If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[tas8831]

Quoting You:
"Really? So what proper definition of 'secular humanism' makes it a religion?"
You answer this yourself with the following quote.

2. a particular system of faith and worship:
"the world's great religions"
3. a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
"consumerism is the new religion"

But that is just equivocation.

How does 'secular humanism' fit either of those, except perhaps in a trivial way?

When I was younger, I was told that I lifted weights "religiously" (def. 3) - would you have described weightlifting as a religion the same way you call secular humanism a religion?

If yes, then your calling secular humanism is, frankly, silly and meaningless.

BTW Books on World Religions are usually written by people that do not follow what they are writing about as members of those religions and I have found them to be incorrect on how they describe Christianity.

Of course you have.

And the books I have read on evolution written by Christian creationists are invariably biased and incorrect in their depictions of evolution.

And definition 2 - what, exactly, do secular humanists worship?

Your hero Trump worships money, is he in the cult of Mammon?

 

[tas8831]

I see in your vast scientific education, you never learned what "theory" means in science....

That is because I don't put my trust in what you call "science" which has been riddle with errors by fallible scientists.

So you are proud of the fact that you do not understand that which you argue against. Got it.

Instead, you put your trust in the ramblings of fallible ancient middle eastern nomads. Wonderful.

 

[tas8831]

They thought the Greek gods were myths, then they discovered Troy.

Fire-breathing dinosaurs? Bombadier-beetle? What on earth are you talking about?

Google it.

Google what?

Bombadier beetle? I know a great story about a famous creationist who claimed that bombadier beetles disproved evolution because the chemicals the beetle uses to make the 'explosions' would make the beetle explode when they come into contact. Then a chemist proved that was a lie. But the creationist kept using his lies in his lectures and debates. Because Jesus, apparently.

But I'm guessing that was not what I was supposed to Google.

I am aware of a creationist software writer with a couple of websites that claimed a Cambodian temple carving was a stegosaurus, therefore, bible true. Pity that he didn't seem to know what stegosaurs actually looked like.

Was that what I was supposed to Google?


You've got nothing.

 

[tas8831]

Just as God exists, Satan exists, and just as men have used false propaganda to try to discredit the leaders and cause of their enemies, so Satan does this to mankind, trying to get man to see God in the bad light Satan creates of God. Many are deceived, and the whole world will eventually be deceived. The teaching of the false theory of Evolution is a great tool Satan uses that the world has bought into in their rebellion against the righteous God.
Certain people groups had become so wicked (offering their own children to be sacrifice alive to a false god by burning them alive, as just one of many examples) that God directed Israel to remove them all, just as surgeon would try to remove a spreading cancer before it kills the patient.

And there you go - bible lore and not a single fact or bit of evidence for creation.

And I bet you think that "argument" is convincing, because it convinces you.

And THAT is both sad... and hilarious.

Like I said - you've got nothing.

All your claims of "unlimited facts" supporting your position, and all you can muster is 'ya'll is deceived by SATAN!'

Sad.

 

[tas8831]

Sure. One example of many. Compare the explanation of how evolutionists say the Grand Canyon was formed to the results left by the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980. What evolutionist say took millions of years for one river to cut out SEVERAL canyons and leave layers of sediment, the volcano in Washington State did in 17 seconds in some aspects, and in two weeks in other aspects, not millions of years. Google this.

You are convinced by that?

The 'little Grand Canyon" was produced by volcanic lahars that eroded through wet volcanic ash and mud.


Not rock.


If you want to claim that the strata in the walls of the GC were also soft ash and mud, then you will need to explain how they lithified with near vertical faces.

Google THAT.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that your bothers in Christ are not lying to folks like you about this, and the actual GC was also made in "17 seconds" - what relevance does that have to changes in allele frequencies?


And one last thing - you know about creationist geologist , right?

 

[tas8831]

So you admit, that just because scientists hadn't seen a coelacanth it is alright for them to say they are extinct and only lived millions of years ago.

