Creation vs. Evolution

[marke]

We all at one point (birth) were enemies of God.
Divine enablement was given to a select few from the mass of humanity to accept the Gospel. Based on God's choosing having nothing to do with human effort. There is no human element in salvation other than faith yet faith in the context of saving faith is not considered a work of merit for man. Therefore man's choice to receive Christ is not the determining factor for the salvation of God's election.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL

God saves those who believe and receive the gospel clearly revealed unto them by the Holy Spirit through the foolishness of human preaching. He does not save those who reject the gospel message revealed unto them by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Jose Fly]

Piltdown was a deliberate fraud to deceive the public into thinking evolutionism was true.

Again, we all agree that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, so I have no idea why you feel the need to keep repeating it ad nauseam, especially given how you can't even say what your point is.

I guess this is just another one of your mantras you chant to make yourself feel better. :idunno:

Most 'hominid' fossils are not deliberate frauds...but, instead VERY shoddy interpretations as in the case of Neandertals, 'Lucy', Darwinius masillae, aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, dryopithecus africanus and many more.

Evolutionists lack evidence of human evolution so they fabricate stories, trying to impose humanity on monkey fossils (ida), and trying to dehumanize human fossils (neandertals). Like Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin said of 'hominid' fossils..."... much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork." (People of the Lake, P. 19)

Then let's look at the data.

If humans share a common ancestry with other primates, we would expect to find evidence of this in the fossil record. More specifically, we would expect to find fossilized specimens that exhibit a mixture of more modern human-like traits and more primitive primate-like traits. Do you agree that's a reasonable expectation under the hypothesis?

 

[Rosenritter]

I have read it through and already responded to it in technical detail in this thread. The results are exactly what you'd expect from stupidly carbon dating fossils that have been dated by a variety of other methods as very old. Radio dating is usually done as just one of several methods to rule out systematic error, but this paper relies doggedly on its one unreliable technique with no attempt to verify with alternative techniques, which seems to be a deliberate ploy to fool the naïve unsophisticated reader. This will have been why the paper was summarily rejected by actual scientists that weren't blinded by their absolute adherence to a fundamentalist trading of a single book.

Not very convincing. I hadn't read the article through until yesterday, and there is a lot of content in it that has never hit the surface of this thread. You certainly didn't respond to it. You certainly didn't address the proven unreliability of lead-uranium and potassium-argon style dating techniques.

By the way, how are you coming along with your Hippo-thesus on man-dinosaur coexistence? You were the one that said you would need to see something that wasn't so vague that it required squinting. Moving goalposts again, it seems.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nobody is born under the wrath of God. They put themselves under the wrath of God when they offend Him for rejecting Christ after the Holy Spirit points them to Christ. Does God abhor the wicked? Of course, because that is what the Bible says, but He only hates them for despising Jesus after Jesus has tried to save them in love.

Are you sure about that? Seems like they rejected Jesus pretty hard here. Not calling for hatred back on them.

Luk 23:34 KJV
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

　

 

[redfern]

Actually, just take the time to read this whole article please?

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Thanks much. Give me a while to read and digest. If I have any heartburn over it, I will get back to you.

 

[Rosenritter]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Bernadett Limgenco
Operations Manager - Australia and Southeast Asia
Beta Analytic Inc. 4985 SW 74 Court Miami, Florida 33155 USA

Thanks for considering our service in this project.

We wish you well in your research but must choose to opt-out of the analysis.
Since you have identified it as T-rex, and these are known to be extinct for 50 million years, it is beyond the limit of our dating. If a "recent" result was derived it would be universally challenged with possible risks of poor result claims for our laboratory.

This is a project much better suited for collaboration with a university laboratory.

Regards,
Bernadett

*Radiocarbon Dating Results that Withstand the Test of Time*

BETA is an Accredited ISO/IEC 17025:2005 testing laboratory operating in conformance with ISO 9001:2008 management system requirements. It has demonstrated both the technical competency and management system requirements necessary to consistently deliver technically valid test results. These standards are universally recognized as the highest level of quality attainable by a testing laboratory.

 

[6days]

I didn't even imply that piltdown man wasn't mentioned in any text books.

Sure you did... you said to name a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

You also said your claim was refuted if "a" popular textbook could be found mentioning Piltdown.

What I did day was that Piltdown Man was not widely taught as evidence of evolution.

And that is false.

It was widely taught as proof of Darwinism in the media, journals and textbooks for 40 years.

 

[6days]

Again, we all agree that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, so I have no idea why you feel the need to keep repeating it ad nauseam, especially given how you can't even say what your point is.

We undertand why you don't want it discussed. But, it does serve a purpose to examine why so many eagerly believed the fraud. It serves a purpose to expose false beliefs that lead to increased racism. It serves a purpose to examine why textbooks and journals invent history and teach it as fact.

