Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Aman777]

You do have quite a lot of spectacular reinterpretative ideas about the Bible which quite a lot of other Christians don't agree with, but even a broken clock can be right twice a day, so that you have some passages that others do agree with, isn't going to be a total surprise. What many Christians would disagree with, is that these so called "last days" are here already. We are literally living better now per capita than at any other time in recorded history - longer life, better quality of life, etc. Again, the evidence isn't on your side.

1Th 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

 

[Aman777]

Donald J. Trump seems to have a numerology hang up. He wants to meet with Un on 6/12/18. Is he hung up on 6+6+6?

 

[PsychoSarah]

the problem here is that even if its a true fossil no one is claiming that evolution is false because of that.

-_- Was I unintentionally typing in Spanish when I told you that no one should disprove anything on the basis of dubious evidence. The reality is that the identity of these fossils as belonging to tetrapods is extremely questionable. Deal with it.

so what they do in such a case? one possibility is to claim for convergent evolution. means that tetrapod evolved twice.

I already explained to you: NO.

the second possibility is to push back tetrapod origin. and indeed we have other evidence which point to this possibility:

Rise of the Earliest Tetrapods: An Early Devonian Origin from Marine Environment

"According to our analysis this evolution occurred at about 397–416 MYA during the Early Devonian unlike previously thought"

Which is only possible with early tetrapod evolution because of the fact that the fossil record for that group that far back is very incomplete. The more fossils we have within a range of geological time, the more accurate a picture of events we get. Why aren't you focusing on more recent organisms with more complete fossil records?

so now we see that we can push back human to dinos age without a real problem for evolution.

-_- no, because the fossil record for our species is extremely detailed. That you can't seem to understand that no matter how much I mention the difference in the situations is getting really annoying.

When the situations are not the same, saying that the same change should be acceptable for both just makes it sound like you don't understand the material well enough to tell the situations apart.

and even so they predate these tracks. and by this way you can ignore any fossil.

No. Not for a Precambrian rabbit. I even outlined that not only would evolution be disproven if we found a legitimate Precambrian rabbit fossil, but also our understanding of the environment in that time period (since what is currently understood as the environment of that time could not possibly support the life of a rabbit).

i just show you that even a human with dino fossil can be explain by this way.

Unless you actually have a human fossil that old, what's the point?

again: what is the problem? if a gene can be lost several times why not more few times? there is no real limit for such situation.

You haven't demonstrated that it has ever happened or that anything remotely close has occurred. So why should I consider it possible at all? It's like claiming that humans can flap their arms and fly just on the basis that birds flap their wings and fly, and persistently making that claim without once demonstrating it.

what about these case?:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/humans-may-harbor-more-100-genes-other-organisms

Ooo, I was wondering if you would ever bring up infectious agents. As far as I am aware, viruses are the only agents that demonstrably transfer genes between organisms, but they don't leave said genes unaltered when they do, and they don't end up in the same places as they were in the original animal, etc. For example, if a virus integrates a mouse gene, and when it infects a human integrates said gene into their genome, it's not going to end up in an analogous location to where that gene was in the mouse. Plus, viruses are extremely prone to mutation and thus the version of the gene they integrate into the new host IS NOT IDENTICAL in sequence to what it was from the genome it originated from.

-_- the fact that these genes can be distinguished from ones that came from common ancestry should be a good indication that they don't present the same as ones that result from common ancestry.

and guess what?: "but says that there are other explanations for the identified genes being present in only some branches of the evolutionary tree—a gene that existed in a far-off ancestor could have simply been lost in many relatives other than two seemingly unrelated species, for instance. “

-_- a comment for which this individual gave absolutely no sense of scale. Is the number of branches similar to the number between a gibbon and a human, or like a beetle and a human? I take out of context quotes like that with a grain of salt, regardless as to who publishes them.

this is just what i said. see how easy it is to explain anything by evolution?

-_- since when do the opinions of 1 microbiologist dictate what is a correct approach when it comes to evaluating evolution? Plus, he never gave a sense of scale or any evidence for that proposition.

 

[Brightmoon]

Why didn't ALL Apes change into Humans? Why didn't they show the traits of modern Humans until 11k years ago? in the same area where the Ark arrived? Why doesn't Science notice the SUDDEN change from foraging creatures to Human agriculture? Is it because such is the Achilles Heel of Godless Evolution? Of course it is?

