Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

But, even if Davis was changing the world similar to mother Theresa, it would not change his eternal destiny. Good works do not make us Holy. We are still unrighteousness sinners and need Jesus as our Savior.

The message I see here is that me being kind and decent and compassionate are just not important to your God. The thing He is most desirous of are people, no matter how despicable, that will kiss up to Him.

 

[DavisBJ]

We don't need to have complete knowledge of the complexity of the cell, or the vastness of the universe to see the majesty of our Creator.

Since for millennia believers did just fine with no inkling of how vast the universe really was, why make it so vast at all? Is the vastness just to impress us now that we have with telescopes?

Not that it matters, but God did tell them that the stars are as uncountable as are the sand of the sea shore.

I agree, it clearly didn’t matter, since for the majority of Christian history they had no way of seeing even a miniscule portion on the universe.

As Christians, we can have certainty that the Word of God is true yesterday, today and forever.

This is just your regular obligatory lie that you mindlessly spout.

What right does your neighbor have over you? Did He create you?

So if He created me then somehow that makes it sensible for Him to threaten to beat the crap out of me for being a jerk, unless I buddy up to His Son, whence He will ignore that I am a jerk and He will whale on His son instead? This is getting weirder and weirder.

 

[Rosenritter]

When you have to resort to asking me a question, and then answering it yourself, then that answer is yours, not mine. If it is an ugly answer, it is your ugly answer.

I have seen that same condemnation issued by Christian fundamentalists against the entire Christian community that doesn’t agree with your fanatical type of dogma. I am not much impressed by fanatics like you that claim to know more about are other’s feelings and thoughts than the people do themselves.

I haven't seen anyone threaten anyone with fanatical dogma. If you'd stop the knee-jerk reactionary thing here you might realize that both of you agree in part. The Christian says you are under the sentence and penalty of death. The atheist believes he is under the sentence and penalty of death. The difference is that the Christian says that there is an option for eternal life. Yes, you do misunderstand the cross.

What do you have to be offended about? If you (the atheist) are really right then you're still dead in the end, though you do get robbed of being proved right because you won't be there to appreciate it. If you are sure of this then just be satisfied that everyone dies and stays dead no matter what.

But I'll go a step further and guess what might upset you. Would it be speeches like this?

“The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven.”

The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.

[Jonathan Edwards, "The Eternity of Hell Torments" (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

Now I can understand why that should offend anyone, and I'd dare say that Jonathan Edwards didn't understand the cross either. But I didn't see anyone say anything like that to you on this board, and it would be terrible prejudiced of you to make such an assumption that anyone here agreed with such. What I did see is that the analogy of certain death and salvation from death was used... which is biblical, John 3:16 etc.

 

[Rosenritter]

Before anyone gets too deep into that, could you name the specific formation you're referring to?

I was speaking generally, but I believe examples can be found about Mount Everest. A brief reference can be found here: http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-Everest/a/Geology-Of-Mount-Everest.htm (I figured you might prefer an initial reference that was not charged with theological debate.) What that article didn't mention was that the shells are in the closed state meaning that they were killed quickly before being able to open (the normal behavior.)

 

[Rosenritter]

You say there are anomalies that we can’t explain? Really? Rather than disputing that, perhaps I should send you a rather technical book I have, nearly 400 pages long, titled “Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics.” Unless you have a copy yourself, then it probably has oodles of sticky questions in astrophysics that you likely have never heard of.

The difference between most creationists and most scientists is that creationists seize on things we don’t understand as evidence that scientists are badly misled in fundamental aspects of their work. University Professors take those same things that we don’t understand and assign them as thesis subjects for grad students. Very very rarely do the answers to those things we don’t understand fundamentally overturn what we do know.

But if you think you know of some paradigm changing questions that science is turning a blind eye to, then bring them on.

This may be relevant to the thread topic, because as I understand it the "evolution" theory requires a warm sun, earth, water, and atmosphere. So I'm game for that.

Here's my idea. I think that in the beginning God formed our sun and the planets about 6000 years ago. Will you please tell me what "science" says about the age and formation of our solar system? Would you also please include the data used to support this "science" theory? Could you also include any data that is believed to contradict my theory?

 

[DavisBJ]

I have not involved myself in the techy aspect of the Baumgardner flood discussions. I have seen some discussion comments that I want to understand better. I have not followed through Baumgardner’s logic in detail (but I am working on that now).

