Nature is from God

[Speedwell]

Help me recall who was it that developed the idea that God falsified the record by making a young earth appear to be old?

It was in the 1960s.

Maybe Duane Gish, or Somebody named Morris?

Actually, it was an SDA amateur geologist named George McCready Price, back in the '30s. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over the idea in the '60s, polished it up and wrote The Genesis Flood. So YECism was born.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I would think the more we see God in it, the more godly it will be. Past, present and future.

Yeah, I forgot to remove that part from my post. My bad.

Not really. I don't consider demons to be part of nature, more like a pest.

Did you just say that all other deities of all other religions are "pests"? Sir, I'm concerned that you seem to be suffering from ignorance.

Glad you said that. Wow. That capsulizes the evil of science.

You know, self glorification is a bad thing. But live and let live, if someone wants the galaxy to revolve around them, what can you do?

I accept the proofs God gave and gives, thanks. You accept whatever you like. Don't pretend science covers it either way though.

The difference is what counts as proof. For me, proof is a study published in peer-reviewed journals after a series of rigorous tests. For you, it's an old book.

I see. So the weak nuclear force is a ...push or a pull? What causes that push or pull?

Please see the attached file. I'll try to explain. At it's most basic level, nuclear forces are of two types, attractive and repulsive. Both work simultaneously. We know that every particle tries to have minimum energy. So, as we two particles come closer due to the net fore being attractive, their potential energy decreases upto a point where it minimum and F(attractive) =F(repulsive). If they are made to come closer, the repulsive forces dominate and cause a spike in potential energy. That's pretty much the gist of it. Why do they occur? Charges in at atom.
Don't worry if you didn't understand, inability to think rationally and improper use of logic is a telltale sign of ignorance.

That is a statement that is universally false.

So now we're gonna resort to childish insults? Ah, Mania, your ignorance really is at it's terminal stage.

I know. I also know more than that, I happen to know all the evolving in the pre flood days was fast. The lions and wolves changes in the future also will be fast. Guess who doesn't know about evolution here?

My guess is that it's you. I happen to know that there was no massive flood. I've already made a post somewhere about verifications of evolution, but it contains high-school knowledge of biology, so you might not understand it.

I know. I have science in my back pocket.

I wish I did. I don't wish I had that much over confidence. Please, tell me what law applies when I say this: "A good reflector is a bad emitter"

What evidence are you talking about...or do we need to guess?

I suppose not everyone thinks fossils were once living in the past.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Here is a list of fossils that have significant evolutionary importance. Educate yourself. And please, seek help about your ignorance.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Here is the post about evolution I made a while ago:

There is no evidence for evolution?
What about the fossils we have found?
Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.
Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Plants?
Cycas is a gymnosperm but has circinnately coiled yound leaves, Ramanta and multiflagellate male gametes, features of fern.
It is pretty obvious how the sporophylls evolved. In pteridophytes, all plants are not even heterosporous. In angiosperms, the megasporophyll modifies to wrap around the megasporangium.
Algae follow a haplontic life cycle, gymnosperms and angiosperms follow a diplontic one. Bryophytes and pteridophytes are the transition states and follow a haplodiplontic life cycle.
Coming back to gnathostomates, it is clear how the heart evolved, how jaw suspension changes, how the transition from anamniotes to amniotes takes place, kidney evolution, how ribs change, etc.
Fungi
Fungal evolution is seen by changes in sexual reproduction. Oomycetes from gametes and at times, fuse gametangia. Zygomycetes just conjugate their gametangia. Ascomycetes and basidiomycetes get rid of all that and just fuse two cells.
If you did not understand what I have written, you have no right to deny evolution, since you do not even know the basics of evolution. Read more before making wild claims.

 

[dad]

Actually, it was an SDA amateur geologist named George McCready Price, back in the '30s. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over the idea in the '60s, polished it up and wrote The Genesis Flood. So YECism was born.

The age of the earth actually was known long before that.

 

[dad]

Yeah, I forgot to remove that part from my post. My bad.


Did you just say that all other deities of all other religions are "pests"? Sir, I'm concerned that you seem to be suffering from ignorance.

No more than Jesus was. All that ever came before Him were thieves and robbers.

The difference is what counts as proof. For me, proof is a study published in peer-reviewed journals after a series of rigorous tests. For you, it's an old book.

Vague faith then. OK.

Please see the attached file. I'll try to explain. At it's most basic level, nuclear forces are of two types, attractive and repulsive. Both work simultaneously. We know that every particle tries to have minimum energy. So, as we two particles come closer due to the net fore being attractive, their potential energy decreases upto a point where it minimum and F(attractive) =F(repulsive). If they are made to come closer, the repulsive forces dominate and cause a spike in potential energy. That's pretty much the gist of it. Why do they occur? Charges in at atom.

