creation vs evolution

[Jonahdog]

??? I'm NOT talking about "lots of rain." How about we recess until you have viewed/absorbed IS GENESIS HISTORY? It is now at Netflix.

It is heavily on geology until later in the doc. Because finally someone is showing, on a national level, that none of this is a question of 'science' vs 'faith/religion.' Instead it is one 'rate x time' equation vs another. The research on organic dinosaur tissue is spectacular, because it segues into the latest in understanding DNA.

One of the real values of hearing from 20 Ph.D.s all at once in this business is that you realize that when Lyell and Darwin were writing, no one really knew what microbiology was about on a micro level, in terms of DNA. It totally changes the meaning of terms like 'adaptation' 'survival' 'after their kind' etc in the discussions. Far too much was overextended on meager understanding.

The worst turn modern science ever took was the day Darwin sat on board the BEAGLE in the harbor of Rio Santa Cruz, Argentina, and instead of looking out at the enormous deluge-carved valley, he READ THEORY by a guy from 6000 miles away who never left the island of England. All 'science' since has been 'faith' in Lyell, and in Darwin, in the exact same sense as science tries to accuse Genesis of being 'faith.' when you are done with IGH? you will not believe Lyell's presupposition that the present is the key to the past. He has it backwards.

Once again, what is the mechanism that ""total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate,atmosphere, etc.". When was that and over what time period.

I will attempt to watch that, especially on the biology level, once you answer my question as stated above. If I have any questions I'll ask my daughter with the PhD in genetics.

Although it is interesting that you like to listen to 20 cherry picked PhD's rather than the 100's of thousands that would suggest you are clueless.

 

[Interplanner]

Once again, what is the mechanism that ""total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate,atmosphere, etc.". When was that and over what time period.

I will attempt to watch that, especially on the biology level, once you answer my question as stated above. If I have any questions I'll ask my daughter with the PhD in genetics.

Although it is interesting that you like to listen to 20 cherry picked PhD's rather than the 100's of thousands that would suggest you are clueless.

There's nothing complicated about it JonahD. when the microbiologist shows you the stretchy, elastic dinosaur tissue, and allows for the occasional fluke of nature that might otherwise have produced it, it is obvious that the organic material is about 5000 years ago.

There are not 100s of thousands who call it clueless. They call "lots of rain" clueless, but that's a different question. They were the ones who named the Great Unconformity at the bottom of Grand canyon because there's the bedrock and then several layers of chaotic sediment in hundreds of feet. There is nothing clueless about it.

Why would would talk to your daughter instead of someone in a national lab on genetics?

Why does it all hinge on 'the mechanism.'? The question should be rate x time. High water/slurry volumes or high numbers of years? Plain and simple. Very little out there looks like high numbers of years. We already told you, you may never find the 'mechanism' that created because the report of the text and of later Psalms is God spoke, and it existed. Likewise in the case of the cataclysm.

 

[Jonahdog]

There's nothing complicated about it JonahD. when the microbiologist shows you the stretchy, elastic dinosaur tissue, and allows for the occasional fluke of nature that might otherwise have produced it, it is obvious that the organic material is about 5000 years ago.

There are not 100s of thousands who call it clueless. They call "lots of rain" clueless, but that's a different question. They were the ones who named the Great Unconformity at the bottom of Grand canyon because there's the bedrock and then several layers of chaotic sediment in hundreds of feet. There is nothing clueless about it.

Why would would talk to your daughter instead of someone in a national lab on genetics?

Why does it all hinge on 'the mechanism.'? The question should be rate x time. High water/slurry volumes or high numbers of years? Plain and simple. Very little out there looks like high numbers of years. We already told you, you may never find the 'mechanism' that created because the report of the text and of later Psalms is God spoke, and it existed. Likewise in the case of the cataclysm.

So the the mechanism that allowed for "total disruption of plates, crust, magma, magnetics, climate, atmosphere, etc. We are talking about high velocities of water being shifted and thrown." less than 6000 years ago is Goddidit.

I would ask my daughter because she has a PhD in genetics and has worked with Nobel laureates. She will not depend on Godidit for an answer.

