@bravebold: Honestly it's not something I've thought about, mostly because I have my hands full with the rocks and the things that try and bite me on a daily basis.
I'd agree that actions in the here and now can influence the future, that much we can demonstrate with short length experiments. Not so sure about the past, I think we'd need a massive paradigm shift akin to the discovery of gravity, germ theory or relativity to entertain that aspect.
@bravebold: @dshipp17: I can't say much regarding the secular aspect of the Easter Bunny, but we do have some surviving pre-Christian folklore in northern Europe regarding hares laying eggs.
I suspect what those early people were seeing were European hares creating forms, essentially little excavated bunkers, in the dirt and grass to rest in. Because hares rarely rest in the same place twice, those forms are abandoned but may be colonized by ground nesting birds such as lapwings.
I can imagine going out hunting to the form where you found a hare a few days prior and then coming back to find a nest of eggs with no mother bird in sight you could imagine those were hare eggs. That thought may have stayed conscious in the human psyche percolating down until someone remembered it, and was like, hey lets make that a gimmick for this festival or holiday.
“First of all make sure you have a relaxing Easter or whatever it is you do on those three days. And spare a thought to us poor atheists who need to work those days lest our army of mutant crayfish clones end up starving.”
Generally, most people attend church on Easter; however, the church closet to me closed down at least 3 years ago; but, I'm not one of those who just attend church once a year on Easter, but I really appreciate their effort, as there's a good chance that many of them will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and gain their Eternal Salvation for having heard it and then having internalized it. I already have my Eternal Salvation and I'm usually in daily to hourly to the minute by minute communication with God, thanks to the work and Blood of Jesus Christ on Easter, which we celebrate. You're blessed in a way to be working so enjoy, as long as God is generous enough to keep the spirit of life in you hoping that you would take a moment to accept that Free Gift of Eternal Life, thanks to the work and Blood of Jesus Christ; stop this envious pretense of yours and save yourself, while you still can; that's my hope for you and others who have not yet received this Free Gift.
“Yes, on the proviso that we both agree to be honest interlocutors (or as close as you can be when writing).”
I'm usually being honest, when I'm writing something. So, that other thread will be coming soon, but I'm at a very busy state in my personal life where I'm preparing a couple of extremely important court filings right now that also require lots of legal research and then breaking that material down; I'm also making another push at starting an economic engine for myself.
“One is, as you have pointed out rapid deposition of sediment onto the remains, but we have examples which don’t require water, which preclude them being the result of a flood.”
The point is one of them could have been the Global Food as recorded in the Bible, where that's all we should need as Bible believing Christians (e.g. it dispel the notion that the Bible is just antiquated text, also, things that are profoundly significant); it also accounts for the large amounts of fossilized material that has been found. There were likely a bunch of cataclysmic hiccups immediately after the Global Flood that could account for those before the earth came back into (environmental) equilibrium; but the large amount of fossil material could be accounted for by the Global Flood; we're not necessarily saying that the Global Flood accounts for all available fossils nor does it have to; again, that's your problem, if you're trying to find something other than the Global Flood not ours, as Bible believing Christians, where it's you who are trying to support the claim that there is absolutely no evidence of a Global Flood to be found anywhere, when there clearly is per this one example that involves fossil formation.
“Please elaborate what you’re talking about, because the most common argument regarding chemistry is either related to Abiogensis (which I am not qualified to talk about) or the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
By not chemically viable (e.g. compounds, molecular structures, atomic structures, etc), I'm usually thinking of abiogenesis approach eventually leading up to very complicated life compounds that can be irreducibly complex, although the Second Law of Thermodynamics can also rule it out (e.g. something separate comes up such as uniformitarianism).
“I’m assuming you are talking about atheism?”
With this statement, the reader wouldn't be able to grasp an idea of the context of what I was discussing here, where it was you who were trying to further peddle disinformation and stereotypes about Young Earth Creation and some of the extraordinary features of the Bible. As compared to Christians atheists are a very small block of the human population.
“That wouldn’t be because a certain trio of religions used to deem non-belief heresy and executed anyone who didn’t believe terribly up until the enlightenment, where it simply was seen as shameful.”
The time that this was arguably the case was centuries between then and now; the so called enlightenment was even centuries ago (e.g. thinking of the state of the United States by the 1970s and the conclusion of the 1980s); the atheist block is still a small portion of humanity as compared to the Christian block denoting stagnation over there for pretty commonsense reasons.
“Who told you that?”
From a chemical standpoint biological information can't be connected back to abiogenesis is the more relevant point here; this denotes irreducible complexity, as this statement disconnects what I was describing for you way too much and then veers off somewhere else which I wasn't discussing with you; additionally this would probably more something to speak with someone like a Nathaniel Jeanson, as an initial matter, while I learn and grow by asking my questions, a few days after the discussion had unfolded.
“Fortunately, they don’t have the funding of say AiG and seem to be quiet, at least for the moment. My issue is not just with Young Earth Creationists, it is with everyone spitting out dangerous science”
The point still remains that you need to demonstrate that you actually read and saw something by organizations such as ICR, as I'm getting suspicious as to why you keep evading ICR in favor of AiG; you then need to show me what's wrong with the information (e.g. why it's “dangerous science” coming from ICR), which is some of the idea behind that other thread I'm about to create. Here, again, a statement like this is likely to stifle the growth of someone trying to learn of what places like ICR and AiG has to offer to the public (e.g. case and point, the first video below).
