Hedshaker
New member
Hey DavisBJ,
Don't flatter yourself. Of course, you saying Mother God does not faze me.
You mean phase Michael, not faze
Just messing with you Michael
Last edited:
Hey DavisBJ,
Don't flatter yourself. Of course, you saying Mother God does not faze me.
Dear iouae,
I know you are trying to make sense of Genesis. You must realize that there is other light besides sunlight. Florescent light, for one. Look at how fireflies light up. They do so without sunlight. There is no telling what kind of light that God made when it is written "Let there be light." Maybe it was incandescent light? There's all kinds of possibilities. God Bless You for trying.
Much Love Coming Your Way,
Michael
Now if you find human footprints in dinosaur footprints as some claim, that would be interesting.
I still haven't figured out specifically what set Michael off. Oh well, he has done this before. Time for me, the atheist, to act like a Christian and keep on extending a hand of friendship to Michael, and meantime he (the so-called "Christian") can continue despising me as he walks hand in hand with the prince of darkness.Hey DavisBJ,
Don't flatter yourself. Of course, you saying Mother God does not faze me. I already know that God said, "Let us make man in our image;" not let us make man in a woman's image. He was a he, and so was the man He created. No, I am just tired of trying to co-exist with your awful, terrible things you say about my God and everything about Him. I can do without it now. Why put my neck out for you?? Just because I've said I'm tired of posting here doesn't mean I will still not post once in a while. I just won't be posting regularly and answering everyone's posts. I hope I made that clear earlier. Most of what I read here I will not respond to like I used to. And I will respond to you too, but my love for you has died. You killed it. I hope you are happy. I do still love Alwight and even Hedshaker, but not you. They don't act like you. You are filthy evil with what you say about God. You bring Shame upon your name.
Michael
I believe Genesis is more trustworthy than scientist's rather fragile interpretations.
But it's better to reject scientists' conclusions than to reject evidence, don't you think? For instance, the sivatherium is believed to have been around during man's existence partly because rock art in the Sahara depicts them.
Why does science, or more appropriately, why do scientists use practically the same evidence for different species of animal to come to opposite conclusions? Seems like a discontinuity in the scientific method to me.
why is it that you would be willing to completely disregard evidence from a different source of man's art/history/literature? Is this a particular bias you have against the book of Genesis? Is this bias stronger than anything you might feel toward other books?
My understanding of the named ages, like pliestocene, is that they specify an "age" rather than a "time", if you can see my distinction. So, creationists might agree with an "age" designation as a grouping of fossil finds from a particular layer of sediment, but disagree with the time assigned to it. That doesn't mean they would agree with every "age" designation, nor disagree with every time assignment (though these would be considered more suspect the further back they are from the 6000 year mark).I don't see how defining a different early Pleistocene from the scientific one would be particularly helpful?
The first two are pretty much the same thing anyway.
Dismiss them? No, but definitely question them, as I believe you feel to be appropriate with any scientific conclusion. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to find any new thing to cheer in the progression of science. Ice-cores, tree ring sequencing, and radiometric dating were introduced as a way to "question" the science (or scientific conclusions) of the time. But does that mean that they are above questioning? Not if science is going to progress. "Questioning" by the way, does not always mean the same as trying to refute, but trying to refute is perhaps the best way to confirm or deny a particular technique.Perhaps YECs will want to reject evidence of ice ages as being something to roughly measure the passing of long periods of time by?Or, failing that, dismissing radiometric dating methods, or the fossils found in the time based geological column, or the speed of light from distant galaxies?
But if I do personally worry about the scientific evidence, and I am a YEC, then is it fair to characterize all YECs with something you accept some don't hold to? But even YECs don't always agree on what a literal Genesis would look like in the fossil record. Just try to find a consensus on which layers are from the flood and which are not!But my real point is, even if you personally do worry about the scientific evidence, that YECs typically don't care what scientific conclusions may be because for them they are always trumped by a literal Genesis every time, which is why I say it is pointless.
