EVIDENCE FOR GOD

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Where did all those waters receded into? Please quote me some of that Christian pseudo science, I will take it apart with a razor.

No.  I have no pseudo science.  Noah's flood could explain why we find fossils far above sea level and far inland.  All I'm saying. Didn't say it was fact.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Goddess said:

I thought Popeye said that?

Haha.  Maybe.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, blackbird said:

No.  I have no pseudo science.  Noah's flood could explain why we find fossils far above sea level and far inland.  All I'm saying. Didn't say it was fact.

 

Fossils are separated into distinct layers...Devonian,  Triassic, Cretaceous...etc. Not jumbled together. One of the oldest fossils ever found is the long extinct Charnia...neither plant nor animal as we understand them. It's from the Pre-Cambrian...over 500 million years ago. Your Noah never heard of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia

[?Impact]

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No.  I have no pseudo science.  Noah's flood could explain why we find fossils far above sea level and far inland.  All I'm saying. Didn't say it was fact.

Science is about a structured discipline to finding answers, not speculation. Is the fossil 4,500 years old, 45,000, or 45,000,000? That would be one of the first questions that a scientist would ask. Not:

 

Look, a waterfall - God

Look a rainbow - God

Look an eclipse - God

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Fossils are separated into distinct layers...Devonian,  Triassic, Cretaceous...etc. Not jumbled together. One of the oldest fossils ever found is the long extinct Charnia...neither plant nor animal as we understand them. It's from the Pre-Cambrian...over 500 million years ago. Your Noah never heard of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia

Professor Philip Stott, a scientist who once believe in evolution and a long earth age, completely changed his thinking decades ago when confronted with a lot of information.

He has a website with a lot of articles.  He has an article which examines the age question.

Quote

Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions.    Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Science is about a structured discipline to finding answers, not speculation. Is the fossil 4,500 years old, 45,000, or 45,000,000? That would be one of the first questions that a scientist would ask. Not:

 

Look, a waterfall - God

Look a rainbow - God

Look an eclipse - God

I say the same thing to you as I said to Dog on the Porch.   Check this article.4

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

[blackbird]

"Many modern historians trust the dates of the Egyptian kings.  Newton said that the Egyptian and Latin histories were not as reliable as the history of Israel.  The modern historians are using the exact history that Newton warns us not to use. They want to undermine the Bible.  Newton, though, a scientific thinker, always put the Bible in the place of higher dependability. It is clear that this scientist, at least, believed the ancient, written history of mankind."

 

   http://www.fromnoahtohercules.com/flier/Newton.htm

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by blackbird

[blackbird]

If you have about one minute (well, maybe a little more if you want to read more);   Top Five Evidences that God made man from dirt:

http://www.fromnoahtohercules.com/

[blackbird]

Evidence found that seems to show this dinosaur was several thousand years old.

Quote

 

Astonishing T. Rex Soft Tissue
Find Seriously Challenges Evolution

Andrew Sibley 29th March 2005

Researchers have recently found soft tissues, including blood vessels, bone cells and even what looks like blood cells within the thighbone of a tyrannosaurus rex specimen that has not yet fully fossilised. While the theory of evolution asserts this bone to be 68 millions years old, this astonishing find seriously challenges the dogma of millions of years of supposed evolutionary change.

This bone was found in the Hell Creek Formation sandstones of Montana, USA, and labelled MOR (Museum of the Rockies) 1125. In order to move the large bone that had been encased in a plaster jacket for protection by helicopter, it was necessary to cut it in two, and it was found to be hollow inside with an un-fossilised appearance. Instead of treating the bone with preservative it was instead sent for analysis to Dr Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University who studied the structure. Schweitzer has previously identified soft tissues, including haemoglobin protein within tyrannosaurus rex bones, but previous finds have gained less attention.

