Creation vs. Evolution

[Stuu]

It was intended to provide a comprehensive story for the average Israelite to understand their place.

No doubt. But we have better stories now.

Not a single claimant from any individual or any representative of any estate of any author has ever come forward and made any claim of plagiarism against the UB.

When there are whole sections that appear more or less verbatim in published papers by other authors, I'd call that plagiarism. As you well know, the claim has been made on behalf of many authors, whether or not any of that has ended up in court.

You are just frightened that your pet Atheism in which you put the fate of your soul is unnerved by the truths of the UB which are being validated as the years go by.

Hilarious. Tell us how far away the Andromeda galaxy is, and how far the UB says it is. Tell us what ultimatons are, and cite the evidence for them. How old is the universe, and what evidence can you show for that?

How long will you deny the very God whose mind is the source of your mind?

When it comes to human belief in gods, it is the other way round.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Yeah. So correct me. I'll apologize if wrong.

Why am I the one expected to make the good arguments?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Easier, huh? Really?? So much for rational thinking..

Indeed, so much for rational thinking.

Stuart

 

[Cross Reference]

Tell you what. If you give a possible origin for God as you believe it, then I'll do the same for the universe.

I don't have to give anything. I look around to see how things can only from the beginning. You defend your postion that it came from nothing, all able to reproduce itself as is scientifically observed, to be the only way.

 

[Stuu]

Do you believe the world actually came into existence from nothing and when I say nothing I mean, NOTHING?

You have to be careful about what you mean by nothing. What do you mean? If you mean the same nothing that I understand, then yes, all the stuff we see around us arose from nothing. Matter and energy are borrowed gravitational energy from the inflation of space-time. Enjoy your possessions while you have them, they are only on loan from gravity.

Stuart

 

[Cross Reference]

You have to be careful about what you mean by nothing. What do you mean? If you mean the same nothing that I understand, then yes, all the stuff we see around us arose from nothing. Matter and energy are borrowed gravitational energy from the inflation of space-time. Enjoy your possessions while you have them, they are only on loan from gravity.

Stuart

Gravity??? Where did that come from?? Who or what activated it, if that is the way YOUR definition of "nothing" performed it?

 

[Stuu]

One of the many problems you have in rejecting an intelligent cause is that you seem to still believe in a cause that existed eternally. Or did gravity magically come into existence from nothing to create everything?

According to general relativity, gravity is really a distortion of space-time. So what you are really asking is how space-time came to exist, and to be distortable. Once you can explain that, then everything else follows; the existence of all the matter and energy are entirely explained without reference to any magical friends.

The problem with the word cause, is that you imply a cause-and-effect relationship. But causes happen before effects, and the Big Bang marks the beginning of time. So there is no such thing as 'before' the Big Bang. We are now searching for an entirely different kind of concept from the relationship between the knocking of the milk jug off the table and the shattering of the milk jug. Exactly what we are looking for is beyond anyone at this point. I don't know, and you don't know.

The most logical and scientific explanation....In the beginning, God created.

What is a god? How do gods do whatever they do? You haven't explained anything yet.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Gravity??? Where did that come from?? Who or what activated it, if that is the way YOUR definition of "nothing" performed it?

I didn't say 'nothing' performed anything. You haven't said what you mean by nothing. I suspect you don't actually mean nothing, you mean nothing plus a special friend hovering ready.

Stuart

 

[Cross Reference]

I didn't say 'nothing' performed anything. You haven't said what you mean by nothing. I suspect you don't actually mean nothing, you mean nothing plus a special friend hovering ready.

Stuart

Nope. To me nothing means nothing, as the word is defined by Webster's as "O" when used to calculate.. You want me say something that it is not or more or less of something of a being that exists in my imagination. Give your definition as I ask and quit skirting.

What is your definition of NOTHING that produced life as we know it? . . all life.

 

[Rosenritter]

Wow. Now you are really getting original in saying things the article didn’t even intimate. Atheists now have their own years, and somehow humanists are involved, and both the atheists and humanists are just plain dumb about what years really are.

I’m not sure that I am interested in a discussion that degenerates into this level of silliness. My interest has been on the scientific question of the C-14 age of dinosaur bones. You know as well as I do that a huge number of faithful Christian scientists (does Christian mean they are not inherently dumb?) have no problems with long dinosaur ages (see above post from radind in which he mentions ASA). Same goes for the followers of a whole variety of religious traditions. For now I will attribute your need to stoop to this level of dialogue as an excusable mental lapse.

If you think you have the self-control, then let’s talk science. Then if the answers from science align with your literal Genesis, I will agree with that.



Point of clarification. Though dinosaurs fit within the evolutionary timeline, evolution is not dependent on the validity of dinosaur ages, and if evolution were falsified, that would not cause a mass adjustment to the dates dinosaurs are believed to have lived. We are talking C-14 dating, not evolution. Can we stick to that?



Since you seem anxious to engage this C-14 issue, I am going to assume that you know the counterarguments to what you just said. No?



