6days
New member
Thanks Hunter.
Yes, I said "....7 billion people COULD result from just 8 on the ark, in a period of 4500 years"
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Yes, I said "....7 billion people COULD result from just 8 on the ark, in a period of 4500 years"
Rosenritter
New member
For the record, your theory that weight of water bending tectonic plates would "boil away the oceans" is absurd. Metamorphic stress might produce some heat but the scale you imagine is ridiculous. But I suppose ANY fantasy you create seems tame in comparison to the story that you evolved from a rock...
Rosenritter
New member
Simon Greenleaf is another example that set out to disprove Bible and found it to be accurate and to be held in the same esteem as other accepted documents of antiquity.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You would rather feed your confirmation bias than actually try to understand how and why the bible is almost completely a work of recycled myth from other cultures.
This is a pretty poor argument and one that is typical of christian apologists (not counting your habit of cut and paste in lieu of having any actual knowledge of the subject).
Your premise is that the new testament connot be proven false therefore it is true. Perhaps you have heard of the fallacy of argument from ignorance? I'm quite sure that you have because I've seen you use this argument often enough. One would think that after so much exposure to it you would have learned something by now.
I'm fine with the bible having a certain historical personal and geographic accuracy. By your standard any book written by James Michener will easily fall into that category and I don't expect you'll be turning into a Michenerian anytime soon.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
So much moronic spam from Hunter, so little meaning. I am not going to spend an hour inline editing that mess tonight. So here's the part I last remember:
1. We have examples of what happens when there were no predators for the rabbit. Australia and Usagi-jima. Yes, predators keep the bunny from overflowing. Your arrogant blundering is overruled by real world examples. Add predators and the population is checked.
2. "No stone left upon another" was very specific. Its not like that can happen multiple times. Seems you aren't familiar with the fulfillment. You don't get that by any random destruction. No matter.
Rosenritter
New member
Don't pull me to your defense. Seems to me you do contradict yourself too.
6days
New member
Likewise...Josh McDowell. But, yes the Simon Greenleaf story is a great one!
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Unfortunately, you are nearly as myopic as Stripe. What you quoted isn't all I said, now is it? You and Stripe like to toss around the word "fact" as if it's mere appearance in a sentence validates your assertion. It doesn't.
I am perfectly content to concede it COULD happen. It's not my responsibility to prove it didn't happen, but IT IS your responsibility to prove that it DID.
If you can persuade yourself to recognize that you are forcing the data to conform to your conclusion you might understand why the "Morris equation" is somewhat more than a little bit flawed.
That something is possible doesn't make it a fact. It's not a fact that "eight people could produce today's population in a few thousand years", it's an assertion. Faulty assumptions plugged into a questionable equation prove nothing except that you can do simple math.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I see, rather than actually engage the subject you'd rather get in your initial ad hominem, as if that alone scores a victory. Sad. I am glad you chose the topic you seem to understand the least.
As I expected, you didn't understand the analogy at all. I suppose that if you devoted more than a cursory reading to the article you would understand what Milne was driving at. As for predation being a curb on a given population of rabbits have you not considered there might be other population controls? At what point do the number of rabbits in a habitat become too many? Unfortunately, this is a rabbit trail (pun intended) that takes away from Milne's point.
Specific how? That the "prediction" applied to the temple? That is clear enough. What isn't so clear is when this "tumbling down" was supposed to occur. As I said, he could have been talking about any structure, the result would be the same given enough time. You could point to other "predictions" that Jesus supposedly made such as his return. Jesus says in Matthew, "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom". Certainly, he gives a time frame, which is unlike practically any other biblical prediction, but there's a problem, where is he? The people he was speaking to have been dead nearly 2000 years! Oops! I think Punxsutawney Phil could have done better.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
That wasn't my intent. It was meant to be an obvious stab at Stripe's intelligence and a not so obvious stab at yours. I must have been successful. I apologize.
When taken out of context and cursorily read one can conclude black is white.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Creation vs Evolution
Which Does Science Support?
The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. Why we are here is a question science cannot answer, but is just as important. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things - it defines our "world-view".
