Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

So you take this representation as fact? Are you sure it represents all the water? The link declares it as a representation of fresh water... Besides that, there is no way to measure the volume of all the water of the earth so that representation is very unscientific...

It is a representation of all the Earth's water taken from a science source. No, I don't personally know it to be a fact but I tend to believe evidence based scientific consensus rather more than unverifiable ancient scriptures.
I would expect that science could produce at least a reasonable approximation. If it is wrong then it is there to be falsified with better facts and information, please feel free to do so.

So in fact, what I cosider evidence does not matter in the least to someone who cant logically come to the truth of the origin of the universe... and you do realize what the term "universe" implies right?

Sorry but making up your own evidence isn't how science works. :nono:

It is impossible to not do anything, and faith is required to do anything. The fact that anything exists is evidence that God exists (At least according to scientific laws and math).

I didn't say not to do anything I said "To not do any of these things" which is about specific things. Playing chess is a specific thing, while not playing chess isn't. The fact that anything exists at all is an "unknown" and does not indicate a very specific godly entity.

Am I? [Being silly] Without God there is no morality. Without God man does not need to be accountable for anything he does. Disbelief is a major agenda for many...

Codswallop.
Morality is a human concept.
My morality is my own and relative not an absolute.
Believing that without a Godly moral leash we are all somehow rabid beasts shows your likely willful ignorance of how evolution, mutual cooperation and natural selection works.
An innate element to human morality has probably evolved imo along with arms and legs. Most of us just can't help but be reasonably cooperative and relatively moral with others else we would all suffer in the end.

If you were half as objective as you claim you would see that neither a specific god nor evolution could be deduced from it.

Thanks for your bald assertion, but evolution is based on fact and evidence, not bald assertions.

Agreed. Can you do me a favor and tell that to all of the people that write the public school system's biology text books?

Just "evolution" then, but I too have noticed how creationist terms have to be assumed sometimes, and have used it myself. Darwinian evolution is however just evolution by degrees whether large or small.

World origin evolution is not a fact. It is a theory as is Creation. Any real scientist knows this and would never claim either as scientific fact. Only evolution as we observe it today is fact (changes we have actually observed such as mutations) and it has only been observed as inimical and not progressive.

I personally accept Darwinian evolution as a fact (informal) but no, scientific theories do not get formally proven. Overwhelmingly natural scientists have no problem accepting it as factual because the testable and specific evidence is there all around us, to coin your own phrase.

We have been been over the whole "as I see it thing."

Clearly like other theists with a religion you don't actually have anything specific to show that any of it is true, just assertions worthy of rational rejection. Even I can accept the possibility of a god of some kind but to suppose a specific one requires rather more, testable specific evidence.

The problem is evidence, actually everything, has become subjective. To many people there are no longer any absolutes. This has damaged religion and science alike. I do not doubt your sencerity but it is impossible for anyone to truly be unbiased. The question really isn't about Creation vs. Evolution anyway. The question is: does a necessary being exist?

I am simply not swayed by evidence-free assertions, sure, that image of Earth's water (above) may not be totally accurate, but as a representation of the truth as seen by science then I am at least convinced that it is reasonably close enough for my threshold of belief.
Anyway I am an agnostic atheist and for me the ultimate question is probably unknowable, my issue is with people who think they do know and why they think they do.

There is no such thing as faith alone. This is one thing that Christians say that irritates me. Faith is based on the evidence of things not seen which means there has to be something observed first in order for the existence of evidence in which faith is placed. This is true for both sides of the tracks.

The only way I will ever conceed to Evolution is when we are able to create a completely synthetic life; which is impossible because that would require scientists to create matter.

I don't know how much you have seen about why natural science these days accepts Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact. In fact it is only really ever debated because of fundamentalists who dogmatically reject natural science if it seems to conflict with ancient scripture. Those with more open minds will imo actually get pleasure and knowledge from scientific reasoning and conclusions based in evidence, even if it is not all fully understood. Most people can understand the basic idea unless perhaps like Stripe (say) they don't want to.

 

[Stripe]

It is a representation of all the Earth's water.

Nope. There are vast reservoirs of water locked deep in the Earth that are not included in your image.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope. There are vast reservoirs of water locked deep in the Earth that are not included in your image.