I don't think I said that Genesis should be considered so historically accurate. What I said was that as literature and art and history, it should be considered as evidence, no less so than rock art might be. I think it should be given more weight than rock art, because it is easier to interpret its meaning, as it is written in a language we understand with a message we can more or less discern.Typically you haven't said why Genesis should be considered to be so historically accurate
I don't believe I said this either. But as long long as you agree that natural scientists only "pretty much wholly" endorse those conclusions, it seems we can have an intelligent conversation about it. "Pretty much" being a relative adverbial phrase, it seems to effectively cancel the more absolute "wholly".and why evidence based science seems to have universally conspired to present peer reviewed conclusions from all its branches that compliments rather than contradicts, which natural scientists pretty much wholly endorse.
I agree with you here! (surprised?). But it works both ways. If you are going to wave the "all peer reviewed conclusions are settled science" at me, then there is nothing left to talk about. And before you disagree with me on this point, think long and hard about what might be included in those peer-reviewed conclusions and how they often disagree with each other.If you are going to wave a literally interpreted Genesis at me to trump anything I say whatever science may conclude then yes of course there is nothing left to talk about.
You are absolutely right--I misread my source and confused paragraphs on two different fossil/bone sources. Good catch!I'm not sure you are right about the last part.
That's the most recent hypothesis, anyway. Time will tell on that one. (pun only somewhat intended)I know about the T-Rex bone with supposedly soft tissue but even that isn't entirely true since the bone had to be cut open and the remains of blood vessels were identified as preserved by the iron in the blood apparently.
I don't know about any fresh meat claim."Fresh Meat" is only a creationist creation imo, but do cite any evidence that I may be unaware of.
This sounds a bit disingenuous--are you saying that anything on a creationist website is unworthy of your perusal? Then we're back to that waving a peer reviewed flag that makes this conversation pointless, don't you think?If you want to cite your claimed scientific dispute then I'll take a look but to my knowledge there is no real dispute unless engineered by creationist websites perhaps.
Good. I agree. And since written words are much better than art, as I described earlier, then I hope you won't mind me referring not to Genesis, but to the book of Job, considered by some to be the oldest book of the bible (thus fitting your description of ancient, I hope). In no case is it any younger than when the septuagint was written somewhere around 285 BC. And just as ancient man might paint what they saw around them, so might ancient man write about what they saw around them. So when the book of Job describes behemoth in Job 40:15-24, which seems to be very similar to things we call dinosaurs, shouldn't we recognize it as evidence? We can argue as to what it is evidence of, but the fact that an ancient writer described something is just as telling as that an ancient artist depicted something. Something that modern science claims is impossible--that man coexisted with creatures that supposedly went extinct 10s of millions of years ago.I really don't see how Genesis is somehow self-evidenced while I don't know of any particular contention with animals depicted in ancient cave art so please do enlighten me on my supposed bias. Ancient men painting what they saw around them did not require any miraculous events to take place, they appear to be simple observations of daily life which I have not been asked to suspend my belief in the natural world, so why would I doubt?
I'm sure you would recognize the coelecanth as a modern-day example of this kind of phenomenon, where coelecanths were considered extinct for 65 million years until they were found alive and well.
No. "Coelacanths" are an order within the class Sarcopterygii, just like primates are an order within the class Mammalia. They are quite diverse...
There are quite a few anatomical differences between the ancient species known from the fossil record, and the one discovered still living.
As before, you should incorporate this information and adjust your argument accordingly.
You mean phase Michael, not faze
Just messing with you Michael
Thanks Jose. Appreciate the information. But let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the fossil record is full of instances of some type of coelacanth, be it ancient, modern or something else, between 65 million years ago and now, such that scientists would be misinformed to think that the coelacanth (in any form) actually went extinct 65 million years ago?
If your answer is "yes", then why was it such a surprise to scientists to discover even the modern-day version, as depicted here. Note that the link is not to creationist propaganda site, but to the well-respected-by-the-scientific-community Smithsonian Institute.
And why would the Smithsonian link to a site that says "This is the astounding coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), the fusion of life and time, that following a supposed extinction of 65 million years, head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938."(emphasis added)
If you are saying "no", then do you understand my point that recent human observations trump scientific conclusions about what has or hasn't been extinct for 65 million years?
Evolution is as true as gravity. It's just a fact. Not really debate able. Especially by the layman creationist. Especially by the layman creationist.
Hi Michael
Glad that you are not devoting all your time to delicious meals.
The light that God created must advance the creation story.
It should also be a permanent feature, visible today.
Everything else that was created in those 6 days is still around and visible today. So I think it's a fair question as to what light is being referred to as being created on Sunday, if the sun, moon and stars only come into being on Wednesday.