Question 1 that’s just stupid.
Question 2 there’s no such thing as the Ark.
question 3 stoop work agriculture is one of the more difficult things that primitive people do without modern tools. Being a hunter gatherer is actually easier. But agriculture allows both cities, and artisans to specialize

You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand anything about evolution nor have you shown any desire to learn anything about it. I can’t deal with deliberate ignorance that thinks it’s wisdom as I’m inclined to think you’re simply a fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question 2 there’s no such thing as the Ark.

"Blessed Lord, who caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning: Grant us so to hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 236).

 

[Brightmoon]

So where is it? Where did it land? Where is the sediment layer ? Where did the water go and where did it intially come from ?

 

[AV1611VET]

So where is it? Where did it land? Where is the sediment layer ? Where did the water go and where did it intially come from ?

Good questions.

1. I believe Noah dismantled it to build his estate.

2. In the mountains of Ararat.

3. I certainly don't have it!

4. I believe the water was siphoned off the earth.

5. It was created on earth, ballooned into space (Genesis 1), and came back to earth to help cause the Flood (Genesis 7).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Nope, it's done and dusted. Evolution is a fact and scientists of all religions and even of no religion at all have come to a consensus that Evolution is a thing.

All of the evidence available is concordant with Evolution and Evolution is contradicted by none of it.

A fact according to the presuppositions of scientific realism under the current model.

 

[Brightmoon]

Good questions.

1. I believe Noah dismantled it to build his estate.

2. In the mountains of Ararat.

3. I certainly don't have it!

4. I believe the water was siphoned off the earth.

5. It was created on earth, ballooned into space (Genesis 1), and came back to earth to help cause the Flood (Genesis 7).

The so called global flood would have caused the earths surface to heat up enough to melt lead. Any version of the flood. Just because you’re a science denier doesn’t mean I am.

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationist never take it into consideration that physics doesn’t work in a vacuum. It affects chemistry and visa versa . That heating effect from water vapor forming raindrops is called the heat of condensation. The earth sheds heat at a consistent rate into space . Adding in the ( nonexistent) fountains of the deep only makes this worse. Positing the so called ring of water ( ice ) in space would have prevented the earth from getting sunlight and by falling would have had the similar effect as that asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs

 

[AV1611VET]

The so called global flood would have caused the earths surface to heat up enough to melt lead.

I'll take your word for it.

Any version of the flood.

How about a version where God pulls a Shadrach and handles the heat problem in His own miraculous way?

Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Ya think maybe Jesus was on the Ark as well?

Just because you’re a science denier doesn’t mean I am.

Good!

But I'm not a science denier.

In fact, here is a set of heuristics I came up with:

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist never take it into consideration that physics doesn’t work in a vacuum.

Can a vacuum cleaner work in space?

It affects chemistry and visa versa .

I dig physics. I really do.

But physics is over my head.

That heating effect from water vapor forming raindrops is called the heat of condensation.

Sounds good to me!

The earth sheds heat at a consistent rate into space .

Yay!

Let's hear it for centrifugal force!

Adding in the ( nonexistent) fountains of the deep only makes this worse.

I would surmise adding in "( nonexistent)" anything would make it worse.

Positing the so called ring of water ( ice ) in space would have prevented the earth from getting sunlight ...

And what if that ring was so far away that it was paper thin?

After all, the Gospel is written in the stars, and those who lived in the times of Genesis 1 - Genesis 6 could see it just as well as we can.

... and by falling would have had the similar effect as that asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs

Dinosaurs were on the Ark.

 

[xianghua]

Which is only possible with early tetrapod evolution because of the fact that the fossil record for that group that far back is very incomplete.

but again: we can say the same for human with a dino fossil.

-_- no, because the fossil record for our species is extremely detailed. That you can't seem to understand that no matter how much I mention the difference in the situations is getting really annoying.

how do you know that? if we will find a human fossil with a dino one you will say that the fossil record for human at this geological period was too small and this is why we find only a single fossil of human at this time period. its only an ad hoc explanation.

You haven't demonstrated that it has ever happened or that anything remotely close has occurred.

i just show you a case of a gene loss (in several species). so how you can claim that i didnt gave you such example?