 

[Jonahdog]

Like Dr. Nurre once explained to me,

Who is Dr. Nurre?

 

[Interplanner]

Who is Dr. Nurre?

Seattle Creation Museum and Northwest Treasures (gem, stone, lapidary store).

 

[Interplanner]

6Days,
what did you think of the view of IS GENESIS HISTORY? that the earth was a water ball when creation took place?

IGH? is Del Tackett's doc on the topics of creation and the Noah cataclysm. It released in March 2017 and is now online.

 

[Jonahdog]

Seattle Creation Museum and Northwest Treasures (gem, stone, lapidary store).

Patrick Nurre? What is his doctorate in and where did he get it? Appears to me he is not a PhD but perhaps I am just not looking in the right place.

 

[Jonahdog]

Why does it all hinge on 'the mechanism.'?

It doesn't "hinge" on the mechanism but you are claiming a worldwide flood, global disaster just a few 1000 year ago. You should have some idea, or some creationist should, of what caused it all. Where did the energy come from, where did it go? Calling it a miracle of the Biblical deity is not a sufficient answer.

 

[oatmeal]

Well first, there is a difference between rapid adaptation and the demand that experiments are able to turn frogs into cats in support of evolution, as requested by oatmeal.
Adaptation can occur quickly but whether it is due to "pre-existing genetic information" (whatever you mean by that) or not is questionable.
Your claim that evolutionists ignore certain evidence is worthy of giggles coming from someone who ignores any evidence that does not fit with your need to shoe horn science into a Holy book. You ignore the evidence of the age of the universe and age of the earth and the evidence contained in the fossil record. All because of your fear of the deity described in your particular religious text.

All science can claim is hypothesis and theories, ie, guesses, both educated and uneducated until they can prove or disprove that their hypotheses, ie, guesses and theories, ie, somewhat more educated guesses.

Science has not provided any experimental evidence that evolution is possible.

Science is propounding that random occurrences in nature was the force that caused the evolution of lifeless chemicals to become living beings with intelligence.

What lab experiment has proven that?

In a lab you have the advantage that you could push the "evolution" of lifeless matter into becoming a living organism. All I am asking is that you show that science can make kittens out of tadpoles. That should be easy for science compared to us ignorant savages who believe in God and His words.

Why the delay in scientific experiments?

 

[oatmeal]

It appears that only creationists demand an instant evolution from science, which, goodness, you are correct has never happened and you are right no scientist ever will turn a frog into a cat. If that is what you need to accept evolution, well, enjoy your ignorance.

Did I say instant?

No! I did not.

Why do you insert that word?

Because your honest reply to my request would be indefensible scientifically and morally

How about giving a million scientists a million years? Would that produce life out of lifeless matter?

Nope!

If I am wrong, prove it!

Do the experiments that prove you create life out of lifeless matter.

Turn dirt into an amoeba. Turn a colony of frogs into kittens.

I am waiting...

How long will it take for science to admit that they cannot prove it by experimentation.

You can measure the force of gravity and come up with a mathematical formula for determining the speed of an object under the influence of gravity.

You have mathematical formulas for electrical design.

You can convert matter into energy and you have mathematical formulas for designing tools to do that.

I am not asking for a mathematical formula for evolution, though maybe I should, I am simply asking that you prove in a lab that you can produce evolution, evolve dirt into an amoeba, evolve tadpoles into kittens

Where and why the holdup?

 

[Interplanner]

It doesn't "hinge" on the mechanism but you are claiming a worldwide flood, global disaster just a few 1000 year ago. You should have some idea, or some creationist should, of what caused it all. Where did the energy come from, where did it go? Calling it a miracle of the Biblical deity is not a sufficient answer.

I don't know what else to do Jonah when you have reader's block while viewing IGH? The 'mechanism' is explained there. That is, besides an infinite and personal deity who can operate 'outside the box', a few hydrological, stratigraphical and geological features of the cataclysm are described and explained there.

 

[Interplanner]

Did I say instant?

No! I did not.

Why do you insert that word?

