blackbird
-
Posts
6,649 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
43 minutes ago, TTM said:
No. I use "false" age interchangeably with "apparent" age. As in God falsified his creation to make it look older than its true age. That was your assertion and not mine.
If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well?
I am happy to see you are willing to question some of your beliefs, but why do you feel the need to cling to a literal interpretation of Creation, rather than joining the vast majority of Christians that do not?
You also keep bringing up the "fossils deposited in Noah's flood" argument, whereas I have pointed out at least three times that this argument fails without supernatural interference, as fossils are found in distinct layers rather than all jumbled together.
For an analogy: if a farm was flooded, all thing being equal you would expect a layer of mud laid down by the flood to be equally likely to contain a random mix of the bodies of chickens, pigs, cows, etc. You would not expect that one layer would contain only chickens, and another only cows, and another only pigs. Yet this is what happens in the fossil record. And it is true that the same geological layer contains the same fossils regardless of where the geological layer is located, even when separated by continents. Not only that, but the order of the fossils in the layers is also always consistent: older (deeper) layers always have fossils we associate with older life, and newer (shallower) layers always have fossils associated with more recent life.
I believe in a literal interpretation of creation and am not governed by what a large number of christians believe simply because that part of the Bible is meant to be interpreted literally. I have been taught that one is to take the parts of the Bible literally that are meant to be literal unless the context indicates it is metaphorically speaking. There is no indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor or legend of some kind although there are probably some people who would disagree. There are parts of the Old Testament which are primarily historical accounts of what happened which some people do not realize as well.
The vast majority of christians use modern corrupt versions of the Bible also. That doesn't mean someone who understand that should follow along and do the same. The KJV (1611) is the only version which is based on the received text and is 100% accurate.
I would disagree with your account of the fossil record. This has been explained in various articles on creation websites. I will see what I can find.
-
1 hour ago, hot enough said:
Why would a dog leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being?
Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog dictating too fast?
Do you mean "believe" instead of "leave"?
I don't understand your question.
-
2 hours ago, TTM said:
I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age.
Because it is prima facie evidence (but by no means the only evidence) for the age of the earth, the age of life on earth, evolution, and the general incorrectness of a literal interpretation of the bible
Assuming God could create a universe without a falsified age, why did He not? Why did he hide the fact the universe was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago? Why did he create the universe in such a way that studying it would lead to conclusions that directly contradict a literal interpretation of the bible? He wanted to hide all evidence of his existance except for one document of dubious origin and attribution, to trick people into disbelief in his existance, so He could then have them tortured for all eternity in Hell for using their "God given" rational mind and free will?
You first sentence contradicts the rest. If it cannot be dissected by science, then your "science oriented creationists" are proving nothing. Also, these "scientists" (at least the ones you linked to) seem to be arguing against the earth having an false apparent age. Both of these are examples of playing both sides of the fence. Please pick a side.
Your "creation scientists" are not persuasive because they do not understand or perform science. They form a conclusion first (i.e. the bible is literally correct) and then cherry pick or outright distort evidence to fit in with that narrative. Because of this, an even passing knowledge of what the actual science says is enough to poke massive holes in their assertions.
Real science forms a hypothesis first, then tests it to see if the hypothesis is supported, and discards it if not. Scientific theories are only strongly accepted if they produce repeatable results, have predictive power, and are confirmed by multiple independant lines of evidence. And even then they can be superceded if a more accurate theory, or one with a greater range of applicability comes along.
When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct. Your claim rests on the assumption that everything you have been told about the age of the earth by old earth scientists is true. The articles on creation science website give evidence to show old earth science is false. I have not studied much information on creation websites, but I did hear a series of presentations on some of it ten or fifteen years ago. I can't remember much of it.
For me to summarize the information which is already on the creation websites I would have to go and spend hours or days studying it. I don't believe I am required to do that. I may read some of these articles as I have time, and may comment at that time. But you should not depend on me to answer all of your questions. If you are interested in knowing the answers to some of yours questions, you need to make an effort to read some of these articles yourself. I have provided one or two links. One of them is at creation.com
I accept the biblical account that everything was created in six literal days. When I say it was created with an apparent age, I am not saying God was trying to deceive anyone. That was just a personal opinion I had come to, but it may not be correct. I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do.
You did make a good point in saying why consider what the creation websites are saying if I believe everything was created with an apparent age. It is something I will have to give some thought to and study. However, it doesn't change the fact that God still created the earth in six days. Perhaps it was NOT created exactly the way we see it today with the fossils. It is conceivable that the fossils were deposited after Noah's flood. Prof. Stott also gave information is his slide show presentation to demonstrate that the geological time chart is flawed, which makes it doubtful. Creationists reject the uniformitarian principle. As I recall the fossil record is incomplete and I seem to remember hearing professor Stott saying there were some contradictions that give weight to a fairly quick deposition of fossils, which would fit the the catastrophic event such as the flood.