Specifically this comment concerns me:

I get the impression that you aren't understanding why mass amounts of water weight on flat plates could cause deformation, when you are asking why our water isn't causing fast effects now.

When one part starts to bend down water goes .... Down. That means weight force Increases in the weakest spot that started to break. And it accelerates in that pattern. Water does not flow uphill.

When one part is pushed down other connected portions are pushed up. So not only does water start to run off but oceans form deep while ridges get pushed higher….

Let me try to see if I understand with a thought experiment – not an experiment we are likely to be able to physically perform, but an idealized situation that allows us to focus on just the essential ideas.

Baumgardner talks about huge sections of 100 km thick oceanic lithosphere breaking free and sinking into the underlying mantle. I think you have correctly expressed the idea that if you shove something down into the mantle, somewhere else some mantle material will have to “squeeze up”, since the interior of the earth is already full of magma type material, and shoving more stuff down means some will have to be pushed up elsewhere. Now in my thought experiment I propose making a gigantic vertical cylinder. It will be 10 km in diameter, and it will be so long that it can reach very deep into the earth’s mantle. Lucky us, we find one of Baumgardner’s detached pieces of the oceanic lithosphere that is a perfect fit for our vertical pipe. We lower the pipe so the lithospheric piece can sink down, pushing the less dense mantle material down ahead of it. There is adequate room below where the pipe ends for the mantle material to “squeeze out” to the sides, and that will push up material somewhere else, perhaps helping form a mountain.

So, the slab of lithosphere starts to sink, and ocean water pours in above the sinking slab, adding to the pressure it is exerting down on the lighter mantle below. How long would this go on? As the layer of water above gets deeper and deeper, adding trillions of tons of force to the sinking slab, would this process continue until the slab was clear below the bottom of the pipe?

 

[Rosenritter]

I have not involved myself in the techy aspect of the Baumgardner flood discussions. I have seen some discussion comments that I want to understand better. I have not followed through Baumgardner’s logic in detail (but I am working on that now).

Specifically this comment concerns me:

Let me try to see if I understand with a thought experiment – not an experiment we are likely to be able to physically perform, but an idealized situation that allows us to focus on just the essential ideas.

Baumgardner talks about huge sections of 100 km thick oceanic lithosphere breaking free and sinking into the underlying mantle. I think you have correctly expressed the idea that if you shove something down into the mantle, somewhere else some mantle material will have to “squeeze up”, since the interior of the earth is already full of magma type material, and shoving more stuff down means some will have to be pushed up elsewhere. Now in my thought experiment I propose making a gigantic vertical cylinder. It will be 10 km in diameter, and it will be so long that it can reach very deep into the earth’s mantle. Lucky us, we find one of Baumgardner’s detached pieces of the oceanic lithosphere that is a perfect fit for our vertical pipe. We lower the pipe so the lithospheric piece can sink down, pushing the less dense mantle material down ahead of it. There is adequate room below where the pipe ends for the mantle material to “squeeze out” to the sides, and that will push up material somewhere else, perhaps helping form a mountain.

So, the slab of lithosphere starts to sink, and ocean water pours in above the sinking slab, adding to the pressure it is exerting down on the lighter mantle below. How long would this go on? As the layer of water above gets deeper and deeper, adding trillions of tons of force to the sinking slab, would this process continue until the slab was clear below the bottom of the pipe?

Why does the slab sink in your experiment? It sounded like you were lowering the cylinder around it but not exerting any pressure. Are you pouring something into the cylinder afterwards or such? I didn't see that part mentioned. But if so it would depend on the density of the materials, wouldn't it?

 

[DavisBJ]

Why does the slab sink in your experiment? It sounded like you were lowering the cylinder around it but not exerting any pressure. Are you pouring something into the cylinder afterwards or such? I didn't see that part mentioned. But if so it would depend on the density of the materials, wouldn't it?

Baumgardner very specifically says the reason the slab sinks is because it has a higher density than the mantle material below it. I take it you haven’t read Baumgardner’s paper?

If you would like, let’s assume the slab starts to descend for whatever undefined reason you had when you said “When one part starts to bend down water goes .... Down.” Now let the water flow in on top. How far does this accumulating overburden of water force your “bend” down into the mantle?

 

[DavisBJ]

I haven't seen anyone threaten anyone with fanatical dogma.

