My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Aman777]

I realise that you will not give up your ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence, so I'll stop trying now. Let me just finish by saying that Lake Van is quite well studied; geologically, chemically, and otherwise. During these studies, no woks have been found in the bay of Ercis, nor elsewhere.

It will be found somewhere in the Lake since Lake Van is the only big Lake in the mountains of Ararat. Whether the swirls are caused by the remains of an undersea wok-like firmament or is a big advertisement of where to look, one thing is for certain. The bottom of Adam's solid firmament, made BEFORE the big bang, is somewhere in the Lake. Here's another reason why:

The Ark was ABOVE the highest mountains on Adam's Earth Gen 7:20-24 on the SAME day it was resting upon the mountains of Ararat. Gen 8:4 It was the 150th day after the flood began. I believe the solid boundary of Adam's small world filled with water after the windows on high were opened. Isa 24:18 It then rained for forty days and nights and on the 150th day after the flood began, the 450 ft long Ark floated upon the surface of Lake Van as the firmament sank in the Lake, totally destroying Adam's world. Amen?

 

[dad]

one thing is for certain. The bottom of Adam's solid firmament, made BEFORE the big bang, is somewhere in the Lake. Here's another reason why:

The BB is not certain. Your firmament remains on the bottom of a lake tale have no basis in fact.

 

[Aman777]

The BB is not certain. Your firmament remains on the bottom of your favorite lake tale have no basis in fact.

You are correct IF you are a Scoffer of the last days, according to ll Peter 3:3-7. God, speaking through Peter, tells us exactly where evidence from before the big bang, or beginning of our Cosmos, can be found on planet Earth. I seek to find a wealthy T.V. Evangelist who wishes to become the richest man on Earth or a devoted scientist who wishes the same. Glory and honor and money comes by believing what God told us thousands of years ago. Or, is it easier to lay back and live the life of a Scoffer of the last days?

 

[Kylie]

I have been posting of future discoveries for years which are shown in Genesis. That is WHY I show that the bottom of Adam's firmament can be found at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey, under the largest spiral land masses in the world. Watch this short video to see the miles wide spiral masses and then tell us what is under them:

I'm sorry, did you have an actual point to make here?

This is not a guy using the Bible to make any discovery.

This is a guy looking at pictures on the net, and not being able to understand what it is because he hasn't had any training in the relevant field. ANd then you claim that it is Adam's Firmament, because you haven't had any training either, and you are completely UNqualified to make any judgements on what it actually is.

You have nothing here. You can't show me a single example of where someone has used the Bible to make a prediction and then science has said, "Hey, that's actually right!"

 

[Kylie]

And you did not name one, let alone many.

Yes I did. I immediately named four of them, and you actually responded to them.

It is historical which is far from exact, more akin to voodoo then the more exacting types.

No, evolution is not a historical science.

There have been plenty of reasons given. Noticed LUCA is dragged up which is faith based made up and they say as much. Quote.

''The scientific community recognizes (that means opinion absent one shred of empirical evidence) that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, of all living things presently on Earth. It was likely (means imaginary) a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have. From LUCA forward, it's relatively easy to see how life as we know it evolved.''

''The scientific community recognizes'' is no more scientific then saying the big foot community recognizes the existence of big foot or the unicorn community recognizes the existence of unicorns. Who cares about their opinion. What can they prove?

You don't appear to understand what those words mean.

The scientific community recognises that the last common ancestor of all living things lived about 3.6 billion years ago because that is what the evidence indicates. And "Likely" does not mean "Imaginary".

You don't appear to have the slightest idea how science actually works.

Origin of life is in the bio textbooks, and it has financial value for its adherents. College students pay with money they have not earned yet to have all these lies taught to them by high paid PH.Ds. Not only are they outright lies, but they are also dumb lies. To suppose humans had fish in their family tree. Go back far enough, and there is fish.

So it is wrong because there's money in textbooks?

What kind of argument is that?

Historical fish stories have zero to do with actual science.

Again, a logical fallacy. Calling the argument names in an attempt to ridicule it rather than actually providing a rational argument against it.

There is nothing rational about assuming all bio-life here involves nonintelligent nonlife sources only. It is a contradiction based on blind faith absent precedent and counters to all we know about living things here. Life from nonlife has been tested and failed for 150 yrs and counting.

Are amino acids alive?

 

[Aman777]

I'm sorry, did you have an actual point to make here?

This is not a guy using the Bible to make any discovery.

Amen. I'm using the Bible to show you a future discovery BEFORE it is announced by scientists. I seek to show the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History.

*** This is a guy looking at pictures on the net, and not being able to understand what it is because he hasn't had any training in the relevant field. ANd then you claim that it is Adam's Firmament, because you haven't had any training either, and you are completely UNqualified to make any judgements on what it actually is.

1. I know that when you actually realize God's Truth of the flood, even an atheist could believe.
2. God told us this is exactly what will happen in the "last days" of this Earth.

*** You have nothing here. You can't show me a single example of where someone has used the Bible to make a prediction and then science has said, "Hey, that's actually right!"

Duh. That's what I'm doing here. When the announcement comes, I hope you are still alive to be shaken to the core with God's Truth from thousands of years ago. Do you think such a discovery might change your belief system? God Bless you

 

[dad]

The scientific community recognises that the last common ancestor of all living things lived about 3.6 billion years ago because that is what the evidence indicates.

No, that is what religious phonies of so called science have chosen willingly to believe and preach.

And "Likely" does not mean "Imaginary".

Yes, in the wholly made up past and origins stories of false lying science stories, likely means impossible lie.

 

[Kylie]

Amen. I'm using the Bible to show you a future discovery BEFORE it is announced by scientists. I seek to show the AGREEMENT of Scripture, Science and History.