-
6 hours ago, TTM said:
Fair enough. Why did God create a "fake" fossil record that when looked at objectively would inevitably lead to the conclusion that we were created by evolution rather than creation? And a "fake" geology that would lead us to believe the world was billions of years old rather than thousands. And a "fake" cosmology that would lead us to believe the universe is billions of years older than the earth, and that the earth are an infinitessimally tiny random mote floating within it, rather than the center of creation?
Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age. Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils. I guess it could have been created with no fossils. But what would that prove? You would have to ask God why he created it the way he did. Maybe to test people. Why didn't he create earth with a giant sign that says "I God created it"? I don't know the reason it was created the way it was. But Genesis says it was created in six days. It had to have been created with an age. All living creatures had to have been created with an age. Man and woman were created with an age. Again we come back to the fact it was a supernatural event which cannot be dissected in scientific terms. Science oriented creationists do have articles which give their point of view on such things as how the fossils may have formed and refuting the old earth claims. The links I gave have lots of articles on that.
-
On 2017-06-09 at 8:34 PM, OftenWrong said:
That's not the only problem you have to solve to eliminate evidence of an old Earth. There is also the decay of nuclear elements like carbon-14, which necessarily takes a long, long time.
Evidence of an old earth has already been debunked. Carbon 14 dating is only good for a few thousand years. People mistakenly think it was used to measure things millions of years old. Check this article:
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf
http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers
I believe the biblical account of creation in Genesis. I believe the earth was created with an apparent age built in it at the time of creation. For instance a tree had to have a certain age at the moment of creation. So, one can look at these debates but the way I see it eliminates doubts. One must accept that creation was a supernatural event of course. God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh day. That avoids the endless debate about how it happened. But if one wishes to delve into all the scientific information that some creation believers have, one is free to do so. But I'm not sure it will satisfy someone who will not accept it. I see it as a matter of faith in the written word, the King James Bible (1611). The Bible is a spiritual book full of supernatural events. Men wrote it under the inspiration of God. The evidence for the inspiration of the Bible is within the Bible itself.
-
On 2017-06-09 at 2:04 PM, dialamah said:
Foreign-Born Terrorist Country of Origin, 1975 - 2015
Saudi Arabia ... 19 Terrorists, 2369 deathsUnited Arab Emirates, 2 terrorists, 314 deathsEgypt, 11 terrorists, 162 deathsLebanon, 4 terrorists, 159 deathsKuwait, 2 terrorists, 6 deathsCuba, 11 terrorists, 3 deathsEtc.Almost no terrorists have come from banned countries; almost all terrorists have come from countries not on the banned list.The ban list is just a sop to Trump supporters and does nothing to make America safer.Which countries are on the ban list today? Some not on the ban list like SA have governments that agree to support the war against ISIS and terrorism. The U.S. chooses it's allies based on what they believe is in their best interest, not what some lefty thinks would make an appearance of the best social justice.
-
3 hours ago, dialamah said:
Why isn't SA included in the ban?
Because SA is an ally of the U.S. and helping fight Islamic terrorism.
-
Obama and the Dems signed agreements like the Paris Accord committing America to give billions to third world countries and shut down American industries. Trump is putting America first.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Omni said:
Abortions will happen either legally, or illegally is the reality. And I'm not even going to bother to show you where your other assumptions are wrong. Do some GD homework. Hint, check how many illegal immigrants Obama deported.
So why didn't Hillary support Trump's plan to deport illegal criminals in the election campaign? Why didn't she support building the wall? Why didn't she support a travel ban from countries known for terrorists.
-
1 minute ago, Omni said:
Abortions will happen either legally, or illegally is the reality. And I'm not even going to bother to show you where your other assumptions are wrong. Do some GD homework. Hint, check how many illegal immigrants Obama deported.
A wall would slow the drugs, criminals, and illegals down. I think it's a good idea. Might help Canada too as a spinoff benefit.
-
7 minutes ago, dialamah said:
Even if those prostitutes did pee on him, I don't think he should be impeached, just mocked.
But giving away secrets to Russians and attempting to interfere in an investigation: imagine the outrage among Trump supporters if Obama, Hillary or (on this side of the border) Trudeau had done that.
