News:

Buy things on Amazon? Please go to gracecentered.com/amazon FIRST and we'll earn a commission from your order!

Main Menu
+-+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 80077
Latest: armchairscholar
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 890831
Total Topics: 89534
Most Online Today: 520
Most Online Ever: 2999
(Fri Jan 13, 2023 - 21:20:46)
Users Online
Members: 1
Guests: 485
Total: 486
yogi bear
Google

Creation scientists

Started by Amo, Sat Aug 10, 2019 - 12:47:21

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Barbarian

Barbarian, regarding creationist fairy tales:
One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 09:05:47
As if you or any creationists know what is possible or not with God.

Answers in Genesis seems to think so:
There are several important aspects of the second law of thermodynamics that must be considered in discussing this issue. The most commonly cited issue is that of "disorder." The term used to describe this disorder is entropy.1 The second law states that closed systems tend towards increased entropy—an increase in disorder. Another way to look at this is that the amount of energy available for work in a closed system is decreasing.2 The law allows for increasing the amount of order in a given system, so when applying the law, the system being discussed must be carefully defined.

So if things are "running down," does it follow that this would not have begun until man sinned and brought about the effects of the Curse? Actually, this statement does not hold up under closer examination.

Actually, this "running down" is not necessarily bad, as it is responsible for many of the "good" things that happen around us every day. We could not digest our food without the second law being in operation. The breaking down of food into simpler molecules is a consequence of this process. The molecules are broken down to release the energy that is used to maintain the body and even provide for growth.

If Adam walked up or down a hill, he could not maintain his footing without a degree of friction between his feet and the ground. Friction is a process that converts kinetic energy into heat, another example of entropy.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/

QuoteSo do you think God wastes energy, and heaven is subject to decay?

Turns out, the net energy of the universe seems to be 0.0.   So no.   And heaven is not part of the physical universe, and is not bound by the laws God established here.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

Proponents of the "no-rain" view refer to Genesis 2 to support their position. Genesis 2:5–6 states that "the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (emphasis added).

From this passage, all that can really be said is that no rain had fallen up to that time—that is, prior to the creation of man. Remember, Genesis 2 is primarily a detailed recap of Day Six of Creation Week. The passage describes the environment before Adam was created. This mist may have been one of the primary methods that God used to hydrate the dry land He created on Day Three. Furthermore, while this mist was likely the watering source for that vegetation throughout the remainder of Creation Week, the text does not require it to be the only water source after Adam's creation.

Some argue that this mist eliminated the need for rain until the time of the Flood. However, presence of the mist prior to Adam's creation does not preclude the existence of or the need for rain after he was created.

Genesis 2:5–6 reveals that before the Sixth Day of Creation Week, God had watered the plants He made with a mist, but had not yet caused rain or created a man to till the ground. To demand that rain didn't happen until after the Flood from this passage has no more logical support than to claim, from the passage, that no one farmed until after the Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/

QuoteYou reject the global flood,

As does God's Word in Genesis.

Quoteand therefore the different world that existed before it. The earth was watered in a different way preflood, according to scripture in any case.

Even Biblically-informed creationists reject that new belief, as you have seen.    God is much greater and wiser than you would like Him to be.

QuoteSustaining a world without rain, is no dilemma for Him

That all things are possible for God, does not mean that God did everything you can dream up for Him to do.   As your fellow creationists show, there's no scriptural basis at all for your new belief.

QuoteChristians being mistaken about evidence supporting their faith in the scriptures does not equal fairy tale.

Inventing fantastic stories, and attributing them to God, that's making fairy tales.

QuoteIt is your belief that the scriptures testifying of the global flood

As you know, scriptures do not testify to a global flood.

Quoteis a fairy tale, that will not ever allow you to believe that the Ark could be found, no doubt.

The supposed finding of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (which is not the "mountains of Ararat" mentioned in the Bible) is yet another fairy tale, as Answers in Genesis points out.

QuoteYE's simply don't take the bible according to Barbarian or evolutionists to be the truth. this is not making up stories about what it says.

Your fellow creationists disagree with you.  Talk to them.

The Barbarian

Barbarian observes:
The iron isn't there to preserve things.   They just happened to be preserved because there was a lot of iron there.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 08:40:04
No.