And you have been here how long? The last few hundred posts, in a thread that extends back several years and has over 18,000 posts in it? Do you also assume that the weather yesterday must be the same as it has been for the whole year?

The atheist believes he is under the sentence and penalty of death.

No I don’t. Using terms like “sentence and penalty” is cheap silliness, instantly presuming there is some standard that has been violated. Is it due to a sentence and penalty that the cute little raindrop high in the sky finds itself falling towards a muddy stream? Does a rock, high up on a mountain with its commanding view find itself tumbling deep into the valley below because of a sentence and penalty?

The difference is that the Christian says that there is an option for eternal life.

Christians say lots of silly things – like snakes and donkeys sometimes gab with people, and you better not drink from rivers that have just filled up with hemoglobin, and that disobedient wives run the chance of turning into a pillar of salt.

What do you have to be offended about? If you (the atheist) are really right then you're still dead in the end, though you do get robbed of being proved right because you won't be there to appreciate it.

Just like you get robbed of an incredible sensual afterlife with the 72 enticing virgins that could have been yours had you only believed what you should.

If you are sure of this then just be satisfied that everyone dies and stays dead no matter what.

Yup, you lost the virgins, and it’s your own fault.

 

[MichaelCadry]

SH replying to Cadry:

Dear SH,

Thanks much for assuming my former position of being Cadry’s target. It’s not something I would wish on anyone, but someone apparently has to feed Michael’s ongoing need to be illogical and threaten damnation. Although Michael thinks he swings a big club, you will notice it is actually just a big soft ostrich feather. Glad to know your dog is on our side too, just like the fencepost that I named Cadry behind my house.

Dear DavisBJ,

You are never off the hook here, Davis! I think that if anyone is worse than you, then SH is it. He says things to me that he will have to answer for when he faces God, and it won't be pretty at all. I know that I don't have to explain to you two non-gentlemen. My club is no feather, as you know BJ, or you'd still be bugging me with your rhetoric. Instead you pretend to put me on your own ignore numbers and ranting. But SH ranting worse than you, and he says that I am ranting. Give me a break. How quaint that you name your fence post. You must be as Bipolar as SH is. He is a piece of work and for all of his work, it's going to be a Very HOT One in the end!! But if that's what he wants, who am I to stop him. I have already cast him away with the dust of my feet. I never even did that to you BJ, nor any other atheist, whom I instead tried to save from havoc. It's going to be a BUMPY RIDE!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

… Will you please tell me what "science" says about the age and formation of our solar system? Would you also please include the data used to support this "science" theory? Could you also include any data that is believed to contradict my theory?

Is it your normal method to enter a discussion and claim that someone is wrong, and then when they ask why, for you to ask them to prove they are right?

I will humor you and mention some of the ways of dating that conflict with a recent creation. But I also require that you present the specifics of whatever prompted your claim that:

… You can't even make a proper case for an old moon or planets by the popular old universe theories.... At least there are all these inconvenient fact evidences that have to be ignored.

Some dating methods:

1) One of the most widely used dating methods is radiological dating.
2) Ice core dating.
3) There was a pretty good Christian who is also recognized as a premier scientist called Lord Kelvin. He opposed Darwinian evolution, partially because the evolutionists were asking for many millions of years. But Lord Kelvin said no way, since his calculations on the thermodynamics of the earth showed it was only tens of millions of years old.​

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

You are never off the hook here, Davis! ...

Michael

Sorry Mikey, but you will have to whale on me at some later time. Kinda busy right now.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well, you know whatever agrees with your bias that you've looked up on the internet and pasted here. That you don't understand any of it is obvious to anyone not sharing your nonsense.... said the guy who's called me a liar and "satan" more than a few times without evidence.

Dear SH,

I understand everything I post from other sites on the Internet, feeling that my Christian friends and others might love to be informed of what these articles have to say. And I have called you a liar perhaps three times, and Satan twice. I guess that makes it a few but not "more than a few."

I've posted under this alias since 2009 and other aliases years before that. Should we add this to the list of things Michael Cadry knows nothing about?Compared to 6days and yellow stain, Hitler was a saint. I understand Hitler had a strong belief in the christian deity and asked for forgiveness of his many transgressions moments before he pulled the trigger, is he already in heaven? Godwin's Law anyone?

I know you've been here since 2009 and I notice you haven't posted very often while you've been here. Have you befriended 6days or Stripe during all that time, even under an alias? That's what I was wondering. And his name is Stripe, not stain. We could call you stain too, like the one a skunk has on it's back. Would you like that? And Hitler is not in heaven now, if you want to know.

