I struggle with...

[razzelflabben]

Scientific evidence of what? That something cannot come from nothing? Nobody here disputes it. I'm not sure what mathematics you are referring to. If it is from the other thread, the "probabilities" thread, then you are mistaken. Those calculations have been shown to bebased on faulty assumptions and have nothing to do with the creation of the universe in any case.

lol...you really are not as good at this as you think you are...so, let's look at what Stephen Hawking says...I'm sure you want to disagree with him since you are disagreeing with me and what I said, but here is a quote "We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth." Life in the Universe
Now remember I said that the science, here Hawkings own words, is backed up by the scientific understanding that something cannot come from nothing...

So keep telling me how wrong I am and how I need to educate myself and I will pass your criticizes on to Stephen Hawkings if I can find an email to send them to...we could look at others but why bother, you already said that you don't accept science as evidence when you disagreed with the scientific evidence I presented.

 

[razzelflabben]

Ok, so we're clear, no one thinks something comes from nothing.

so you deliberately misrepresented me then? I mean, there were only two options that were available...

 

[Jimmy D]

lol reread it...now you are right that I did not provide the calculations if you want me to I will....just figured we all already saw them so I was assuming you didn't need them.

As to scientific papers, yes there were some

As to the fossil record, don't know what you would want me to provide that would be equivalent to someone claiming, I don't accept the prophecy because they are hard to understand thus hard to test and I say "demonstrate that our understanding of the prophecy is wrong"...I mean I know I am not suppose to use words like insane, stupid, crazy, etc but I don't know a better word to put on such an argument...nothing in the claim suggests there is something I can demonstrate but rather that I don't accept it because of the very nature of the evidence...Do you want evidence of the nature of the evidence?

Just for the record, our son is currently looking into deep study on light. As in notebooks and notebooks of advanced calculations and since you tried to question my response I asked him to explain what I was missing. His reaction was unfavorable for your response and positive to mine as per the scientific works I presented that backed up my claims...oh wait, are you confusing scientific papers and works and trying to play a semantic game with me? that might explain your response either way, your still wrong according to the science.

1. I look forward to your calculations.
2. Your articles were not scientific papers, not that I dispute the information they presented.
3. I wish your son good luck in his endeavours, but his opinion is not really relevant, unless he wishes to join the conversation.
4. I don't want you to provide anything regarding the fossil record, I don't recall bringing it up. The fact is that scientific understanding of the appearance of various types of life does not concur with the order listed in Gen 1. It's as simple as that.

 

[Jimmy D]

lol...you really are not as good at this as you think you are...so, let's look at what Stephen Hawking says...I'm sure you want to disagree with him since you are disagreeing with me and what I said, but here is a quote "We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small. Some people have therefore suggested that life came to Earth from elsewhere, and that there are seeds of life floating round in the galaxy. However, it seems unlikely that DNA could survive for long in the radiation in space. And even if it could, it would not really help explain the origin of life, because the time available since the formation of carbon is only just over double the age of the Earth." Life in the Universe
Now remember I said that the science, here Hawkings own words, is backed up by the scientific understanding that something cannot come from nothing...

So keep telling me how wrong I am and how I need to educate myself and I will pass your criticizes on to Stephen Hawkings if I can find an email to send them to...we could look at others but why bother, you already said that you don't accept science as evidence when you disagreed with the scientific evidence I presented.

So he's saying that there is a possibility that DNA molecules arose from random fluctuations? And that it's unlikely that life on earth originated in space? How is that an argument against abiogenesis?

 

[Jimmy D]

so you deliberately misrepresented me then? I mean, there were only two options that were available...

Fair enough, if you didn't imply that I said that I apologise. I repeat, no one thinks something came from nothing so let's move on.

 

[razzelflabben]

1. I look forward to your calculations.

presented enough to support my claim...I notice that you did not deny intentional misrepresentation...

2. Your articles were not scientific papers, not that I dispute the information they presented.

so semantics game...cool...seems like that is all you have been doing, trying to play games rather than actually have a good discussion.

3. I wish your son good luck in his endeavours, but his opinion is not really relevant, unless he wishes to join the conversation.

lol it is relevant to the point in which it was given. He is heavily into study of light and I asked him to confirm my understanding of the science presented...that is the relevancy...someone more learned on the specific topic of light confirms I am understanding the science presented correctly...which means that when you disagree with me you are disagreeing with the science and not my interpretation thereof.