There is no liquid water at all in the mantle. There is, in the crust, water-saturated rock, which is something quite different, and would have to be physically pulled out of the rock in most cases.

The remaining water is tied up chemically in rock as water of hydration. It will not be removed without quite a bit of effort.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/water+of+hydration

 

[Ardima]

It is a representation of all the Earth's water taken from a science source. No, I don't personally know it to be a fact but I tend to believe evidence based scientific consensus rather more than unverifiable ancient scriptures.
I would expect that science could produce at least a reasonable approximation. If it is wrong then it is there to be falsified with better facts and information, please feel free to do so.

I never said that it was wrong, my claim is that there is too much of a possibility of error for it to be scientific.

Sorry but making up your own evidence isn't how science works. :nono:

When did I "make up" evidence? I said that presenting anything I feel is evidence is irrelevant because the interpretation of evidence is subjective to each of our presuppositions (intentional or not).

I didn't say not to do anything I said "To not do any of these things" which is about specific things. Playing chess is a specific thing, while not playing chess isn't. The fact that anything exists at all is an "unknown" and does not indicate a very specific godly entity.

First, I was simply saving time by skipping to where this line of discussion was headed.

Second, When did I say that it indicates a very specific godly entity? Just because I believe that the God of the bible fits the description of all the characteristics that the necessary being must have, I have only suggested that all scientific fact is evidence of an eternal necessary being and nothing more.

Codswallop.
Morality is a human concept.
My morality is my own and relative not an absolute.

The concept of morality may be considered relative, but the existence of morality is absolute. Evidenced even among the animal kingdom...

Believing that without a Godly moral leash we are all somehow rabid beasts shows your likely willful ignorance of how evolution, mutual cooperation and natural selection works.

You are putting words in my mouth again. You always seem to see the things that people say as specific without viewing the big picture. Without God (necessary being) there would not be anything including morality. No necessary being = no morality. Even if morality is relative it is not a leash, it is a tool for the preservation of all living breathing things.

Thanks for your bald assertion, but evolution is based on fact and evidence, not bald assertions.

What bald assertion? As I stated before Creationism and Evolution are both theories, always will be. All facts can be interpreted either way based on the presuppositions (again intentional or not) of the interpreter.

Just "evolution" then, but I too have noticed how creationist terms have to be assumed sometimes, and have used it myself. Darwinian evolution is however just evolution by degrees whether large or small.

You Do realize that all observations of Darwin were that of evolution among species and never from one specie to a new specie? It is an assumption that given enough time one could evolve into something new.

I personally accept Darwinian evolution as a fact (informal) but no, scientific theories do not get formally proven. Overwhelmingly natural scientists have no problem accepting it as factual because the testable and specific evidence is there all around us, to coin your own phrase.

I also accept Darwinian evolution as a fact, to the point of his actual, factual observations. I disregard all assumptions and hypothesis beyond those observation until such time as they can be themselves observed.

Clearly like other theists with a religion you don't actually have anything specific to show that any of it is true, just assertions worthy of rational rejection.

Specifically I have scientific laws that logically declare that a necessary being exists. Especially the law of causation.

Even I can accept the possibility of a god of some kind but to suppose a specific one requires rather more, testable specific evidence.

I can accept (and admit) that it is impossible to suppose a specific god. Why I believe it is the God of the Bible is not relevant to the scientific method and has no place on this thread, but I would be happy to explain my reasoning on another thread. Only if you are interested of course.

I am simply not swayed by evidence-free assertions, sure, that image of Earth's water (above) may not be totally accurate, but as a representation of the truth as seen by science then I am at least convinced that it is reasonably close enough for my threshold of belief.

I think we can agree that there had to be some (actually many) mathematical calculations involved in that representation. In this instance I believe that there are too many variables for it to be scientifically accurate. Variables such as water not discovered, water saturation of all organic material, and humidity that is ever changing and never accurately measurable.

Anyway I am an agnostic atheist and for me the ultimate question is probably unknowable, my issue is with people who think they do know and why they think they do.

Again, I do think it is knowable that there is a necessary being; however, anything beyond that must be taken by faith based on the observation and experiences of the individual.

