America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[auburnatl1 5,102]

15 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It all comes down to interpretation of observable facts. Whose interpretation is correct is where the camps part ways. Here, the observable fact is the fossil. A non-creationist might interpret the fossil as a record of evolutionary history of life from 100m years ago. On the other hand a 6 day (or even 6 millisecond, for that matter) creationist might interpret it as representing a broad sequence of rapid burial by a global flood--hence, the observable fact would not contradict the underlying creationist theory. What about fossil organisms out of sequence with their supposed evolutionary history, or soft tissue within organisms that purportedly died out a million years ago? These latter observations comport with a creationist view. 

The ages of fossils, rocks, ect is based on carbon dating. It’s pretty darn exact based on how certain elements lose radioactivity. The theory could be challenged but if it was somehow wrong our smart phones shouldn’t work.

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I never said you were anything.  I simply asked you a question.

For some unknown reason, you are uncomfortable with - or otherwise refuse - to provide a straightforward response .

You are very inconsistent.   One minute you say God could have made it happen regardless of how it did and the next minute you say you "do not believe" what I presume is your characterization of evolution, which is how it actually did happen.  Therefore, you apparently don't think God did it that way.  Why not?

And again, no one has ever made the claim we evolved from "nothing".   nThat's a false characterization of how life began on earth.

Bottom line, If you really don't want to discuss this, why do you respond to my posts with comments or questions?

 

Your characterization of evolution or creation does not include God. 

[auburnatl1 5,102]

11 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I am a six day creationist believer, and yes, woman was made from man’s rib. Those are tasks within the capability of God to perform. I believe the dating systems use are erroneous for various reasons. More can be found out at the Institute of Creation Research. There is evidence out there of a young earth.  Virgin water, moon dust, living creatures that date millions of years old but are alive and only a few months old. Why are there no transitional life forms? Why do you think science tries so hard to prove evolution theory. They can’t but force it on us anyway. Why build Atomic accelerators trying to find the God particle (their words). So they can finally prove that there is no God, no supernatural being involved. So many unknowns that can’t be explained. An all powerful God explains it all.

 

 

I could start debating you but why? You’re at peace and it’s not like I’ve got it all figured out. Thanks

Edited October 13, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,461]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Which geology science? Uniformitarianism? 

Those parts of geology that are responsible for geological dating of rocks and fossils.

Edited October 13, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,461]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Your characterization of evolution or creation does not include God. 

Using your own logic, it doesn't exclude God either.

My characterization of evolution is the accepted science. It forms the basis of all biology and related sciences.

You are of course free to reject it in favor of your religious beliefs.

Make up your mind.  Either God could be responsible for what science tells us about how we came about, or not.

If it's the latter, then everything  science teaches is false and the bible - or whatever ancient religious text you choose - is literally correct.

Edited October 14, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,102]

12 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Your characterization of evolution or creation does not include God. 

Perfect. It’s not about literalist vs allegory vs bang vs whatever.  All intellectually stimulating distractions.  Not the essence of the debate. Imo Salty nailed it.

Edited October 13, 2023 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 11,461]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Perfect. It’s not about literalist vs allegory vs bang vs whatever.  All intellectually stimulating distractions.  Not the essence of what really matters. Imo Salty nailed it.

I don't understand.

Are you saying the Theory (big T) of Evolution - or any other scientific Theory doesn't "really matter" - because it doesn't incorporate "God" at some point?

What is the "essence of what really matters"?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The ages of fossils, rocks, ect is based on carbon dating. It’s pretty darn exact based on how certain elements lose radioactivity. The theory could be challenged but if it was somehow wrong our smart phones shouldn’t work.

Interesting. If carbon dating is a fact, then the dinosaur fossil in your hypothetical cannot be 100 million years old. 

[Leftfield 2,676]

44 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Interesting. If carbon dating is a fact, then the dinosaur fossil in your hypothetical cannot be 100 million years old. 

Carbon dating is not used for something that old.

There are other elements that have isotopes with much longer half-lives.

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You are of course free to reject it in favor of you religious beliefs.

You really don’t get it do you?

[CoffeeTiger 5,185]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

It all comes down to interpretation of observable facts. Whose interpretation is correct is where the camps part ways. Here, the observable fact is the fossil. A non-creationist might interpret the fossil as a record of evolutionary history of life from 100m years ago. On the other hand a 6 day (or even 6 millisecond, for that matter) creationist might interpret it as representing a broad sequence of rapid burial by a global flood--hence, the observable fact would not contradict the underlying creationist theory. What about fossil organisms out of sequence with their supposed evolutionary history, or soft tissue within organisms that purportedly died out a million years ago? These latter observations comport with a creationist view. 

 

those observations support a creationist view only if you get all your information or science from a very small handful of sources like answersingenesis.org or the Institute for Creation Research . 

 

There are reasonable scientific explanations for the phenomenon you list, whereas the creationist view comes from mainly "flood geology" which is a 'science' based on a predetermined belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old, so they are required to find evidence to support their belief. They have the end point already determined and they have to find the correct 'interpretation' of the science to back up their belief.  

 

 

 

 

[auburnatl1 5,102]

15 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Carbon dating is not used for something that old.

There are other elements that have isotopes with much longer half-lives.

You’re right. Potassium-argon I think is whatsused now. But it’s harder to spell😎

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Carbon dating is not used for something that old.

There are other elements that have isotopes with much longer half-lives.