Hillary and Obama (and Trudeau to some extent) are very experienced in the political system and government and are expected to know far more than someone who never had any experience in it. He was a businessman who spent time in negotiating contracts for business. It will take time for him to learn how governments works and what you can do and can't. But you oppose Trump so much you blame him for not doing everything exactly as someone who knows all about it. You have to treat someone who was not hired for a job because of his qualifications and experience, but was chosen by the people to do a job that few people have experience in, but has a plan that millions support.
-
27 minutes ago, dialamah said:
This is way more entertaining than if Clinton had won. For one thing, it highlights the hypocrisy of Trump supporters who screamed bloody murder if Hillary blinked wrong, but Trump? He can grope women, give classified info to the Russians and try to influence an investigation - no problem. The only defense they have at this point is "but Hillary..." - a presidential candidate who lost to the Republicans preferred immoral and corrupt non-politician/reality tv star.
The Hillary and her party support the killing of unborn babies, about nine million to date. Trump opposes abortion. Hillary /Obama wouldn't deport illegal aliens who committed criminals acts. Wouldn't get serious about criminals and terrorists coming into the U.S. Wouldn't get serious about stopping the flow of U.S. jobs to Mexico and China. Lots of reasons for supporting Trump. You worry about some alleged groping twenty years ago but ignore all the bad things the Dems have been doing to the U.S. and unborn babies. Not in the same league of crimes.
-
Just now, Omni said:
So tell us which MSM you listened to Comey's testimony on that makes you not believe it.
Just heard someone interviewed on CBC news that said Trump didn't have a bad day.
-
Just now, Omni said:
Indeed. Best of luck. Impeachment is a high bar of course, but Trump keeps on rising closer and closer.
Only if you believe everything you hear on MSM, which you seem to do.
-
2 minutes ago, Omni said:
Or perhaps in this case much earlier than 4 years.
No. They don't hold elections every year or two to satisfy the losers. If Trump were removed (which I don't think will happen), Pence is VP and would rightfully take over.
-
They are a bunch lefty globalists and they just took a hit with Trump.
2 minutes ago, Omni said:TPP and Supreme court comments the only ones meaningful, or verifiable. Try again.
He is not going to give the UN climate fund the billions of dollars they hoped for. He is deporting illegals /criminals every day. He told NATO to pony up. Don't expect the U.S. to carrying most of the cost. He told middle east leaders to buck up about funding and supporting terrorism.
Just now, Omni said:Now there's a silly comment. But nope. If he were to be impeached there would be another federal election. My tongue in cheek question was to do if Obama could run in it. I doubt he would even if he could. But I bet he'd win bigly.
Maybe Pence would become President. So not much gain for Democrats and liberals.
-
1 minute ago, Omni said:
Perhaps when you get rid of Trump you may become a leader once again.
You mean become the sucker for the rest of the world and start forking out billions to fight climate change and let in lots more terrorists and criminals. Trump might not be PC kind of guy but at least he is doing something for Americans.
-
In geology, the layers of the earth with fossils in them is generally accepted as evidence of an old earth. This is based on uniformitarianism. That means the layers developed very slowly over long periods of time. But it has been found and shown that the earth layers could have been formed very rapidly as a result of the flood in Genesis.
This is called the catastrophism principle. The is means a great catastrophy such as a Noah's flood could have caused the layers to be placed very quickly with the fossils within them.
Quote
The vast thicknesses of sedimentary rocks around the world are commonly used as evidence for vast age. First, Teaching about Evolution gives a useful definition on page 33:
Sedimentary rocks are formed when solid materials carried by wind and water accumulate in layers and then are compressed by overlying deposits. Sedimentary rocks sometimes contain fossils formed from the parts of organisms deposited along with other solid materials.
The ‘deep time’ indoctrination comes with the statement ‘often reaching great thicknesses over long periods of time.’ However, this goes beyond the evidence. Great thicknesses could conceivably be produced either by a little water over long periods, or a lot of water over short periods. We have already discussed how different biases can result in different interpretations of the same data, in this case the rock layers. It is a philosophical decision, not a scientific one, to prefer the former interpretation. Because sedimentation usually occurs slowly today, it is assumed that it must have always occurred slowly. If so, then the rock layers must have formed over vast ages. The philosophy that processes have always occurred at roughly constant rates (‘the present is the key to the past’) is often called uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism was defined this way in my own university geology class in 1983, and was contrasted with catastrophism. But more recently, the word ‘uniformitarianism’ has been applied in other contexts to mean also constancy of natural laws, sometimes called ‘methodological uniformitarianism,’ as opposed to what some have called ‘substantive uniformitarianism.’