I don't know how much you have seen about why natural science these days accepts Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact. In fact it is only really ever debated because of fundamentalists who dogmatically reject natural science if it seems to conflict with ancient scripture. Those with more open minds will imo actually get pleasure and knowledge from scientific reasoning and conclusions based in evidence, even if it is not all fully understood. Most people can understand the basic idea unless perhaps like Stripe (say) they don't want to.

As I said before, I believe Darwinian evolution to the extent of his actual observations. I love natural science and take great pleasure in learning about the world around me. A debate takes place because there are also closed minded scientists that reject the unnatural and spiritual things that are observed, but cannot yet be explained. I believe it is those with a mind for both the physical and the spiritual that advance our understanding of the universe.

 

[alwight]

It is a representation of all the Earth's water taken from a science source. No, I don't personally know it to be a fact but I tend to believe evidence based scientific consensus rather more than unverifiable ancient scriptures.
I would expect that science could produce at least a reasonable approximation. If it is wrong then it is there to be falsified with better facts and information, please feel free to do so.

I never said that it was wrong, my claim is that there is too much of a possibility of error for it to be scientific.

Science is imo about reducing error not eliminating it, getting ever closer to the truth. It's religions that won't accept error. If a science seems reasonably synonymous with reality then that will usually do it for me.

Sorry but making up your own evidence isn't how science works. :nono:

When did I "make up" evidence? I said that presenting anything I feel is evidence is irrelevant because the interpretation of evidence is subjective to each of our presuppositions (intentional or not).

Fair enough then, but evidence is neutral imo, if it exists then it can be put to the test and explained, we can't really pick and choose what is evidence based on if it suits our preconceptions or theistic belief. Evidence can indicate the great age of the earth, or that we share common ancestry with other apes, to the open minded but of course often tends to be rejected by those with conflicting beliefs.

I didn't say not to do anything I said "To not do any of these things" which is about specific things. Playing chess is a specific thing, while not playing chess isn't. The fact that anything exists at all is an "unknown" and does not indicate a very specific godly entity.

First, I was simply saving time by skipping to where this line of discussion was headed.

Second, When did I say that it indicates a very specific godly entity? Just because I believe that the God of the bible fits the description of all the characteristics that the necessary being must have, I have only suggested that all scientific fact is evidence of an eternal necessary being and nothing more.

Let's cut to the chase then, I don't know that you are wrong and I suspect that you don't know you are right. A level of non absolute belief/disbelief exists for both of us. Yes?
I accept scientific conclusion before ancient scripture because it is based in factual evidence, experience and rational conclusions. I don't accept that moral absolutes exist because I don't accept that everything necessarily required a creator or an unexplained perfect divine entity.

Codswallop.
Morality is a human concept.
My morality is my own and relative not an absolute.

The concept of morality may be considered relative, but the existence of morality is absolute. Evidenced even among the animal kingdom...

But you can't know that, unless you absolutely know that an absolute moral law giver exists. And I contend that although you may believe it but even you must admit that you don't know absolutely that it is true.

Believing that without a Godly moral leash we are all somehow rabid beasts shows your likely willful ignorance of how evolution, mutual cooperation and natural selection works.

You are putting words in my mouth again. You always seem to see the things that people say as specific without viewing the big picture. Without God (necessary being) there would not be anything including morality. No necessary being = no morality. Even if morality is relative it is not a leash, it is a tool for the preservation of all living breathing things.

As above I don't think you absolutely know any such thing, none of us imo can claim to know what is an absolute moral value, so whether they exist or not is all rather beside the point. We can only rely on our evolved relative morality unless we hear directly from the moral law giver.

Thanks for your bald assertion, but evolution is based on fact and evidence, not bald assertions.

What bald assertion? As I stated before Creationism and Evolution are both theories, always will be. All facts can be interpreted either way based on the presuppositions (again intentional or not) of the interpreter.

Darwinian evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory which stands or falls by the evidence. Creationism is arguably a theory but it has no supporting evidence outside of ancient scripture nor falsifiabilty which can therefore be dismissed as easily as it is asserted.

Just "evolution" then, but I too have noticed how creationist terms have to be assumed sometimes, and have used it myself. Darwinian evolution is however just evolution by degrees whether large or small.

You Do realize that all observations of Darwin were that of evolution among species and never from one specie to a new specie? It is an assumption that given enough time one could evolve into something new.