Yep.  It's not surprising that organic molecules or fragments of molecules survive where there is a lot of iron present.   Chemically, iron can stabilize proteins for very, very long times, as in the cases mentioned.

It's why we see so much of it associated with blood vessels, hemoglobin, etc.  High iron concentrations.  As you learned, they tend to preserve organic molecules.






Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Oct 26, 2019 - 15:42:34
Barbarian, regarding creationist fairy tales:
One particularly weird story:
"The Second Law of Thermodynamics Began at the Fall"

Just not possible.   Even many creationists admit it.

Answers in Genesis seems to think so:
There are several important aspects of the second law of thermodynamics that must be considered in discussing this issue. The most commonly cited issue is that of "disorder." The term used to describe this disorder is entropy.1 The second law states that closed systems tend towards increased entropy—an increase in disorder. Another way to look at this is that the amount of energy available for work in a closed system is decreasing.2 The law allows for increasing the amount of order in a given system, so when applying the law, the system being discussed must be carefully defined.

So if things are "running down," does it follow that this would not have begun until man sinned and brought about the effects of the Curse? Actually, this statement does not hold up under closer examination.

Actually, this "running down" is not necessarily bad, as it is responsible for many of the "good" things that happen around us every day. We could not digest our food without the second law being in operation. The breaking down of food into simpler molecules is a consequence of this process. The molecules are broken down to release the energy that is used to maintain the body and even provide for growth.

If Adam walked up or down a hill, he could not maintain his footing without a degree of friction between his feet and the ground. Friction is a process that converts kinetic energy into heat, another example of entropy.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/

Turns out, the net energy of the universe seems to be 0.0.   So no.   And heaven is not part of the physical universe, and is not bound by the laws God established here.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Some Christians claim that there was no rain before the Flood. Many of them make this statement quite dogmatically as if it were obvious from a reading of the biblical text. However, a close examination of Scripture does not bear this out.

Proponents of the "no-rain" view refer to Genesis 2 to support their position. Genesis 2:5–6 states that "the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (emphasis added).

From this passage, all that can really be said is that no rain had fallen up to that time—that is, prior to the creation of man. Remember, Genesis 2 is primarily a detailed recap of Day Six of Creation Week. The passage describes the environment before Adam was created. This mist may have been one of the primary methods that God used to hydrate the dry land He created on Day Three. Furthermore, while this mist was likely the watering source for that vegetation throughout the remainder of Creation Week, the text does not require it to be the only water source after Adam's creation.

Some argue that this mist eliminated the need for rain until the time of the Flood. However, presence of the mist prior to Adam's creation does not preclude the existence of or the need for rain after he was created.

Genesis 2:5–6 reveals that before the Sixth Day of Creation Week, God had watered the plants He made with a mist, but had not yet caused rain or created a man to till the ground. To demand that rain didn't happen until after the Flood from this passage has no more logical support than to claim, from the passage, that no one farmed until after the Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/was-there-no-rain-before-the-flood/

As does God's Word in Genesis.

Even Biblically-informed creationists reject that new belief, as you have seen.    God is much greater and wiser than you would like Him to be.

That all things are possible for God, does not mean that God did everything you can dream up for Him to do.   As your fellow creationists show, there's no scriptural basis at all for your new belief.

Inventing fantastic stories, and attributing them to God, that's making fairy tales.

As you know, scriptures do not testify to a global flood.

The supposed finding of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat (which is not the "mountains of Ararat" mentioned in the Bible) is yet another fairy tale, as Answers in Genesis points out.

Your fellow creationists disagree with you.  Talk to them.

Your post is moot. YE's like evolutionists do not all agree on many points. They do however admit that their observations are theories based upon faith in God's word, as juxtaposed to many evolutionists who claim their theories to be facts, though they are just observations based upon faith in Charles Darwin.

The scriptures are fact, our theories regarding science in relation to them are just that. Believing what scripture plainly states is not dreaming up fairy tales. Saying it does not mean what it plainly states may most certainly fit into that category though. You and yours are the ones claiming the latter.

Gen 6:5  And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.............

Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.................

Gen 7:4  For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth..............

Gen 7:18  And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark................