Correct, carbon dating is an ineffective method when dealing with materials believed to be millions or billions of years old. But you still have to consider the reality that carbon has been detected in such materials. For example coal layers, fossils, diamonds, etc., that are supposedly millions/billions of years old. This does not result in an anomaly for the creationist view; in particular, the hypothetical we were discussing poses no contradiction. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

19 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

those observations support a creationist view only if you get all your information or science from a very small handful of sources like answersingenesis.org or the Institute for Creation Research . 

 

There are reasonable scientific explanations for the phenomenon you list, whereas the creationist view comes from mainly "flood geology" which is a 'science' based on a predetermined belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old, so they are required to find evidence to support their belief. They have the end point already determined and they have to find the correct 'interpretation' of the science to back up their belief.  

 

 

 

 

Or apologetics press

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

How come? Do you do follow the Bible genealogy approach (add up time of all events  and count back backwards from a known date ie Christs death at 33AD)?  

Me personally, I don't know. 

If God didn't create the sun until the 4th day, then how are days 1-3 counted?

Genesis simply does not answer these questions; nor is that its purpose.

 

 

[auburnatl1 5,102]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Me personally, I don't know. 

If God didn't create the sun until the 4th day, then how are days 1-3 counted?

Genesis simply does not answer these questions; nor is that its purpose.

 

 

Thanks. I actually deleted the post while you were responding typing. Decided it might start a whole new off topic rabbit hole.

[Leftfield 2,676]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

For example coal layers, fossils, diamonds, etc., that are supposedly millions/billions of years old. This does not result in an anomaly for the creationist view; in particular, the hypothetical we were discussing poses no contradiction. 

Not entirely sure what you're saying here, but you seem to be conflating base Carbon with its isotope?

Edited October 13, 2023 by Leftfield

[Gowebb11 9,389]

We obviously have a lot of engineers and scientists on here and the carbon dating stuff is way over my head. My questions are much simpler. How come people used to live to be 800 or 900 years old and don’t anymore? How did a guy spend 4 days in the belly of a whale and survive? How did a man hundreds of years old with no power tools in a desert with few trees build a mammoth ship? If two of every species was on the boat, how did he separate the black mambas from the Polar Bears and the Gorillas from the kangaroos?  

[auburnatl1 5,102]

24 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

We obviously have a lot of engineers and scientists on here and the carbon dating stuff is way over my head. My questions are much simpler. How come people used to live to be 800 or 900 years old and don’t anymore? How did a guy spend 4 days in the belly of a whale and survive? How did a man hundreds of years old with no power tools in a desert with few trees build a mammoth ship? If two of every species was on the boat, how did he separate the black mambas from the Polar Bears and the Gorillas from the kangaroos?  

Ok, back to the literal vs allegory vs myth Old Testament debate.

[SaltyTiger 7,870]

43 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

We obviously have a lot of engineers and scientists on here and the carbon dating stuff is way over my head.

Lawyers also. Be careful.

[auburnatl1 5,102]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Lawyers also. Be careful.

Damn. Good point. Nothing worse than a participating in  a creation debate law suit.

[jj3jordan 2,061]

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I could start debating you but why? You’re at peace and it’s not like I’ve got it all figured out. Thanks

Not me. I believe God has it figured out. Despite what some posters on here believe about God and His power and righteousness, when a conflict arises between human philosophy, ideas, attitudes, and opinions, I choose God. 

[AURex 2,036]

22 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Everybody knows Jesus was Jewish. He obviously never said what you have attributed to Him. Rex took the bait..feel bad for him.  You just keep on ridiculing the Bible. I hope that works out for you later on.

Took the bait? No. I asked him to cite his source. Because there is no source. That is not taking the bait. That is challenging the assertion.

 

[jj3jordan 2,061]

3 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

We obviously have a lot of engineers and scientists on here and the carbon dating stuff is way over my head. My questions are much simpler. How come people used to live to be 800 or 900 years old and don’t anymore? How did a guy spend 4 days in the belly of a whale and survive? How did a man hundreds of years old with no power tools in a desert with few trees build a mammoth ship? If two of every species was on the boat, how did he separate the black mambas from the Polar Bears and the Gorillas from the kangaroos?  

An age theory is that prior to the flood, the Earth was shrouded in a tropical type atmosphere. At this point it had never rained. Moisture in the atmosphere provided for all the plants. This atmosphere allowed in light but not solar radiation. After the flood, which was caused by rain, upwelling of ground water (virgin water), and the collapse of this tropical atmosphere to the ground, the earth’s surface was then exposed to solar radiation much as we have now. At this point on the time line humans life expectancy decreased dramatically over the years and ended up at the modern age. Also rain existed, and rainbows, God’s promise to never again destroy the earth with flood again. Bright sun and with it radiation affected humankind in detrimental ways. God can easily compel animals of any and all species to travel to and enter the ark, also preventing predators from feeding on other species while on the ark.  Why cockroaches and mosquitoes? Idk. Good question I will ask one day. Basically for humans to limit what God can do is ludicrous. He is so far above us it is laughable. The proof is out there in all nature and life itself.

Edited October 14, 2023 by jj3jordan

[AURex 2,036]

17 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Not me. I believe God has it figured out. Despite what some posters on here believe about God and His power and righteousness, when a conflict arises between human philosophy, ideas, attitudes, and opinions, I choose God. 

And that god communicates with you personally, I assume, telling you the "philosophy, ideas, attitudes, and opinions" that you will obey. Or are you just telling us that you justify everything you think, say or do with some sort of reasoning derived from the bible? Sorta, kinda, depending on which side of the political, social, racial spectrum you adhere to?

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by AURex