“If that is what you are doing, and you are doing it with the least biases you can muster that is commendable. However, how you sometimes accuse your interlocutors as being ‘dishonest’ because you don’t like what you are saying is not the right way to do it.”
The statement of mine you're quoting is from way back at the start of this iteration of text, where I give my reasoning behind creating the upcoming other thread, intending to get you to attentively focus on the material at ICR before you go on to accuse them of engaging in this “dangerous science”, for another reason; this is very disingenuous and suspicious of you, when coupled with the fact that you keep evading ICR in favor of AiG. I'm only calling it like I see, as can be seen here.
“It’s great you have a faith, but when doing science it should be the science that leads you not your religion, and you should be ready to make a hard decision should evidence be found that conflicts with the later.”
Here, you're again demonstrating how little you actually know and understand the material coming from places like ICR; they're always explaining scientific results; no one is biasing results at these organizations in anyway, as you're implying here (e.g. this is another reason for you to demonstrate that you're actually reading their material given the expansive nature of a statement like “dangerous science”); they're usually just describing findings (e.g. two fossilized creatures being freeze framed engaged in activity with one another; a creature about to give birth; or a creature about to devour fleeing prey, at the moment of a fossilization).
“Atheists really don’t have a cause, or at least atheists like me don’t.”
You contradict yourself here; you just explained how worried you are, or intent, on preventing an organization like ICR from spreading “dangerous science”.
REVIEW: Did “Eternal Sunshine” turn Ariana Grande into a R&B Baddie?
Maybe it’s because rabbit poo looks like chocolate eggs
Lol
But doesn’t it talk about faith hop and love in 1 Cor 13?
And doesn’t Peter commend us to be ready to give an explanation for the hop that is in us?
Short and simple, God is not mocked, but I'm looking into it now to update my post.
@dshipp17: Perhaps the last comment before your new thread.
I'm usually being honest, when I'm writing something. So, that other thread will be coming soon, but I'm at a very busy state in my personal life where I'm preparing a couple of extremely important court filings right now that also require lots of legal research and then breaking that material down; I'm also making another push at starting an economic engine for myself.
Yep that’s fine by me, take your time. I’m about to switch over to nocturnal work with bat and northern crested newt surveys going on, so things are about to get busy for me as well.
The point is one of them could have been the Global Food as recorded in the Bible, where that's all we should need as Bible believing Christians (e.g. it dispel the notion that the Bible is just antiquated text, also, things that are profoundly significant); it also accounts for the large amounts of fossilized material that has been found. There were likely a bunch of cataclysmic hiccups immediately after the Global Flood that could account for those before the earth came back into (environmental) equilibrium; but the large amount of fossil material could be accounted for by the Global Flood; we're not necessarily saying that the Global Flood accounts for all available fossils nor does it have to; again, that's your problem, if you're trying to find something other than the Global Flood not ours, as Bible believing Christians, where it's you who are trying to support the claim that there is absolutely no evidence of a Global Flood to be found anywhere, when there clearly is per this one example that involves fossil formation.
Sure, but there are a lot of deposits that can’t come about during a global or even local flood event, but I think that’s a discussion for another day. If we ever talk about the Noarchian Deluge, we will need to figure out where on the stratigraphic column where the flood begins and were you considered it end. Also what you determine the starting landmass was, and if any plate tectonics were going on during the event.
By not chemically viable (e.g. compounds, molecular structures, atomic structures, etc), I'm usually thinking of abiogenesis approach eventually leading up to very complicated life compounds that can be irreducibly complex, although the Second Law of Thermodynamics can also rule it out (e.g. something separate comes up such as uniformitarianism).
Again abiogenisis is not my wheelhouse so you’ll get a lot of ‘I don’t knows’. That said evolution and abiogenesis are not actually connected, the former explains biodiversity, the second about the beginning of things.
With this statement, the reader wouldn't be able to grasp an idea of the context of what I was discussing here, where it was you who were trying to further peddle disinformation and stereotypes about Young Earth Creation and some of the extraordinary features of the Bible. As compared to Christians atheists are a very small block of the human population.
We’re not quite as small a group, regardless if you take base atheism or a general irreligious label, as you think, but that’s not important for the moment.
From a chemical standpoint biological information can't be connected back to abiogenesis is the more relevant point here; this denotes irreducible complexity, as this statement disconnects what I was describing for you way too much and then veers off somewhere else which I wasn't discussing with you; additionally this would probably more something to speak with someone like a Nathaniel Jeanson, as an initial matter, while I learn and grow by asking my questions, a few days after the discussion had unfolded.
JEANSON!!! Can I just say that once you’ve checked out Jeanson’s work you also look at a secular rebuttal to his claims. There is a few things that have been pointed out regarding his work. But others can probably explain it better than I can.
The point still remains that you need to demonstrate that you actually read and saw something by organizations such as ICR, as I'm getting suspicious as to why you keep evading ICR in favor of AiG; you then need to show me what's wrong with the information (e.g. why it's “dangerous science” coming from ICR), which is some of the idea behind that other thread I'm about to create. Here, again, a statement like this is likely to stifle the growth of someone trying to learn of what places like ICR and AiG has to offer to the public (e.g. case and point, the first video below).