Right, so where does that come from exactly? You don't know. Now if I asked how it was in the far past, you would be truly lost in space.

So now we're gonna resort to childish insults? Ah, Mania, your ignorance really is at it's terminal stage.

I was paraphrasing the poster. They thought they knew, when they obviously do not. Holding them to the same standard they declare should not be considered an insult. Not if they knew what they were talking about.

My guess is that it's you. I happen to know that there was no massive flood. I've already made a post somewhere about verifications of evolution, I happen to know there was a flood. As for your 'high-school knowledge of biology' that would only be relevant if the same nature/life processes existed then as now.

I wish I did. I don't wish I had that much over confidence. Please, tell me what law applies when I say this: "A good reflector is a bad emitter"

The law of evasion.

I suppose not everyone thinks fossils were once living in the past.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Here is a list of fossils that have significant evolutionary importance. Educate yourself. And please, seek help about your ignorance.

Yes there are fossils. Yes a lot of adapting/evolving went on. That does not help the evolution religion at all.

 

[dad]

Here is the post about evolution I made a while ago:

There is no evidence for evolution?
What about the fossils we have found?

Good question...what about them??

Archaeopteryx is a fossil that has wings, teeth, a round cranium, and an elongated caudal vertebrae. Features of reptilia and Aves. It is a connecting link.

Great. So?

Hesperonsis is a member of odontognathae or birds with teeth.
The crocodilia group has a 4 chambered heart, characteristic of Aves and mammalia. It also has thecodont dentation, found only in Mammalia.
Lung Fish (Dipnoi) have a lungs and a 3 chambered heart yet are in pisces. They are connecting link between pisces and amphibians.
Hemichordates have a buccal diverticulum, similar to a notochord, and are the connecting link between chordates and non chordates.
Echinoderms are deuterostomous, enterocoelous, features of chordates.
You can see how the number of germ layers change from phylum to phylum along with symmetry.
Considering the notochord, humans have remains of it in the form of nuclosus pulposis in our vertebrae.

Grasping at a few selected fossils that represent a tiny fraction of all life on earth in the far past does not help you at all. The issue is what nature was like which affected how adapting worked and how fast, and what creatures even could leave fossilized remains etc etc.

Let's say for example that the fossil record represented 4% of all life on earth. If man and most animals could not leave remains in that former nature, they would not be represented in that record of course.

Now you play the game of pretending there was no creation, no starting point of created kinds as the underlying assumption. So you take that teensy sample of fossils, and try to construct some model of all life on earth from that. Utterly ridiculous and intellectually offensive.



Same with plants!

 

[Uber Genius]

Actually, it was an SDA amateur geologist named George McCready Price, back in the '30s. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris took over the idea in the '60s, polished it up and wrote The Genesis Flood. So YECism was born.

Thanks. New there had been a lot of ad hoc explanations developing in the US as Fundamentalism was in its hay day.

 

[Uber Genius]

Not sure. The actual problem is that what people think makes the earth look old is wrong.


Great.

You seem to be claiming that God changing things for man on earth is deceptive? I would say the deception lies in believing it was not and will not be changed.
There is no appearance of age except by belief.


Using the present nature as the basis to determine so called ages does nothing more than assume this nature always existed. If the nature did not exist, but was different, then the way it looks old to you is the deception.

Thought I was clear, I'm sorry.

The Young Earth View that science regarding origins is fake has, as its centerpiece, the view that God created the world recently and falsified the record by giving that world an appearance of age!

You are bringing portions or that view so I thought you would be familiar with its central premise.

Problem is we not must believe that God is a liar based on that YEC premise and Romans 1:20!

Premise 1: God is truthful
Premise 2: God uses man's understanding of nature to demonstrate that He exists
Premise 3: Science is how man understands nature.

Argument : God has ordained science to reveal his existence to man.

Science has limits but tells us that the universe began to exist!

Anything that begins to exist need an explanation for its existence that is sufficient.

We need to explain the beginning of space, time,matter and energy, the laws of nature.

God being a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, uncaused self-existent eternal being seems to be the only sufficient explanation for a universe like ours.

Science is good, just limited.

Scientism is bad, it is self-refuting.

Hope this helps

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, yes faith is required. But the bible has descriptions of the world and people and life in the past and future. There is enough there to say that the nature of the present is not the nature of the past and future.

Or alternatively.... the biblical descriptions (or your interpretations thereof) are actually wrong.

But I understand that if you have made the fundamentalist choice of clinging dogmatically to those descriptions, you won't even consider that to be an option. You might even consider "considering that" to being blasphemy/herecy or some such.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God being a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, uncaused self-existent eternal being seems to be the only sufficient explanation for a universe like ours.