*** This is a guy looking at pictures on the net, and not being able to understand what it is because he hasn't had any training in the relevant field. ANd then you claim that it is Adam's Firmament, because you haven't had any training either, and you are completely UNqualified to make any judgements on what it actually is.

1. I know that when you actually realize God's Truth of the flood, even an atheist could believe.
2. God told us this is exactly what will happen in the "last days" of this Earth.

*** You have nothing here. You can't show me a single example of where someone has used the Bible to make a prediction and then science has said, "Hey, that's actually right!"

Duh. That's what I'm doing here. When the announcement comes, I hope you are still alive to be shaken to the core with God's Truth from thousands of years ago. Do you think such a discovery might change your belief system? God Bless you

No, you posted a video which makes no claim that has been backed up by scientists. When the scientists come and say, "Gee, that can only be Adam's Firmament!" then we'll talk.

You can't prove your point by saying, "Well, it's GOING to happen!"

 

[Kylie]

No, that is what religious phonies of so called science have chosen willingly to believe and preach.
Yes, in the wholly made up past and origins stories of false lying science stories, likely means impossible lie.

Once again, all you can do is claim it's wrong, therefore it's wrong. Nothing but unsupported claims from you, dad.

 

[dad]

Once again, all you can do is claim it's wrong, therefore it's wrong. Nothing but unsupported claims from you, dad.

One can show the first life form and big bang and evolution of man from beasts wrong by watching the utter lack of evidence. You seem unable to separate strong beliefs from factual evidence.

 

[Kylie]

One can show the first life form and big bang and evolution of man from beasts wrong by watching the utter lack of evidence. You seem unable to separate strong beliefs from factual evidence.

"There's no evidence!" the man who provides no evidence says to the woman who has provided evidence.

 

[dad]

"There's no evidence!" the man who provides no evidence says to the woman who has provided evidence.

The woman who says she has is told by the man that she actually hasn't. Mere allusions from the Kylie zone don't count.

 

[Kylie]

The woman who says she has is told by the man that she actually hasn't. Mere allusions from the Kylie zone don't count.

Given that the man telling her has a track record of never providing any evidence to back up his claims, you are not convincing at all.

You have nothing. You never have, and never will.

 

[dad]

Given that the man telling her has a track record of never providing any evidence to back up his claims, you are not convincing at all.

You have nothing. You never have, and never will.

Been talkin to the man?

 

[bhsmte]

Given that the man telling her has a track record of never providing any evidence to back up his claims, you are not convincing at all.

You have nothing. You never have, and never will.

It is amusing though.

 

[dmmesdale]

"There's no evidence!" the man who provides no evidence says to the woman who has provided evidence.

Any evidence submitted bounces off your head.

 

[bhsmte]

Any evidence submitted bounces off your head.

What evidence bounced of their head?

 

[benelchi]

We don't have the original books making the Bible

We don't have the original writings of any books from the Ancient Near East, the real question is whether we have evidence to suggest that the books we have deviate substantively from the original writings?

We do have very ancient copies of the biblical books (far more than any other historical document) from a very geographically disperse area that strongly indicate that the text we have are accurate representations of an original text.

 

[bhsmte]

We don't have the original writings of any books from the Ancient Near East, the real question is whether we have evidence to suggest that the books we have deviate substantively from the original writings?

We do have very ancient copies of the biblical books (far more than any other historical document) from a very geographically disperse area that strongly indicate that the text we have are accurate representations of an original text.

Regarding the NT, the copies we have available, start about 200 years after Jesus died. We have tiny fragments that date earlier, but they are not even close to substantial enough to utilize.

All of these writings, were basically copies by hand over the centuries and some errors were made as we can see by differences in the copies we do have. That is to be expected when man is involved in anything. For the most part, the basic story remains the same, with a few fairly significant changes that were added to the NT hundreds of years later and were not in the earlier copies; several verses added to Mark, so it would align with the other gospels and another example is the story of the adulteress in John, that is no where to be found in the earliest copies.

With all that being said, there is a significant difference in what man writes down in stories and those stories having any level of historical credibility.

 

[benelchi]

Regarding the NT, the copies we have available, start about 200 years after Jesus died. We have tiny fragments that date earlier, but they are not even close to substantial enough to utilize.

The fragments we have substantiate significant portions of the NT text was unchanged, the most recent fragment of Mark dates within a decade of the original authorship. (See: Daniel Wallace discussions). And by 200 years, the documents are found in geographically disperse areas (that takes considerable time in the Ancient world). Additionally, there are no other documents from the Ancient Near East that have fragments (or complete copies) that date so closely to the original writings, or have anywhere near the same number of copies. Do you reject the authenticity of every document that is claimed to have originated in the Ancient Near East?

All of these writings, were basically copies by hand over the centuries and some errors were made as we can see by differences in the copies we do have. That is to be expected when man is involved in anything.

Agreed, however we have enough documents from over a very long period of history to be pretty sure that the text was reliably communicated. The vast majority of variants are nothing more than spelling variants and word order.

For the most part, the basic story remains the same, with a few fairly significant changes that were added to the NT hundreds of years later and were not in the earlier copies; several verses added to Mark, so it would align with the other gospels and another example is the story of the adulteress in John, that is no where to be found in the earliest copies.

And these portions have been identified by scholars who have examined the rich set of manuscripts we have. No scholar is confused about this.

With all that being said, there is a significant difference in what man writes down in stories and those stories having any level of historical credibility.

That is something that hasn't been demonstrated in the Scholarship of the biblical texts. Even scholars who reject all of the miraculous accounts, because their belief system doesn't permit the idea that a real miracle may have taken place, still acknowledge the historicity of much of the biblical texts. People names, place names, and cultural contexts fit the time period in which these documents claim to have originated very, very well.[/quote][/QUOTE]