The science is not dangerous by itself, its more what it leads to. When you lead people away from established science be it an old Earth, a round Earth or the established medicine, it leads to science denial, which will be an issue in future generations. At the moment YEC is not the biggest issue, but it’s still a problem, especially since it can act as a gateway to said worse things such as the Alpha Male Theory or vaccine denial.
Here, you're again demonstrating how little you actually know and understand the material coming from places like ICR; they're always explaining scientific results; no one is biasing results at these organizations in anyway, as you're implying here (e.g. this is another reason for you to demonstrate that you're actually reading their material given the expansive nature of a statement like “dangerous science”); they're usually just describing findings (e.g. two fossilized creatures being freeze framed engaged in activity with one another; a creature about to give birth; or a creature about to devour fleeing prey, at the moment of a fossilization).
Perhaps, but maybe I see a little too well. I think this is something to be discussed later down the line. If I go straight out of the gates with some of the things I think about certain people in the YEC community. Let’s just say its not flattering…
Why is this old thread is not closed yet ?
This caused nothing but religious wars
Where do you think the entire population human race of all 195 countries around the world came from ?
I think they came from previously existing humans. Where the first humans came from was probably some other pre existing hominid.
Proof ?
Where do you think the entire population human race of all 195 countries around the world came from ?
I think they came from previously existing humans. Where the first humans came from was probably some other pre existing hominid.
Proof ?
The Evidence would be Anthropology and other Sciences as well. You can read up on this stuff if you want as well as even see the Bones of various Hominids and see the variations and changes of Humanoids.
@king_saturn: I mean aliens and Time Machine do exist the real world but it’s top security secret.
I like Religion
Just a Smidgeon
I ate a pigeons
With Christopher Hitchins
He told me there was no Jesus
So I plucked his eyebrows with a pair of tweezers
He told me there was no God
So I flagged him to my favourite Mod
He told me there’s no life after death
So I killed him with my demon breath
@king_saturn: I mean aliens and Time Machine do exist the real world but it’s top security secret.
I can't believe I just read that
I posted one clip in post #33014 not knowing it was by Atheist Junior; so here's Kent's points against Dr. Dennett and a clip of him debating with Atheist Junior who appears to be someone different from the presenter of this YouTube clip; oh, that's Atheist Junior facing Kent:
@dshipp17: You can do better than Kent Hovind.
I was making a tribute to Dr. Dennett, but you should really take the time to hear Kent's points during this debate; from your comment, you're going by things other people said about Kent as opposed to a personal examination of Kent; a very bad approach to keep taking. I posted the below clip, which happens to be the topic of discussion in their debate:
@dshipp17: I have seen many a Kent Hovind debate, ironically he is a creature that doesn't seem to evolve with the science he's discussing/debating always going back to the same arguments despite how outdated they are, or how many times it has been explained to him. When other creationist organisations tell you not to use Hovind's points, you know that he's doing something wrong.
@dshipp17: I have seen many a Kent Hovind debate, ironically he is a creature that doesn't seem to evolve with the science he's discussing/debating always going back to the same arguments despite how outdated they are, or how many times it has been explained to him. When other creationist organisations tell you not to use Hovind's points, you know that he's doing something wrong.
“I have seen many a Kent Hovind debate, ironically he is a creature that doesn't seem to evolve with the science he's discussing/debating always going back to the same arguments despite how outdated they are, or how many times it has been explained to him.”
? What about this current debate he's having with “Atheist Junior”? In the current debate, he's disagreeing with AJ, while explaining the basis for his disagreements. With that being the case, what would he need to evolve into, if he's in the process of quite literally correcting fraud material that's been pointed out to the public by other people that diffused into many textbooks because of material from Ernst Haechel in one case? The ICR video is pointing out some of this material that Kent is mentioning, starting at about the 13min mark; because of how busy I am that's as far as I've been able to get, as of this writing.
It would help if you would explain material AJ put out up until the 13min make, Kent's response to that material, and why Kent is wrong while AJ is right, while staying within the confines of that video; this would demonstrate how familiar you are with Kent's points; from there, it's possible that I'd need the ICR presenter to make a comeback that I can then study with your response(s).
Again, you're in this habit of going by what others are saying about Kent instead of understanding Kent's points despite some of his past gaffs; it's just kind of childish to arbitrarily disregard everything Kent says based on limited remarks he's made in the past out of volumes of other material he's produced both before and then after those gaffs, presuming he made these gaffs (e.g. but everyone makes gaffs from time to time).
“When other creationist organisations tell you not to use Hovind's points, you know that he's doing something wrong.”
Please specify; when making accusations that's implying that someone is incompetence, while also implying that people from these organizations are just marginally less incompetent than Kent, it really does become more important to start being very precise and specific in what you're saying from that point going forward. This is a common tactic of people in academia to claim incompetence but without providing evidence and information or scant evidence and information, at best all usually that many can agree to disagree about.
Jennifer Lopez hunts AI in action-packed Atlas trailer: 'Like doing a one-woman show'
Terry Carter dead: Battlestar Galactica star dies 'peacefully' at home at age of 95
TikTok star Eva Evans found dead from apparent suicide: ‘A New York icon’
@dshipp17: I haven’t seen that one yet, I was getting read my for summer survey season and a research trip to Iceland that week. You want the first 13 minutes explained? Let me look at it after work and I’ll see what’s there.