Projecting again? “Fall(ing) down at its feet and offering it sacrifices” is far more descriptive of religion than of science. I am appreciative of science, and feel I have a moderate understanding of some aspects of it. Don’t you?



I thought that had already been covered. We touched on the Genesis timeline (< 7000 years) earlier. And repeating the opening claim from the article:

Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.​

Note they say they were dated using Carbon 14, but they explicitly say they are “22,000 to 39,000 years old”, not atheist years, or Carbon years or any other goofy type of years you want to claim. Any normal person reading that opening statement in that article would conclude they meant 22,000 regular, ordinary, earth-go-around-sun, fall-winter-spring-summer years. Maybe in your world 7000 lies somewhere between 22,000 and 39,000. Doesn’t look like the article jibes with you timeline.



Hey, if you want to call me stupid, then feel free, and put me on ignore. But if you dare, how about a (more polite, please) examination of these factors you mention?



You guys are the one that pointed to that article. If you have a better article, why didn’t you use it instead?



Knock yourself out, mock away, if that is the best you have. That says more about you than it does about me.

It seems that I need time for more than thumb-typed response. I apologize if my tone became harsh. Granted, if I were an evolutionist I would not concede "evolution" just because men and dinosaurs lived together. But for some reason the majority of evolutionists claim they would. Go figure. More when I get back to this, I'll provide a response with better precision.

 

[Rosenritter]

How about this....what was this supposed to mean?

"Other than your reasoning there is circular logic (and otherwise flawed) from the start?"

Or are childish insults all you have left?

When you make fun of a coherent statement because it is technically a sentence fragment, rather than attending to content, you deserve it.

 

[gcthomas]

I don't have to give anything. I look around to see how things can only from the beginning. You defend your postion that it came from nothing, all able to reproduce itself as is scientifically observed, to be the only way.

So you cannot tell me how God got there in order to start the universe. That doesn't surprise me, somehow.

So, given you didn't answer my question, I'll only part answer yours: the universe/multiverse/spacetime may be considered to have the same reason for existing as is usually claimed for the Christian God. But without the unnecessary complication of needing a God as well.

 

[Jose Fly]

When you make fun of a coherent statement because it is technically a sentence fragment, rather than attending to content, you deserve it.

How about just explaining what you meant and how it relates to what I posted? Remember, I posted...

This is an interesting creationist argument.

Basically, we have lots of fossilized dinosaur remains...we've had them for centuries. Starting over 200 years ago, just by looking at the geological characteristics of the areas the fossils were found in, geologists and paleontologists concluded that dinosaurs existed very long times ago. Then about 100 years later scientists discovered radiometric dating, which not only confirmed the ancient ages for the fossils, but allowed scientists to put approximate dates on the fossils, which in turn allowed scientists to uncover a surprising amount of detail about dinosaurs, e.g., their evolution, their life history, and their demise. All of the available data supported the general narrative of dinosaurs living tens of millions of years ago and dying out around 65 million years ago.

So what does that mean for the C-14 results on dinosaur remains? It means those results are extreme outliers. We also know that C-14 dating isn't useful for objects that are over ~45,000 years old. We also know of mechanisms by which C-14 can find its way into old objects (it's been tested and demonstrated in the lab).

Put that all together and you see the situation. The creationists are arguing that the outlier results, generated by misused methodology, should overrule all the other congruent results from all the other fields of science.

That leads to an obvious question....why? Why should scientists throw out centuries of congruent results from multiple fields of science, and go with outlier results derived by a misused methodology?​

Do you have an actual response to the content of that post?

 

[Caino]

No doubt. But we have better stories now.


When there are whole sections that appear more or less verbatim in published papers by other authors, I'd call that plagiarism. As you well know, the claim has been made on behalf of many authors, whether or not any of that has ended up in court.


Hilarious. Tell us how far away the Andromeda galaxy is, and how far the UB says it is. Tell us what ultimatons are, and cite the evidence for them. How old is the universe, and what evidence can you show for that?


When it comes to human belief in gods, it is the other way round.

Stuart

Answered in the past but you are thick.

* The book states in the opening they would be using human concepts, they went on to explain they used over 1,000 humans to do so.

* We concede the Andromeda distance problem, the revelators also explained what their limitations were/are. Someone tacked the issue in detail http://www.urantia.nyc/ko/Secondary/StarsGalaxiesEng.htm?domain=www.theuniversalfather.com

* Hilarious or sad really is your dismissal of the forest because of some of it's trees, but that's the Atheist way.

* The revelation reveals things we did not know in 1934 or 55 but are now being validated. The latest mapping shows this.

 

[Lon]

There's shoddy and there's shoddy.

Would you agree that a religious book that gives at least five different methods for producing humans is shoddier by orders of magnitude?