The veracity of "truth" is determined by personal association and a picture? What have I said about evolution that isn't true?You're ranting and skipping from thought to rash thought. It's a classic bipolar symptom, look it up. If I copied your post, explain why mine are formatted to each separate post. And you called me a liar, again.

The veracity of truth is determined by my personal association and a picture, and accompanied by almost three years of knowing them both. You still think my writing is bipolar? I am a very good writer, except that I don't use 'paragraphs' as often as I should. That is how I am. And we both are running from one post to another, answering each others' questions/posts regardless of whether it seems like ranting or something else unusual. I just do not know how to post here except as I've already learned.

I have to learn much more about posting than I know so far. I am quite a novice to this site as well as I was with the previous version that Knight had set up before. Also, I say that you followed the Page# and Post# that I started my post in question with initially. Then you went to the page and post numbers that I had written in my post and got there yourself first and copied them while I was busy editing my post. My guardian angel told me which page it was on and also I found the post in question in less than a minute. So my beliefs about what you say are unchanging. God knows what you did. You can tell Him what you did when you face Him. That is the best advice that I could give to you.

Yes, so? I follow many threads without commenting. You act as if I've committed a crime.Have you EVER posted anything you didn't agree with as confirmation of what you believe? If not, that would be a first.I've read about your cancer woes. How happy were you to get the diagnosis?Cancer was your deities way of testing you and being cured was a miracle, right? That's called confirmation bias.

You surely would have posted sooner than almost 3 years of 'following' my thread. I didn't say it was a crime. I just think it is highly improbable that you are telling the truth. No, I haven't posted such a thing that I didn't at the time believe in. Yes, my cancer woes. I was quite disappointed to find out that the radiation seemed to have cured me. I was hoping instead to die quickly, so I could go and be with My Father and My Brother, Jesus, in Heaven. Since it is a fact that I am a descendant of Noah and his family, and Adam & Eve, Jesus and I are brothers, just like with everyone else, though some would not want it, like you and B.J. Yes, I can't hardly wait until I die. I know you won't understand, but I'm still getting a lot done down here on Earth before I go to Them. I don't see cancer as a test by God for me and don't think I was healed by a miracle. The radiation did it. I refused to get radiation for almost a year, if you want to know. My close ones and my Physician bugged me into getting it done. So, I finally gave in, figuring it wouldn't work. I guess God is not ready for me to go to Him just yet. I must still have work on this Earth to do reaching others.

Perhaps you don't see the humor in the bolded portion of your quote above but my christian wife got a real belly laugh out of it. Yeah, I'm aware of the things you claim to have the inside track on, snow storms and the second coming. Pull the other one.

I'm very happy that you and your wife got a belly laugh. They laughed at Noah too, until they were killed in the Flood. You don't have the slightest idea of what is going on. We are quickly going to undergo massive changes in this world, including Jesus' Return. You'll find out soon enough! Then, I will want to laugh at you, but I won't because I feel sorry for you.

Among scientists evolution is more popular than godidit because of the extreme amount of evidence in multiple scientific disciplines supporting it. It's a miracle isn't scientific but it is popular among fundamentalist christians.

Yes, that is the same among many scientists and the general public. It still does not mean they are not Christians. They just don't have all of the facts right now. Yes, I am a fundamentalist then.

Who wins the popularity contest for you?Eyes and horns are spirits? Weird. Given any other context what would you say of anyone believing such nonsense?Well, you did comment that someone was taking notes on your last post. Not actually knowing someones intent and theorizing that person is out to get you seems paranoid to me.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

You will read in Rev. 3:1KJV, "These things saith He that hath the 'seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars...'" This is only one reference to the fact that there are seven Spirits of God in the Bible, I believe. But I'm not going to go and search for them for you. I'm just terrible, aren't I. I am not paranoid, dude. I see at the bottom of my screen who is also online on this Thread while I am, and that is how I knew BJ was there. I have my reason for writing what I did, and no, I won't tell you about it.

Okay, I guess we are done here. Now I can get to bed.

Michael

 

[Silent Hunter]

... what is not debatable is that the holocaust was largely inspired by Hitlers belief, and the Nazi belief in evolutionism.