Why would you expect otherwise?

What is to "admit"? What would you have had them do?

How many other things have they not seen and thus jumped to the wrong conclusion, or at least studied for years and still came to the wrong conclusion. Read Job 38-40.

Probably a lot of things, but unlike religionists, scientists admit error and incorporate new evidence.


Your arguments reek of desperation.

 

[tas8831]

That is true. Even Jesus said in Luke 18:8b "Nevertheless when the Son of man comes will there be faith in the earth." He was aware of the truth. of what you posted here a long time ago, as well as the truths found in Revelation 13:3,4 and Revelation 20:10-15.

Bible verses. Always bible verses.

Hosea 13:16

Mark 10:23

Bible verses in lieu of rational discussion or evidence is the hallmark of the desperate creationist.

 

[tas8831]

Just because people get the terminology of the Bible (unicorn, dragon) mixed up with Disney, doesn't mean I don't know what I am talking about. This just goes to show that some people don't rightly understand the Bible.

And more so that some people don't understand science or evolution or facts despite presenting themselves as knowing the TRUTH.

 

[tas8831]

The dragons were dinosaurs.

You say this with certainty.

Evidence?

Never mind...

Even some Christian teachers of the Bible have tried to explain certain animals mentioned in the Bible as being animals that exist today: Rhinoceros, elephant, jackal, hippo. Those Christians fail to see that the actual Bible animal described in Job 40:15,17,19; and the one in Job 41:1 and Job 41:21 no longer exist today.

Hmmmm... The Behemoth "lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen." 40:21

'Covert of the reed' = hide in a thicket of reeds; reeds are not so large:

Sauropods would not be able to hide in a thicket of reeds. But a rhino could.

Do you think all ancient lore contains references to real things, or just the bible?

And if just the bible, what justification do you have to support that position (no bible verses please).

Just because some people have never seen such animals doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Funny - so many of your brothers in creationism dismiss a human-chimp ancestor because one has not been seen. Double standards? Of course.

There are even fossil records of similar dinosaurs.

And yet no mention of these impressive beasts in any other part of the bible, and in no contemporary writings. Don't you think the Romans would have fallen over themselves to stage dinosaur fights in their arenas?

You folks don't seem capable of thinking outside of your bible-box.

 

[Kenny'sID]

1. You either do not know what the ToE actually is about or you are purposefully misrepresenting it for rhetorical purposes.

2. The ToE is about the origin of SPECIES, not the origin of LIFE. Creationists like to conflate the two out of either ignorance, malice, or both.

You posed the question "where did it start", and I hit you with the same thing to make a point, it's a useless question. I went into detail on that a few times, but like other things here, you just aren't going to get some of it.

You are now making excuses because you don't have an answer, and you were the one who brought the question on to begin with. Neither of us can prove to the other where it started...get past it..

3. You are relying on a colloquial use of "dust" to save face. Today's 'dust of the ground' contains decomposition byproducts of living things (e.g., bio-organic compounds), whereas since Yahweh had not created living things yet, the 'dust of the ground' of Genesis was solely minerals.

There's that "save face again". You really need to look into the term. You're useing it reandomly. I already told you, I don't need to save face. Once again because I know you are easily confused, one has to do something to need to save face in order for it to be necessary for them to save face, see? What did I do, where I needed to save face on that or anything here? Yet we are certain YOU need to save face on your dust comment, something I tried my best to help you with. I, from the start, said what dust was, and stuck with it. You simply made an incorrect assessment and now you are making excuses... again, while trying to put some nonsense blame on me.

4. You conflate your inability to address how Yahweh took mineral 'dust' and turned it into an adult,

I thought surely you'd have looked into what dust is by now. Please stop doing this to yourself. Bizarre

5. You think unwarranted condescension as a rhetorical tool makes you look clever, but it doesn't.

You forced me to try to help you, but with my natural replies to your attitude, of course you're going to see it all as a problem with me...you caused none of it in your mind. Take responsibility for your actions, and stop making excuses and blaming others.