Humans tend not to live long enough to generally witness speciation directly. However there is plenty of evidence that speciation is routine for all life.

I personally accept Darwinian evolution as a fact (informal) but no, scientific theories do not get formally proven. Overwhelmingly natural scientists have no problem accepting it as factual because the testable and specific evidence is there all around us, to coin your own phrase.

I also accept Darwinian evolution as a fact, to the point of his actual, factual observations. I disregard all assumptions and hypothesis beyond those observation until such time as they can be themselves observed.

YECs rather need a kind of super-evolution to have happened in the last few thousand years, but quite impossible scientifically at least.

Clearly like other theists with a religion you don't actually have anything specific to show that any of it is true, just assertions worthy of rational rejection.

Specifically I have scientific laws that logically declare that a necessary being exists. Especially the law of causation.

I'm rather sure that nobody actually knows that beyond an un-evidenced speculation.

Even I can accept the possibility of a god of some kind but to suppose a specific one requires rather more, testable specific evidence.

I can accept (and admit) that it is impossible to suppose a specific god. Why I believe it is the God of the Bible is not relevant to the scientific method and has no place on this thread, but I would be happy to explain my reasoning on another thread. Only if you are interested of course.

Is it based in testable evidence or is it something perhaps supposedly miraculous perhaps based in an assumed inerrant scripture? I'd be more interested in the former frankly.

I am simply not swayed by evidence-free assertions, sure, that image of Earth's water (above) may not be totally accurate, but as a representation of the truth as seen by science then I am at least convinced that it is reasonably close enough for my threshold of belief.

I think we can agree that there had to be some (actually many) mathematical calculations involved in that representation. In this instance I believe that there are too many variables for it to be scientifically accurate. Variables such as water not discovered, water saturation of all organic material, and humidity that is ever changing and never accurately measurable.

I think that science can be allowed to know reasonably well how much water is likely to be trapped in the ground, does it actually matter if it has a margin of error which is allowed for? Many creationists seem to insist on absolute accuracy probably because they know that that is highly unlikely and gives them an exit.

Anyway I am an agnostic atheist and for me the ultimate question is probably unknowable, my issue is with people who think they do know and why they think they do.

Again, I do think it is knowable that there is a necessary being; however, anything beyond that must be taken by faith based on the observation and experiences of the individual.

I'm always willing to hear how anyone actually thinks they can know such a thing, particularly if it stems from the rational and hopefully evidenced.

I don't know how much you have seen about why natural science these days accepts Darwinian evolution as a virtual fact. In fact it is only really ever debated because of fundamentalists who dogmatically reject natural science if it seems to conflict with ancient scripture. Those with more open minds will imo actually get pleasure and knowledge from scientific reasoning and conclusions based in evidence, even if it is not all fully understood. Most people can understand the basic idea unless perhaps like Stripe (say) they don't want to.

As I said before, I believe Darwinian evolution to the extent of his actual observations. I love natural science and take great pleasure in learning about the world around me. A debate takes place because there are also closed minded scientists that reject the unnatural and spiritual things that are observed, but cannot yet be explained. I believe it is those with a mind for both the physical and the spiritual that advance our understanding of the universe.

Fortunately however science is demonstrable and falsifiable. Debates are based in evidence and the scientific method, not personalities and personal opinions. Sadly creationists often seem to regard science as a global atheistic conspiracy rather than an honest pursuit of the truth that we can perhaps all learn from and appreciate.

 

[noguru]

Nope. I'm saying you're ignorant.

:rotfl:

The irony is just too much to handle sometimes. But then again Stripe's posts are always good for a laugh.

 

[noguru]

Well that is certainly impressive. Have you read it in the original Greek or are you just showing off your cut and paste skills.

"Stupid is as stupid does." - Forest Gump's mother.

 

[6days]

There is no liquid water at all in the mantle. There is, in the crust, water-saturated rock, which is something quite different, and would have to be physically pulled out of the rock in most cases.

The remaining water is tied up chemically in rock as water of hydration. It will not be removed without quite a bit of effort.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/water+of+hydration

No matter if "tied up chemically" or not... Would you agree it is evidence of the truth of scripture (watery start) over evolutionary beliefs (hot molten blob).