2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


So be it.

The Barbarian

It's important, Amo, for you to realize that your particular interpretation of God's word is your particular interpretation, just as others also have their interpretation.   In the case of evolution/creationism, the text is not clearly one or the other.  If it was, then all Christians who know that the Bible is God's word would agree about it.

But we do not.   The important thing to remember is that this has nothing to do with God's message to us.   The Bible isn't about biology or science; it's about God and man and our relationship.   And unless someone makes an idol of his personal interpretation, what he thinks of evolution has nothing whatever to do with his salvation.

It's just not what your salvation depends on.


Amo

Scripture is scripture, not interpretation. I quoted scriptures, not interpretation. The scriptures say what they say and plainly state, apart from interpretation. You interpret them to mean evolution, I simply believe what they plainly state. No interpretation necessary.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Oct 27, 2019 - 16:39:26
It's important, Amo, for you to realize that your particular interpretation of God's word is your particular interpretation, just as others also have their interpretation.   In the case of evolution/creationism, the text is not clearly one or the other.  If it was, then all Christians who know that the Bible is God's word would agree about it.

But we do not.   The important thing to remember is that this has nothing to do with God's message to us.   The Bible isn't about biology or science; it's about God and man and our relationship.   And unless someone makes an idol of his personal interpretation, what he thinks of evolution has nothing whatever to do with his salvation.

It's just not what your salvation depends on.

So says Barbarian.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


So says the word of God.

4WD

#75
Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 01, 2019 - 08:45:17Scripture is scripture, not interpretation. I quoted scriptures, not interpretation. The scriptures say what they say and plainly state, apart from interpretation. You interpret them to mean evolution, I simply believe what they plainly state. No interpretation necessary.
Such naivety. You interpret what you think they plainly state. Such interpretation is no less than any other.  You simply choose to interpret literally what some others choose to interpret figuratively.  Still, it is no less an interpretation.

The Bible plainly states that "the sun rises".  You interpret what the Bible plainly states figuratively.  Many, perhaps most, before Copernicus and some others in and around his time interpreted that literally.  Both are interpretations.

So do not pride yourself that you "simply believe what they plainly state".  You pick and choose which you believe should be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively.

The Barbarian

As St. Augustine cautioned us, we should be careful when scripture can be taken in different ways, not to assume our way is God's way.   And he mentions that we should always be open to new understanding that illuminates something formerly not clear.

All of us should have the humility to admit that we can be wrong.


Amo

4WD -
QuoteSuch naivety. You interpret what you think they plainly state. Such interpretation is no less than any other.  You simply choose to interpret literally what some others choose to interpret figuratively.  Still, it is no less an interpretation.

The Bible plainly states that "the sun rises".  You interpret what the Bible plainly states figuratively.  Many, perhaps most, before Copernicus and some others in and around his time interpreted that literally.  Both are interpretations.

So do not pride yourself that you "simply believe what they plainly state".  You pick and choose which you believe should be interpreted literally and which should be interpreted figuratively.

Barbarian -
QuoteAs St. Augustine cautioned us, we should be careful when scripture can be taken in different ways, not to assume our way is God's way.   And he mentions that we should always be open to new understanding that illuminates something formerly not clear.

All of us should have the humility to admit that we can be wrong.

In other words, there is no truth, but that which each individual creates for themselves by way of personal or private interpretation. Of course that is just my interpretation of what these individuals just said. None of us can really know what they actually meant. Each will have to interpret the meaning of their posts for themselves and then just leave it alone I suppose, because we all have the right to make their words mean whatever we want, right. Such would amount to the complete break down of society if applied to all communications. How can or could God judge the world according to the acceptance or rejection of His word, if all are free to make His word mean whatever they wish?

If the straight forward and repetitive testimony of scripture regarding the creation can be made to mean deep time evolution with countless death and suffering from the beginning through the trial and error progressive steps of said theory, then any scripture can be made to mean anything. It would render the testimony of the following scriptures completely moot.

2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


Tell us 4WD and Barbarian please, what is your interpretation of the above scriptures?









The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 09:00:56
4WD -
Barbarian -
In other words, there is no truth, but that which each individual creates for themselves by way of personal or private interpretation.