I just recently heard that Iceland is otherwise known as the Land of Fire and Ice; more power to you; it should still be quite cold up there as compared to here in middle Alabama; like our bitterly cold winter back in mid-January, for us, at least.
@dshipp17: Right here you go, if there is anything you want more explanation on ask. I watched until about 24 minutes, will probably watch further for the fallout.
So, it looks as if they are discussing embryology which isn’t my favourite subject in biology, mostly centred around the embryo pictures of Ernst Haeckel. For a while, it was believed in evolutionary theory that, at least in vertebrates, that the embryo tracked its evolutionary path, in the case of mammals, from fish through an amphibian state then through what used to be called reptiles into what will eventually be birthed. This evolutionary pathway was coined Biogenetic Law by Haeckel, and as with most aspects of evolution from the 19th century, its outdated as we found more information about how life ontologically develops from the fusion of sex and egg cell into a baby ready to be born, or hatch (species dependent).
The Biogenetic Law as laid out by Haeckel suggested that through development, the embryos became akin to the adult form of animals further down their phylogeny. In the instances of mammals, Haeckel was proposing that they are fish in the womb which is incorrect. Many creationists usually state something along the lines of the following.
“Ducks don’t produce non ducks when they breed.”
And those creationists would be correct just not in the way they are think. If a duck created a non-duck that would actually debunk evolutionary theory as we know it. As with the duck example, when, say a deer is developing in its mother’s womb, it is always a deer due to the law of monophyly (which I can explain if you want), despite some of the clearly non deer and even non amniote features it may temporarily develop.
While Haeckel pushed this too far, we do see features in developing embryos that are indicative of more basal members of their phylogeny. For example, reptiles, birds and mammals all have gill arches in early development, but they are essentially vestigial and not used for respiration, instead eventually forming the pharyngeal arch which becomes structures such as the jaw, thyroid, larynx and the three bones in the ear (stapes, malleus and incus). In fish and amphibians these gill arches develop into gills, with most amphibians then going through a similar development that reptiles, birds and mammals do, with the pharyngeal arch developing into a jaw, trachea and stapes as they metamorphose into adults.
The main thing Haeckel is known for is the embryo drawings published in Anthropogenie. The drawings were accurate, but Haeckel was pushed for time by his publishers, and some had to be drawn from memory. While these memorised drawings were present in the first publication, Haeckel made notes of which drawings he had rushed, and went back and redrew them with the material present.
The comparative drawings are from the same points in development as all living things have different gestation periods, As such showing a turtle embryo at four weeks and comparing it to a dog embryo at the same age of four weeks would be disingenuous, because both groups develop at different speeds.
Even if there were no outward similarities all vertebrate embryos possess a notochord. The notochord develops into the spinal column and lends its name to the phylum Chordata, of which all vertebrate animals are part of, since this ‘spinal cord’ is a good morphological feature to determine if something is in said phylum.
Regarding Haeckel’s drawings in textbooks, you would only discuss Biogenetic Law regarding evolutionary theory in the same way you would talk about the V2 rocket in regards to space flight. It was something very useful for developing what we actually have, but when we didn’t need it anymore it was pushed to one side and only trotted out when you’re talking about the development of an idea. We have a lot better images which don’t have the limitations Haeckel had, such as lack of space and the pain staking effort of drawing what he was observing.
Just something I would like to clarify from Kent’s 10-minute segment, evolution is not, not has it ever been about removing God or any other divine figure. Evolutionary theory is literally just the explanation for the biodiversity we find on this planet, not its origin, nor the origin of the planet, its age, or indeed the cosmos.
I posted one clip in post #33014 not knowing it was by Atheist Junior; so here's Kent's points against Dr. Dennett and a clip of him debating with Atheist Junior who appears to be someone different from the presenter of this YouTube clip; oh, that's Atheist Junior facing Kent:
Whack and Atheist is the lowest tier of brain rot
“Right here you go, if there is anything you want more explanation on ask. I watched until about 24 minutes, will probably watch further for the fallout.”
I'd already asked you to demonstrate you knew any of the points Kent was making, as a demonstration that you know and understand Kent. The request was made basically because you're implying that Kent doesn't know what he's talking about whenever he's debating the topic of biological evolution so he jumps back to his arguments without adapting and/or Kent isn't understanding AJ's arguments or not able to understand them.
But, you both failed to do any of that and are again introducing a topic that isn't being discussed (e.g. information demonstrated as fraud still trickling into textbooks on the topic of biological evolution and then indoctrinating young minds into a belief that so type of information represent facts supporting biological evolution even though that information is demonstrated as questionable in practice; from there, we come away with coconut heads who believe that science opposes Christianity when it really doesn't).
And this very lead off by you just demonstrated that you indeed wasn't aware of any of the topics and information being discussed by Kent. Honestly, until you can make those adjustments and grow, what you have to say that's off topic from their debate, is irrelevant and you need to go back and do as asked and suggested, as you need to know even what research and topics are supporting us Young Earth Creationists. And even you haven't made that bit of effort to know what Kent is discussing, you're still putting out the impression that there's somehow validity to your claims about Kent (e.g. basically, the discussion has shifted to that topic but needs to shift back to the topic of whats being debated by Kent and AJ not something that's off topic).
