Purpose of Mosquitos and other pests

[Kylie]

You'd have a point, if God's almost total do-over was His fault.

It wasn't though.

It was a massive pruning job to rid a tree of the vines that were killing it.

Let's not forget that in this analogy, God created the vines, he put them on the tree and knew from the start that he'd have to get rid of them. Seems to me that if he didn't want to do that, he should have been more careful when setting everything up.

 

[Kylie]

Which came first? Star Trek Voyager? or your goosebumps watching Star Trek Voyager?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Let's not forget that in this analogy, God created the vines, he put them on the tree and knew from the start that he'd have to get rid of them. Seems to me that if he didn't want to do that, he should have been more careful when setting everything up.

Um ... no.

In this case, He created the vines (thousands of years earlier) and gave them their place on the Earth.

Then the Fall and ... well ... things went haywire.

 

[Kylie]

Um ... no.

In this case, He created the vines (thousands of years earlier) and gave them their place on the Earth.

Then the Fall and ... well ... things went haywire.

Oh, and he had no idea that the Fall was coming? That caught him completely by surprise, did it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, and he had no idea that the Fall was coming? That caught him completely by surprise, did it?

No light bulbs in your closet, are there?

What do your Christian traditionists think, since you seem to accept what they tell you lock, stock, and barrel?

Do yourself a favor, will you?

Ask these ... ahem ... people what God the Father's name is and let me know what they tell you, will you?

 

[Kylie]

No light bulbs in your closet, are there?

What do your Christian traditionists think, since you seem to accept what they tell you lock, stock, and barrel?

Do yourself a favor, will you?

Ask these ... ahem ... people what God the Father's name is and let me know what they tell you, will you?

Those Christian traditionalists can't answer the question, because there is no answer that actually makes sense. That's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

It seems you can't answer it either.

 

[Bradskii]

Then Post 229 can take a hike, can't it?

You must have missed the present tense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those Christian traditionalists can't answer the question, because there is no answer that actually makes sense. That's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.

It seems you can't answer it either.

Wow ... I can't answer how God got blindsided by His own creation.

Shame on me!

For the record, are you seriously telling me that one of the reasons you're an atheist is because no one can tell you why God wasn't caught off-guard and had to wipe out His creation and start over?

What's going to happen if you do meet someone who can satisfy your curiosity and explain it to you to your satisfaction?

Are you going to become a believer then?

If so, your opinion of God will be that He made a serious mistake and had to reboot -- and that's why you now believe in Him?

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must have missed the present tense.

I don't know if you work in a lab or not, but if you do, and you found out one of your co-workers was a YEC, would you be surprised?

Name ONE THING an atheist can do in a lab, that a YEC cannot?

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know if you work in a lab or not, but if you do, and you found out one of your co-workers was a YEC, would you be surprised?

Yeah, they're thin on the ground here. As opposed to some places. I put it down to our education system myself.

 

[Bradskii]

What's going to happen if you do meet someone who can satisfy your curiosity and explain it to you to your satisfaction?

That's as ridiculous as telling a child who doesn't believe in Santa that if you proved that a man could actually fit down a chimney then she should change her mind.

Edit: No, I'll change that. It's like telling a grown woman.

 

[Estrid]

My 'perhaps' was in response to this bit of your post:
'All the time' may include a time where humans can't make any claims on 'existence', (ie: the concept has no meaning anymore), so it can't be demonstrated as being 'wrong' (or ruled out) 'all the time'.

There wouldn't be anyone observing the passing of time there either, come to think of it, therefore 'time; would have no meaning there either. The best we can say in the present is: 'Perhaps' .. (it may still be possible .. but who would know that also I guess?) Meaninglessness ..

What- evs

 

[Mark Quayle]

You admit that you haven't read much of the actual science, and you also say you've never seen a full outline of the theory.

Maybe if you went and read the actual science, you'd find what you've been missing.

All you're doing right is saying, "I haven't had a very good look, but I know it must be wrong because I haven't found what I think should be there."

You have a point. But then, I don't see the need to do all the science to prove to myself that the covid shot is not worth taking, to decide not to take it. I certainly don't trust the machine of government and political correctness to simply take them at their word that it would be best to take the shot.

I don't trust politically correct science either. Yes, I agree, that is a bias. But I don't see the need to do all the science to prove to myself that the theory of evolution is unreliable. Not only is it for the most part uninteresting to me, but those who support it here don't consistently make sense in what they say about it. Just for an example: They like to speak of preponderance of evidence, as if the thousands of [maybe] examples document the same thing over and over, almost as if one example (eg, a missing link found between two forms) by itself is representative of the entire pyramid. I mentioned serial vs parallel: This is not thousands of items each adding more evidence to the last —it is a chain of items, each depending on the one before it. And that chain is missing millions, maybe more, of links leading up to current forms.

I'm going to have to hear a convincing argument concluding with, "evolution is therefore true", from them before I take the time to see if what they argue is from actual particular facts.