That is apparently the YE creationist position.  But it wasn't Augustine's position. He merely pointed out that where there is uncertainty in the meaning of scripture, one should be willing to revise one's opinion when new information is found.

QuoteOf course that is just my interpretation of what these individuals just said. None of us can really know what they actually meant. Each will have to interpret the meaning of their posts for themselves and then just leave it alone I suppose, because we all have the right to make their words mean whatever we want, right.

Seems clear to me.  If something in scripture is not unequivocally clear, we should keep an open mind on it.

QuoteSuch would amount to the complete break down of society if applied to all communications. How can or could God judge the world according to the acceptance or rejection of His word, if all are free to make His word mean whatever they wish?

Perhaps it would start with the humility to realize that one can be wrong.   I do notice that that there is almost no debate among Christians as to the essential doctrines of our faith.  Maybe that's something you should consider.

QuoteTell us 4WD and Barbarian please, what is your interpretation of the above scriptures?

It says that if you make an idol of your personal interpretations of scripture, you may later regret it.   Listen to him on that.


Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 09:27:35
That is apparently the YE creationist position.  But it wasn't Augustine's position. He merely pointed out that where there is uncertainty in the meaning of scripture, one should be willing to revise one's opinion when new information is found.

Seems clear to me.  If something in scripture is not unequivocally clear, we should keep an open mind on it.

Perhaps it would start with the humility to realize that one can be wrong.   I do notice that that there is almost no debate among Christians as to the essential doctrines of our faith.  Maybe that's something you should consider.

It says that if you make an idol of your personal interpretations of scripture, you may later regret it.   Listen to him on that.

Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated, as you make obvious. So Peter, whom your faith proclaims was the first Pope, was wrong? Is that correct?

The Barbarian

Quote from: Amo on Sat Aug 17, 2019 - 11:36:37
"Christian evolutionary scientists" have no choice but to deny much of the bible as fairy tale or allegory which apparently cannot be explained.

Nonsense.  Much of it is figurative.   But most Christians realize this, not just Christians who are scientists.   "Fairy tale" is the characterization of YE creationists, as far as I have seen.

QuoteMuslims and most pagans were and are creationists,

I know a fair number of Muslim scientists. None of them are creationists.  So there is that.

QuoteThe OP is addressing those how insist that creationists cannot be scientists.

I can think of several who are/were in recent years.   Kurt Wise, Harold Coffin, Gerald Aardsma, Baumgartner, among them. A small minority, but they do exist.


Amo

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Nov 10, 2019 - 00:50:02
Nonsense.  Much of it is figurative.   But most Christians realize this, not just Christians who are scientists.   "Fairy tale" is the characterization of YE creationists, as far as I have seen.

I know a fair number of Muslim scientists. None of them are creationists.  So there is that.

I can think of several who are/were in recent years.   Kurt Wise, Harold Coffin, Gerald Aardsma, Baumgartner, among them. A small minority, but they do exist.

Yes, I know, believing what the bible plainly states is believing fairy tales according to "Christian" evolutionist wisdom.

Amo

In another thread not to long ago, I brought up the issue of "scientists" continually finding complexity in living organisms further and further back in time. This is of course because the evolutionary deep time fairy tale is just that. Complexity was here from the beginning of creation which was not in deep time, therefore do they keep pushing the complexity issue farther and farther back. Their faulty premise of deep time creates this never ending issue. This phenomena is not restricted to biological complexity though, as the following links testify. Human interaction and societal complexity were here from the beginning as well, as humanity did not need to evolve over deep time, but rather was a complex and social being from the beginning. This is what the evidence increasingly suggests, though evolutionists will not of course go where increasing evidence points if the direction is away from their precious theory.

https://www.unknowncountry.com/headline-news/mayan-civilization-was-far-more-vast-and-complex-than-previously-thought/

Mayan Civilization was Far More Vast and Complex than Previously Thought
February 8, 2018

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/maya-laser-lidar-guatemala-pacunam/

Exclusive: Laser Scans Reveal Maya "Megalopolis" Below Guatemalan Jungle

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-early-hunter-gatherers-interacted-sooner-previously.html

Early hunter-gatherers interacted much sooner than previously believed

https://www.livescience.com/58684-bushmen-painted-earliest-rock-art-southern-africa.html