“So, it looks as if they are discussing embryology which isn’t my favourite subject in biology, mostly centred around the embryo pictures of Ernst Haeckel.”
Sure, and the issue was that you claimed that AJ was discussing something and Kent had to evolve from his point; you needed to provide specific examples from their debate as a demonstration that you knew the points that Kent was trying to make, first, that AJ debunked Kent's arguments but Kent was being too stubborn to abandon points that were going to be untenable for him. One of Kent's points was that the images by Ernst presented by AJ had been debunked, where my ICR video than added more specificity as to why that material has been debunked but is still somehow still trickling into textbooks as scientific proof of biological evolution or topics supported in paleontology?
“For a while, it was believed in evolutionary theory that, at least in vertebrates, that the embryo tracked its evolutionary path, in the case of mammals, from fish through an amphibian state then through what used to be called reptiles into what will eventually be birthed. ”
Kent's points are about why that information, as 19th century science, got rendered antiquated by new technology whereas information and predictions from the Bible still remains because of new technology, in checking or going back to our prior series of iterations. That information is also what Ernst wanted everyone to believe; this doesn't demonstrate that you know what Kent's points were or precisely what this debate was about, in steering things back on topic.
“Many creationists usually state something along the lines of the following.”
Here, you're supposed to be demonstrating for me that you know what Kent is discussing, specifically, not what you suspect creationists are discussing, a clear demonstrating that you're still clueless about what they're trying to explain for the public despite sifting through their information, as you claim.
“And those creationists would be correct just not in the way they are think”
Kent's point is a good point to make in response here: just as the Bible says, all evidence, scientific and otherwise, has only seen kinds reproducing after their kinds yet you're still jostling as if the Bible has become antiquated in what it says. Until you've demonstrated that you understand Kent, that's the topic of discussion, at the moment; basically, you'd have to show me that kinds haven't always produced after their kinds, as predicted by the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1 thus rendering that prediction, antiquated, somehow.
“If a duck created a non-duck that would actually debunk evolutionary theory as we know it.”
Here, you're not demonstrating that biological evolution is true to me, you're only demonstrating that you prefer whatever speculation there is, as long as it seems to be demonstrating for someone inclined to believe that you're correct that the Bible is wrong; you're demonstrating the wisdom indicative of Proverbs 18; this happened before in iterations between you and I in that discussion about T. Rex and the birds; by the way, Kent made a point very similar to the point I made to you about that back then in this debate.
“As with the duck example, when, say a deer is developing in its mother’s womb, it is always a deer due to the law of monophyly (which I can explain if you want), despite some of the clearly non deer and even non amniote features it may temporarily develop.”
The topic of debate is how does that render the Genesis Chapter 1 prediction antiquated? That's just a term invented thousands of years after the fact and after science and technology had confirmed and validated this Biblical prediction (e.g. kinds will reproduce after their kinds), is one of Kent's points, which you need to be discussing more than anything else here.
“For example, reptiles, birds and mammals all have gill arches in early development, but they are essentially vestigial and not used for respiration, instead eventually forming the pharyngeal arch which becomes structures such as the jaw, thyroid, larynx and the three bones in the ear (stapes, malleus and incus)”
What you need to be discussing is: how is what Kent said on this topic wrong and absurd, as you appear to be implying? You're just going wherever the wind blows but you'd be most advised to train yourself to start being objective, as that's more important than your subjective preference, especially on an issue of having to be absolutely sure about, as you prepare to fact the afterlife, since you prefer to be in rejection of the Gospel, as its an extension of a belief in God; you're parting away from the largest block of humanity who are Christianity and then away from basically all of humanity, as we all believe in the supernatural but you don't want to know as we do; and making yourself look really bad in the process by the way.
“The main thing Haeckel is known for is the embryo drawings published in Anthropogenie. The drawings were accurate, but Haeckel was pushed for time by his publishers, and some had to be drawn from memory.”
Ok, but what did Kent have to say on that, is the actual topic of discussion? Ernst's ideas have already been rendered antiquated, as the debate has demonstrated.
Here's an article on the topic from within the scholarly Christian community:
JOURNAL OF CREATION 33(1) 2019 || PAPERS
Ariana Grande Claims Eight Of The 10 Biggest Songs On Spotify
'10-foot-tall people' discovered by archaeologists in Nevada cave
@dshipp17: You know what I'm done, you are not worth my time. It doesn't matter that biological evolution is a proven fact to you, I could show you all the evidence in the world and you would still call me dishonest and evil. You claim I need to educate myself, while why don't you do the same in regards to evolution, not from an organisation such as AiG or ICR, or from Kent Hovind, but from secular sources who don't twist the evidence to support their narrative.
Science including evolution is not some God denying conspiracy, stop calling us liars and dishonest when we are telling the truth as best we understand it.
@sundown89: I support your point of view.
@sundown89: I'm shocked you went for as long as you did. I have basically infinite free time and I got tired of him faster. I wasn't even doing as much
@steve40l: I could have gone further if they were an honest interlocker but they aren't. I don't need the stress of dealing with them on top of the busy survey season and everything else. Comicvine is meant to be enjoyable, and having to spend any down time, including in the past my birthday and Christmas writing responses, is a good way to ruin that.
“You know what I'm done, you are not worth my time.”