-_- the fact that these genes can be distinguished from ones that came from common ancestry should be a good indication that they don't present the same as ones that result from common ancestry.

actually if you will look at some of the references you will find out that some of these genes are indeed the result of gene loss, for several reasons. take a look at this paper for instance (i have no access but you can find the pdf file):

Microbial genes in the human genome: lateral transfer or gene loss? - PubMed - NCBI

-_- since when do the opinions of 1 microbiologist dictate what is a correct approach when it comes to evaluating evolution? Plus, he never gave a sense of scale or any evidence for that proposition.

see above.

 

[Aman777]

Question 1 that’s just stupid.

Typical Evol answer when they cannot support their satanic view. Why did only a few Apes change into Humans?

Question 2 there’s no such thing as the Ark.

History disagrees and shows that Human civilization began 11k years ago in Northern Mesopotamia, in the valleys just SW from Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat. Until then, prehistoric man lived like any other animal.

question 3 stoop work agriculture is one of the more difficult things that primitive people do without modern tools. Being a hunter gatherer is actually easier. But agriculture allows both cities, and artisans to specialize

Adam had agriculture with NO magical evolution. So did his descendants on Adam's world. Genesis 4

You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand anything about evolution nor have you shown any desire to learn anything about it.

False, since I show the God's Truth AGREES with Science and History. I was a nasty ole evol BEFORE I repented and ask Jesus into my heart.

I can’t deal with deliberate ignorance that thinks it’s wisdom as I’m inclined to think you’re simply a fool.

Then explain HOW prehistoric people changed into Humans (descendants of Adam) SUDDENLY 11k years ago, exactly as God told us. I predict you will flee waving your arms overhead. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

Where did it land?

The Ark didn't land but slipped quietly into Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago according to the History of Human Civilization on planet Earth. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Where is the sediment layer ?

The 11,000 volcanic sediment layer is on top of the bottom of Adam's firmament. It hides the miles wide firmament/universe of Adam, beneath it. It's the most valuable artifact on Earth since it's proof of life from another universe.

Where did the water go and where did it intially come from ?

The water of Lake Van is enclosed since there is NO outlet. It initially came from rain, which is one of the present Earth's traits. Adam's world had no rain until AFTER it was placed in Lake Van and the windows on the firmament's top were opened. The firmament filled with water and sank to the bottom. It's still there.

 

[Aman777]

The so called global flood would have caused the earths surface to heat up enough to melt lead. Any version of the flood. Just because you’re a science denier doesn’t mean I am.

False, since Adam's small world sinking in a 75 mile wide Lake had NO effect on earth's surface. The Ark arrived in summer so it was probably 70-90 degrees.Try again?

 

[Aman777]

Creationist never take it into consideration that physics doesn’t work in a vacuum. It affects chemistry and visa versa . That heating effect from water vapor forming raindrops is called the heat of condensation. The earth sheds heat at a consistent rate into space . Adding in the ( nonexistent) fountains of the deep only makes this worse. Positing the so called ring of water ( ice ) in space would have prevented the earth from getting sunlight and by falling would have had the similar effect as that asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs

Where in the world did you come up with such silly thinking? Sounds like advanced evol wild speculation, to me.

 

[Brightmoon]

LOL

 

[Brightmoon]

[QUOTE="AV1611VET, post: 72722012, member: 15266
Can a vacuum cleaner work in space?

Yes the motor would work but it wouldn’t be able to suck up anything

I dig physics. I really do.

But physics is over my head.

that’s obvious!

Sounds good to me!



Yay!

Let's hear it for centrifugal force!

the water cycle and heat exchange cycle of the planet doesn’t have anything to to with centrifugal force . You really DON’T understand even middle school physics.

I would surmise adding in "( nonexistent)" anything would make it worse.

Creationist ideas usually are fantastical so “nonexistent” works well

And what if that ring was so far away that it was paper thin?

It would have evaporated as ice normally does on a cold day

After all, the Gospel is written in the stars, and those who lived in the times of Genesis 1 - Genesis 6 could see it just as well as we can.

ummm, No!

Dinosaurs were on the Ark

Only as birds, if you want to think that ridiculous fable was true. Non avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years before humans existed

 

[AV1611VET]

Non avian dinosaurs died out 65 million years before humans existed

You believe the universe was created around 13,800,000,000 BC, do you?