Bushmen Painted Earliest Rock Art in Southern Africa 5,000 Years Ago

They may now be underwater, but the oldest rock art paintings in southern Africa are about 5,000 years old, far more ancient than previously realized, a new study finds...........................

https://www.ancient-code.com/8000-year-old-stone-age-ship-building-site-found-off-the-coast-of-the-united-kingdom/

Ancient UK shipbuilding site suggests Stone Age humans were far more advanced than previously thought

https://www.rt.com/news/416375-technology-discovered-ancient-greek-pyramid-keros/

Sophisticated technology unearthed beneath ancient Greek 'pyramid'

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-that-ancient-humans-dating-back-100-000-years-or-more-were-far-more-technologically-advanced-than-previously-thought-but-all-evidence-has-been-lost-undiscovered

Is it possible that ancient humans dating back 100,000 years or more were far more technologically advanced than previously thought, but all evidence has been lost/undiscovered?

http://www.ancientpages.com/2015/08/23/first-scandinavian-farmers-were-far-more-advanced-than-previously-thought/

First Scandinavian farmers were far more advanced than previously thought

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/study-literacy-ancient-israel-was-far-more-widespread-previously-known

Study: Literacy in Ancient Israel Was 'Far More Widespread than Previously Known'

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/05/the-astonishing-age-of-a-neanderthal-cave-construction-site/484070/

A Shocking Find in a Neanderthal Cave in France

.......................

The discovery suggested that Neanderthals were more sophisticated than anyone had given them credit for. They wielded fire, ventured deep underground, and shaped the subterranean rock into complex constructions. Perhaps they even carried out rituals; after all, there was no evidence that anyone actually lived in the cave, so what else were the rings and mounds for?...................

https://www.ancient-code.com/puma-punku-ancient-site-far-complex-pyramids-giza/

Puma Punku: an ancient site far more complex than the Pyramids at Giza?

http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/MES-05-SciAm-.pdf

LIFE IN THE PROVINCES OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE

The lives of the Aztec common people were far richer and more complex than the official histories would have us believe...........................

More to come of course.


Alan

Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 10:18:36
In another thread not to long ago, I brought up the issue of "scientists" continually finding complexity in living organisms further and further back in time. This is of course because the evolutionary deep time fairy tale is just that.


No, it's because as technology grows, science discovers newer means to accurately find and record collected data. We have pointed that out to you over and over but you continuously stand on your opinion that if science refutes itself it must all be unreliable. Of course that is completely untrue in the real world.

4WD

Quote from: Alan on Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 11:10:20

No, it's because as technology grows, science discovers newer means to accurately find and record collected data. We have pointed that out to you over and over but you continuously stand on your opinion that if science refutes itself it must all be unreliable. Of course that is completely untrue in the real world.
Alan, Amo hasn't a clue about anything related to science or the people who study it.

Let's face it; even the very phrase "creation scientists" is an oxymoron.

Alan

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 12:23:53
Alan, Amo hasn't a clue about anything related to science or the people who study it.

Let's face it; even the very phrase "creation scientists" is an oxymoron.


I feel he thinks the whole of science is one big conspiracy against Judeo Christianity, which of course is ludicrous. The majority may be disbelievers but I highly doubt the majority are hiding the fact that the universe and world we live in are 10,000 years old.

Amo

Your speculations and theories about me are just like your speculations and theories of evolution and deep time, pretense built upon false and presumptuous reasoning. Contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the masters and lords of scientific method and reasoning. The same evidence is here for all to see. Repeatedly finding complexity in living organisms and society much further back in time than speculations concerning deep time theories have allowed for, is direct evidence against such theories. It certainly proves these previous speculations wrong, and may of course be considered suggestive of complexity from the beginning. Those who choose to believe such in direct line with the plain and simple testimony of scripture, are no less scientific than those who refuse such as devout followers of the faith of Darwin. Only the simple and submissive minded would yield to so many, "because I said so's" by puffed up deep time evolutionists. Contrary to popular belief amongst themselves, they do not have the market on proving their own speculations wrong or unlikely, and defining what is or is not to be considered "science". The word of God is superior in every way shape and form to their spurious speculations and theories.

