OftenWrong Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, hot enough said: You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you, OftenWrong. What kind of pretense is this - you pretending that science is important to you? Not pretending. Why do you think I don't care for science, not-so-hot-fella. Quote
hot enough Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: Not pretending. Why do you think I don't care for science, not-so-hot-fella. You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 Just now, hot enough said: You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier.  Nobody is stopping you from having your 9-11 fantasies. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 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. Quote
hot enough Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 13 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:  Nobody is stopping you from having your 9-11 fantasies. [waves to another stark science denier] Quote
OftenWrong Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 5 minutes ago, hot enough said: You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier. Nonsense. I would love to participate in science-based discussion threads here, if there were any. But, there's not... 1 Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 2 minutes ago, hot enough said: [waves to another stark science denier]  Contemplates the actions of chimpanzees. 1 Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017  12 minutes ago, hot enough said: You abhor science. You avoid science unless it suits your purpose. The great science pretender, the science denier. And he's not the only one!  1 The New York Timesus 2 The Guardiangb 3 The Daily Mailgb 4 China Dailycn 5 The Washington Postus 6 The Daily Telegraphgb 7 The Wall Street Journalus 8 USA Todayus 9 The Times of Indiain 10 The Independentgb 11 Los Angeles Timesus 12 El PaĂses 13 Financial Timesgb 14 The People's Dailycn 15 United Daily Newstw 16 The Economic Dailycn 17 Le Mondefr 18 Daily Mirrorgb 19 El Mundoes 20 Daily Newsus 21 La Repubblicait 22 Bildde 23 Le Figarofr 24 The Sydney Morning Heraldau 25 Houston Chronicleus 26 HĂĽrriyettr 27 Chicago Tribuneus 28 The Examinerus 29 New York Postus 30 Asahi Shimbunjp 31 Corriere della Serait 32 The Economic Timesin 33 Milliyet Gazetesitr 34 Marcaes 35 Liberty Timestw 36 Die Weltde 37 The Globe and Mailca 38 Nihon Keizai Shimbunjp 39 The Hollywood Reporterus 40 Sabahtr 41 The Christian Science Monitorus 42 Daily Expressgb 43 Kompasid 44 The Indian Expressin 45 Yomiuri Shimbunjp 46 Gazeta Wyborczapl 47 The Hinduin 48 The Toronto Starca 49 The Sungb 50 The Ageau 51 The Boston Globeus 52 Philippine Daily Inquirerph 53 SĂĽddeutsche Zeitungde 54 The Washington Timesus 55 ClarĂnar 56 Chosun Ilbokr 57 Die Zeitde 58 The Onionus 59 Metrogb 60 ABCes 61 The Seattle Timesus 62 The Timesgb 63 La Gazzetta dello Sportit 64 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitungde 65 The Hillus 66 Dainik Bhaskarin 67 The Philadelphia Inquirerus 68 The Oregonianus 69 The Dong-a Ilbokr 70 La NaciĂłnar 71 The Hindustan Timesin 72 San Jose Mercury Newsus 73 The Dallas Morning Newsus 74 ASes 75 The Australianau 76 Star Tribuneus 77 Qingdao Newscn 78 The Jerusalem Postil 79 The Plain Dealerus 80 L'Equipefr 81 Komsomolskaya Pravdaru 82 The Denver Postus 83 Mladá fronta Dnescz 84 LibĂ©rationfr 85 O Globobr 86 Aftonbladetse 87 The Japan Timesjp 88 Business Standardin 89 Le Nouvel Observateurfr 90 Kommersantru 91 Le Parisienfr 92 The New Zealand Heraldnz 93 Detroit Free Pressus 94 Newsdayus 95 The Baltimore Sunus 96 National Postca 97 Il Sole 24 Oreit 98 The Miami Heraldus 99 The Atlanta Journal-Constitutionus 100 Pittsburgh Post-Gazetteus 101 The Irish Independentie 102 South China Morning Posthk 103 The Irish Timesie 104 The Star Onlinemy 105 De Telegraafnl 106 Dawnpk 107 Der Standardat 108 The Sacramento Beeus 109 20 Minutoses 110 Mainichi Shimbunjp 111 Rossiyskaya Gazetaru 112 Apple Dailytw 113 DNA - Daily News & Analysisin 114 La Stampait 115 Milwaukee Journal Sentinelus 116 20 Minutesfr 117 La Vanguardiaes 118 Evening Standardgb 119 China Timestw 120 The Straits Timessg 121 Orlando Sentinelus 122 Der Tagesspiegelde 123 South Florida Sun-Sentinelus 124 Verdens Gangno 125 Argumenti i Faktiru 126 Boston Heraldus 127 Infobaear 128 Dagbladetno 129 Independent Onlineza 130 The New York Observerus 131 Yeni Safaktr 132 Seattle Post-Intelligencerus 133 The Kansas City Starus 134 Al-Ahrameg 135 The Scotsmangb 136 Nikkan Sportsjp 137 Deseret Newsus 138 Herald Sunau 139 The Vancouver Sunca 140 Yang Cheng Wan Baocn 141 Les Échosfr 142 Gulf Newsae 143 Yedioth Aharonotil 144 Sports Nipponjp 145 The Orange County Registerus 146 Expressense 147 St. Louis Post-Dispatchus 148 Pravda.ruru 149 Handelsblattde 150 The Daily Telegraphau 151 Vedomostiru 152 El Tiempoco 153 Al Wafdeg 154 Bangkok Postth 155 Moskovskiy Komsomoletsru 156 Radikaltr 157 Izvestiaru 158 The Nationalae 159 Yangtse Evening Postcn 160 El Economistaes 161 The Moscow Timesru 162 El Comerciope 163 The Columbus Dispatchus 164 O Estado de SĂŁo Paulobr 165 20 Minutench 166 The News & Observerus 167 Neue ZĂĽrcher Zeitungch 168 Salt Lake Tribuneus 169 De Volkskrantnl 170 Belfast Telegraphgb 171 Hartford Courantus 172 Dainik Jagranin 173 Nanyang Dailycn 174 Toronto Sunca 175 Rheinische Postde 176 El Universalmx 177 Wen Wei Pohk 178 Las Vegas Review-Journalus 179 Daily Stargb 180 Dagens Nyheterse 181 The Detroit Newsus 182 Express-Newsus 183 The Indianapolis Starus 184 El Fagreg 185 The Tennesseanus 186 SözcĂĽtr 187 Arab Newssa 188 Blickch 189 Ilta Sanomatfi 190 ExpansiĂłnes 191 Investor's Business Dailyus 192 The MontrĂ©al Gazetteca 193 Aftenpostenno 194 Zhengzhou Wan Baocn 195 Las Ăšltimas NotĂciascl 196 El Nacionalve 197 Die Tageszeitungde 198 The Buffalo Newsus 199 Chongqing Wan Baocn 200 Zamantr Quote
