Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[blueboy]

Like all this stuff, it picks up certain aspects of truth, or hypothetical truths and then subverts them to its own world view, its own ideology.

One does not have to choose between Faith and Science. This is the foundational lie of all religions proposing beliefs that are contrary to proven science. Intelligent Design is just more sloganeering by the marketing team for Creationists. Yes, the Jehovah Witness claim a great age of the universe and the earth upon which they then impose their Creationist beliefs.

There is only one truth, all lines of inquiry lead tom a single conclusion, that being God. If everything is as a result of Creation, then science is no more than the tool humans use to look at the details of Creation. Therefore it can not in any way be in conflict with true religion, because in effect science and religion are the same thing. So it is not religious Faith that rejects science, it is ignorance.

As for Intelligent Design. Intelligence is a quotient of intelligence. He / she has this much intelligence. God is all-knowing, see the difference. There is no human capacity for quantifying something that is all-knowing. So God is not Intelligent, He is all-knowing.

Design requires an evolving plan of the finished item. God did not design anything. He Willed into existence every atom and permutation of life from a basis of being all-knowing. There was no trial and error. No rub this out and start again, so even if coming up with some stupid marketing slogan, Intelligent Design was done with the best intent, it is just adds more layers of conflict and confusion.

Our friend on the clip sounds very sincere, but he either lied through his teeth, or he is a blind bigot. The dear fellow seems to imagine that by saying, Special Creation, this is an explanation. It explains nothing and if it was in any way a real event the evidence is so recent that we would not be debating it here, everybody would have no choice but to accept it. But there is not a thimble of evidence to suggest Special Creation.

As for Creation itself, this is an unknowable action by God. Nature is both, God's Will and the expression of God's Will. It is God who has Created the reality of all things. Every Creation thing is a complex of acting and becoming. This reality we did not invent, but have observed, that being transmutation or evolution, is the act of becoming. So every creature today is the result of becoming what it was intended to be.

The 7 points mentioned were murdered by so much misinformation, but I will comment on consciousness.


Human consciousness is a phenomenon of the human spirit which is aligned or connected to each and every human at conception.

Our spiritual and scientific understanding are all only relative truths because we will forever have more to learn and know about this universe and ourselves. Special Creature was a great and wonderful truth in the Bronze Age. Today we have a far greater understanding of just how staggeringly complex and far reaching Creation really is. In fact Creation is an eternal state serving the Will of an eternal God.

 

[Right Divider]

Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - BioLogoshttps://biologos.org › articles › flood-geology-and-the-...

The sedimentary layers do not support the Flood of Noah, a mere geological blink ago at 4,500 years. Read the article. I'll send you more if you like.

Please stop and read this book: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

You are simply wrong about your belief and you'll find any source to make you believe that you know what you're talking about, when you don't.

 

[Right Divider]

One does not have to choose between Faith and Science.

We agree with both. So where is the problem? Oh, that's right, you prefer bogus "science", whereas we stick to the real thing.

There is only one truth, all lines of inquiry lead tom a single conclusion, that being God. If everything is as a result of Creation, then science is no more than the tool humans use to look at the details of Creation. Therefore it can not in any way be in conflict with true religion, because in effect science and religion are the same thing. So it is not religious Faith that rejects science, it is ignorance.

Science and Creation do agree. But there is bogus, fake science... like the stuff that you believe, that does disagree with the Bible.

As for Intelligent Design. Intelligence is a quotient of intelligence.

You cannot define a word using the word. That is stupidity.

He / she has this much intelligence.

God never refers to Himself as a "she". Are you going woke?

God is all-knowing, see the difference. There is no human capacity for quantifying something that is all-knowing. So God is not Intelligent, He is all-knowing.

Blaspheme is no going to get you anywhere.

Design requires an evolving plan of the finished item.

Here you are confusing God with man. Probably more blaspheme.

God did not design anything.

Of course He did. You are confused.

He Willed into existence every atom and permutation of life from a basis of being all-knowing. There was no trial and error.

"Evolution" is all about "trial and error".

Ignoring the rest of the ignorance in this post.

 

[Yorzhik]

Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - BioLogoshttps://biologos.org › articles › flood-geology-and-the-...

The sedimentary layers do not support the Flood of Noah, a mere geological blink ago at 4,500 years. Read the article. I'll send you more if you like.

Your link did not explain the vast sedimentary layers. In fact, the authors only tangentially addressed it. They said the layers came from large shallow oceans that would rise and fall to create a layer. They also claimed rivers could carry the generally pure sediments to achieve the various kinds of material that makes up the layers.

To say this is nonsense requires careful examination because these are respected geologists. It's as risky as telling the king he isn't wearing cloths. But that's the situation we are in. Ocean bottoms don't create sedimentary rock, and rivers cannot deliver the type of sediments we see around the world. EDIT: @Stripe, check my work. Sedimentary rock can be created in formations today but it requires a particular makeup of elements and processes. This coalescing of items is particular, especially needing a cementing agent that is rarely listed in a simple Google search of how sedimentary rock is formed. Even without a cementing agent the sediments require great pressures which aren't supplied in shallow oceans. For you to think the sedimentary layers could be formed in various shallow oceans created and drained by rising and falling continental crust at various times and places doesn't even rise to the level of hypothesis.