As reported in the journal Science,[ii] Schweitzer used a chemical treatment to dissolve the calcium bone structure, while leaving soft tissue parts intact. She found a degree of preservation that had not been seen before, with the flexible and transparent soft tissues still intact. According to the BBC website she is reported to have said that;

It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything.[iii]

This evidence is very uncomfortable for evolutionary scientists and according to the BBC website other researchers have tried to play down the finds by questioning the evidence.[iv] But Schweitzer is reported to have found intact blood vessels together with cells known as osteocytes, which are essential for bone construction. Schweitzer was also able to squeeze out cells from the blood vessels, which looked remarkably like red blood cells with their internal structure visible. Schweitzer has not yet tested for DNA, but believes that original proteins are present in the structure, and further tests are continuing.

Conclusion

This is a truly remarkable find and challenges the evolutionary long age dating assertions of millions of years that are so often trotted out by researchers without any objective evidence. Other researchers committed to the theory of evolution are so troubled by the findings that they are seeking to challenge the evidence instead of letting the evidence challenge the theory. It is unthinkable that proteins could survive for millions of years, but instead points to the bones being of the order of several thousand years old. In fact it is remarkable that such structures have survived even for several thousand years. Creationist scientists believe that the dinosaurs were buried during the time of Noah in flood sediments around 4400 years ago. We look forward to publication of further evidence for proteins in this bone as it is presented.

Unquuote

for rest of article:

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/pages/10-creation-flood-model.htm

[DogOnPorch]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Professor Philip Stott, a scientist who once believe in evolution and a long earth age, completely changed his thinking decades ago when confronted with a lot of information.

He has a website with a lot of articles.  He has an article which examines the age question.

Quote

Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions.    Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

 

Phil Stott is not a real scientist and his so-called professorship might as well be from a crackerjack box. More of a quack that caters to religious types.

You've tried this before.

You were informed of his quackery before.

[?Impact]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

I say the same thing to you as I said to Dog on the Porch.   Check this article.4

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

There is nothing there except for whining that the creationists are not accepted in scientific circles

[Goddess]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

Professor Philip Stott, a scientist who once believe in evolution and a long earth age, completely changed his thinking decades ago when confronted with a lot of information.

He has a website with a lot of articles.  He has an article which examines the age question.

Quote

Before looking at these two competing ideas it should be noted that science is powerless to discover anything about origins with any degree of certainty. Science needs observations to work on, and none covering the critical times and events are available. The best we can hope for is to propose a selection of hypotheses and examine extant data to see how well it fits those hypotheses.    Unquote

http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/ages/index.htm

So if science is unable to explain something at this time, the conclusion is "God"?

You realize that there were a LOT of things attributed to God for many centuries, that were later explained by science, right?

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

. We are forced to make many assumptions in our analysis, crucial data is missing and we can never gain anything close to certainty for our conclusions. 

You don't see that the creation/God stance has to "make many assumptions" and "can never gain anything close to certainty for their conclusions"?

Religion has always impeded science, to humankind's misery.  If you were to do some research into how religion and various religious beliefs evolved, you would see that it is 100% man-made.

 

[blackbird]

19 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Phil Stott is not a real scientist and his so-called professorship might as well be from a crackerjack box. More of a quack that caters to religious types.

You've tried this before.

You were informed of his quackery before.

That is completely false.  He certainly is a real scientist.   If you Google him, you will come up with another professor from London.  He is in a different field and not the same person.  There also may be another Professor Philip Stott.

But the one I am referring to is a qualified scientists with a number of degrees.  Here is a bit about him.  Incidentally I was fortunate to meet him at two speaking slide-presentations he gave in Canada. One was a four or five evenings presentation and the other about three evenings.  He is definitely an educated scientist.  I have a series of videos I made of his first evenings of lectures (slide presentations) with my video equipment and wireless microphone.

Philip Stott  

Check out Scripture and Science, our extensive online science workshop authored by Mr. Stott.