"In the very beginning of earth's history, this planet was a giant, red hot, roiling, boiling sea of molten rock - a magma ocean. The heat had been generated by the repeated high speed collisions of much smaller bodies of space rocks that continually clumped to...."
http://www.extremescience.com/earth.htm


Or
*In the beginning*God created*the heavens*and the earth.*2*Now the earth was formless*and empty,darkness was over the surface of the deep,*and the Spirit of God*was hovering*over the waters.

 

[Ardima]

Science is imo about reducing error not eliminating it, getting ever closer to the truth. It's religions that won't accept error. If a science seems reasonably synonymous with reality then that will usually do it for me.

Fair enough then, but evidence is neutral imo, if it exists then it can be put to the test and explained, we can't really pick and choose what is evidence based on if it suits our preconceptions or theistic belief. Evidence can indicate the great age of the earth, or that we share common ancestry with other apes, to the open minded but of course often tends to be rejected by those with conflicting beliefs.

Let's cut to the chase then, I don't know that you are wrong and I suspect that you don't know you are right. A level of non absolute belief/disbelief exists for both of us. Yes?
I accept scientific conclusion before ancient scripture because it is based in factual evidence, experience and rational conclusions. I don't accept that moral absolutes exist because I don't accept that everything necessarily required a creator or an unexplained perfect divine entity.



But you can't know that, unless you absolutely know that an absolute moral law giver exists. And I contend that although you may believe it but even you must admit that you don't know absolutely that it is true.

As above I don't think you absolutely know any such thing, none of us imo can claim to know what is an absolute moral value, so whether they exist or not is all rather beside the point. We can only rely on our evolved relative morality unless we hear directly from the moral law giver.

Darwinian evolution is a falsifiable scientific theory which stands or falls by the evidence. Creationism is arguably a theory but it has no supporting evidence outside of ancient scripture nor falsifiabilty which can therefore be dismissed as easily as it is asserted.

Humans tend not to live long enough to generally witness speciation directly. However there is plenty of evidence that speciation is routine for all life.

YECs rather need a kind of super-evolution to have happened in the last few thousand years, but quite impossible scientifically at least.

I'm rather sure that nobody actually knows that beyond an un-evidenced speculation.

Is it based in testable evidence or is it something perhaps supposedly miraculous perhaps based in an assumed inerrant scripture? I'd be more interested in the former frankly.

I think that science can be allowed to know reasonably well how much water is likely to be trapped in the ground, does it actually matter if it has a margin of error which is allowed for? Many creationists seem to insist on absolute accuracy probably because they know that that is highly unlikely and gives them an exit.

I'm always willing to hear how anyone actually thinks they can know such a thing, particularly if it stems from the rational and hopefully evidenced.

Fortunately however science is demonstrable and falsifiable. Debates are based in evidence and the scientific method, not personalities and personal opinions. Sadly creationists often seem to regard science as a global atheistic conspiracy rather than an honest pursuit of the truth that we can perhaps all learn from and appreciate.

I do not have the time now to delve into a complete answer to your post, but I do have to say that, sadly, you are correct about the way most creationists view science.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

I'm sure she meant that there was water besides the aquifer below the U.S., including the oceans, lakes, rivers, creeks, and other aquifers, etc. Also waters above the firmament. Seems like freshwater drains into the sea and becomes salty. So water evaporating from the oceans/seas shall make the sea get more salty, just like freshwater draining into the sea would make it less salty. Seems like a common occurrence. So I would suppose that God could have a vast selection of saltwater to derive water from, should He want to. Does science know how much water is on the Earth, whether salty or not? I know that God knows. So it really doesn't matter since He knows and you don't believe in Him. Just clarifying and curious.

Warm Regards Mate,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

The Magnificent Earth

The earth's size is so perfect, so precise that if anything were even slightly different, it would cease to exist. So precise in fact, that if the thin layer of nitrogen and oxygen that extends 50 miles above Earth's surface were any smaller, the atmosphere would be impossible. So precise, that should the sun be located any closer, it would burn and any further, it would freeze. Just the slightest variance in Earth's position to the sun would make life as we know it simply impossible. The moon even plays a vital role in our existence, as it is responsible for the ocean tides and it stabilizes Earth's rotation. And alas, the phenomenon of gravity . . . something that science still cannot adequately explain. The very earth that we reside on is in fact a mysterious, majestic miracle of God.