All this necessary explanation just to get a few points across to you? You are entirely too high maintenance, so as I suspected I'd do from the start, I'll likely stop answering your posts. And not because I cannot, but I don't want to make the time for random accusations, time consuming/needing high maintenance replies, and excuses....it's just not and efficient use of time.

For future reference, just admit it when your wrong, or check yourself out before you comment to begin with so you aren't wrong, and then you don't have to play the "whatever I have to say to get out of it now" game. Again...take responsibility for your actions.

 

[Greg Merrill]

You say this with certainty.

Evidence?

Never mind...


Hmmmm... The Behemoth "lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen." 40:21

'Covert of the reed' = hide in a thicket of reeds; reeds are not so large:

Sauropods would not be able to hide in a thicket of reeds. But a rhino could.

Do you think all ancient lore contains references to real things, or just the bible?

And if just the bible, what justification do you have to support that position (no bible verses please).






Funny - so many of your brothers in creationism dismiss a human-chimp ancestor because one has not been seen. Double standards? Of course.



And yet no mention of these impressive beasts in any other part of the bible, and in no contemporary writings. Don't you think the Romans would have fallen over themselves to stage dinosaur fights in their arenas?

You folks don't seem capable of thinking outside of your bible-box.

You say this with certainty.

Evidence?

Never mind...


Hmmmm... The Behemoth "lieth under the lotus-trees, In the covert of the reed, and the fen." 40:21

'Covert of the reed' = hide in a thicket of reeds; reeds are not so large:

Sauropods would not be able to hide in a thicket of reeds. But a rhino could.

Do you think all ancient lore contains references to real things, or just the bible?

And if just the bible, what justification do you have to support that position (no bible verses please).






Funny - so many of your brothers in creationism dismiss a human-chimp ancestor because one has not been seen. Double standards? Of course.



And yet no mention of these impressive beasts in any other part of the bible, and in no contemporary writings. Don't you think the Romans would have fallen over themselves to stage dinosaur fights in their arenas?

You folks don't seem capable of thinking outside of your bible-box.

Giant Reeds

• Greg Merrill
• Mar 9, 2018
• 1

Giant reeds in response to the criticism that a dinosaur could not hide in reeds.

A dinosaur may not be able to hide in reeds that you present a picture of, but I think a dinosaur could hide in other reeds, like in the reeds of the picture that I present, and even taller reeds than these possibly.
A picture is worth a thousand words, to start with...lets not use a mis-leading picture of small reeds that doesn't support the truth that a dinosaur could hide among reeds. When large dinosaurs existed, larger reeds existed as well. What didn't exist at that time were cameras. We do have the eye-witness written account in the Book of Job, however.

 

[Speedwell]

Giant Reeds

• Greg Merrill
• Mar 9, 2018
• 1

Giant reeds in response to the criticism that a dinosaur could not hide in reeds.

A dinosaur may not be able to hide in reeds that you present a picture of, but I think a dinosaur could hide in other reeds, like in the reeds of the picture that I present, and even taller reeds than these possibly.
A picture is worth a thousand words, to start with...lets not use a mis-leading picture of small reeds that doesn't support the truth that a dinosaur could hide among reeds. When large dinosaurs existed, larger reeds existed as well. What didn't exist at that time were cameras. We don have the eye-witness written account in the Book of Job, however.

It's a moot point. Behemoth was one of three (along with Leviathan and Ziz) well-known legendary creatures of Hebrew folklore. Not a dinosaur.

 

[Greg Merrill]

It's a moot point. Behemoth was one of three (along with Leviathan and Ziz) well-known legendary creatures of Hebrew folklore. Not a dinosaur.

It is not a moot point. One has been caught in their deception of what could hide a dinosaur, with proof from a picture and additional comments on the size of ancient reeds, and now you are trying to ignore this and declare it unimportant.