Well, so you claim, but I'm here as God's advocate, for the reader, and doing my duty to mitigate the spread of disinformation about Christianity. You be most wise to hear what facts and information are coming via the scholarly Christian community on the topic of biological information.
“It doesn't matter that biological evolution is a proven fact to you, I could show you all the evidence in the world and you would still call me dishonest and evil.”
If you're hearing certified scientists in the life sciences field biological evolution really isn't a proven fact (e.g. in real reality, finds keep disproving the better technology gets but you still keep trying to prove it as such, nonetheless; that's just an objective observation); plus, it isn't something that's chemically viable, as I said; you're only showing me opinions that support what you already want to believe which is hardly evidence, at all; I've prodded you in way of at least trying to provide evidence which would be convincing me that much of the stuff being expressed in the scholarly Christian community on this topic is wrong; in order to go about doing that you have to first have heard what they have to say; if you can't do that there's no objective way that you could demonstrate that you have evidence, where part of it is based on the context you're facing (e.g. you want to start with a presupposition that everything came about by physical chance while real reality is showing how the supernatural has impacted humanity for its entire existence and continues to impact human existence; additionally, I can go to church every Sunday and Wednesday and hear testimonials from the congregants; plus, I have my active real life personal experiences; these are promises from the New Testament of the Bible, in the event someone here's the Gospel of Jesus Christ and then trust it, in order to obtain the Free Gift of Eternal Salvation; I've done such and experienced such promises; how do you expect to dissuade me of something that's shown to be true for me? Real reality is giving strong indicators that everything couldn't have just come about by physical chance). You're pouting like some spoiled child here when you need to be behaving like an adult.
As a person on the opposite side of the debate of course I can see and understand what you believe can convince me; I can also tell how little you know of my side. My words have nothing to do with calling you dishonest and evil; I'm just pointing out my objective observation of how either you couldn't know what Kent is saying or you're really shielding yourself from hearing his points, as he destroyed AJ in that debate; I'd don't have to really saying anything, you're just showing me, or you'd just start describing and then discussing Kent's points with me; because you don't want to except his point doesn't then make what you subjectively believe an established fact anywhere except in your own mind, so you claim, at least. Given that you're not listening to other scientists with a different conclusion what's happened is you've created a type of feedback loop for yourself; you want to or believe you've deprogrammed yourself in relation to Christianity, even though you're just about the only person in the human population who has such a view; surely, you can't believe you're the only one who's right on the topics of Christianity and biological evolution?
“You claim I need to educate myself, while why don't you do the same in regards to evolution, not from an organisation such as AiG or ICR, or from Kent Hovind, but from secular sources who don't twist the evidence to support their narrative.”
It isn't just because they're from the scholarly Christian community, it's also because they're also credentialed scientists in the life science field, and it's because I'm a credentialed, and I've already explained to you the logic in my approach (e.g. I'm in circumstances where I can't practice science, it's been that way for a long time, they're practicing science and staying up to date, they're not saying anything illogical, if necessary, debates would help me better understand, and the mass media is already touting the position that you prefer but I'm Christian, the Bible has proven reliable, and I still believe Genesis Chapter 1). Thus, it's a matter of my preferring not to accept paleontology and also having support for not having to; it contradicts what the Bible is apparently teaching, where the Bible has withstood scrutiny and I've had my personal experiences and have ongoing developments in terms of my relationship with God thanks to trusting in the Gospel of Jesus Christ; thus, it just couldn't be true so it would be insufferable for me to sit through it, if I had to, in all honesty.
As previously explained, why would you feel that your lack of personal experiences with God somehow trumps my personal experiences with God, especially when the New Testament provides me the explanation for the differences, not to mention the thousands to millions of others like me? You're not hearing me, apparently or pretentiously, so you're lost (e.g. God actively answered my prayers and came through for me just past week; He introduced me to information that's going to be helping my employment litigation case immensely; and guess what, the guide was one of its kind in the archive and happened to be within the date ranges that are applicable to y circumstances but, at the time, before I realized it, I was blistering angry, because it wasn't the latest addition; had it been the latest addition, as I wanted, it probably would have diluted the persuasiveness of my argument in the eyes of the deciders; while I might have complained about something, it's manna from Heaven and I'm a really grateful Israelite, sort to speak; right before it happened, I was considering the limited options I had but made the comment: while it may be impossible, all things are possible with God; and, then bang, I probably have too much to fully track; what a difference just a few moments make with God; but you never had those experiences; my desire to see you start experiencing them is part of why I keep trying the others being what I already mentioned: my part to curb the spread of disinformation about Christianity, God's advocate, and for the reader).
“Science including evolution is not some God denying conspiracy, stop calling us liars and dishonest when we are telling the truth as best we understand it.”
The presenters are scientists with credentials and I'm a scientist with credentials; a clear demonstration that your problem is that you're simply not willing to hear and then start learning; you're clearly afraid to start learning, is basically what I'm seeing and what you're showing me about yourself.
@sundown89: You definitely could've. You might just be the most qualified on the site to talk about it, but I'm glad you're choosing to step away though, as you don't seem to be benefiting at all from this.
@dshipp17: Evolution is proven though, I’m literally working on a study regarding a species, the marbled crayfish, that evolved in 1995. I’m literally older than the entire species.
I'm busy, but I'll look into it; that description already looks familiar, but you have to be just misinterpreting something.