Because your honest reply to my request would be indefensible scientifically and morally

How about giving a million scientists a million years? Would that produce life out of lifeless matter?

Nope!

If I am wrong, prove it!

Do the experiments that prove you create life out of lifeless matter.

Turn dirt into an amoeba. Turn a colony of frogs into kittens.

I am waiting...

How long will it take for science to admit that they cannot prove it by experimentation.

You can measure the force of gravity and come up with a mathematical formula for determining the speed of an object under the influence of gravity.

You have mathematical formulas for electrical design.

You can convert matter into energy and you have mathematical formulas for designing tools to do that.

I am not asking for a mathematical formula for evolution, though maybe I should, I am simply asking that you prove in a lab that you can produce evolution, evolve dirt into an amoeba, evolve tadpoles into kittens

Where and why the holdup?

In addition to this problem, evolution begs to show why an 'immature' universe existed, or could exist, because survival of the fittest would ruin life for most. What does make sense is a mature existence from the start, and that is indicated in Genesis. It is also indicated in visible evidence. For ex., the blurry S shaped galaxies only make sense in an immediate mature explanation. 13.7B years would have them looking like blobs of fog from here on earth.

Because of repeatedly finding that conclusion in the Creation literature, I believe 'mature' and arrived starlight was what was meant by the text on day 1 about light, while our system was set in place on day 3. This resolves the question of local light before day 3.

The mature/arrived starlight matches the mature/grown plantlife's immediate function and operation stated in the text. There is nothing in the physical evidence that supports immature life. The systems--all of them-- needed to be designed, perfect and operational from the first moment. For example, blue whale testicle heaters. No blue whale could reproduce without them from the first moment without precise, exact heating.

I'm surprised Jonah would still bother mentioning the fossil record, because the Cambrian explosion is more of a problem than a help. Just as is the Great Unconformity at the bottom of Grand Canyon.

 

[Interplanner]

6day:
Have you seen IGH? yet and what do you make of the declaration that the earth was a water ball when creation began?

 

[Jonahdog]

I don't know what else to do Jonah when you have reader's block while viewing IGH? The 'mechanism' is explained there. That is, besides an infinite and personal deity who can operate 'outside the box', a few hydrological, stratigraphical and geological features of the cataclysm are described and explained there.

I will attempt to trudge through IGH but time is tough. I've managed 10 minutes so far.
And an "infinite and personal deity operating outside the box" is not an explanation. That is simply Goddidit. If that is your answer then why bother with any science to try to understand what you claimed happened, just leave it at "No one can tell because Goddidit."
You have a global flood within the last 6000 years, continents shifting, water moving masses of sediments, current mountain ranges basically exploding out of the ground during or after the flood(per Dr. Austin). Give any thought to what natural processes provided that energy? Or are you stuck with your infinitely powerful deity?

 

[Interplanner]

Patrick Nurre? What is his doctorate in and where did he get it? Appears to me he is not a PhD but perhaps I am just not looking in the right place.

It's possible that he does not. I know a national columnist who speaks 4 languages, is a guest conductor of a Los Angeles symphony, was invited to debate Palestinianism at Oxford 2 years ago, has been syndicated for 30 years, has a talk-show audience of 2 million, a video 'university' that surpasses MSNBC's site in viewership, lectures 3 times a week nationally, interviews 2-3 authors a week, has a master's in Russian economics from Princeton, and he can't get a honorary doctorate from any mainstream American university because of his views.

I will not therefore stop agreeing with most of his conclusions.

You seem to be completely unaware how censorious modern education is.

 

[Interplanner]

Dr. Silvestru (died a few years ago) has his doctorate from Europe somewhere. He has material out there, even video presentations of the same as his papers, on catastrophic plate tectonics.

 

[Jonahdog]

It's possible that he does not. I know a national columnist who speaks 4 languages, is a guest conductor of a Los Angeles symphony, was invited to debate Palestinianism at Oxford 2 years ago, has been syndicated for 30 years, has a talk-show audience of 2 million, a video 'university' that surpasses MSNBC's site in viewership, lectures 3 times a week nationally, interviews 2-3 authors a week, has a master's in Russian economics from Princeton, and he can't get a honorary doctorate from any mainstream American university because of his views.