Philip Stott was born in England in 1943. After matriculating at Bridlington Grammar School he studied at Manchester University, where he obtained B.Sc. (with honours) and M. Sc. degrees in Civil Engineering. He lectured at universities in Nigeria and South Africa and carried out research in the analysis of geometrically non-linear structures. He shared the Henry Adams award for outstanding research in 1969. While lecturing at the University of the Witwatersrand he studied Biology. After leaving Wits he joined an engineering consulting firm as associate in charge of computing. His ongoing interest in all aspects of science led to studies in Mathematics and Astronomy with the University of South Africa, and later to four years of part time research with the Applied Mathematics department of the University of the Orange Free State.

After many years as a firm atheist he was converted to Christianity in 1976. Following several years of studying the conflicting claims of secular science and scripture he actively entered the Creation/Evolution debate  in 1989, while teaching Mathematics and Science at a mission station in Natal.  He gave lectures on the science/scripture controversy throughout South Africa and Namibia. In 1992 he was invited to address a conference in Russia and since then he has lectured, addressed conferences and taken part in debates in Eastern and Western Europe, America, Canada and Southern Africa. Venues have included  the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), a UNESCO International Conference on the Teaching of Physics and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Philip Stott is married to Margaret (born Lloyd), has two children, Robert and Angela, and two grandchildren, Sean and Julie. He lives in Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State, South Africa.

 

[blackbird]

12 hours ago, Goddess said:

So if science is unable to explain something at this time, the conclusion is "God"?

You realize that there were a LOT of things attributed to God for many centuries, that were later explained by science, right?

You don't see that the creation/God stance has to "make many assumptions" and "can never gain anything close to certainty for their conclusions"?

Religion has always impeded science, to humankind's misery.  If you were to do some research into how religion and various religious beliefs evolved, you would see that it is 100% man-made.

 

No, faith in God does not depend on science being unable to explain something.  Believe in God is based on two things.  One is the creation all around us.  The other is the teaching of the Bible (King James Bible 1611) 

Religion is a kind broad term that includes any of perhaps thousands of belief systems that exist or have existed in the past throughout the world.  Of course many people following any of these religious systems probably came up with all kinds of explanations for things.  That is no surprise.  That is the nature of man.

You should be aware that people believed in many things in the past that science or time eventually proved to be false.  That is nothing surprising either.

Early scientists sometimes made what were thought to be very amazing discoveries or came up with theories about things that were later found to be completely false or incorrect.

There are lots of examples of scientists having to change their theories about things.   About the only thing that is an absolute is that there is nothing absolute in science that may not at some point in the future have to be changed.

"religion impeded science" to humankind's misery"      This takes us again to the fact that there have been many hundreds if not thousands of religions and among them, countless different beliefs of things. 

The Bible is not meant to be a science text, but does describe how God created the world and mankind and that is meant to be taken literally, not symbolic or mythical as some have claimed.  False religion has impeded development in some parts of the world.  False religions do have certain negative consequences for life in some parts of the world can't be denied.

However, biblical christianity does not fall into that category.  In christian nations, we do cut arms or hands off in a town square.  But again false religion and false christianity in the past history has done some terrible things to people.  I think of witches burned at the stake or the Inquisitions where millions may have been tortured and died.

However, this is not caused by the proper understanding of the Bible and those who follow it. 

Communism has killed about 100 million people in it's revolutions in China and the USSR in the 20th century.  They have also enslaved about one third (or is it two thirds) of the world's population.

There have been many wars, some related to false religion and some for other causes.

Hinduism does not believe in killing animals.  So they allow cows to walk around the streets in India even though people may be starving.  I think I saw a program once about a town in India or that part of the world where monkeys have completely taken over the town.  That might be Budhist; I can't recall.   I think there is also problems where there are large numbers of rats.  Rats I suppose also cannot be killed.  Then there are deadly snakes.   That could be a serious problem in parts of India and other countries in Asia.  Remind me never to go there.

 

But all of that neither proves or disproves the existence of God.

I am not sure exactly where you are coming from on that.

Edited January 10, 2018 by blackbird

[DogOnPorch]

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

That is completely false.  He certainly is a real scientist.   If you Google him, you will come up with another professor from London.  He is in a different field and not the same person.  There also may be another Professor Philip Stott.