4. I don't want you to provide anything regarding the fossil record, I don't recall bringing it up. The fact is that scientific understanding of the appearance of various types of life does not concur with the order listed in Gen 1. It's as simple as that.

I couldn't be sure what you were trying to argue since you didn't say you just said that X was falsified by the evidence and the closest I have ever seen anyone come is the fossil record which as I said I don't accept as falsification since it doesn't say what is usually claimed that it says. As to the order, there have been several "findings" that question that conclusion which is basically why I am still on the fence about it because there is no solid evidence for or against. But I have repeatedly said that so either you are intentionally misrepresenting me which you have not denied or you are not understanding my posts in light of common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school. At least in this case you have a third option...here are your options....1. you are intentionally misrepresenting me 2. you are not reading my posts using common literary rules for comprehension that were taught in elementary school and govern all effective written communication or 3. you believe because of your blind faith that science has proven what they have not proven....which is it? Fossils of the Burgess Shale - Wikipedia
http://io9.gizmodo.com/12-of-the-most-astounding-living-fossils-known-to-sci-1506539384
The Record of Time:  Interpreting the Fossil Record

I hope that is enough since I am bored looking at the same information I have studied in the past in much more depth.

 

[razzelflabben]

So he's saying that there is a possibility that DNA molecules arose from random fluctuations? And that it's unlikely that life on earth originated in space? How is that an argument against abiogenesis?

point being...it's all about probability and the numbers just don't back up the science that we do know as evidence for... that was my claim and even Hawkins backs me up...so tell me again how I need to review the probability stats...oh wait, that is just the rhetoric you were taught to say, right?

 

[razzelflabben]

How is that an argument against abiogenesis?

Now, I was totally confused by this question when I first read it....so I looked up abiogenesis just to make sure no one changed the meaning of the word on me...sure enough they didn't...

the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.
2.
the theory that the earliest life forms on earth developed fromnonliving matter.

Thus the question makes absolutely no sense to my claim unless you first recreate my claim and argument...so please clarify how this addresses what I said and do so with comprehension rules as taught in elementary school so I have a clue what you want to argue...

 

[Aman777]

So he's saying that there is a possibility that DNA molecules arose from random fluctuations? And that it's unlikely that life on earth originated in space? How is that an argument against abiogenesis?

"Every living creature that moveth" except Humans, was created and brought forth from Water, on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 That is NOT magical chemical generation (abiogenesis) but instead, is the conscious Creation of God the Trinity, or THEIR kinds. Godless men, attempting to eliminate God from His own Creation, made up the false ToE, and forgot about the flood which totally destroyed Adam's Earth. 2Pet3:3-6 Life came from God, not Space. God Bless you

 

[razzelflabben]

There are two things about me that should help you understand how to effectively communicate with me. 1. if you attack, I will fight back. and 2. I only bet on a sure thing. If you keep both these things in mind we should get along famously. One word of clarification though...If it isn't a sure thing, I won't bet on it which means you can convince me if you bring evidence to the table.

 

[Speedwell]

There are two things about me that should help you understand how to effectively communicate with me. 1. if you attack, I will fight back. and 2. I only bet on a sure thing. If you keep both these things in mind we should get along famously. One word of clarification though...If it isn't a sure thing, I won't bet on it which means you can convince me if you bring evidence to the table.

Sure, and we all feel the same way. The difference is what we mean by "attack." By our lights, no one has "attacked" you. This is a discussion board. We are here to discuss the issues at hand, not the individual--unless you want to bring it up. In that respect, you are being treatednodifferently than anyone else here.

 

[razzelflabben]

Sure, and we all feel the same way. The difference is what we mean by "attack." By our lights, no one has "attacked" you.

to me, a forum attack is purposefully misrepresenting me even after multiple attempts to clarify as you all have repeatedly done and other posters recognized you as doing so...another form of attack is always trying to pass the blame for your own mistakes, again as you all have continued to do to me. For example, the above case where both happened...iow's the poster in question both reinvented what I said even after clarification then tried to blame me for being the problem when I simply did as I was instructed and assumed he was responding to what I said. These are both forms of attack....for Me, that is a personal me, I couldn't care less and by that I mean that I really don't care at all if you disagree with me, call me names, etc. That in my opinion is just playful banter...I might not let it go unchecked because of forum rules but who cares, I have been through tons worse than a few stray name calling posts, but when you insist on twisting what I say into something that is not only in opposition to what I said but offensive to what I believe and refuse to accept any correction that would be consistent with a simple misunderstanding, it is an attack and I will fight back. If you don't like it, stop attacking me now that it is painfully clear what I consider an attack.