The Miracle of Life

It takes place thousands of times a day and happens in an instant--a new human life is created and will begin its 9 month journey before entering this world. The miracle of life is no ordinary act, but one that is filled with proof of God's design for us. From the perfect design of a male and a female meeting in just the right conditions to create a fertilized egg, to the beginning of the formation of a unique set of chromosomes and genes that no other human being that ever lived will share. And just like that, baby's first breath unleashes a new soul, a new life and a new purpose. It is truly one of God's most incredible miracles.

God’s Fingerprint - Fibonacci Sequence

We can even witness God in math and science in what is called the Fibonacci Sequence, commonly referred to as "God's Fingerprint." This mathematical miracle proves that there is a Divine Proportion that is exhibited in a multitude of shapes, numbers and patterns, in both living and non-living things. A sequence of numbers was discovered that created a very interesting pattern. The sequence begins with the numbers 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, and continues indefinitely. Each number is obtained adding the last two digits together. A rectangle with the length and width of any two of the numbers of these sequence, forms a "perfect rectangle." Once this "perfect rectangle" is broken down into squares based on Fibonacci's Sequence and divided with an arc, we begin to see a spiral shape. It's importance is revealed in where we find it. For example, the sunflower, shells, ocean waves, buds on trees, petals on flowers, pine cones, sand dollars, starfish, etc are all formed with this exact same blueprint. The greatest example of this is located directly above our heads...even the spiral of the galaxies above us are formed with the exact design sequence. It reveals to us just how awesome God's handiwork is across His vast creation.

The Amazing Human Body

We've all heard that our bodies are made of over 70% water, but that is just one of the many amazing facts about the human body. Did you know that our nerve impulses to and from the brain travel as fast as 170 mph? Or that our noses do more than just smell? It is responsible for thermoregulating the air we breathe in, thus keeping our bodies at the perfect temperature needed to stay alive. We shed and re-grow our skin cells every 27 days--that means more than 1,000 new skins over our lifetime! We are a finely tuned and carefully designed machine with all parts relying on the other to function in perfect unison. The human body is a brilliant masterpiece, a perfect puzzle that can only be attributed to a divine mastermind.

The Infinite Universe

The infinite universe holds many secrets and mysteries that man will never be able to explain. It's expanse, extending to unknown lengths, beholds a mysterious world that we can only dream about. Did you know that there are at the very least 10 billion trillion stars in the universe? Or that the Milky Way is made from other galaxies? Can you believe that the sun is so large that one million earths are needed to completely fit inside it? It is even speculated that there are other universes beyond the universe that we currently reside in! If you are searching for proof that God exists, look no further than the sky above your head and take in its infinite splendor.

Praise The Lord God,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

For Those Of My Brethren:

Seven Sayings to Command Your Morning

Do you realize how much power resides in your mouth? In life it is vital that we understand the power of our words. Our words create our world. Every day we wake up, we have the power to command our lives. Dr. Cindy Trimm says “Words penetrate to the very molecule of our being”. Life Coach, Author and Speaker, Pervis Taylor, III offers some encouraging words to speak over ourselves each morning. (This exercise should be practiced in the mirror every morning.)

I Am Whole

Wholeness is arguably the richest state of being you can find yourself in. Many people in life often think that another person can make them complete. That is false. Only when you can embrace you fully that’s when you get to experience the joy of life. Wholeness is a remarkable gift.

God Loves Me

It’s important to remind ourselves how much we are loved by God. Often we find ourselves feeling abandoned and alone. But this isn’t so we must reaffirm the truth that God is always with us and is in love with us. This reminder is so important when life gets hectic and chaotic.

I Am a Wonder

That’s right. You are a designer’s original, a true sight to see. You have to understand that you are not here by mistake and that you were created on purpose and for a purpose. You are something to marvel at.

I Am Powerful

You possess so much power inside of you to truly create the life you desire. When we know what we know, we tend to operate in confidence. When you understand the power you possess by declaring it daily little by little you will begin to create a life of power.

I Have Everything I Need for Life

We lack nothing for our journeys. Too often we think that we lack something or desire attributes we see in others. But the reality is God is wise and created you the way he first saw you. So it’s important to believe and know that you are not a defect that needs to be sent back to the warehouse. You are perfectly you.