But let's start near the beginning of their explanation. The authors have a severe misunderstanding of how the flood happened. From the article you linked: "Flood geologists believe that layers of sedimentary rock exposed across continents, such as observed at the Grand Canyon are evidence of deposition out of turbulent water during the Genesis flood. They observe that strata standing far above sea level contain marine (sea) fossils and therefore conclude that they must have been deposited by high levels of water that covered the continents during the deluge."

Are you kidding me? I guess if you start with a cartoon version of the flood it's an easy to create a straw man to knock over. The flood was possible not because the water was high, but because the land was relatively even. Even you would agree if the land was perfectly perfectly smooth around the earth with no mountains or ocean valleys it would be covered 100% by water... because rock if heavier than water. Right? You can understand that?



But let's see what else they say: "While many sedimentary rock layers do cover vast areas of the continents, no single layer covers an entire continent from one end to the other as the flood geologists imply."

But YEC don't imply that. They say quite clearly the layers are vast and sometimes even span oceans. This kind of argument achieves the level of discarding an argument because of a typo, and really lowers the credibility of the authors.



But they go on: "Rather, the rock layers overlap one another like leaves piled up on a lawn. Rather than finding evidence of one massive deluge, geologists find abundant evidence of multiple periods of rising and falling sea level that varied by as much as 120 m higher or lower than at present.5 It’s the combination of low-standing continental crust and high-standing sea level that results in these sedimentary layers."

Do they realize they created more problems than they solved with this solution? This is what I meant by vast layers only being the beginning of your problems trying to attribute these layers with deep time. In order for these layers to interleave like they do, the edge of a lower layer would have to bend at the point where the layer above is deposited. But it doesn't. And this is just one obvious error not addressed.



They never addressed the problem of the general purity of the material in each layer. They never addressed the general lack of erosion or the general lack of plants or the general lack of anything between layers for hundreds of square miles after hundreds of square miles. What they do offer is an exception: "Flood geologists claim that rock layers in the Grand Canyon are flat and show little evidence of erosion. They refer to “knife edge” contacts between layers that do not reveal erosion between layers. They recognize at least one ancient surface of erosion at the base of the Grand Canyon strata, known as the Great Unconformity. This feature is a contact between underlying igneous and metamorphic rocks with some pockets of deformed sedimentary rocks exposed in the walls of the inner gorge and the overlying, mostly flat sedimentary rocks that we see along the upper walls of the canyon. But, it’s far from flat and “knife edge” in character."

I hope you weren't drinking something when you read that. It should be enough to make you spit it out with surprise. They admit in the third sentence the formation is recognized as an exception by YEC, and then say it's an exception in the fifth sentence like it's a great revelation! I think they formatted this argument using this technique for readers like you. They pulled a bait and switch, saying they would answer the problem of "knife edge" contacts and then listing an exception everyone accepts to cover their integrity, but then never addressing the majority of contact area between layers!

So how do you address the problem? This article doesn't do it. And if you are going to throw any more links at me, give me the gist of their argument in your own words because this one was, in some ways, a waste of time.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is a Creationist. If you want truth without prejudice you have to challenge yourself to look beyond the walls of your belief. As for Native Americans arriving about 1,500 years ago, one has to wonder what dear old Dr Nathaniel has been smoking. Just let the evidence speak for itself, don't try to torture it into a mistaken belief, the world has moved on and you are being left and ignored like some useless relic of the past. Look at all the human hours lost and wasted trying to force real science into a literal Genesis story.

Yes there has been a throttling down of human DNA, likely our ancestors were reduced at times to a small, vulnerable group, but certainly not within the last few hundred-thousand years or so.

Now here's the kicker. The Flood of Noah would have rendered the DNA of all animals back to the same reduced diversity as humans, in fact with 8 humans able to interbreed, we should have more divery DNA than the apes, because there was only two of them. Remember we only have two great apes, two orangutang, two chimps, etc. So if apes have diverse DNA this is yet another proof that the Flood of Noah is not literal and I thank you for pointing that out.

I have just read several papers regarding the sediment layers and there is not the slightest suggestion that this reflects some great flood of only 4,500 years ago.

As for emojis, I'm happy for you to use them if you feel they help you communicate.

Like I said, I read mostly non-YEC material. But since common descent is such a science stopper, you simply can't get the cutting edge of science sometimes from non-YEC scientists. Dr. Jeanson's work has no detractors of the basic science involved. Instead of closing your mind you should figure out what is actually wrong with the method he uses if you don't like it. Claiming he can't do science because he's a creationist is anti-scientific and reflects poorly on your character.

 

[7djengo7]

I got in real trouble one time with a group of evolutionist democrats by pointing out that Darwin believed blacks, like Michele Obama, descended from monkeys. Darwinists are idiots. God created humans originally and all humans descended from Adam and Eve.

Hey, don't you know that it is offensive to evolutionists/Darwinists when we refer to them as "evolutionists" and/or "Darwinists"?

Also, it's generally folk like you who refer to people as "evolutionists" or "Darwinists" and whatnot...

Apparently it was folk like us who created the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

[User Name]

The link is hilarious! Thanks for posting it.

Here's another:

home

ugurkaner.xyz