This is a discussion board. We are here to discuss the issues at hand, not the individual--unless you want to bring it up. In that respect, you are being treatednodifferently than anyone else here.

lol I didn't say I was treated differently, I have seen you all treat others the same way and others have recognized the problem in your posts. So the question becomes...are you ready to stop attacking and actually discuss or are you going to keep insisting on being "difficult" to those that don't agree with you until the discussion gets closed?

BTW, I have checked with people who will hold my feet to the fire and even they say you all are intentionally twisting my words...I mean when people who aren't afraid to tell me I am wrong tell me you all are the problem, that says something. Some of them even enjoy telling me when I am wrong.

 

[Motherofkittens]

two things....1. that is why I presented a list of modern day scientists who are creationists, which testifies to the fact that it is not against the scientific evidence nor method to be a creationist and 2. Do you really think ancient people did not observe the world around them? let's throw in a third, shall we? 3. I personally hate the "God of the gaps" theory and if you try to twist what I am saying into that argument we will have strong words since you have been clearly warned. But as I explained in great detail, many many christians and the number is growing accept that science and the bible are not only tolerant of each other but are actually confirmed by each other. Just because you can't see it doesn't make your objection the only possible.

Let's take the flood for example since it was already brought up and talked about you can review the discussion....scripture does NOT specify that it was global or massive local. it does specify that all flesh was destroyed so if we look at the claim we can hypothesis that we should see a bottle neck in the genetic record, right? right! And when we take that hypothesis to the scientific method what do we find? A bottleneck just like we would expect.

When we take what the account says without adding to it or taking from it, the evidence lines up which is the problem with dismissing all forms of creation belief, because scientifically it can't be done at this time.

Have all animals gone though a genetic bottleneck?

 

[Aman777]

Have all animals gone though a genetic bottleneck?

No, since the animals Noah brought with him on the Ark, arrived only 11,000 years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the 450 ft Ark. There has been NO bottleneck in the past 11k years on planet Earth. Amen?

 

[razzelflabben]

Have all animals gone though a genetic bottleneck?

Science cannot know that at this time because we don't even know all the animals...but it is a good question...let's see what we can find as per what we currently know....Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

that is all the general information I could find...everything else is specific to a certain animal...so we could say that obviously we could include though it's not technically a bottleneck, all extinct animals...as well all endangered species. Then we would have to look at all individual species that have been studied and then move from there into all the species not studied and from there all the species that we don't know yet...a rather daunting chore to be sure but worthy of attention.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, since the animals Noah brought with him on the Ark, arrived only 11,000 years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the 450 ft Ark. There has been NO bottleneck in the past 11k years on planet Earth. Amen?

that is one version...but the poster asked about my version which does not specify when the flood was, how large it was, etc. all those details are added and honestly, not part of the creation story even though evolutionists try to force it into the whole creation account.

IOW's from the standpoint of creation as a viable possibility that is starting and ending points the same as for the theory of evolution, the flood doesn't even enter the picture. Thus it would be completely possible for someone to believe in creation but not in the flood, not sure I know anyone who fits this but it would be possible.

 

[Aman777]

Aman777 said: ↑
No, since the animals Noah brought with him on the Ark, arrived only 11,000 years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the 450 ft Ark. There has been NO bottleneck in the past 11k years on planet Earth. Amen?

that is one version...

Amen. It's the version which agrees Scripturally scientifically historically and with EVERY discovery of mankind. Here's the historic record:

Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

As you can see from the BCE title, I didn't make the Map but found it online. ANY map of the Fertile Crescent will show the biggest Lake in the mountains of Ararat. On this map Lake Van is in the center of the Fertile Crescent, 5,000 feet in elevation and a perfect place to put a 450 ft Ark. Noah and his descendants walked down into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia, between the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and planted the FIRST crops on Planet Earth. The FIRST Human cities are also found there along with EVERY trait of modern Humans (descendants of Adam). It's historic evidence of the Truth of Genesis. God Bless you

 

[razzelflabben]

Aman777 said: ↑
No, since the animals Noah brought with him on the Ark, arrived only 11,000 years ago, in Lake Van, Turkey, in the 450 ft Ark. There has been NO bottleneck in the past 11k years on planet Earth. Amen?