I'm not even saying it must be wrong. I'm saying I don't see any reason yet to believe in it. You're an unbeliever in God. I'm an unbeliever in what people usually mean by "Evolution".

 

[Estrid]

People are terrifically good at compartmentalizing. Theres probably some great yec scientists from the earlier days of modern science.

In earlier days people did not know
what is known now. Sensible honest
people update their understanding if
new info comes in.
Newton was an alchemist. He would be
better informed now, and not waste time on
nonsense.


I specifically said "informed".
Newton could not be described as
being informed of today's knowledge.

Knowing what is known now but
refusing to accept it in favour of
a pet belief is intellectually dishonest.

YEC cannot be supported by facts.
Again quoting a Dr. K Wise, PhD paleontology:

"....even if every fact in the universe turns
against yec, I will still be yec as that is what hte Bible seems to indicate".

That is intellectual dishonesty.
It say it is impossible to be an informed and
and intellectually honest yec.
I will update that if anyone can ever produce
an exception, that exception requiring the
discovery of facts disproving deep time and
evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't trust politically correct science either. Yes, I agree, that is a bias. But I don't see the need to do all the science to prove to myself that the theory of evolution is unreliable. Not only is it for the most part uninteresting to me, but those who support it here don't consistently make sense in what they say about it. Just for an example: They like to speak of preponderance of evidence, as if the thousands of [maybe] examples document the same thing over and over, almost as if one example (eg, a missing link found between two forms) by itself is representative of the entire pyramid.

You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your opinion will have less weight. Especially if you describe it as being 'politically correct'. That in itself is a political statement about a subject that has no interest in being 'correct' other than trying to determine the facts of the matter.

Perhaps you might understand the big picture better if you actually think of it as a picture (and not as a pyramid). All the evidence that has been found is a small piece in a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Zoom in on any one piece and you might find it doesn't address evolution directly, but it fits neatly with the other small pieces adjacent. Which themselves don't give you a good idea of of how they fit into scheme of things.

They're like pixels. You can't make out anything up close. But as you pull back, you can see that they all form a bigger picture that's easier to comprehend. Pull back all the way and you can't make out the individual pieces. But the picture is now crystal clear. There is absolutely no doubt what it shows.

And if, by some misreading of of a measurement or a misinterpretation of a small piece of evidence, a tiny piece tucked away in the corner of the picture doesn't actually fit, then we can throw that out. You won't even notice that it's not there. And it won't change the picture. It still looks exactly the same.

Here's a very low res example of a picture. It's immediately apparent what it shows. Take out one or even half a dozen tiny photos and it still shows the same thing. Now multiply those 1800 or so small photos by many millions and that picture will be crystal clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will update that if anyone can ever produce an exception, that exception requiring the discovery of facts disproving deep time and evolution.

Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period, when Jesus comes back and pwns it Himself.

One way He can disprove both at once (deep time and abiogenesis) is to simply take evolutionists back to the year 4004 BC and let them observe the events of the Creation Week as they occurred in real time.

One verse at a time: From Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your opinion will have less weight.

Interesting word choice.

Did you use the word "opinion" -- not "faith" -- because if you said "faith," you would have had to say:

"You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your faith will have no weight."

 

[Estrid]

You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your opinion will have less weight. Especially if you describe it as being 'politically correct'. That in itself is a political statement about a subject that has no interest in being 'correct' other than trying to determine the facts of the matter.

Perhaps you might understand the big picture better if you actually think of it as a picture (and not as a pyramid). All the evidence that has been found is a small piece in a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Zoom in on any one piece and you might find it doesn't address evolution directly, but it fits neatly with the other small pieces adjacent. Which themselves don't give you a good idea of of how they fit into scheme of things.

They're like pixels. You can't make out anything up close. But as you pull back, you can see that they all form a bigger picture that's easier to comprehend. Pull back all the way and you can't make out the individual pieces. But the picture is now crystal clear. There is absolutely no doubt what it shows.

And if, by some misreading of of a measurement or a misinterpretation of a small piece of evidence, a tiny piece tucked away in the corner of the picture doesn't actually fit, then we can throw that out. You won't even notice that it's not there. And it won't change the picture. It still looks exactly the same.

Here's a very low res example of a picture. It's immediately apparent what it shows. Take out one or even half a dozen tiny photos and it still shows the same thing. Now multiply those 1800 or so small photos by many millions and that picture will be crystal clear.

Facts and reason stand no chance against attitude.

 

[AV1611VET]

Facts and reason stand no chance against attitude.

And even less chance, if said facts and reasonings contradict the Bible.

Isaiah 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

 

[durangodawood]

Wow ... I can't answer how God got blindsided by His own creation.

Shame on me! ...

What bothered be originally, and still does, is how you post the snarky Titanic picture to get in a dig against scientists (and their technology).....

...but when by the same token the failure of all failures seems to accrue to God (if you believe the story and the theology) youre all evasion and appear to back right off your original principle that a big failure indicates unworthiness.