Psa 94:8 Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? 9 He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? 10 He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? 11 The LORD knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.

Rom 1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.

Isa 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

4WD

Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 19:14:15
Contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the masters and lords of scientific method and reasoning. The same evidence is here for all to see.
And contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the master and lord of biblical apprehension and reasoning.  The same Bible is here for all to read and understand.

I say again, the very concept of a creation scientist is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as creation science.  Science is the study of the physical; creation is the work of the spiritual and lies wholly outside of the physical.

Jaime

I would contend that science includes the study our origins. If our origins include a creation, and it does, creation science is a perfectly good model and term.

Traditional science, of course, cannot consider a miraculous origin, one that is absolutely true and real. It doesn't have to explain the miraculous origin from the confines of the physical, but just admit that it is the most likely, because trying to squeeze such an event into the physical is pretty much as ludicrous as they think a miraculous creation is.

4WD

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 06:15:12
It doesn't have to explain the miraculous origin from the confines of the physical, but just admit that it is the most likely, because trying to squeeze such an event into the physical is pretty much as ludicrous as they think a miraculous creation is.
Jaime, science is not about admitting this or that. Scientists, of course, are free to admit anything they wish about creation; but that is not within the purview of science.  Thus any such admission is in the realm of the scientist's theological view, not his scientific view.

Jaime

I disagree of course. Science would be better served if the reality of creation was at least admitted as a possibility. It would be no more "Out There" than some of the reaches they try to explain the unexplainable, when an admission of the possibility of a Perfectly logical creation by a perfectly logical creator would bot detract from their science of what happened after the scientifically unknowable.

4WD

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 07:02:44
I disagree of course. Science would be better served if the reality of creation was at least admitted as a possibility.
Jaime, if you understand science and the scientific method, there really is no way that could happen.

Jaime

#92
I think I do understand (with an engineering degree)  and WITH the scientific method, that can't explain anything before the first nanosecond of existence, it is no better equipped to give a reasonable scientific explanation than the creationists give. They should stick to what happens after the very beginning because what they do support is unsupportable with known science, and concede a supernatural creation is just as plausible because it certainly is. If they don't concede a young earth, that's fine.

seekingHiswisdom

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Nov 15, 2019 - 12:23:53


Let's face it; even the very phrase "creation scientists" is an oxymoron.

Why?

seekingHiswisdom

Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 08, 2019 - 22:16:45
Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated, as you make obvious. So Peter, whom your faith proclaims was the first Pope, was wrong? Is that correct?

Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated    ::frown::

I am not defender on any evolutionist. Everyone here knows that. (And I refuse to ever again explain why)

But the facts are.... AND THESE ARE FACTS... that there is credible evidence of things having been created, either in God's merely speaking a word, working with his Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys... (you young ones will need to search for those), silly putty (perhaps the nucleus of the big bang?)  or even his basic chemistry set. (NO I am NOT making light of a serious conversation)

There is zero doubt that the solar systems and universes... all of them came from God... how ever they happened.

BUT... and this is what you seeming do not understand.

There is not reason in the world to believe that the Holy Bible and the people talked about in there
is the end of the story.

There is every reason to believe that the Holy Bible,or let's say the books that some men decided to include there in, is our handbook.

And every reason to believe that "WE" are set apart from other of God's creations, for a purpose.

Somewhere in eternity, when earth, as we know it, has passed.... (read your bible)... we may learn that
a quintillion, trillion years ago God masterfully set the first plant in the skys. DO NOT dare say know because you cannot possible know when that happened.

And there is every possibility to believe that somewhere in a galaxy far,far away a "young" earth with
a new creation has happened.

YOU cannot possibly be so selfish as to truly believe that 6K or 7K or 13K years ago God created the earth and mankind... ( the Genesis story)... and hung every star in the sky for our pleasure?

Oy.....

OK, off my rant.

You need to look at what things are discovered and use your common sense and knowledge of things you
can reasonable accept or deny. (for me I deny the absolute evolution of everything)

Read your handbook. The Holy Bible... that was given for us. And  then think about why we came into being in the first place and know, definitively, that we (mankind) are set apart... for some reason.










