one of the very first posts this was stated:

essentialsaltes said: ↑
It's hard to reconcile killing every living thing on earth but for one family and a few lucky animals with compassion, graciousness, or mercy, no matter how long someone preached beforehand.


I simply responded to the statement with the reasons behind it. It all escalated from there.

It's like Don Quixote seeing enemy knights everywhere he looks.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was not I that started on this topic.

In one of the very first posts this was stated:

essentialsaltes said: ↑
It's hard to reconcile killing every living thing on earth but for one family and a few lucky animals with compassion, graciousness, or mercy, no matter how long someone preached beforehand.


I simply responded to the statement with the reasons behind it. It all escalated from there.

And yet you started on about Old Testament giants. It's YOU who brought giants in to the discussion. No-one else.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's not how bone sutures work.

You do realize that there are no bone sutures in the skulls of children, right?

Yes, I am aware. But the infant skull matures in the same way in every single human child.

Are you aware that every single human skull can be identified by the characteristic skull plates and suture lines that are the same in every single human skull?

These are absent from the cone head skulls.

Check out this 360 degree rotation of a human skull. Yours, mine, every one of the 7 plus billion humans will have the same skull anatomy.

http://visual-science.com/projects/3d-model/skull/

 

[JacksBratt]

And yet you started on about Old Testament giants. It's YOU who brought giants in to the discussion. No-one else.

The Angels who left their first estate and took human women for their wives was the reason for the flood. The offspring were giants.

I guess if someone has evidence to back up the OT and discredit evolution they should stay clear of mentioning any of this.

Would this make you happy? If I left facts out of your nice tidy little farce of evolution and all the modern assumptions and speculations that go along with it.

Again, every single one of the historical documents, Indian stories, pictures and archaeological specimens is a fake...... Every single one....Sure mac sure. You keep thinking that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I am aware. But the infant skull matures in the same way in every single human child.

Not if you squeeze the cranium between two boards.

Are you aware that every single human skull can be identified by the characteristic skull plates and suture lines that are the same in every single human skull?

Are they all the same, or are they characteristic? You need to pick one.

Also, if sutures form between adjacent skull plates after the boarding has been done, then the sutures will form just fine, as seen in this picture.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Angels who left their first estate and took human women for their wives was the reason for the flood. The offspring were giants.

I guess if someone has evidence to back up the OT and discredit evolution they should stay clear of mentioning any of this.

Would this make you happy? If I left facts out of your nice tidy little farce of evolution and all the modern assumptions and speculations that go along with it.

Again, every single one of the historical documents, Indian stories, pictures and archaeological specimens is a fake...... Every single one....Sure mac sure. You keep thinking that.

What would make us happy is if you refer to real evidence instead of hoaxes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Angels who left their first estate and took human women for their wives was the reason for the flood. The offspring were giants.

I guess if someone has evidence to back up the OT and discredit evolution they should stay clear of mentioning any of this.

Would this make you happy? If I left facts out of your nice tidy little farce of evolution and all the modern assumptions and speculations that go along with it.

Again, every single one of the historical documents, Indian stories, pictures and archaeological specimens is a fake...... Every single one....Sure mac sure. You keep thinking that.

But here's the thing... there is ZERO evidence for your claim.
The story of Fallen Angels taking human wives to produce wicked offspring, the stories of the Native Americans are all just stories.
The photos you have shown are all fake, and the cone-head skulls are not evidence of giants.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What would make us happy is if you refer to real evidence instead of hoaxes.

Now you know that's not going to happen.

 

[James Wilson]

Loudmouth objected to my not giving a theological discussion of Einstein's deism. I wanted to be brief.

Someone in this string questioned what kind of assumptions am I talking about. When the Alvarez father-and-son team suggested that the concentrated iridium layer present all over the world implied that a meteorite had hit the earth, ending the age of the dinosaurs. One group hotly debated with the Alvarez's for 10 years, fighting them at every turn.

Let's look into that group and the assumptions that they thought were fact (those 'pesky' Christians were not involved in this obstruction of science). 150 years ago the geologists wanted to clean up the neighborhood. After all, with shells on the highest mountains, it seemed pretty obvious to Christian geologists that Noah's Flood had really occurred.

So the geologists banned Christians and God-believers from their science with these two assumptions:
First, that nothing in geology can be the effect of an extraterrestrial cause (hence, God is outlawed). Secondly, they declared that no catastrophes would be allowed (they included 'miracles' or 'acts of God' as 'catastrophes').

When the sincere Alvarez pair came along, these foolish two violated geology's sacrosanct assumptions/facts: Nothing extraterrestrial (like a meteor) and nothing catastrophic (that meteor hitting the Earth).

Every time I bring this up, some geologists, instead of responding to the meat of the conversation, pick at tiny things. Like, the assumptions I referred to constitute 'Uniformitarianism', which many geologists no longer accept. That's a true statement, but specious, because science was delayed for 10 years by this foolish argument over 150 year old assumptions. Ignore the minor corrections; get to the major.