 

[Speedwell]

It is not a moot point. One has been caught in their deception of what could hide a dinosaur, with proof from a picture and additional comments on the size of ancient reeds, and now you are trying to ignore this and declare it unimportant.

Outside of the literary context of the story it is unimportant, whatever the source of the Behemoth legend. You may want to prove that dinosaurs coexisted with man for your own reasons, but it is nothing to do with the Book of Job or the rest of the Bible either. Behemoth comes to the Bible through Hebrew folklore, not from an eyewitness account of an actual dinosaur.

 

[USincognito]

We do have the eye-witness written account in the Book of Job, however.

No. Just no. Job is not an eyewitness account. And contrary to what most people think, eyewitness accounts are the worst, least reliable type of evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

The dragons were dinosaurs. Even some Christian teachers of the Bible have tried to explain certain animals mentioned in the Bible as being animals that exist today: Rhinoceros, elephant, jackal, hippo. Those Christians fail to see that the actual Bible animal described in Job 40:15,17,19; and the one in Job 41:1 and Job 41:21 no longer exist today. Just because some people have never seen such animals doesn't mean they didn't exist. There are even fossil records of similar dinosaurs.

How can you be sure that Behemoth and Leviathan, as described in Job 41, were not animals that still exist now, such as hippopotamus, rhinoceros or crocodiles? On any standard of probability, this seems more likely than their being living non-avian dinosaurs?

 

[pitabread]

May you have a nice day, and one day come to the knowledge of the truth in a way that you can accept and benefit from.

The (ironic?) flipside of this is that creationists are generally free to deny all the science they want, yet still benefit from it.

 

[Speedwell]

How can you be sure that Behemoth and Leviathan, as described in Job 41, were not animals that still exist now, such as hippopotamus, rhinoceros or crocodiles? On any standard of probability, this seems more likely than their being living non-avian dinosaurs?

The link to folklore is pretty clear, but one of those animals may well be at the bottom of it. Midrash favors the hippo.

 

[Greg Merrill]

The (ironic?) flipside of this is that creationists are generally free to deny all the science they want, yet still benefit from it.

The (ironic?) flipside of this is that creationists are generally free to deny all the science they want, yet still benefit from it.

Creationists know they benefit from true science: nature, gravity, light, etc; just like everybody else, but no one really benefits from thinking they evolved from a non-life material that somehow became life, evolved from fish to amphib to reptile to monkey to man, to die and be no more forevermore. The creationists greatest desire would be for the evolutionist to see their error, turn to God and enjoy eternity with God forever. What is the evolutionist greatest desire in this debate; to see the creationist's faith destroyed, to turn to the belief that evolution is correct after all, possibly turn to immorality or "partying", "live, drink, for tomorrow I die", and then pass off into nothingness and eventually be totally forgotten? If it was just a matter of people's beliefs, I would still rather be a creationist, but with all the information that I have seen and with seeing the way both sides handle and interpret the same evidence and facts, not only does my spirit choose God, my intellect acknowledges the Bible as the truth as well.

 

[Greg Merrill]

How can you be sure that Behemoth and Leviathan, as described in Job 41, were not animals that still exist now, such as hippopotamus, rhinoceros or crocodiles? On any standard of probability, this seems more likely than their being living non-avian dinosaurs?

I have already commented on how some Bible teachers have made the mistake of trying to associate modern animals with these two Biblical animals. They want to make Behemoth a hippopotamus, yet Job 40:17 says "he (behemoth) moveth his tail like a cedar." A cedar is a large, heavy, tree. Now look at the tail of a hippopotamus. Now really. No one should think that hippo's tail is anything like a cedar. Verse 19 says (behemoth) is the chief of all his (God's) ways. (Kind of like saying the lion is the king of the beasts). That doesn't seem to fit the hippo either. The Biblical descriptions of these two animals just don't fit any modern day animals. Remember, I studied to be a zoologist at one time, and had read about lots of animals in my time.