I hope you are keeping well??
I still haven't figured out specifically what set Michael off. Oh well, he has done this before. Time for me, the atheist, to act like a Christian and keep on extending a hand of friendship to Michael, and meantime he (the so-called "Christian") can continue despising me as he walks hand in hand with the prince of darkness.
Dear iouae,
Thanks for your thoughtful post to me!! Yes, 2nite we had gyros. I have the special meat, bread and Mediterranean yogurt so I could make the sauce, with mint and garlic in it. Delicious. Green peppers, red onions, and sliced tomatoes. Tomorrow I'm planning on making a meat loaf. The ones I make are meaty and not drowned in bread crumbs or oatmeal. My meat loaf is yummy!! I make it with an extra egg to bind it instead of relying on too many bread crumbs. Only 2/3 cup bread crumbs/no oatmeal. Will have it with mashed potatoes and French-style green beans with butter and dill weed. You can eat this well, but just not too much, or you will gain weight. It's healthier than fast food though. Have egg prices gone through the roof yet!! Ayyyy!!
Praise The Lord!!!
Michael
In my more lucid moments perhaps.Hi Alwight,
I want to compliment you on your responses. Quite clear and concise, and directed to specific statements of mine. Keep up the good work!
Well, my mission here as I see it is to steer you away from a fundamentalist doctrinal adherence and to embrace science. Not as a religion but as something that best explains the facts and evidence, which it may not always get right of course, but is arguably getting there and generally doing a good job.My understanding of the named ages, like pliestocene, is that they specify an "age" rather than a "time", if you can see my distinction. So, creationists might agree with an "age" designation as a grouping of fossil finds from a particular layer of sediment, but disagree with the time assigned to it. That doesn't mean they would agree with every "age" designation, nor disagree with every time assignment (though these would be considered more suspect the further back they are from the 6000 year mark).I don't see how defining a different early Pleistocene from the scientific one would be particularly helpful?
The first two are pretty much the same thing anyway.
You seem to me to have your own background agenda to maybe find some doubt for doctrine to occupy, rather than to honestly seek to correct your own understanding or science if it is wrong. Science is about being wrong sometimes and being corrected by the evidence. There's nothing wrong with questioning science, but simply doing so because it doesn't fit with a pre-concluded religious agenda isn't exactly going to help put science on a better track imo, unless what you say is based in fact and evidence, rather than perhaps an adherence to a literal Genesis.Dismiss them? No, but definitely question them, as I believe you feel to be appropriate with any scientific conclusion. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to find any new thing to cheer in the progression of science. Ice-cores, tree ring sequencing, and radiometric dating were introduced as a way to "question" the science (or scientific conclusions) of the time. But does that mean that they are above questioning? Not if science is going to progress. "Questioning" by the way, does not always mean the same as trying to refute, but trying to refute is perhaps the best way to confirm or deny a particular technique.Perhaps YECs will want to reject evidence of ice ages as being something to roughly measure the passing of long periods of time by?Or, failing that, dismissing radiometric dating methods, or the fossils found in the time based geological column, or the speed of light from distant galaxies?
Then perhaps for you there is hope, but I think you are perhaps trying to fudge your own beliefs albeit with at least some desire to value the core conclusions of science generally.But if I do personally worry about the scientific evidence, and I am a YEC, then is it fair to characterize all YECs with something you accept some don't hold to? But even YECs don't always agree on what a literal Genesis would look like in the fossil record. Just try to find a consensus on which layers are from the flood and which are not!But my real point is, even if you personally do worry about the scientific evidence, that YECs typically don't care what scientific conclusions may be because for them they are always trumped by a literal Genesis every time, which is why I say it is pointless.
Differing opinions are one thing but evidential support is what tends to settle scientific arguments. I don't know what you mean by "squelched" science. Science isn't about someone's opinions it's about being demonstrably falsifiable should it be false. Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.Your video series link suggested that disagreement (specifically on what would constitute a "human" versus an "ape") in the YEC camp means that they are all wrong. But instead, they are exhibiting the fundamental aspect of science--that differing opinions need to be heard, not squelched. Squelched science is dead science, whether squelched from a literal Genesis approach, or from a deep time approach, or from a materialistic approach, or from whatever approach.