The belief that people were created by God, in the "image of God", is at the heart of creationism. The belief that people now exist because of a long string of random chance events is one of the main tenets of naturalism, of which evolution is a part. Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is, there is no God. Evolution has no need of Him. It is obvious that these two ideas are opposed to each other and that only one can be true. Either God exists and He created us, or we are a product of time and chance.
Our beliefs about how we got here and why we are here defines us as human beings and leads to radically different behaviors. If people evolved and are nothing but "higher animals", then we shouldn't be surprised when they act like animals. In this belief system the value of human life is discounted and the value of animal life is inflated. Hitler and others have justified their evil actions based on evolutionary thinking ("survival of the fittest"). Evolutionary scientists do not of course condone these actions, but it IS where this type of philosophy naturally leads to one degree or another. As a result, naturalism has no grounds on which absolute morals can be based and leads to relativistic thinking. Nor does evolution provide an explanation for why our inner sense of moral values should even exist.
Evolution has been taught as fact for so long that many people believe it is true. However, evolution is in fact a theory at best. It cannot be considered either a fact or scientific. For something to be considered 'scientific,' it has to be measurable and reproducible. Since it is impossible to do either with evolution, it cannot be called scientific. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in the absurdities of evolution than it does to believe in creation.
Part Two!
By definition, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is mindless and godless. It says that nature is all there is and everything evolved randomly and by chance. Two foundational precepts of evolution theory are:
1. Origin of Life (Spontaneous Generation) – This theory states that life arose from non-life. If that is true, then nature had to have the ability to create itself without assistance from God. In other words, non-life created life, the laws of physics created the laws of physics, etc.
2. Natural Selection (Survival of the Fittest)– This part of the theory does in fact have some truth associated with it. It claims that once life began as a single-celled amoeba, it evolved through mutation in a constant struggle for resources with other organisms. That struggle and accompanying mutation, it says, lead to all the life forms on the earth, including human beings. While it is accurate to say that all organisms struggle for enough resources to survive, there is no evidence whatsoever that a species ever has or ever could turn into another species. If this were true, then goo turned into fish which turned into frogs which turned into mice which turned into cats which turned into dogs which turned into horses which turned into apes which turned into human beings. One might as well believe in the tooth fairy!
One of the main arguments of evolutionists today is that anyone who believes in creation must do so solely on faith. Since the Bible teaches creation, their argument goes, it must be accepted by faith by those who choose to believe the Bible. Therefore, they claim, no ‘real’ scientist would believe in creation. To their dismay, however, there are today and have been in the past many well-educated scientists who believe in creation instead of evolution because science and the facts support it. See for yourself. The reality is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that it does to believe in creation.
Part Three!
Many secular scientists and educators who are committed to evolution insist that all science education must use evolution as its basis and be taught as fact. They also insist that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials offer no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor do they inform students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theory. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have further attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation.
However, there is no place in science or education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism from either side. Schemes that protect any concept or theory from criticism in the educational environment are dangerous. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.
The advocates of evolution are unable to offer any transitional fossil forms which show an actual historical process of evolution to new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which thoroughly explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, Divine creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.
See also Carbon Dating, Scientific Evidence for Creation, The Fossil Record, and Missing Link.
Which Does Science Support?
The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. Why we are here is a question science cannot answer, but is just as important. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things - it defines our "world-view".
The belief that people were created by God, in the "image of God", is at the heart of creationism. The belief that people now exist because of a long string of random chance events is one of the main tenets of naturalism, of which evolution is a part. Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is, there is no God. Evolution has no need of Him. It is obvious that these two ideas are opposed to each other and that only one can be true. Either God exists and He created us, or we are a product of time and chance.
Our beliefs about how we got here and why we are here defines us as human beings and leads to radically different behaviors. If people evolved and are nothing but "higher animals", then we shouldn't be surprised when they act like animals. In this belief system the value of human life is discounted and the value of animal life is inflated. Hitler and others have justified their evil actions based on evolutionary thinking ("survival of the fittest"). Evolutionary scientists do not of course condone these actions, but it IS where this type of philosophy naturally leads to one degree or another. As a result, naturalism has no grounds on which absolute morals can be based and leads to relativistic thinking. Nor does evolution provide an explanation for why our inner sense of moral values should even exist.