I Am a Thriver

Life was designed for you to thrive not survive. Survivors just get by, Thrivers actually live!!! You are not your history or your past. You are however, what you choose to do with your present and future. The biggest breakthrough of your life will be when you realize that life truly happens from you and not to you.

I Will Leave a Legacy

What will be the sign that you were here? It’s important that you realize that you have a responsibility to do something with your life. You mustn’t be cavalier with this precious gift you have from above. Begin to see your life as a blueprint that others we need to navigate through their lives.

I hope this helps you out in life, as it can sometimes be so hard. Hang in there, all of you are loved by God and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost!! I love you too!

Michael

:mario:

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

I'm sure she meant that there was water besides the aquifer below the U.S., including the oceans, lakes, rivers, creeks, and other aquifers, etc. Also waters above the firmament. Seems like freshwater drains into the sea and becomes salty. So water evaporating from the oceans/seas shall make the sea get more salty, just like freshwater draining into the sea would make it less salty. Seems like a common occurrence. So I would suppose that God could have a vast selection of saltwater to derive water from, should He want to. Does science know how much water is on the Earth, whether salty or not? I know that God knows. So it really doesn't matter since He knows and you don't believe in Him. Just clarifying and curious.

Warm Regards Mate,

Michael

If you look closely at that image I posted Michael there is a little sphere of freshwater next to the large one. The image is supposed to represent all the water on Earth based on science.
Science has no interest in including speculation based on a supposed Biblical global flood, which according to geology never happened.

 

[MichaelCadry]

If you look closely at that image I posted Michael there is a little sphere of freshwater next to the large one. The image is supposed to represent all the water on Earth based on science.
Science has no interest in including speculation based on a supposed Biblical global flood, which according to geology never happened.

Dear Alwight,

Hey Buddy! I do realize that you were representing the aquifer water correctly. Geologists have checked out the layers of strata in the Grand Canyon and say they have found evidence of the Great Flood. Try checking more into that. I don't know how to work this computer as well as you. It is almost 4 a.m. here, so I have to get to bed. You're loved!!

Michael

:mario:

:comeout:

 

[Jonahdog]

Geologists have checked out the layers of strata in the Grand Canyon and say they have found evidence of the Great Flood.

Only geologist who have checked their science at the door would come to that conclusion. But then that is what happens when you let a cobbled together several thousand year old religious book rule your intellect.

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

Hey Buddy! I do realize that you were representing the aquifer water correctly. Geologists have checked out the layers of strata in the Grand Canyon and say they have found evidence of the Great Flood. Try checking more into that. I don't know how to work this computer as well as you. It is almost 4 a.m. here, so I have to get to bed. You're loved!!

Michael

:mario:

:comeout:

There are many sedimentary layers visible in the geological column at the Grand Canyon Michael, all can be associated with many different periods of wet and dry during many ages. Each layer contains fossils particular only to those ages, if creationism can be pinned down and falsified then the Grand Canyon falsifies it.

I'm sure there is at least one nutty creationist out there who considers himself a geologist, just as with any science, but the conclusions of mainstream geology itself is not about the opinions of possibly whacky individuals.

 

[MichaelCadry]

There are many sedimentary layers visible in the geological column at the Grand Canyon Michael, all can be associated with many different periods of wet and dry during many ages. Each layer contains fossils particular only to those ages, if creationism can be pinned down and falsified then the Grand Canyon falsifies it.

Yes, but creationism can't be pinned down and falsified. That's because it really happened. But I digress. There was a Great Flood and the Bible records it. Noah didn't build one huge boat for just a local flood. Can you imagine how hard it was to build that ship? God says in the Bible that He will never flood the whole earth again and He signifies it by putting His rainbow in the clouds. Now whether or not it was a local flood, we can always find out for sure when we face God and ask Him. Alwight, you do know that before the end of this year is up, you will get all the proof you need, for the Lord has told me that Armageddon shall happen before then. Do you know what Armageddon means? Look it up in your dictionary. The Second Coming of Christ Jesus will come after that. Two prophets/witnesses shall die and be raised back to life after three and one-half days, and they shall be raised into Heaven. Wait and see before you dismiss it. Time heals all wounds. {P.S. What does blimey mean?"}

I'm sure there is at least one nutty creationist out there who considers himself a geologist, just as with any science, but the conclusions of mainstream geology itself is not about the opinions of possibly whacky individuals.