Quick question....

Aside from, as a theist, already believing that God exists and created everything...
What triggers one to even suggest a god to posit him/her/it as the cause of the universe's origins?

Because to me, it seems like you skipped a couple steps between "the universe began to exist" and "god did it".

 

[Speedwell]

The age of the earth actually was known long before that.

The biblical age of the Earth was calculated at many times and in many ways before that. What was unique about the YECism that grew out of Whitcomb & Morris's book was the bigoted and hostile attitude of this new crop of creationists towards non-YECs, especially Christian non-YECs, and the ugly right-wing political agenda that they adopted.

 

[dad]

Thanks. New there had been a lot of ad hoc explanations developing in the US as Fundamentalism was in its hay day.

Some people might not like any idea if it was born in the USA.

 

[dad]

Thought I was clear, I'm sorry.

The Young Earth View that science regarding origins is fake has, as its centerpiece, the view that God created the world recently and falsified the record by giving that world an appearance of age!

Actually, my idea is more that science reads evidence wrong, based on it's religion, that gives THEM some weird internal appearance of age. Not much needs to have been old at creation, the problem is the religion caused appearance to science.

You are bringing portions or that view so I thought you would be familiar with its central premise.

You were wrong on the central premise.

Problem is we not must believe that God is a liar based on that YEC premise and Romans 1:20!

No. Nothing like that.

Premise 1: God is truthful
Premise 2: God uses man's understanding of nature to demonstrate that He exists
Premise 3: Science is how man understands nature.

Part of being truthful is telling us about creation and Genesis. It seems I have some news for may people, that I thought was very very obvious, but I'll have to go ahead and say it.

God and bible believers do not care what science believes.

Argument : God has ordained science to reveal his existence to man.

Or Satan has ordained science t delude people and deny creation.

Science has limits but tells us that the universe began to exist!

It tells us that, yes. God tells us something else.

Anything that begins to exist need an explanation for its existence that is sufficient.

Try admitting the explanation for creation is far far far far far above you and you might actually get somewhere.

We need to explain the beginning of space, time,matter and energy, the laws of nature.

Science can't...hence the fairy tales.

God being a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, infinitely powerful, knowledgeable, uncaused self-existent eternal being seems to be the only sufficient explanation for a universe like ours.

That says nothing though in the way of explaining creation.

Science is good, just limited.

I agree if we add the proviso...Science is good...and bad...and very limited!

Scientism is bad, it is self-refuting.

Great, so now tell us what that word means.

 

[dad]

The biblical age of the Earth was calculated at many times and in many ways before that. What was unique about the YECism that grew out of Whitcomb & Morris's book was the bigoted and hostile attitude of this new crop of creationists towards non-YECs, especially Christian non-YECs, and the ugly right-wing political agenda that they adopted.

History according to Speedwell.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

No more than Jesus was. All that ever came before Him were thieves and robbers.

So Jesus was also a pest?

Vague faith then. OK.

That is accurate. Not the way you think it is though.

Right, so where does that come from exactly? You don't know. Now if I asked how it was in the far past, you would be truly lost in space.

To be frank, I'm not that well versed in physics but it comes from attraction and repulsion of charges, which are governed by spin. I think. This might give you a better understanding:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-positive-and-negative-charges-attract?no_redirect=1
Also, it's not a why question. I also have a counter question, where did god come from?

I was paraphrasing the poster. They thought they knew, when they obviously do not. Holding them to the same standard they declare should not be considered an insult. Not if they knew what they were talking about.

Of course if it's the same standard it's not an insult. But it is an insult when scientists are held to the standard of, say an internet troll with no sense of logic.

I know the same species did not exist in the past, what is there to debate about?

I'm sorry that I "evaded" you statement (not even a question) stating your extensive knowlegde of science. Still don't know the answer to that question it seems. I guess some people are too lazy to even search their back pocket.

Of course there's no support for the evolution "religion", because the evidence is not some blind faith.
I've already said this, if you think fossils are just bones, then you really don't have any argument and can pretty much be called an internet troll. At least know about the thing you are "disproving". You just lost a lot of credibility (it went from 0 to iota)

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Good question...what about them??

Just a bit further.

Great. So?

I'm sorry but I don't have all day to teach you what 12 years of school could not. Logic. Try playing chess.

Grasping at a few selected fossils that represent a tiny fraction of all life on earth in the far past does not help you at all. The issue is what nature was like which affected how adapting worked and how fast, and what creatures even could leave fossilized remains etc etc.

Clearly you do not understand that the goal of evolultion isn't to recreate past life as it would have been. Of course you didn't bother opening the Wikipedia page I link. Some people are dumb because of medical reasons. Some choose to be that way.