 

[James Wilson]

Did he? In that case how did he manage to account for the fact that radio sets, based upon a supposedly completely erroneous physics, seemed to work okay? If he did say that, or anything like it, and he had not recently suffered a stroke which had almost completely destroyed his brain, he was engaging in hyperbole.

lesliedellow: I'm sorry my true quote of my UC-Berkeley professor offended you. I'm 67 now and he was near retirement when he gave the quote. Do the math yourself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's look into that group and the assumptions that they thought were fact (those 'pesky' Christians were not involved in this obstruction of science). 150 years ago the geologists wanted to clean up the neighborhood. After all, with shells on the highest mountains, it seemed pretty obvious to Christian geologists that Noah's Flood had really occurred.

Just the opposite, actually. It seemed obvious to Christian geologists that Noah's flood could not have occurred. Right away you are misrepresenting the conclusions of scientists. Not a good start.

Noah's flood was roundly rejected in the early 1800's, by Christian geologists. Adam Sedgwick was one of the longest hold outs, and this is what he had to say, IN 1831

"To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation."
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.html

So the geologists banned Christians and God-believers from their science with these two assumptions:
First, that nothing in geology can be the effect of an extraterrestrial cause (hence, God is outlawed).

You have also completely made this up. That is not an assumption used in geology. In fact, the meteor impact that marked the K/T boundary is a perfect example of an extraterrestrial cause.

Secondly, they declared that no catastrophes would be allowed (they included 'miracles' or 'acts of God' as 'catastrophes').

Also completely false.

Every time I bring this up, some geologists, instead of responding to the meat of the conversation, pick at tiny things. Like, the assumptions I referred to constitute 'Uniformitarianism', which many geologists no longer accept. That's a true statement, but specious, because science was delayed for 10 years by this foolish argument over 150 year old assumptions. Ignore the minor corrections; get to the major.

Uniformitarianism means that we can reconstruct the past by looking at geologic processes occurring the present. That includes catastrophic geologic processes.

It would appear that you can't actually point to any assumptions being used in geology.

 

[Loudmouth]

lesliedellow: I'm sorry my true quote of my UC-Berkeley professor offended you. I'm 67 now and he was near retirement when he gave the quote. Do the math yourself.

What offends us is that you don't understand what assumptions are, what data is, or what hypotheses are, yet you feel that you can lecture scientists on these subjects.

 

[lesliedellow]

lesliedellow: I'm sorry my true quote of my UC-Berkeley professor offended you. I'm 67 now and he was near retirement when he gave the quote. Do the math yourself.

A quick calculation puts the professors student days in the early 1930s. So which bits of physics have been abandoned since then? Quantum Mechanics was probably still in development, so we'll leave that. But Maxwell's equations, General and Special Relativity, Fluid Mechanics are still in tact, are they not?

 

[James Wilson]

loudmouth accused me of lying when I brought up the 10-year debate between geologists and the Alvarez father-son team. I got this information out of Naked Earth by Shawna Vogel. As far as I can tell, she's not a Creationist and is a respected journalist. Take up you charge with her.

 

[Loudmouth]

loudmouth accused me of lying when I brought up the 10-year debate between geologists and the Alvarez father-son team. I got this information out of Naked Earth by Shawna Vogel. As far as I can tell, she's not a Creationist and is a respected journalist. Take up you charge with her.

Let's go over the actual misrepresentations.

"150 years ago the geologists wanted to clean up the neighborhood. After all, with shells on the highest mountains, it seemed pretty obvious to Christian geologists that Noah's Flood had really occurred."

That's clearly untrue. It was obvious to Christian geologists that the evidence clearly contradicted the literal biblical flood.

"So the geologists banned Christians and God-believers from their science with these two assumptions:
First, that nothing in geology can be the effect of an extraterrestrial cause (hence, God is outlawed)."

That is an outright falsehood. No one was banned, and meteor impacts were never disallowed in geology. Also, no one has ever thrown out evidence for God doing anything.

"Secondly, they declared that no catastrophes would be allowed (they included 'miracles' or 'acts of God' as 'catastrophes')."

Completely untrue. Catastrophes have always been a part of geology. They were never disallowed.

You still haven't shown us a single assumption that is being used in geology, biology, or any science.

 

[Michael]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..

Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/

My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...

Anyone help?

God Bless!

As others have already noted, Catholics and other Christians are able to embrace evolutionary theory, and the concept of an ancient Earth. The key issue seems to be a need by some to interpret the Bible "literally" in all cases.

I don't personally see any conflict between faith in Christ and evolutionary theory, or the concept of an ancient Earth.

 

[Michael]

A quick calculation puts the professors student days in the early 1930s. So which bits of physics have been abandoned since then? Quantum Mechanics was probably still in development, so we'll leave that. But Maxwell's equations, General and Special Relativity, Fluid Mechanics are still in tact, are they not?

Let's see: Since 1930 astronomers have abandoned standard particle physics theory, relegated gravity as described by Einstein in GR and SR as "two bit players" in a universe dominated by "dark energy". So much for the claim "gravity sucks". In fluid dynamics they continue to peddle a concept that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" throughout his professional career, and that he made obsolete with his double layer paper. I'd say that since 1930 astronomers have abandoned virtually the entire realm of empirical physics in favor of myth making with magic energy/matter.