Notice I got involved in the discussion only after evolutionists here tried to whitewash history. You might question them why they try provide cover for frauds.

Most 'hominid' fossils are not deliberate frauds...but, instead VERY shoddy interpretations as in the case of Neandertals, 'Lucy', Darwinius masillae, aegyptopithecus Zeuxis, dryopithecus africanus and many more.

Evolutionists lack evidence of human evolution so they fabricate stories, trying to impose humanity on monkey fossils (ida), and trying to dehumanize human fossils (neandertals). Like Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin said of 'hominid' fossils..."... much of what we can say about them is pure inference, guesswork." (People of the Lake, P. 19)

Then let's look at the data.

If humans share a common ancestry with other primates, we would expect to find evidence of this in the fossil record. More specifically, we would expect to find fossilized specimens that exhibit a mixture of more modern human-like traits and more primitive primate-like traits. Do you agree that's a reasonable expectation under the hypothesis?

Haha.... I mention a history of shoddy conclusions; and now you want to justify it with your belief system?




If life on earth is a result of the Biblical creator, we would expect to see evidence of that in genetics, geology, paleontology, biology etc... And we do see how evidence supports the Bible.

 

[6days]

The results are exactly what you'd expect from stupidly carbon dating fossils that have been dated by a variety of other methods as very old

Same song as always GC... reject evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

Radio dating is usually done as just one of several methods to rule out systematic error, but this paper relies doggedly on its one unreliable technique

Your inconsistencies are consistently inconsistently consistent. Again your rejection of C14 dating in this particular instance is like your theme song -- reject evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

GC..... it was only days ago you said something like it was wrong to take modern rates and extrapolate that into the unknown past. Now suddenly you want to do that exact thing. You don't know conditions in the beginning.

with no attempt to verify with alternative techniques, which seems to be a deliberate ploy to fool the naïve unsophisticated reader.

Alternative techniques like studying the half life of DNA, studying radiometric dating and assumtions involved, studying decay rates and possible preservation of soft tissue, studying genetics and biology to determine the feasability of mutations transforming cold blooded reptiles into hot blooded birds... etc. Yes, it is good to verify with alternative techniques.

 

[6days]

"Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools."

Here is another...
An Orientation in Science *1938
By Pub. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.

From the Preface: “…In presenting*science to the beginning student, therefore, it has been found useful to survey a broad field of science. Such a survey*acquaints the student first*of all with the scientific method of thought and procedure..”

Wonderful...students can trust the information in this book...its based on the scientific method...observe, test, repeat *etc. However, sadly...students were taught psuedoscience. ..not unlike students of today. From page 355...“...500,000 B.C. Second glaciation* (Kansan) 600,000 B.C. First interglacial Chellean Heidelberg Piltdown Peking Java 900,000 B.C. First glaciation* (Nebraskan) Pre Chellean 1,000,000 B.C. Eolithic...”

*And page 359“...with the bones. He is related to the Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus), next...”

So we are promised the scientific method but instead we get evolutionary beliefs. The fraudulently composed Piltdown (who never existed) is 600,000 years old and has relatives..... pffft

Psuedoscience=evolutionism

 

[6days]

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

This science textbook told us the brain size of the mythological Piltdown

The Evolution of Human BehaviorContributors: Carl J. Warden 1932
Pub. The Macmillan Company
Page 122 “...that of Pithecanthropus. The brain of Piltdown man was better developed than that of...”

 

[6days]

Please name a text book that was in common use. Or even a textbook that was actually in use in schools.

Here is another..... This book tells us Piltdown is s lower form of man. That type of belief has caused a huge amount of suffering in this world ( racism and even genocides)
Elementary Biology
by Benjamin C. Gruenberg
1919
Pub. Ginn & Company*
Page 494

 

[Tyrathca]

I'm still confused, some guy falsifies research to further his career. Scientists (not creationists) subsequently disprove his forgery. Therefore..... What?

Some really old textbooks make a mention of the forgery. Therefore... What? Most textbooks have many wrong or outdated details in them (or at least they do in my specialty)

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Same song as always GC... reject evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Your inconsistencies are consistently inconsistently consistent. Again your rejection of C14 dating in this particular instance is like your theme song -- reject evidence that contradicts your beliefs.

GC..... it was only days ago you said something like it was wrong to take modern rates and extrapolate that into the unknown past. Now suddenly you want to do that exact thing. You don't know conditions in the beginning.

The moon recedes according to a differential equation that includes a term that depends on the configuration the continents, halve treating that term as a constant is unjustified, as Brown knows but is being dishonest about. Or incompetent.