Let's say for example that the fossil record represented 4% of all life on earth. If man and most animals could not leave remains in that former nature, they would not be represented in that record of course.

Now you play the game of pretending there was no creation, no starting point of created kinds as the underlying assumption. So you take that teensy sample of fossils, and try to construct some model of all life on earth from that. Utterly ridiculous and intellectually offensive.



Same with plants!

Re, the evolution is not about recreating the past. All the fossils that we have found follow what evolution predicts. What do you propose? That we only did those fossils which follow evolutionary trends? Also, some stuff that I have mentioned exist today. But you wouldn't know because as I infer from your posts, you have no knowledge of biology, let alone evolution.
Is it pretending when you choose to not believe in something that has no evidence, or is it when you follow a theory that has been verified time and time again and has loads of evidence (I only listed very common ones)? I'm sorry, but if you struggle with such a basic question, I'll take to leave it upto either an intellectual disability or a troll, and in both tge cases, I can't do anything. So I'll stop wasting my time and stop replying because we can do this all day.

 

[Speedwell]

History according to Speedwell.

None of it is false. You are a prime example.

 

[dad]

So Jesus was also a pest?

Try to learn the difference between God and demons.

To be frank, I'm not that well versed in physics but it comes from attraction and repulsion of charges, which are governed by spin. I think. This might give you a better understanding:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-positive-and-negative-charges-attract?no_redirect=1
Also, it's not a why question. I also have a counter question, where did god come from?

The problem is you do not understand it. Neither does science understand where the forces come from, or what they actually really are. Your question about God coming from somewhere shows that your grasp of what He is is small. Man is too small to know what God is.

Of course if it's the same standard it's not an insult. But it is an insult when scientists are held to the standard of, say an internet troll with no sense of logic.

Your insult doesn't fit.

I know the same species did not exist in the past, what is there to debate about?

Not sure, why bring it up?

I'm sorry that I "evaded" you statement (not even a question) stating your extensive knowlegde of science.

Putting science in it's little place is not claiming some vast knowledge of the religion. All we really need to know that it is a religion and belief based. After that, anyone with some vast knowledge of a religion is wasting their time with useless beliefs.

Of course there's no support for the evolution "religion", because the evidence is not some blind faith.

The evidence painted and sprayed and dunked and saturated in their beliefs is not evidence. The evidence is before they apply beliefs to it. There is NO evidence for godless evolution of life on earth whatsoever. There is evidence of evolving...but that is just a created trait life on earth was given.

I've already said this, if you think fossils are just bones, then you really don't have any argument and can pretty much be called an internet troll. At least know about the thing you are "disproving". You just lost a lot of credibility (it went from 0 to iota)

Who suggested fossils were bones?

I said most animals and man probably could not leave remains. That would include bones I suppose, and certainly also fossilized remains.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry but I don't have all day to teach you what 12 years of school could not. Logic. Try playing chess.

Lurkers...if he had anything to teach we would be reading it.

Clearly you do not understand that the goal of evolultion isn't to recreate past life as it would have been. Of course you didn't bother opening the Wikipedia page I link. Some people are dumb because of medical reasons. Some choose to be that way.

Post in your words the point. Use a link for support. Not as a reading assignment. I have many fables to chose from, I don't need yours.

You talk of some goal of evolution. Like it was alive or something. There is no goal of evolution, any nore than there is a goal or growing teeth.

Re, the evolution is not about recreating the past. All the fossils that we have found follow what evolution predicts.

That says precious little since the fossils you found represent a tiny fraction of life on earth. You also would not know where the adapting or evolving started, and what was a created kind. You simply take hopelessly incomplete bits of info, and apply belief to the bits, trying to assemble some grand puzzle. Better fir science to admit it is totally lost and clueless than to fabricate delusional models of origins.

What do you propose? That we only did those fossils which follow evolutionary trends?

I propose you assume a same nature in the past and no creation as the starting point to interpreting a tiny tiny tiny fraction of fossil samples of life on earth. That means you assume that if man or other creatures were here, they also would be in the fossil record. I assume the former nature on earth did not allow most life to leave remains, or fossilized remains so that the fossil record is useless in modelling life on earth from the far past.

You can say I just believe, but I can say the same thing to science.

Also, some stuff that I have mentioned exist today. But you wouldn't know because as I infer from your posts, you have no knowledge of biology, let alone evolution.

?? Some stuff exist?? What stuff exactly, and who cares? How would some stuff existing today even aply to the creation evolution/origins debate?

Of course stuff exists today.

 

[dad]

None of it is false. You are a prime example.

I believe as Christians in the past believed. The apostles believed in Genesis. Jesus also. Just because some modern folks may have adopted such truths does not mean they hold a patent on it.