4WD

Quote from: seekingHiswisdom on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 08:49:30
Why?
Because science deals with physical acts and physical things.  Creation is the act of the Spiritual.

Jaime

#96
It very much brought about the physical. If it was ONLY a spiritual event affecting the spiritual realm, you would have a point.

The Barbarian

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 06:15:12
I would contend that science includes the study our origins. If our origins include a creation, and it does, creation science is a perfectly good model and term.

Science is limited to the physical universe.   We can go back just so far, and then there's nothing for science to measure.    At the singularity, or whatever it was, there's nothing science can understand. 

As C.S. Lewis had Aslan describe the witch, it fits science nicely.   She knows the magic at the beginning, but she knows nothing of the deep magic just before the beginning.

QuoteTraditional science, of course, cannot consider a miraculous origin, one that is absolutely true and real.

This is true.   Fortunately, we have other ways of knowing.   It's O.K. to be unscientific when that's called for.   I am often unscientific myself.

QuoteIt doesn't have to explain the miraculous origin from the confines of the physical,

By its very methodology, it can't. 

Quotebut just admit that it is the most likely,

Can't even do that.   Science can't, but scientists can.


Amo

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 05:14:50
And contrary to your puffed up exclamations, you are not the master and lord of biblical apprehension and reasoning.  The same Bible is here for all to read and understand.

I say again, the very concept of a creation scientist is an oxymoron.  There is no such thing as creation science.  Science is the study of the physical; creation is the work of the spiritual and lies wholly outside of the physical.

Same old same old crap. You do not believe that what the bible simply states happened, could happen. You do not believe God could create this world in six days, therefore it is not true and must mean something else other than what it simply states.

You admit that the physical world came from spiritual creation but deny that real science can lead to such a conclusion. What sense does that make. At least you admit in this confession that your science and God have nothing to do with each other. So be it.

Jaime

Science absolutely CAN admit a miraculous beginning and be correct and not step out of it's bounds but it won't.

Alan

Quote from: seekingHiswisdom on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 09:18:29
Nothing can be unequivocally clear to someone who simply chooses not believe that which is plainly and conclusively stated    ::frown::

I am not defender on any evolutionist. Everyone here knows that. (And I refuse to ever again explain why)

But the facts are.... AND THESE ARE FACTS... that there is credible evidence of things having been created, either in God's merely speaking a word, working with his Lincoln Logs and Tinker Toys... (you young ones will need to search for those), silly putty (perhaps the nucleus of the big bang?)  or even his basic chemistry set. (NO I am NOT making light of a serious conversation)

There is zero doubt that the solar systems and universes... all of them came from God... how ever they happened.

BUT... and this is what you seeming do not understand.

There is not reason in the world to believe that the Holy Bible and the people talked about in there
is the end of the story.

There is every reason to believe that the Holy Bible,or let's say the books that some men decided to include there in, is our handbook.

And every reason to believe that "WE" are set apart from other of God's creations, for a purpose.

Somewhere in eternity, when earth, as we know it, has passed.... (read your bible)... we may learn that
a quintillion, trillion years ago God masterfully set the first plant in the skys. DO NOT dare say know because you cannot possible know when that happened.

And there is every possibility to believe that somewhere in a galaxy far,far away a "young" earth with
a new creation has happened.

YOU cannot possibly be so selfish as to truly believe that 6K or 7K or 13K years ago God created the earth and mankind... ( the Genesis story)... and hung every star in the sky for our pleasure?

Oy.....

OK, off my rant.

You need to look at what things are discovered and use your common sense and knowledge of things you
can reasonable accept or deny. (for me I deny the absolute evolution of everything)

Read your handbook. The Holy Bible... that was given for us. And  then think about why we came into being in the first place and know, definitively, that we (mankind) are set apart... for some reason.


That is faith, not fact. If it were fact it would have resulted in a "proof" for creation which it has not been able to do.

Jaime

#101
I thought creation COULDN'T be proven? They wouldn't admit it if it happened to be able to be proved.

Alan

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:37:09
Science absolutely CAN admit a miraculous beginning and be correct and not step out of it's bounds but it won't.


Science cannot deem an event a miracle if science cannot observe it, it can say that it's plausible which some do, but it cannot state it as fact.