Well, that's Sir Keith's one-man-show theory which, while conceivably a factor contributing to the Holocaust, is far from not in debate. Hitler was a racist, he hated the Jews. Dispute that and you will have better luck tilting windmills.

British evolutionary anthropologist,Sir Arthur Keith said "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions". He also said that "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."

Hitler was concerned with the "racial purity" of the German people. Eliminating "undesirable" traits from the gene pool is core to that sort of "selective breeding" initiative. "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. He has failed, not because the theory of evolution is false, but because he has made three fatal blunders in its application. The first was in forcing the pace of evolution among his own people; he raised their warlike passions to such a heat that the only relief possible was that of aggressive war. His second mistake lay in his misconception of the evolutionary value of power. All that a sane evolutionist demands of power is that it should be sufficient to guarantee the security of a nation; more than that is an evolutionary abuse of power. When Hitler set out to conquer Europe, he had entered on that course which brought about the evolutionary destruction of Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes (see Chapter 34). His third and greatest mistake was his failure to realize that such a monopoly of power meant insecurity for Britain, Russia, and America. His three great antagonists, although they do not preach the doctrine of evolution, are very consistent exponents of its tenets."
-Sir Arthur Keith, Essays on Human Evolution, (London: Watts & Co., 1946), 210 (cf. Evolution and Ethics, (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1947), 229.)

Sir Keith believed evolution is a fact and demonstratively so. You can't rationally outtake quotes from someone who accepted the truth of evolutionary theory as evidence against it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

The message I see here is that me being kind and decent and compassionate are just not important to your God.

So, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience Col. 3:12
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. Eph.4:32

 

[6days]

Sir Keith believed evolution is a fact and demonstratively so. You can't rationally outtake quotes from someone who accepted the truth of evolutionary theory as evidence against it.

A prosecutor loves to get a hostile witness on the stand. Of course it's ok to use the words of evolutionists against themselves. Keith was not speaking against evolutionary beliefs, but he did admit that Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust.

Hunter.... To deny evolutionism largely factored for the holocaust, you are either ignorant of history, or a history denier.

Evolutionism was the justification of the nazis in sending millions of people to their deaths. Watch very short nazi video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw&client=mv-google&layout=tablet&skipcontrinter=1

 

[patrick jane]

This may be relevant to the thread topic, because as I understand it the "evolution" theory requires a warm sun, earth, water, and atmosphere. So I'm game for that.

Here's my idea. I think that in the beginning God formed our sun and the planets about 6000 years ago. Will you please tell me what "science" says about the age and formation of our solar system? Would you also please include the data used to support this "science" theory? Could you also include any data that is believed to contradict my theory?

10,000

 

[6days]

Since for millennia believers did just fine with no inkling of how vast the universe really was, why make it so vast at all? Is the vastness just to impress us now that we have with telescopes?

As said... Your argument is illogical. And, this was already answered.
We don't need to have complete knowledge of the complexity of the cell, or the vastness of the universe to see the majesty of our Creator.

....since for the majority of Christian history they had no way of seeing even a miniscule portion on the universe.

We don't need to have complete knowledge of the complexity of the cell, or the vastness of the universe to see the majesty of our Creator.

So if He created me then somehow that makes it sensible for Him to threaten to beat the crap out of me for being a jerk, unless I buddy up to His Son,

In the analogy I used, you had beaten yourself up with poor lifestyle choices, and the son had given his life so you could receive his heart and live. "For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son." Rom.5:10

 

[Jonahdog]

Sir Keith believed evolution is a fact and demonstratively so. You can't rationally outtake quotes from someone who accepted the truth of evolutionary theory as evidence against it.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

SOP for creationists.

 

[Jonahdog]

A prosecutor loves to get a hostile witness on the stand. Of course it's ok to use the words of evolutionists against themselves. Keith was not speaking against evolutionary beliefs, but he did admit that Hitler was an evolutionist, and that those evolutionary beliefs factored in the holocaust.

Hunter.... To deny evolutionism largely factored for the holocaust, you are either ignorant of history, or a history denier.

Evolutionism was the justification of the nazis in sending millions of people to their deaths. Watch very short nazi video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LiO_c5-6_Hw&client=mv-google&layout=tablet&skipcontrinter=1

Ah, but then other counsel gets the opportunity to let the witness explain away the quote mine uses by the prosecutor---exactly what SH did.

The rest of your position is rubbish, but it makes you feel good to continue to post the same silliness.