1) Doesn't answer the question. 2) It is a dodge and misdirection. 3) Off-topic 4) shoddy also:

1. The magic of a deity breathing into dirt

Maybe not in your case? God has no mouth or nostrils, therefore we deem this as the image of God, that higher order of every man...well, most of us?

2. The magic of a deity fashioning a human from a rib

:yawn: Scientist did this with Dolly the sheep...and they aren't even God....and it wasn't magic.

3. Sexual reproduction

:think: That's shoddy? :idunno: Who knew! (before you go off, this is all rhetorical simply to show you being shallowly off-topic - it is a just-for-fun freebie that isn't meant to elicit much more than explain why it against TOL rules and rabbit-trailing away from answering a question)

4. The magic of appearing from nowhere (or of Cain marrying his sister)

Er, science postulates the latter in some models, just sayin'....

5. The magic of a deity impregnating a woman

Again, science. My uncle (farmer, not a scientist) impregnates cows. It isn't sexual or magic.

Try to stay on topic now. There was a question. It didn't call for misdirection or derailing. What you don't understand is magic, fair enough. The rest of us try to pay closer attention.

So when you call something shoddy, don't forget what your book of talking donkeys says.
Stuart

So a gorilla can't really sign language for food? Horses can't count? I thought that was all scientifically verifiable too. Could it be you are just VERY quick to jump to the absurd only when it suits you? I'd be awesome if you'd do some serious contemplation of the N.T. one day. Don't give the 'read it' retort. So have I, still am... I really would like something better for you. Its the only reason I've spent this much time. Find Him, Stuu

 

[Jose Fly]

:yawn: Scientist did this with Dolly the sheep...and they aren't even God....and it wasn't magic.

So Eve was a clone of Adam? She had a Y-chromosome?

 

[Lon]

So Eve was a clone of Adam? She had a Y-chromosome?

So Eve was a clone of Adam? She had a Y-chromosome?

:think: I have a daughter and a son... Science, no (I thought males were the determining factor)? Well, I guess it depends on what kind of science we are talking about.
In theology, the concern isn't so much 'how' but 'what is taught by it.' You and your wife would benefit from that point (probably do to a degree).

Two quick questions 1) is this on topic?
2) you know what rhetorical means? Or was that called into question too? -Just checkin' in (nothing mean, debate-necessary or needing of reply should it go that way) :e4e: -Lon

 

[Jose Fly]

:think: I have a daughter and a son... Science, no (I thought males were the determining factor)?

Incoherent.

Well, I guess it depends on what kind of science we are talking about.

What kind of science were you talking about when you cited the cloning of sheep as comparable to God creating Eve from Adam's rib?

In theology, the concern isn't so much 'how' but 'what is taught by it.'

The cloning of sheep wasn't theology. And remember, you cited it.

1) is this on topic?

Again, when someone else mentioned God creating Eve from Adam's rib by "magic", you responded "Scientist did this with Dolly the sheep...and they aren't even God....and it wasn't magic."

If the science of cloning isn't on-topic, why did you bring it up?

2) you know what rhetorical means?

Yes I do. Why?

 

[Lon]

Incoherent.

I admit to some lack of clarity at times but didn't imagine this was it.
Seeing that it was rhetorical, I can't imagine it worth too many back and forth posts.
My thought line was that males determine whether their offspring are male/female.
Whatever else, it also included a rib for passing sentiment simply to say the previous was a bit petty and perhaps snarky to boot on Stuu's first off-topic post.

What kind of science were you talking about when you cited the cloning of sheep as comparable to God creating Eve from Adam's rib?

Whatever man can do, it'd be silly for a skeptic to think God couldn't. Add to the fact that scientists still can't figure out everything and I'd think we can relegate a bit of objection as pithy and meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Science, isn't, in fact, against theology. Being that a rib was used, you'd think a scientist would be checking human rib DNA to do better science....at least, the very least, looking into it.
(again nothing really for response, hence "rhetorical")

The cloning of sheep wasn't theology. And remember, you cited it.

Well, either because I'm not as clear or because you don't follow well. In this case, again, if science can do it, the stretch to God doing it is a LOT more plausible than pointless skepticism can sustain.

Again, when someone else mentioned God creating Eve from Adam's rib by "magic", you responded "Scientist did this with Dolly the sheep...and they aren't even God....and it wasn't magic."

Point here: Dolly wasn't cloned by magic .

If the science of cloning isn't on-topic, why did you bring it up?

I guess you are trying to turn that around, but mine was a passing post. In the end, does it matter whether there is a Y chromosome passed on? Science can't figure out how to do that at least theoretically? Okay, God has something over on them then. Why get lost in details? (again all good natured, nothing that warrants a reply but as the muse grabs you)

 

[6days]

.....spectrum of ASA members’ views. While the issue included voices unsympathetic to evolutionary biology, the overall impression given is that old-earth geology, biological evolution, and Christianity can coexist.

Old earth geology compromises the gospel, destroying the purpose of Christ's physical death and resurrection. If physical death was not a result of sin, the gospel message becomes garbled.