@dshipp17: You've repeatedly failed to properly interpret information, have displayed an ego capable of deafening anything that's said to you, and because you're entire argument relies on an impossible to prove claim, you've assumed the same for those opposing you, despite that obviously not being the case. There's nothing wrong with having formed an opinion based on observation that's flexible and even disposable. You however, have not done that, you've formed a rule that you've decided can not be broken. The theory of evolution has itself evolved because it is based on information that we have grown more capable of getting. Your primitive idea of life and a god is based on superficial anecdotes construed by people thousands of years ago. Any changes in idea are entirely vapid when there's only one source. A source with obscured origin that can not be falsified, and contains outrageous claims incapable of being falsified.
Don't chase a religion. Follow Jesus Christ's teachings and form a connection with Him. You'll have absolutely nothing to lose. In fact, you will have everything to gain if truly repent, spread the Gospel, and believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. You will live a more fulfilled life and enter the Gates of Heaven. On the other hand, you're also given the option to distance yourself from God. However, you will be sent to a place of eternal suffering. It's your choice.
Don't chase a religion. Follow Jesus Christ's teachings and form a connection with Him. You'll have absolutely nothing to lose. In fact, you will have everything to gain if truly repent, spread the Gospel, and believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. You will live a more fulfilled life and enter the Gates of Heaven. On the other hand, you're also given the option to distance yourself from God. However, you will be sent to a place of eternal suffering. It's your choice.
It sounds a lot like you're chasing a religion
@steve40l said:
Don't chase a religion. Follow Jesus Christ's teachings and form a connection with Him. You'll have absolutely nothing to lose. In fact, you will have everything to gain if truly repent, spread the Gospel, and believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. You will live a more fulfilled life and enter the Gates of Heaven. On the other hand, you're also given the option to distance yourself from God. However, you will be sent to a place of eternal suffering. It's your choice.
It sounds a lot like you're chasing a religion
The point is that many lukewarm Christians claim they're part of a religion, so they believe they're all set to enter Heaven. They are wrong. The main intent of the Bible is to follow Jesus Christ. As shown in the past, religion can easily be manipulated.
Scrolling through previous pages, I see that many users have already committed blasphemy. They still have time to repent before it's too late. It's also funny how every single form of disrespect has come from the atheists and not the Christians, who are trying to have a civil conversation.
Psalms 37:13 - "The Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
@lightordark said:
Also, the Christian god of the old test enemy is more evil than any person. He commands people to kill others because they are a different nationality.
Which part of the Bible implies that in the slightest? Are you ignoring context? God commands His followers to treat everyone, including enemies, with kindness.
@officialtopg: I've been called a terrible person and a liar in this thread, so I don't know what you mean by "all the disrespect comes from Atheists and not Christians. Also, just scrolling through Dshipp and Sundown's back and forth, with Dshipp riddles his posts with passive aggressive remarks and accusations of ill intent, Sundown, for the most part, sticks to pointing out inconsistencies in arguments and bringing up relevant research, along with having to constantly defend their own character.
@steve40l said:
Don't chase a religion. Follow Jesus Christ's teachings and form a connection with Him. You'll have absolutely nothing to lose. In fact, you will have everything to gain if truly repent, spread the Gospel, and believe Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. You will live a more fulfilled life and enter the Gates of Heaven. On the other hand, you're also given the option to distance yourself from God. However, you will be sent to a place of eternal suffering. It's your choice.
It sounds a lot like you're chasing a religion
The point is that many lukewarm Christians claim they're part of a religion, so they believe they're all set to enter Heaven. They are wrong. The main intent of the Bible is to follow Jesus Christ. As shown in the past, religion can easily be manipulated.
well he got the answer in the first 9 seconds so I have no idea why this goes on for almost 30 minutes
@dshipp17: You've repeatedly failed to properly interpret information, have displayed an ego capable of deafening anything that's said to you, and because you're entire argument relies on an impossible to prove claim, you've assumed the same for those opposing you, despite that obviously not being the case. There's nothing wrong with having formed an opinion based on observation that's flexible and even disposable. You however, have not done that, you've formed a rule that you've decided can not be broken. The theory of evolution has itself evolved because it is based on information that we have grown more capable of getting. Your primitive idea of life and a god is based on superficial anecdotes construed by people thousands of years ago. Any changes in idea are entirely vapid when there's only one source. A source with obscured origin that can not be falsified, and contains outrageous claims incapable of being falsified.
You're 15 with lots of life experiences to meet up with you is what I'm thinking. Kent explains that he is a former high school teacher so he'd be happy to have discussions with you on these topics and the omissions on my part you're implying mainly because you're not respecting all of my points. I'll extend the same suggestions to you that you tell me anything that you see Kent saying wrong in his debate with AJ.
“You've repeatedly failed to properly interpret information”
What are you talking about here? You need to be precise and specific when you're trying to imply something about somebody's intelligence. This isn't something that would be a characteristic of mines, as I'm speaking from both education and experience; however, you still have to both get you high school diploma and get selected into a college/university; you're not even equipped to any extent yet.
“You've repeatedly failed to properly interpret information”
What are you talking about here? You need to be precise and specific when you're trying to imply something about somebody's intelligence. This isn't something that would be a characteristic of mines, as I'm speaking from both education and experience; however, you still have to both get you high school diploma and get selected into a college/university; you're not even equipped to any extent yet.