But the one I am referring to is a qualified scientists with a number of degrees.  Here is a bit about him.  Incidentally I was fortunate to meet him at two speaking slide-presentations he gave in Canada. One was a four or five evenings presentation and the other about three evenings.  He is definitely an educated scientist.  I have a series of videos I made of his first evenings of lectures (slide presentations) with my video equipment and wireless microphone.

Philip Stott  

Check out Scripture and Science, our extensive online science workshop authored by Mr. Stott.

Philip Stott was born in England in 1943. After matriculating at Bridlington Grammar School he studied at Manchester University, where he obtained B.Sc. (with honours) and M. Sc. degrees in Civil Engineering. He lectured at universities in Nigeria and South Africa and carried out research in the analysis of geometrically non-linear structures. He shared the Henry Adams award for outstanding research in 1969. While lecturing at the University of the Witwatersrand he studied Biology. After leaving Wits he joined an engineering consulting firm as associate in charge of computing. His ongoing interest in all aspects of science led to studies in Mathematics and Astronomy with the University of South Africa, and later to four years of part time research with the Applied Mathematics department of the University of the Orange Free State.

After many years as a firm atheist he was converted to Christianity in 1976. Following several years of studying the conflicting claims of secular science and scripture he actively entered the Creation/Evolution debate  in 1989, while teaching Mathematics and Science at a mission station in Natal.  He gave lectures on the science/scripture controversy throughout South Africa and Namibia. In 1992 he was invited to address a conference in Russia and since then he has lectured, addressed conferences and taken part in debates in Eastern and Western Europe, America, Canada and Southern Africa. Venues have included  the European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN), a UNESCO International Conference on the Teaching of Physics and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Philip Stott is married to Margaret (born Lloyd), has two children, Robert and Angela, and two grandchildren, Sean and Julie. He lives in Bloemfontein, the capital of the Free State, South Africa.

 

 

Nope...same quack.

[Goddess]

 

11 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, faith in God does not depend on science being unable to explain something.

Yeah, I know.  That part is very clear.  But religion doesn't explain anything beyond:

"Hey look, a beautiful flower!"

"That flower is clearly evidence that an invisible  multi-colored unicorn from outer space created the universe."

"???"

"You're a fool if you can't see that an invisible unicorn made that flower."

"???"

Quote

There are lots of examples of scientists having to change their theories about things.

Exactly.  When a hypothesis turns out to be not true, science adjusts its thinking and continues to look for an answer.

Not so with religion.  Religion in general refuses to adjust to new information and when it is forced to, it has to be dragged kicking and screaming.  If science didn't exist, religion would have kept mankind poor, dirty, confused, enslaved, etc.  Women would still be chattel, barbaric punishments for trivial matters would still be doled out - as it still is in countries trapped in the stranglehold of religion to this day.

 

 

[?Impact]

My only practical contribution to science is the analysis of geometrically non-linear structures. I shoveled rocks and claimed they were heavy.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

Yeah, I know.  That part is very clear.  But religion doesn't explain anything beyond:

"Hey look, a beautiful flower!"

"That flower is clearly evidence that an invisible  multi-colored unicorn from outer space created the universe."

"???"

"You're a fool if you can't see that an invisible unicorn made that flower."

"???"

Exactly.  When a hypothesis turns out to be not true, science adjusts its thinking and continues to look for an answer.

Not so with religion.  Religion in general refuses to adjust to new information and when it is forced to, it has to be dragged kicking and screaming.  If science didn't exist, religion would have kept mankind poor, dirty, confused, enslaved, etc.  Women would still be chattel, barbaric punishments for trivial matters would still be doled out - as it still is in countries trapped in the stranglehold of religion to this day.

 

 

hahhaha    I don't believe in unicorns...    didn't know you believed in them!  but hey, whatever.

What you say about "religion in general" is true and such is the case in many countries with false religion.