Evolution has been taught as fact for so long that many people believe it is true. However, evolution is in fact a theory at best. It cannot be considered either a fact or scientific. For something to be considered 'scientific,' it has to be measurable and reproducible. Since it is impossible to do either with evolution, it cannot be called scientific. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in the absurdities of evolution than it does to believe in creation.
Part Two!
By definition, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is mindless and godless. It says that nature is all there is and everything evolved randomly and by chance. Two foundational precepts of evolution theory are:
1. Origin of Life (Spontaneous Generation) – This theory states that life arose from non-life. If that is true, then nature had to have the ability to create itself without assistance from God. In other words, non-life created life, the laws of physics created the laws of physics, etc.
2. Natural Selection (Survival of the Fittest)– This part of the theory does in fact have some truth associated with it. It claims that once life began as a single-celled amoeba, it evolved through mutation in a constant struggle for resources with other organisms. That struggle and accompanying mutation, it says, lead to all the life forms on the earth, including human beings. While it is accurate to say that all organisms struggle for enough resources to survive, there is no evidence whatsoever that a species ever has or ever could turn into another species. If this were true, then goo turned into fish which turned into frogs which turned into mice which turned into cats which turned into dogs which turned into horses which turned into apes which turned into human beings. One might as well believe in the tooth fairy!
One of the main arguments of evolutionists today is that anyone who believes in creation must do so solely on faith. Since the Bible teaches creation, their argument goes, it must be accepted by faith by those who choose to believe the Bible. Therefore, they claim, no ‘real’ scientist would believe in creation. To their dismay, however, there are today and have been in the past many well-educated scientists who believe in creation instead of evolution because science and the facts support it. See for yourself. The reality is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that it does to believe in creation.
Part Three!
Many secular scientists and educators who are committed to evolution insist that all science education must use evolution as its basis and be taught as fact. They also insist that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials offer no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor do they inform students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theory. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have further attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation.
However, there is no place in science or education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism from either side. Schemes that protect any concept or theory from criticism in the educational environment are dangerous. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.
The advocates of evolution are unable to offer any transitional fossil forms which show an actual historical process of evolution to new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which thoroughly explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, Divine creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.
See also Carbon Dating, Scientific Evidence for Creation, The Fossil Record, and Missing Link.
Last edited:
Dear Silent Hunter,
I have no issues that need to be addressed by Freud or anyone else. All I have is the truth. It's too bad that you don't know how to be "Silent," like your moniker suggests. All you have to do is call everyone names. Yippee!! Stripe, 6days, and Rosenritter know far more than you could even hold a candle to. Your little mental bursts are more of an issue to be honest. Childish too, while trying to sound so intellectual. Intellect will get you nowhere, Silent. You need a healthy dose of Wisdom instead! Stripe, 6days and Rosenritter have some, but it looks like you fall short in that department. I really have better things to do. So go hunt someone else. And you know where you can stick that Tapatalk, don't you??
Michael
:rotfl:
Jose Fly
New member
Pay attention...it's not my theory, it's yours. And that forming entire mountain ranges in a single year or less requires so much energy that it would boil off the oceans doesn't come from me, it comes from your fellow creationists, i.e., John Baumgardner who estimated 1028 joules of energy would be released under this scenario. That's more than enough to turn the entire planet into a steam cooker.
Again, there's a very good reason why no one outside of fundamentalist Christians believes this nonsense. It's just wrong....very, very wrong.
Then you should tell your fellow creationists and generate a new estimate yourself.
Pay attention. It was indeed your idea that "tectonic" forces would boil the oceans.
Which, while true, assumes far too many improbable things to be considered a reason to reject the hypothesis outright.
The first of those would be the nonsense notion that all of that energy would go toward cooking water. Almost none of it would. There are mountains being lifted, remember? They are still lifted, you know?
Try to think things through at least a little before your knee-jerk rejection kicks in. :up:
Notice he said "heat," while you spoke of "energy" in your desperate attempt to reject everything that does not line up with your precious religion. It is such elementary mistakes that show you are not interested in a rational conversation.
- Status