It should also be pointed out that uniformitarian geologists have long allowed for the occasional (localized) catastrophic event. However, modern historical geology grew out of this general ‘slow and gradual’ principle, which is still the predominantly preferred framework of explanation for any geological formation. Nevertheless, the evidence for catastrophic formation is so pervasive that there is a growing body of neo-catastrophists. But because of their naturalistic bias, they prefer, of course, to reject the explanation of the Genesis (global) flood. Unquote
part of article from:
-
1 minute ago, TTM said:
Based on your link, your "proof" to reject humans 6000 + years ago is a house of cards based of a single document of dubious origin and merit. And also that basing science off of religion leads nowhere good.
There are countless article delving into this, not a single document. It is a very large topic with huge implications that you should research.
Quote
Yet the ‘big picture’ is very different, and encouraging for the biblical creationist. For many decades now, with few exceptions,2 a consistent pattern has emerged. It’s as if each find switches on some more pixels in a grainy image, maybe sharpening but not changing the picture, which was long obvious in outline. All of the finds more or less naturally fall into one of only three major groups. And two of these, Neandertal and Homo erectus, are similar anyway. Both are clearly human descendants of Adam.3
Virtually all others, including the famous ‘Lucy’, are in the remaining group, which generates the most evolutionary excitement. But it turns out to be an extinct non-human primate group, anatomically not between apes and humans Unquote
from the above link
-
45 minutes ago, TTM said:
I offer as proof that there were modern humans living on the planet for tens of thousands of years before 4000ish BC the entire field of archeology (but especially prehistoric archeology), consisting of thousands of highly trained and educated members, operating over a couple of hundred years, producing over that time tens (hundreds? more?) of thousands of academic papers through which the current consensus has been achieved. You?
That has been disputed and debunked for ages.
Right now I am tied up with other things. You might want to take a look at this website. Many great minds have done extensive research and written lengthy articles on their findings.
http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers
-
35 minutes ago, dialamah said:
.
23 minutes ago, dialamah said:I agree, that's a lot of people. Why so many?
Did they mention how many in Canada?
I read that May was willing to ignore individual rights in order to deal with this (not sure this is a credible source so won't link it). If true, do you think this is a reasonable response?
Sisi has jailed a lot of people, including journalists, on the claim that he is fighting the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism. My sister and I had a very long discussion about this because Western Media portrayed his actions as consolidating power while my sister believed that he was improving the security of the country. So will the UK, the US, Canada eventually follow in Sisi's footsteps?
I don't know the answer to that. People have a lot of freedom in countries like Britain. They never mentioned how many in Canada.
I am not sure what it means for May to ignore individual rights. They are in a bad situation in Britain. I am not sure what can be done.
I don't see anything significant happening in the U.S. or Canada in the near future. The problem is not as big as the UK. But in the future decades, who knows what will happen.
-
38 minutes ago, dialamah said:
Until there were terror attacks, few people cared what fundamental Muslims did. Now that so many Muslims are vociferously rejecting terrorism in Islam's name, and that there have been a bunch of fatwas against terror attacks, and Imams worldwide have declared terrorism non-Islamic, do you suppose people will stop claiming terror attacks a Muslim requirement and return to ignoring fundie Muslims?
A report on CBC said the British police have a total of about 23,000 Muslims they are concerned about and 3,000 of those very concerned about. They have a long list of radicals they are trying to watch but it is practically impossible to watch every radical because they don't have enough manpower to watch that many people. There are a smaller number that are a grave concern. When talking thousands of people, this is pretty serious. It is impossible to follow every person of concern.
-
14 minutes ago, Omni said:
Evidently they don't even care what he says.
Trump said in a tweet on June 6 " The FAKE MSM is working so hard trying to get me not to use Social Media. They hate that I can get the honest and unfiltered message out. " 44,000 liked that tweet.
He is probably the first President to keep millions of his followers in the loop through social media and they appreciate it greatly. MSM hates it because they can't control the message.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Omni said:
Of course he's popular on that "idiot box" because of his base. But overall he has the lowest approval rating of nearly any new term president in US history. And getting up at 0 dark 30 and sending out "cavfefe" is only making it worse.
5 minutes ago, Omni said:Of course he's popular on that "idiot box" because of his base. But overall he has the lowest approval rating of nearly any new term president in US history. And getting up at 0 dark 30 and sending out "cavfefe" is only making it worse.
His followers could care less what opponents say.
Why Trust the Bible?
in Religion & Politics
Posted
The Bible gives just a brief account of creation in Genesis. That is sufficient for most people who read the Bible. I guess that is all God wanted to say about it. Other subjects are given more attention in the Bible probably because they were considered more important. Still the Bible is a fairly big book. Not sure why you are using the term "dog". God is not a dog and nobody ever associated him with a dog. Sounds a bit derogatory. Why not use the term God when speaking to people who believe in God? Perhaps you could consider doing that much.