However biblical truth is not false religion.  There a world of difference between biblical truth and false religion.  Difference is between truth and error, or light and darkness.

You have to put on spiritual eyes or glasses to be able to see biblical truth.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  1 Corinthians 2:14

S;piritual (biblical matters) are foolishness with the world.  One can only understand and believe them with a spiritual mind or view.  That is why the wisdom of God is a mystery or foolishness with the world.  The Bible is the wisdom of God, it is a hidden wisdom to those who are lost.  That's the way God ordained things.  God reveals this hidden treasure to those he ordains to see it. 

 

 

[blackbird]

10 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

My only practical contribution to science is the analysis of geometrically non-linear structures. I shoveled rocks and claimed they were heavy.

I thought people only did that in the Gulag?  What are you doing shoveling rocks?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

What you say about "religion in general" is true and such is the case in many countries with false religion.

 

All religions are valid to those who believe them.  The Haida think man was released from a clam shell by a raven, if I remember correctly.  No sillier than Adam and Eve, and with no more relation to the truth.

[Goddess]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You have to put on spiritual eyes or glasses to be able to see biblical truth.

I know.  I had to get rid of those "glasses" to find out that I am a wonderfully flawed woman, worthy of life on this planet.  Otherwise I would still be thinking I am nothing but a lowly woman, subject to the whims of whatever man is in charge, harassed by having a religion dictate each action, choice and decision, constantly reminded that I am "not good enough".  You can keep your spiritual "glasses".  I'll stick with reality.

Every religion says this exact same thing about their own personal made-up Gods/Allahs:

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The Bible Koran is the wisdom of God Allah, it is a hidden wisdom to those who are lost.  That's the way God  Allah ordained things.  God Allah reveals this hidden treasure to those he ordains to see it. 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

I thought people only did that in the Gulag?  What are you doing shoveling rocks?

Lots of rocks in Africa, maybe you will catch on soon.

---

Concerning creation scientists, this is the claim of that group: Since the beginning of modern science, creationists have strived to explain our world based on the unchanging laws of our Creator.

If you look closely you will see that they are in fact not scientists and admit so in their own statement. They are not looking for evidence driven knowledge, but how they can jerry rig the evidence to fit their creationist mentality. The problem of course is every step of they way they become more and more absurd.

[GostHacked]

On 1/7/2018 at 11:23 PM, blackbird said:

God always existed.  He is eternal.  Always was and always will be.   No, he was not born.   He had no parents because he always existed.  He is not part of the material universe.  He is separate from that.

The Bible says he created man in his image.  So man is a special creation.  The Bible says Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature."  Colossians 1:15   That means Jesus Christ already existed.  He was there before any of his creation.  God is a trinity, three persons in one God:  God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.   As far as we know they always existed.  God used his Son to create the universe.

 

The bolded text is inconsistent with how the Bible said how everything was created. If you go by the bible (ugh) the earth was created, man was created, THEN the Virgin May gave birth via immaculate conception to Jesus aka God'd only son.

Must be painful to have an athiest to tell you this.

[Goddess]

37 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

The bolded text is inconsistent with how the Bible said how everything was created. If you go by the bible (ugh) the earth was created, man was created, THEN the Virgin May gave birth via immaculate conception to Jesus aka God'd only son.

Must be painful to have an athiest to tell you this.

Most Christians believe that Jesus was the first creation by God (therefore, his Son), assisted with creation, then agreed to have his life-force (or whatever - soul?) transferred to Mary's womb to be born as a human, die for our sins and return to heaven.  At some point, he is expected to return to earth as a warrior and clean up this mess.

[Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Most Christians believe that Jesus was the first creation by God (therefore, his Son), assisted with creation, then agreed to have his life-force (or whatever - soul?) transferred to Mary's womb to be born as a human, die for our sins and return to heaven.  At some point, he is expected to return to earth as a warrior and clean up this mess.

LOL  Now when I look at that statement, I can't understand why ^^^THAT^^^ is more believable than evolution.