The beginning conditions for radioactive dating can be known because of the behaviour of the daughter products in the source material. Argon gases out of molten rock, Lead is expelled from zircon crystals. This can be tested in the lab, of any creationists cared to test it. But lab work is for sissies, isn't it?

Alternative techniques like studying the half life of DNA, studying radiometric dating and assumtions involved, studying decay rates and possible preservation of soft tissue, studying genetics and biology to determine the feasability of mutations transforming cold blooded reptiles into hot blooded birds... etc. Yes, it is good to verify with alternative techniques.

All those dating methods are continent on conditions. There is no law, equivalent to radioactive decay, for DNA. It depends acutely on the presence and movement of water, oxygen, temperature, and that scientists understanding of those factors was poor and is now better doors not prove what you think it does.

That wish to replace reliable physics based methods with flimsy biological assumptions just tells me that you want wriggle room to promote religious ideas over scientific ones. But as you look around the country, you will see that you are losing day by day. Truth wins out, you see.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, I think you have been misled by those voices. If voices say one thing and scripture another, go with scripture. Don't trust voices without verification. Snow doesn't prove it is from God.

Dear Ross,

I want you to know something very well. False prophets/the devil cannot cause Snow or Rain to fall or to not fall. Satan does not have such a thing in his power. Only GOD can do that!! If that's all that you come away with this, know that is true. Tornadoes too. You will see God spare one house and skip over a church, or vice versa. Just because people get killed in a storm does not mean that God isn't doing it. Certain people must go as follows {see Rev. 14:13KJV}: "Blessed are the dead which {who} die in the Lord from henceforth {hereon}: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors (on Earth); and their works {in Heaven} do follow them."

In other words, God wants certain people to die, to take them off of their works on Earth, and to go to Heaven, where their work in Heaven follow them. Do you understand what I'm saying here. {See Rev. 14:14KKJV}: The vision about the white cloud was about a white tornado they had emanating from Brandenburg, KY which ran through Xenia, OH, and through MI {Michigan}. The vision then continues with another tornado {brown or black} which came afterwards and killed people and even horses. The people killed being pulled from Earth and being relocated to Heaven. Quite a promotion!! Also, it says the tornadoes ran a path of destruction by the space of 1,600 furlongs. The article said it went for 200 miles. Since there are 8 furlongs in one mile, 1,600 furlongs equals 200 miles. This was an astounding vision that I had while I sat there watching the news. It was like that I was carried away in the Spirit and had this great vision happen to me. The Lord revealed it to me, but I must admit, none of you believe me: the guy who makes all of the mistakes. The Bible says 1,600 furlongs and the article said 200 miles. They are equal, if that helps you to believe me better. Will close for now.

Tons Of Love From God Rain Down Upon You!!

Michael

 

[Stripe]

The moon recedes according to a differential equation that includes a term that depends on the configuration the continents, halve treating that term as a constant is unjustified, as Brown knows but is being dishonest about. Or incompetent.

Nope. Assuming the truth of the Darwinist agenda is not a requirement. The challenge stands. And even if continental drift is assumed, there are reasons to believe that it would not be a significant factor.

The beginning conditions for radioactive dating can be known because of the behaviour of the daughter products in the source material. Argon gases out of molten rock, Lead is expelled from zircon crystals. This can be tested in the lab, of any creationists cared to test it.

They have.

Is derision all you've got?

All those dating methods are continent on conditions. There is no law, equivalent to radioactive decay, for DNA. It depends acutely on the presence and movement of water, oxygen, temperature, and that scientists understanding of those factors was poor and is now better doors not prove what you think it does. That wish to replace reliable physics based methods with flimsy biological assumptions just tells me that you want wriggle room to promote religious ideas over scientific ones. But as you look around the country, you will see that you are losing day by day. Truth wins out, you see.

It's called a discussion. We know why you don't want those to happen.

 

[Stripe]

I'm still confused.

Telling.

Some [Darwinist] falsifies research to [promote his religion]. Therefore... What?

It's just a story. There wasn't some point being proven.

Some really old textbooks make a mention of the forgery. Therefore... What?

Therefore GC has been shown wrong, again. Do try to keep up.

Most textbooks have many wrong or outdated details in them.

We know why you're desperate to change the subject.

 

[Tyrathca]

It's just a story. There wasn't some point being proven.

So all this argument by people like 6days had no pointed was merely "just a story"? Pull the other one.

We know why you're desperate to change the subject.

I am on subject. We know why you are desperate to avoid actually dealing with it.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

Unfortunately, Stripe can't close this thread, since he didn't start it.

 

[Interplanner]

I don't know all the workings here but have lost a post about the racism of upper class British who invented evolution and it had an invite to discuss "deluge vs uniformitarian 'building'" as a separate thread. I also started the thread!

Now both are gone. Any clues?