Amo

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161020142642.htm

Ancient human history more complex than previously thought, researchers say

.................................................................

In recent years, genetics has led to the revision of many assumptions about archaic populations, explained Ryan J. Bohlender, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and first author on the research. For example, the 2010 release of the Neanderthal genome led to the discovery that Neanderthals and the ancestors of modern Europeans interbred. A few years later, scientists discovered the existence of Denisovans, a population known of only through genetics, through a fossilized sample of DNA.........................................

https://www.democraticunderground.com/110855675

Ancient Peruvian Civilization More Complex than Previously Thought

Washington, May 26 (Prensa Latina) A civilization that flourished in Peru 15,000 years ago was much more advanced than originally thought and had complex social networks with bureaucracy and religion, the Florida Atlantic University reported today. ..........................

https://www.grunge.com/44103/evidence-ancient-civilizations-advanced-scientific-knowledge/

EVIDENCE THAT ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS HAD ADVANCED SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE

https://theoutline.com/post/5798/easter-islands-statues-reveal-complex-civilization?zd=1&zi=fqsasnbz

NEW RESEARCH SUGGESTS EASTER ISLAND'S CIVILIZATION WAS MORE COMPLEX THAN WE THOUGHT

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ancient-egypt-timeline_n_3866906

Ancient Egypt Timeline Suggests Civilization Developed Faster Than Previously Thought

https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/ten-things-ancients-did-better-us-004557

Ten Things the Ancients Did Better than Us

Just a couple of decades ago, the people of ancient civilizations were viewed as simple, primitive people.  However, numerous discoveries since then have revealed a number of surprising facts about ancient cultures, namely that many of them possessed advanced knowledge of metallurgy, mathematics, chemistry, astronomy, and more. With this knowledge they forged steel stronger than anything else seen until the Industrial Revolution, created a recipe for concrete so durable that their buildings would endure for millennia longer than the constructions of today, cut stones and assembled walls so precisely that attempts at modern-day replications have failed. Scientists are still scratching their heads over some of the amazing accomplishments of ancient civilizations. Here we feature ten of them......................

https://historythings.com/4-societies-way-advanced-thought/

4 Ancient Societies That Were More Advanced Than You Thought

https://newatlas.com/ancient-civilizations-global-trade-network-globalization/56406/

Ancient civilizations may have been more connected than previously thought

https://www.sott.net/article/285675-New-research-reveals-civilization-is-older-than-previously-thought

New research reveals civilization is older than previously thought

What if everything you've been taught about the origins of civilization is wrong? Be it that certain pieces of our history have been intentionally hidden, or that we have yet to discover and realize the true story of our past, new archaeological and geological discoveries are revealing that sophisticated civilizations have likely existed in prehistoric times. ................................................



To the contrary of all the above, deep time scenarios in line with evolutionary thought may all be wrong. The idea that complex societies had to evolve along with evolving humanity would of course be wrong, if in fact humanity was created perfect, and already capable of producing complex societies, which it did both before and after the flood. Humanity actually losing knowledge and technology as time went along until more recent advancements. Advancements which arose and exploded I might add, after the word of God was given back to humanity for all who wished to read and understand for themselves.



Alan

Quote from: Jaime on Sat Nov 16, 2019 - 11:46:46
They wouldn't admit it if it happened to be able to be proved.


Why do you think that? Many scientists are believers.

+-Recent Topics

In the middle of our heat wave...... by Rella
Today at 15:01:27

Creation scientists by Amo
Today at 12:45:03

IMMIGRATION INFO by Amo
Today at 12:36:02

A GLORIFIED BODY BEYOND THE SUNSET by 4WD
Today at 04:49:46

New Discovery explains why Climate Models don't work by 4WD
Today at 03:52:09

Hell's Daily Tally by NyawehNyoh
Yesterday at 18:42:56

mommydi by Alan
Yesterday at 12:34:55

Question from a Roman Catholic by DaveW
Yesterday at 07:05:52

How does one get "INTO CHRIST"?~ D. W. Baker by Red Baker
Yesterday at 05:11:38

Roman politics by Amo
Sun Jun 16, 2024 - 13:03:05

Powered by EzPortal