Yes but your holy scripture was actually written by people with sophisticated language skills who were just as able as we are to "spin a yarn", to use allegory, to embellish, to use folklore myth and legend. They wanted to be heard and to be entertaining, they weren't simply putting down what they saw outside, they had an agenda as we all do.I don't think I said that Genesis should be considered so historically accurate. What I said was that as literature and art and history, it should be considered as evidence, no less so than rock art might be. I think it should be given more weight than rock art, because it is easier to interpret its meaning, as it is written in a language we understand with a message we can more or less discern.Typically you haven't said why Genesis should be considered to be so historically accurate
There are always a few with strong personal opinions outside the herd perhaps, which is a good thing too, but as I say it's evidence and facts that usually forces science together in the end, not doctrinal beliefs.I don't believe I said this either. But as long long as you agree that natural scientists only "pretty much wholly" endorse those conclusions, it seems we can have an intelligent conversation about it. "Pretty much" being a relative adverbial phrase, it seems to effectively cancel the more absolute "wholly".and why evidence based science seems to have universally conspired to present peer reviewed conclusions from all its branches that compliments rather than contradicts, which natural scientists pretty much wholly endorse.
Science provides conclusions that we can compare with the evidence to judge for ourselves how believable or not it is. Nothing is deemed to be proven truth.I agree with you here! (surprised?). But it works both ways. If you are going to wave the "all peer reviewed conclusions are settled science" at me, then there is nothing left to talk about. And before you disagree with me on this point, think long and hard about what might be included in those peer-reviewed conclusions and how they often disagree with each other.If you are going to wave a literally interpreted Genesis at me to trump anything I say whatever science may conclude then yes of course there is nothing left to talk about.
An honest creationist.You are absolutely right--I misread my source and confused paragraphs on two different fossil/bone sources. Good catch!I'm not sure you are right about the last part.
Science at least isn't written in tablets of stone.That's the most recent hypothesis, anyway. Time will tell on that one. (pun only somewhat intended)I know about the T-Rex bone with supposedly soft tissue but even that isn't entirely true since the bone had to be cut open and the remains of blood vessels were identified as preserved by the iron in the blood apparently.
There was, a couple of years ago, but now seems to have largely gone away. The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue" that excited YECs is very much a Christian but nevertheless dates the demise of her dinosaur to well over 60 million years ago iirc, despite her findings.I don't know about any fresh meat claim."Fresh Meat" is only a creationist creation imo, but do cite any evidence that I may be unaware of.
Firstly I will concede my bias that imo if anything of scientific value is to be found on creationist websites then it is purely coincidental, or perhaps taken from a more scientific source if they think something helpful to YECism exists. Say if it can be pointed to as a possible contradiction or can be quote mined. I accept my bias here and will try to keep an open mind, but for them a literal Genesis will always trump any science that seems to contradict it, there are no open minds to be found there.This sounds a bit disingenuous--are you saying that anything on a creationist website is unworthy of your perusal? Then we're back to that waving a peer reviewed flag that makes this conversation pointless, don't you think?If you want to cite your claimed scientific dispute then I'll take a look but to my knowledge there is no real dispute unless engineered by creationist websites perhaps.
Not too sure what you mean by "better than art". A painting is what it is, but clever words can be used to paint a mental picture that needn't always relate to facts. Many legends and myths are part of many cultures, it's just human nature to tell stories and to embellish.Good. I agree. And since written words are much better than art, as I described earlier, then I hope you won't mind me referring not to Genesis, but to the book of Job, considered by some to be the oldest book of the bible (thus fitting your description of ancient, I hope). In no case is it any younger than when the septuagint was written somewhere around 285 BC. And just as ancient man might paint what they saw around them, so might ancient man write about what they saw around them. So when the book of Job describes behemoth in Job 40:15-24, which seems to be very similar to things we call dinosaurs, shouldn't we recognize it as evidence? We can argue as to what it is evidence of, but the fact that an ancient writer described something is just as telling as that an ancient artist depicted something. Something that modern science claims is impossible--that man coexisted with creatures that supposedly went extinct 10s of millions of years ago.I really don't see how Genesis is somehow self-evidenced while I don't know of any particular contention with animals depicted in ancient cave art so please do enlighten me on my supposed bias. Ancient men painting what they saw around them did not require any miraculous events to take place, they appear to be simple observations of daily life which I have not been asked to suspend my belief in the natural world, so why would I doubt?