Amen. It's the version which agrees Scripturally scientifically historically and with EVERY discovery of mankind. Here's the historic record:

Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

As you can see from the BCE title, I didn't make the Map but found it online. ANY map of the Fertile Crescent will show the biggest Lake in the mountains of Ararat. On this map Lake Van is in the center of the Fertile Crescent, 5,000 feet in elevation and a perfect place to put a 450 ft Ark. Noah and his descendants walked down into the valleys of Northern Mesopotamia, between the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers and planted the FIRST crops on Planet Earth. The FIRST Human cities are also found there along with EVERY trait of modern Humans (descendants of Adam). It's historic evidence of the Truth of Genesis. God Bless you

please show using common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school where the Gen. account of the flood says when it happened or where it happened...I'm curious, the closest we can get is that the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat but we aren't even sure where that is.

Now, I personally don't care if you believe all those details you added or not, that is totally up to you. But the question was directed at my comments and belief and that includes but is not limited to the reading for comprehension that leaves out those details. that is all I said, the question was directed at my version which is reading for comprehension only not your version where things are added.

 

[Aman777]

please show using common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school where the Gen. account of the flood says when it happened or where it happened...I'm curious, the closest we can get is that the ark came to rest on Mt. Ararat but we aren't even sure where that is.

Now, I personally don't care if you believe all those details you added or not, that is totally up to you. But the question was directed at my comments and belief and that includes but is not limited to the reading for comprehension that leaves out those details. that is all I said, the question was directed at my version which is reading for comprehension only not your version where things are added.

The details are hidden from everyone except the people of the last days since we have the increased knowledge to understand. Daniel 12:4 The traditional flood story is the view of ancient superstitious men whose theology was passed down to us by tradition. When you actually read the account of the flood, you can notice that some things are not the way these ancient men thought they were.

Begin with the Scriptural Fact that the Ark was above the highest mountains on Adam's FLAT Earth, which were only 22.5 feet high, since they were covered with water, when the flood reached 15 cubits, according to: Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Then notice that on the 150th day after the flood began, the Ark was above the highest mountains on Adam's world Gen 7:20-24 and on the SAME 150th day after the flood began, the Ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Gen 8:4 (From 2/17 to 7/17 = 5 months or 150 days) IOW, the Ark came into our world when the firmament sank in Lake Van, Turkey, 11,000 years ago. The Ark appeared in the mountains of Ararat on the same day Adam's solid firmament, sank into the Lake releasing the 450 ft covered boat.

Try to explain where the Raven went since it left the Ark and NEVER returned. Gen 8:7 Then the Dove was released and returned to the Ark. Gen 8:9 SEVEN days later, the Dove was released again Gen 8:10 and returned with an olive leaf in it's beak. Gen 8:11 So, Where did the Raven go, and How did the Olive tree, germinate in the mud, put forth branches and leaves, in only 7 days?

The facts of the story show that the Raven flew to shore the first time it was released but the Dove returned to the Ark and then 7 days later, flew to shore and brought back an Olive leaf from an Olive tree which takes months to germinate. The Lake is some 75 miles wide at some points.

History also records the arrival of the first Humans (descendants of Adam) to this Earth where the sons of God (prehistoric people) descended from the water, exactly as Science discovered last July. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html
Humans (descendants of Adam) did NOT descend from water, but from the dust of the ground. Gen 2:7 Science has falsely classified the sons of God as Humans.

There are many many more facts hidden in the flood story which has been misunderstood for thousands of years until the increased knowledge of the present last days of this Earth, has unlocked many of it's mysteries. God Bless you

 

[razzelflabben]

The details are hidden from everyone except the people of the last days since we have the increased knowledge to understand.

so again you refuse but don't admit it...moving on...if and when you are ready to show using common literary rules for comprehension as taught in elementary school let me know. Otherwise, you can start another thread where your interpretation is the topic and I will think about whether or not I want to join.