I will not therefore stop agreeing with most of his conclusions.

You seem to be completely unaware how censorious modern education is.

You seem to be completely unaware that calling someone "Dr." when they are not is either misinformed or a lie.

 

[Jonahdog]

In addition to this problem, evolution begs to show why an 'immature' universe existed, or could exist, because survival of the fittest would ruin life for most. What does make sense is a mature existence from the start, and that is indicated in Genesis. It is also indicated in visible evidence. For ex., the blurry S shaped galaxies only make sense in an immediate mature explanation. 13.7B years would have them looking like blobs of fog from here on earth.

Because of repeatedly finding that conclusion in the Creation literature, I believe 'mature' and arrived starlight was what was meant by the text on day 1 about light, while our system was set in place on day 3. This resolves the question of local light before day 3.

The mature/arrived starlight matches the mature/grown plantlife's immediate function and operation stated in the text. There is nothing in the physical evidence that supports immature life. The systems--all of them-- needed to be designed, perfect and operational from the first moment. For example, blue whale testicle heaters. No blue whale could reproduce without them from the first moment without precise, exact heating.

I'm surprised Jonah would still bother mentioning the fossil record, because the Cambrian explosion is more of a problem than a help. Just as is the Great Unconformity at the bottom of Grand Canyon.

Gish Gallop. Pick one topic, which one would you like me to respond to? If I don't have a rational response I will say so.
But you continue to rely on Goddidit which is by definition, not rational.

 

[Interplanner]

Gish Gallop. Pick one topic, which one would you like me to respond to? If I don't have a rational response I will say so.
But you continue to rely on Goddidit which is by definition, not rational.

You would have to define rational.

"while very few geologists believe the Colorado meandered around and carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years anymore, that view is still found in most 9th grade texts." --Morris, ICR

That is by definition not rational. What is rational is that huge amounts of water moved the sediment there and removed the material to form GC. What is rational is that there are 500 world accounts of such a thing with tons of unnecessary detail, Genesis 6-8 being one of them. What is rational is that many indicators show violent disruptions about 9 or 10K ago which is still within the conservative end of Biblical reading.

You can't tell me what rational is about God. Car operators can say sailing is not rational, but all it reveals is the narrow terms they are operating within. "The wind blows where it wants; you hear the sound of it, but you can't tell where it is going." For the same reason, as Lewis (Literature chair, Oxford, 1930s, 40s) said in "Science and Religion" there are questions for the mathematicians, and other questions for the detectives or the psychics or the psychologists. You are saying the ONLY questions out there are mathematical. Not true.

 

[Jonahdog]

You would have to define rational.

"while very few geologists believe the Colorado meandered around and carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years anymore, that view is still found in most 9th grade texts." --Morris, ICR

That is by definition not rational. What is rational is that huge amounts of water moved the sediment there and removed the material to form GC. What is rational is that there are 500 world accounts of such a thing with tons of unnecessary detail, Genesis 6-8 being one of them. What is rational is that many indicators show violent disruptions about 9 or 10K ago which is still within the conservative end of Biblical reading.

You can't tell me what rational is about God. Car operators can say sailing is not rational, but all it reveals is the narrow terms they are operating within. "The wind blows where it wants; you hear the sound of it, but you can't tell where it is going." For the same reason, as Lewis (Literature chair, Oxford, 1930s, 40s) said in "Science and Religion" there are questions for the mathematicians, and other questions for the detectives or the psychics or the psychologists. You are saying the ONLY questions out there are mathematical. Not true.

Rational---"based on or in accordance with reason or logic". That definition came from an on-line dictionary. Works for me, if you have a better definition, post it.

Yep, rational for huge amounts of water to move the sediment from the Grand Canyon. But over what period of time and how do you know that? Here is your choice, short time or long time for the Grand Canyon to form? What is the logical (rational) basis for your answer?

God is not rational. Yours is suggested to be out of time, and not constrained by the usual physical rules of the universe so it is hard to accept that a rational mind could deal with your deity.

I dont think I said that the only questions are mathematical.