Would you like to claim then that coelacanths are only a few thousand years old, and tell me why you and scientists seem to disagree about that?I'm sure you would recognize the coelacanth as a modern-day example of this kind of phenomenon, where coelecanths were considered extinct for 65 million years until they were found alive and well. Such doesn't prove anything about the Job reference, except to show the power of human observation (and recording, since I only knew about live coelecanths from someone writing about them) over scientific conclusions in peer reviewed journals. Remember--this is evidence, and the conclusions we reach from it are the thing we disagree on.
But some is more special than others, wouldn't you think? see next quote response.1) Genesis isn't special, all religious scripture from around the world is suspect
Some religious texts give better information about history, culture, etc. than others, right?2) Evidence can be drawn from it: about history, culture etc.
But plausibility of one part of a document tends toward the credibility of the document as a whole--doesn't prove it, but supports it.3) It is literally a massive leap of faith to infer that because some realistic events seem plausible, all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo should be taken seriously too.
I've changed my mind on a number of things through the years, including how to interpret Genesis. And physical facts don't scare me--it's the interpretations that you have to watch out for. You seem to confuse the two (see next quote)4) Ask yourself: Are you ready to change your mind, like ever? Or are you so scared of being wrong that you would rather stick your head into the ground at a mere sniff of a physical fact.
I've been trying, and you still don't seem grateful.I know what my position is: open-minded scepticism. Any new evidence - I embrace. When someone shows me wrong - I'm forever grateful.
Just give it a try, I promise it won't hurt.
The video series was indeed interesting, but MAJOR propaganda, both in content and in style. I don't see much difference in style between that and some of the creationist stuff that was caricatured in the series.PS: The image of the sivatherium is from a Polish museum, I believe. But much more important was the first part of the video series, hope you liked it.
surely you know that isn,t true at all.Creationists however have a fixed predetermined doctrinal time limit in which everything has to be made to fit into, wherea science takes whatever time the evidence seems to require which strangely enough always seems to dovetail well with other scientific disciplines without too much fettling.
Yes, Gods word tells us we live in a young universe, and science helps confirm that.alwight said:Do you really think that the Earth is young because real facts and evidence indicate that is so, or are you more compelled to presuppose that the Earth is young because that's what Genesis would have us believe, if presumed to be an inerrant historical narrative? You can't really have it both ways.
Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past not science. Evolutionism has never contributed a single new technology or medical advancement but has at times hindered science.alwight said:Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.
Evolutionists still hate admitting that soft tissue has been found numerous times.alwight said:The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue"
Evolutionists said coelacanths had gone extinct 65 million years ago. Science proved them wrong.alwight said:Would you like to claim then that coelacanths are only a few thousand years old, and tell me why you and scientists seem to disagree about that?
Thank you for your opinion on what you think "evolutionists" believe, whoever they are exactly.surely you know that isn,t true at all.
evolutionists adjust dates upwards and downwards continually trying to make their beliefs dovetail. Dates are often assigned based on beliefs only.
I'm rather sure 6days that you'd believe that black is white if it were in Genesis. lain:Yes, Gods word tells us we live in a young universe, and science helps confirm that.
Yes but I was talking about what science says, not your supposed "evolutionist" diversion.Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past not science. Evolutionism has never contributed a single new technology or medical advancement but has at times hindered science.
Not true, I found some in my lunch today.Evolutionists still hate admitting that soft tissue has been found numerous times.
Where exactly do you think your "evolutionists" got that idea from and what is it about coelacanths that seems to fascinate them so much, since they aren't scientists apparently? Perhaps it's all just the made up nonsense of a vivid imagination?Evolutionists said coelacanths had gone extinct 65 million years ago. Science proved them wrong.
Yes God created the fish and sea creatures about 6000 years ago. Fortunately not all scientists believed the 'just so story' of the 65 million years.
I wonder if Michael’s recent intense antipathy for me isn’t just another of his bi-polar type mood swings. I think I will avoid rattling the bars on his cage for a while.You are joking, right? It is very easy to see who is walking hand in hand with the prince of darkness. I'm the one walking hand in hand with Jesus Christ. And how about you?? I'm not going to go back into all of these posts and enunciate them for you. One thing I didn't like was your unholy reference about Jesus making bread and fish to feed the people who followed Him. That's not even part of what upset me most.
Michael