hot enough Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:  And he's not the only one!  1 The New York Timesus 2 The Guardiangb .. 200 Zamantr And bcsapper. You're even too afraid to quote all your myriad "sources" and discuss their ideas. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:  And he's not the only one!  1 The New York Timesus 2 The Guardiangb 3 The Daily ....etc They're still struggling with the pickle matrix. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 1 minute ago, hot enough said: And bcsapper. You're even too afraid to quote all your myriad "sources" and discuss their ideas. They're not my sources. They're my lack of sources. Quote
TTM Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, blackbird said: Age in something like a tree, or a dinasaur you take for granted but don't ask why it was created with an age. I dont ask why, because I don't believe things were created with a false age.  1 hour ago, blackbird said: Why the big concern about layers in the earth with fossils. 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 1 hour ago, blackbird said:  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. 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? 1 hour ago, blackbird said:  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. 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. Edited June 11, 2017 by TTM 1 Quote
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited June 11, 2017 by blackbird Quote
hot enough Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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. I cannot explain why. 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? Edited June 11, 2017 by hot enough Quote
TTM Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, blackbird said: When you say the earth has a false age, you are assuming the geological time chart is correct. 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.  1 hour ago, blackbird said:  I would tend to believe more from the creation websites with articles from people who have far more knowledge than I do. If you are looking for people with far more knowledge then you, why not scientists as well? 1 hour ago, blackbird said: 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. 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. Edited June 11, 2017 by TTM Quote
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 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.  Quote
hot enough Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 8 minutes ago, blackbird said: Do you mean "believe" instead of "leave"? I don't understand your question.  Why would a dog/a god leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being? Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog/god dictating too fast? Quote
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited June 11, 2017 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 6 minutes ago, hot enough said: Why would a dog/a god leave all these mysteries regarding the all powerful, all knowing, all everything being? Did the bible guys run out of paper? Was dog/god dictating too fast? 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. Quote
TTM Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, blackbird said: 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 not indication the account of creation is meant to be a metaphor 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. So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught? Quote
blackbird Posted June 11, 2017 Report Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) .. Edited June 12, 2017 by blackbird Quote
blackbird Posted June 12, 2017 Report Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, TTM said: So you were taught: you did not come to this conclusion on your own? And you are unwilling to entertain the idea your teacher was mistaken, that the truth might be something other than what you were taught? I was taught, but I can't recall if someone told me that God created everything or if I first read it in Genesis. In any case, because it is clear in the Bible, I accept. "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  Matthew 24:35  I am satisfied the account in Genesis is God's word to be taken literally. The very first verse in the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 KJV (1611) Edited June 12, 2017 by blackbird Quote
OftenWrong Posted June 12, 2017 Report Posted June 12, 2017 2 hours ago, blackbird said: 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. Fine. If the world was created in 6 days as you believe, you should also be aware that the bible says that a day for god is like 1000 years for a man. So you have a conflict in taking it literally. Quote
blackbird Posted June 12, 2017 Report Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, OftenWrong said: Fine. If the world was created in 6 days as you believe, you should also be aware that the bible says that a day for god is like 1000 years for a man. So you have a conflict in taking it literally. Check this article. Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation http://creation.com/keith-h-wanser-physics-in-six-days Edited June 12, 2017 by blackbird Quote
hot enough Posted June 12, 2017 Report Posted June 12, 2017 2 hours ago, OftenWrong said: the bible says A work of fiction written by a bunch of Neanderthal thinkers in order to dupe people. Why no new Sodom and Gomorrahs? All these fables only happened in the far distant past when there are men and countries more evil than long ago. It's all pure bullshit, unadulterated. Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.