Al, it was two geologists. I saw it on the television. Their findings were documented.

Cheerio Mate,

Michael

:cloud9: :jump:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Only geologist who have checked their science at the door would come to that conclusion. But then that is what happens when you let a cobbled together several thousand year old religious book rule your intellect.

Dear Jonahdog,

That religious book is the bestselling book of all time. That's because it is Truth. No one would have a bestselling book unless there were very many truths in it. Jonahdog, like you read in my post to Alwight, Armageddon is going to happen by the end of this year. I asked God if I could tell others about what He told me regarding it and He said Yes. Finally, I can give you an approximate time frame. Jesus said, 'Pray that your flight be not in winter, neither on the Sabbath, for then there shall be greater tribulation such as never happened before since man was on the Earth.' That is basically what it says. Don't you believe in the history as recorded by the Bible {Old religious book}. And this book keeps on selling and busting records in sales. Must be at least 1/2 of the world's people have a copy of the Bible KJV. Don't you agree? Do you have a copy of the Bible? If you have not read some of it, you'll never be able to believe some of the symbolism, parables, and truths written in it. You're going to be quite bummed when He returns and you don't believe in Him! Jesus will say, 'Go away! I never knew you.' You're an atheist, I see. It must be the way that you were brought up and raised as a child and as an adult. Just because you don't believe it's true doesn't make it false. Why do you think half of the world has one or more copies of the Bible in their homes. I've got the King James version, the Apocrypha, the Douay version, etc. I've also checked out the Pseudepigrapha at the Library. I don't own a copy. It would cost quite a bit. Probably over $100 by now. Maybe I will buy one soon.

May God Reach You Before The Lord Returns!!

Michael

:nono:

 

[alwight]

Yes, but creationism can't be pinned down and falsified. That's because it really happened. But I digress. There was a Great Flood and the Bible records it. Noah didn't build one huge boat for just a local flood. Can you imagine how hard it was to build that ship? God says in the Bible that He will never flood the whole earth again and He signifies it by putting His rainbow in the clouds. Now whether or not it was a local flood, we can always find out for sure when we face God and ask Him.

And I thought it was just made-up story told to kids since ancient times.

Alwight, you do know that before the end of this year is up, you will get all the proof you need, for the Lord has told me that Armageddon shall happen before then. Do you know what Armageddon means? Look it up in your dictionary. The Second Coming of Christ Jesus will come after that. Two prophets/witnesses shall die and be raised back to life after three and one-half days, and they shall be raised into Heaven. Wait and see before you dismiss it. Time heals all wounds.

Did you know Michael that the JWs have believed that the second coming was going to happen several times in the past, but have been disappointed every time.
In the 1970's in England we had a very promising football player who had been selected for the national team and was a JW who believed that end times were just around the corner. He gave up a very lucrative career to go preaching, but of course as we know it never happened.

{P.S. What does blimey mean?"}

Without checking I believe it is derived from "God blind me",
as in "God blind me if I lie."

Al, it was two geologists. I saw it on the television. Their findings were documented.

Cheerio Mate,

Michael

:cloud9: :jump:

Two nutty creationists then.
If mainstream geology has been turned upside down then I never got the memo Michael. :nono:

 

[The Barbarian]

Steve Austin has claimed to invalidate isochron dating with samples from the Grand Canyon. However, to do an isochron, one cannot take samples from different flows; it invalidates the test.

Before the Grand Canyon Dating Project began, in his 1988 Impact article, Austin admitted in print that the selected lava flows fell into two different stratigraphic stages. That is, the very information which he used to select the flows, also clearly indicates that they did not all occur at the same time. In his subsequent book (1994, p. 125), Austin indicated that his five data points came from four different lava flows plus an extracted "phenocryst" (large mineral which likely formed in the magma chamber and was not molten in the lava flow). We had known from the Impact articles that Austin's samples were not all cogenetic; years later we found out by his own admission that no two of them are so.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

He actually included one sample from rock that had never been melted in the lava flow. That's an incredible discrepancy, one that no geologist would knowingly do, if he was honest.

Austin pulled the same trick in dating dacite from the lava dome at Mt. St. Helens. One-trick pony, it seems.