“because you're entire argument relies on an impossible to prove claim, you've assumed the same for those opposing you, despite that obviously not being the case”
You can't be reading anything that I've written at least not in a way where you're listening and then understanding me; but be precise in what you're say, what are you talking about here? One example that I provided was that our confirmation and verification relies on the testimonies of church congregants who can be seen every Sunday and Wednesday; I said that the things they say can be checked up on for confirmation and verification; that's not an impossible to prove claim to any level especially in comparison to saying that something occurring over a 240 million year period is as plausible as something I can predict using scientific and mathematical calculations; here, you're demonstrating that you're not equipped enough to be able to distinguish between objective fact and your subjective wishes that your hero is correct.
“There's nothing wrong with having formed an opinion based on observation that's flexible and even disposable”
The topic of discussion was his going off topic and then avoiding the matters being discussed in the debate clip; this was the second time that he'd introduced something not being discussed so that he could use as a straw man; he implied that Kent was incompetent and then demonstrated that he had no awareness of what Kent was saying even after being invited to address material Kent just said in this debate; no one (human) observed anything that supposedly occurred over a 240 millions period of time.
“The theory of evolution has itself evolved because it is based on information that we have grown more capable of getting.”
This debate clip is an example of how an idea that was created at the infancy of the theory of evolution, within 10 years of Darwin, becoming antiquated right before our very eyes because of new developments in our understanding in the life sciences and new technology; on the other hand, I was just fending off an inaccurate claim by someone implying that Christianity survived attacks from its infancy because of government leadership when Christianity started within the civilians; plus, these were events from more than a thousand years ago this individual was trying to use as an example; Christianity has staying power because of things being said by church congregants that are then capable of being verified; despite many attacks, the Bible has survived; organizations like ICR exists because the Bible hasn't been rendered antiquated despite attacks from all angles over thousands of years of time, despite a claim the individual you're defending that the Bible was now antiquated; look at how much you know already? Actually look at the information, understand it, and then try to comment.
“Your primitive idea of life and a god is based on superficial anecdotes construed by people thousands of years ago. Any changes in idea are entirely vapid when there's only one source.”
If you think this then you need to look at those clips that I've been posting something like the accompanying ICR clip for the debate by Kent. Here, you're also trying to group the Bible with its ancient contemporaries; in the debate clip, Kent gave objective evidence that shows otherwise although in a passing jest; connect with Kent who's also a high school teacher and learn something about what we know and what's keeping organizations like ICR funded and afloat as they're objective examples of how wrong and uninformed you are or have to be, even though you're trying to sound intelligent relative to me. That Jesus was a historical figure is up there as probably the most verified thing from ancient history.
“A source with obscured origin that can not be falsified, and contains outrageous claims incapable of being falsified.”
You're getting indoctrinated quite well. How does falsification fit within this context? Since the Bible isn't falsifiable, at least as you claim, how are you able to falsify a claim that one or more things occurred over a 230 million year period of time that was last occurring 274 million years ago with the same accuracy and precise of something that I can predict from a scientific or mathematical calculation thus equating to a scientific fact? The Bible is also acting as a type of Journal which has demonstrated its staying power over thousands of years of time; if you're informed, you'd know something like this; we also have those church congregants and their testimonials. Our logic is that, because we've verified the things from the Bible that can still be verified, we can easily trust in the material that can't still be verified, taking context into consideration, of course; that's logical while remaining objective.
JOURNAL OF CREATION 33(1) 2019 || PAPERS
@dshipp17: Here’s a paper from Nature, one of the most trusted scientific journals - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0467-9
Enjoy, and please don’t tell me I don’t know about the animals I’ve been raising for almost nine months, it’s kind of insulting.
Another good reason for my request that things be tested from debates and clips from organizations like ICR is viewing a follow up interaction between Nye and Ham at the Ark Encounter; Ham raised the issue of samples taken from the Mount Saint Helen eruptions, as well as similar past eruptions, already dating in the tens to hundreds of million years; Nye then came back at Ham in jest that this difference can/has been accounted for using ratios; a debate and follow up from Ham's organization could tell us if or how true this claim by Nye really might be, as this is one thing supporting my confidence; they're up to date (e.g. ICR) and active on matters such as these whereas I can't remain up to date and active on matters such as these, at the moment; see where/how my logic applies now?! I'm putting together a legal brief/complaint, but check this out also:
@dshipp17: Funny you should mention not keeping up with science, because the first paper you attached mentioned how endosymbiosis doesn’t happen and in the same week you posted it we got a paper detailing observations of that very thing.
‘Science marches on’ is a very real thing as that proves.
As for the Mt St Helen’s dating issue, if I remember correctly the person sending the sample off chose a dating test that requires material over 2 million years in age due to Potassium’s long half life to begin getting results, while their samples were all from a recent (30,000 years) eruption.
That and there were still xenocysts present which if not removed throw off dating. I don’t know if the geologist preparing the sample missed some, or didn’t clean the sample because they were rushing, but that’s why the old age was prescribed to those samples.
I never understood it. There are just so many religions out there and 99% of their events did not even take place in canon history. How are you supposed to know that your religion is the right one when there is literally no way to prove it? Not like most people follow their religion anyways.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment