quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There are nebulae where dust and gas and other debris in a nova or supernova clearly came from a central star, the remnants of which still exists, and in no case do we find that any such nebulae have been expanding for more than 12,000 years.
Okay (taking your word on that), but what about the other mountains of evidence that support an old universe? When you find one flaw, that does not negate the overall answer. How about the fact that carbon dating (along with the DOZENS of other dating methods that they use in conjunction with CD, which they then compare and verify with) tells us that fossils and the Earth are far older than ten thousand years? We are talking about dozens of dating methods that do not overlap or use the same dating source elements and still result in the same point of origin. It is impossible for them to all be wrong.
quote:All evolutionists are wrong. Period. Evolution is impossible, and the presence of alternate genetic code that is not expressed in the genome proves it is wrong.
First, only Sith deal in absolutes. Second, Evolution is not impossible. We have proven it to exist in nature. We've observed that species adapt and change over time according to their environment. This is a fact and it is true. Here are some examples:
Black people. Darker skin pigmentation due to the fact that their ancestors lived closer to the equator and endured a warmer environment.
Strains of viruses and bacteria evolve constantly to their environments.
More and more elephants are being born without tusks, due to the fact that all the elephants with tusks are getting killed by poachers.
Hudson River Fish are Becoming Immune to Toxic Waste.
Some lizards are rapidly evolving after getting introduced to an island and thus a new home. Ten of them were brought over at first, but then decades later there were hundreds of them and they went from being carnivores to eating plants. The thing is, they had to completely rebuild their digestive system to do it. They also grew larger heads and a harder bite.
Because of pollution, peppered moths are changing their colors. They were one color at first and they would cling to trees to hide and eat, but then when the pollution came and covered the trees, the moths could be seen and they died. Eventually they started to change colors because the moths were favorable colors survived. Half a century later and 98% of the moths were the new color.
Now remember, Evolution is adaptability. It is survival of the fittest. It is simply a series of small changes that happen that drive the survivability of a species forward. Eventually, enough of these changes occur and we get a new species. Now, we've found fossil after fossil after fossil showing that there are links between these animals, proving that these changes happen and have happened in the past. Saying that evolution is wrong is a refusal to see the truth.
This in no way means that your religion is wrong. This in no way means that your God doesn't exist. You can still believe in God and believe in Evolution. But when you see something like Evolution and you disregard it simply of a fluke or two, well, you're doing yourself a disservice. Evolution is not perfect. Nothing is. It is scientific and therefore open to change and open to growth. But the theory as a whole is true and has been both observed and proven over and over again. We know this. That is why the Catholic Church admits to it and teaches it on an official level. My student bible even talks about it briefly. I mean, the Pope agreed that it was true as far back as the 50's, for crying out loud. Over a hundred countries accept it as fact. Every major scientific committee and organization in the modern world accepts it.
You don't have to believe this stuff, but there's too much evidence in favor of it for me to say it isn't true. When we can observe it happening in the real world, it's hard to deny its authenticity.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it does kind of mean he can't believe in HIS god. That is part of the problem. If you take out any part of the bible, the whole thing can then be questioned. All of a sudden you believe in a higher power, and at best a divinely inspired written by man bible. This is not the same god Ron believes in. This is a god that has not done ANY of the things he believes. This is a non-active god that lets countless millions starve to death with no biblical prophecies pointing towards a brighter tomorrow. Creationists cannot accept that kind of god.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also like how he says we're stupid for believing in evolution, something supported by science when he tries so very hard to use science as a sort of "judo argument".
If the world doesn't end by 2014 does that mean he has to drop his faith?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe any of the YEC claims. But I do find it to be a bit black and white to say that NONE of the things written in the Bible could have therefore happened. God parting the Red Sea, for example, does not have to contradict the facts of evolution or science. We may not be able to come up with any scientific explanation of how it happened, but not understanding is not the same thing as saying it is a contradiction with the facts of reality.
I always find it odd when people want to use statements from the Bible as though it were a scientific, scholarly text. If God wanted the creation story to be a scientific explanation of creation, it is a pretty sucky attempt. It seems pretty obvious to me that it is meant to be a literary account. To say "and on that day God created the beasts" and then extrapolate scientific data from that is pretty ludicrous in my mind. You can still believe in the Bible as containing divinely inspired writings with real accounts of real events, and still recognize it is not a scientific text. There is no attempt within the Bible to prove its own claims through evidence. It is narrative history, not scientific history. If God is real, He seems utterly uninterested in proving Himself to us through scientific proofs. This completely lines up with all of the scriptures emphasizing faith while in this mortal life.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just as God created mature trees in the Garden of Eden, which seemed to be hundreds of years old, because that is what He wanted, so He could create a universe with apparent age as well, because that is what He wanted.
Pssst, Jeff. In fact, God did this just yesterday! God also gave us false memories of everything that we think happened before 5:02 yesterday afternoon when He created the universe. We also were created with apparent age when, really, we were all born yesterday.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I don't believe any of the YEC claims. But I do find it to be a bit black and white to say that NONE of the things written in the Bible could have therefore happened. God parting the Red Sea, for example, does not have to contradict the facts of evolution or science. We may not be able to come up with any scientific explanation of how it happened, but not understanding is not the same thing as saying it is a contradiction with the facts of reality.
You would think that there would have been a separate historical account for something that big though. There is also historical doubt that the Jews were even slaves in Egypt to begin. We are already pretty sure the day workers that built the pyramids were paid.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pssst, Jeff. In fact, God did this just yesterday! God also gave us false memories of everything that we think happened before 5:02 yesterday afternoon when He created the universe. We also were created with apparent age when, really, we were all born yesterday.
quote:Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. People's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth. It forms both a philosophical point about how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of some young-Earth creationist ideas; if the world was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what stops us simply claiming it was made last Thursday in the same manner?
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Actually it does kind of mean he can't believe in HIS god. That is part of the problem. If you take out any part of the bible, the whole thing can then be questioned. All of a sudden you believe in a higher power, and at best a divinely inspired written by man bible. This is not the same god Ron believes in. This is a god that has not done ANY of the things he believes. This is a non-active god that lets countless millions starve to death with no biblical prophecies pointing towards a brighter tomorrow. Creationists cannot accept that kind of god.
Actually, the Catholic Church, as I stated before, has officially declared their support of evolution and an old Earth.
There are multiple ways for a person to believe in both. For example, you can believe in the gap theory. You can believe that the six day creation myth was actually an "Epic myth" which was used to tell a story in order to teach us a lesson, rather than for historical purposes (this is the Catholic belief). You can believe in what Gerald Schroeder, a Jewish physicist, says about the age of the Universe and how it fits into the Bible.
Or, as you said, you can accept the bible as being divinely inspired by God, but not written by him. After all, the entirety of the bible was not even compiled and agreed upon by the Christian churches until the Council of Mycenae in 300AD. Before that, people were reading different books from different authors, many of which were ultimately left out of the Bible. These books included the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas, and the book of Enoch (which, ironically, New Testament authors actually reference). So which bible is the right one? Martin Luther believed this version was ultimately flawed, and so he posted his 95 complaints and now the Protestant Bible has three or four less books in it.
Regardless, you need to keep an open mind. The more progress is made in the world on these fronts, the more people will ultimately believe in the science. Every year that passes, more knowledge is unearthed and more evidence is brought forth in support of Evolution and an old Universe. As this happens, only a small handful of people will still believe the Earth is young, and they will be considered fools, just like the people who can't accept that we landed on the Moon, or that Dinosaurs are real (God put them there to test our faith!!!!!!).
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Just as God created mature trees in the Garden of Eden, which seemed to be hundreds of years old, because that is what He wanted, so He could create a universe with apparent age as well, because that is what He wanted.
My problem with this is simple. This implies that God is deceptive, like he's trying to trick us. Why create something and then make it so that when we look at it, we're tricked? I don't want to worship a god that does that. That's evil. Trickery and deception are tools of the Devil, are they not? If God made the Universe look old and, being omnipotent, knew that we would study it and thus believe it to be old, he is an evil god.
I choose instead to believe that God is good, and that he would rather present the facts as they are, rather than lie to me for no apparent reason.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff, the variations within species that you refer to have been offered by evolutionist con artists as evidence of evolution to the gullible for many years. But no new genetic code is being written. The alternate characteristics that are expressed come from genetic code that was already encoded within the original genome, but switched off. Such on-off switches have been identified in the genetic code. New variations in species are only seen when previously unexpressed genetic code is switched on.
Since there is no way that natural selection can operate to produce genetic code for alternative characteristics that are not expressed, the fact that such alternative genetic code does exist is proof that there is no evolution. There had to be an Intelligent Designer to write all the code in the genome of each species, including the alternative genetic code that is not expressed. It is ironic that the very evidence that evolutionists have been pointing to as evidence of evolution in actual fact is what finally and conclusively disproves evolution.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison, what Dawkins denounced is probably something good. He was one of the most dishonest false scientists who has ever lived. He never had the guts to debate a knowledgeable creationist, despite repeated challenges.
Why should anyone claim God is being deceptive? He has told us how He created the Universe--by the power of His Word. He told us His purpose in doing so--so there would be a universe filled with light. So there can be nothing deceptive about Him creating a universe in which some would claim there is apparent age--based on their wrong assumptions that leave God out of their calculations. Of course they will be wrong. But it is not God's fault they are deceived. God's comment on all of this is simple: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" (Psalms 14:1; 53:1; NASB)
Those who embrace a cosmology that says in essence, "In the beginning was nothing, and then nothing exploded and became the ordered universe," are like the pseudo-scientist who walked out onto the Golden Gate Bridge with his primitive lab equipment and loudly announced that he was going to find out how the Golden Gate Bridge built itself, refusing to consult with any of the accounts of the architects and engineers. This is what some people suppose to be "objective science."
[ November 22, 2013, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Elison, what Dawkins denounced is probably something good. He was one of the most dishonest and dishonorable false scientists who has ever lived.
A. Was? Is he dead? B. As a scientist myself, I'd call a "dishonorable" and "dishonest" scientist someone who 1. hacks into other scientists computers and steals their results 2. or falsifies his results like the autism and vaccines guy, resulting in the deaths of children and the return of disease that should have been eradicated. If we want to keep going on this vein, we can also add someone who 3. halts the peer review process to get their own work out.
If he was up in front of an ethics board for anything, it would be on his wikipedia page. It isn't.
posted
For Ron Lambert, the word "dishonesty" means "disagreeing with Ron Lambert" and it's no different with how he is describing Dawkins.
Dawkins, far from being a coward, had a very elegant and well-stated reason for not wanting to waste time debating creationists.
quote:Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice. He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it." The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all. They need the publicity. We don't. To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms." Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.
I have followed his advice ever since, and I was reminded of it again in 2001 when I was invited by a third party to take part in a debate with, among several other evolutionists and creationists, the lawyer Phillip Johnson, high priest of the 'Intelligent Design' sect of creationists. I refused, as usual. Johnson then refused too, and his letter (which he copied to me) brought back with a vengeance Steve Gould's words about creationists' real motives. Here is what Johnson said:
"It isn't worth my while to debate every ambitious Darwinist who wants to try his hand at ridiculing the opposition, so my general policy is that Darwinists have to put a significant figure at risk before I will agree to a debate. That means specifically Dawkins or Gould, or someone of like stature and public visibility."
Look at all these coward false scientists!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say I particularly blame Dawkins for that approach. I can understand it, particularly given the sort of riff-raff he would often be faced with. As Ron is showing us so well, openly and adamantly YEC/literalist proponents aren't necessarily much for putting forward an honest debate, and they certainly do pander. Furthermore it would be one thing for him, as a scientist, to face the special frustration of adamant and smug utter rejection of scientific principles while claiming to endorse them. Would get to be grating.
All of that said though, I find I'm more a fan of the approach of Christopher Hitchens. A willingness to vigorously and articulately meet any challenge that came up, even on its own home territory-I can't really fault anyone for failing to have that sort of stamina, but I'm fairly close to thinking it's an ideal.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it really reasonable to believe that virus-administered junk DNA is responsible for Collies and Great Danes and Cocker Spaniels arising from Wolves? Or Jaguars arising from Lions? Is this what produced edible almonds from bitter almoinds, and blue roses from red? This amounts to making viruses the Intelligent Designer. How much blind stupidity will otherwise intelligent people buy into, before they will admit the utter falsity of the theory of life origins that has been promulgated by people who are only motivated by a desire to prove God is not necessary, so they won't have to face His judgment?
There's a very simple process for creating non-bitter almonds that is well understood, Ron. There are many species of almond that exist, and some are more bitter from cyanide than others. Almonds that have less cyanide a) taste good and b) are extremely useful in terms of nutrition for farmers and hunter gatherers.
Tens of thousands of years ago, humans (paying careful attention to which foods tasted good and filled them up and were easy to gather) noticed these things and began, in fits and starts and in many ways, to cultivate these almonds that had less cyanide in them. Over time they pared back those almonds which they didn't want, and multiply this process into many, many thousands of generations of plants and you begin to see how non-bitter almonds 'magically' appeared.
It's certainly an easier explanation that can be directly observed than a magic bearded man who lives in the sky. 'Blind stupidity' indeed-even for you I'm surprised you don't have a better rejection than this. Jaguars, collies (dogs, you even pull this nonsense with dogs, which we can breed and create new breeds ourselves-industries are built on it!), on and on, simple well-known explanations exist for these things. Explanations that even a layman such as myself are familiar with, so I know you are too.
But, no. They're not just wrong, they're cowards, liars, blasphemers. It's certainly not clear to you but it is to others-when someone begins applying hysterically inflated charges in an argument, it's generally a sign they don't have much of an argument.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jeff, the variations within species that you refer to have been offered by evolutionist con artists as evidence of evolution to the gullible for many years.
Ron, why are you insulting people? Only people who feel like they're losing an argument end up yelling and insulting the other side. You clearly have anamosity built up against evolutionists and real scientists. Scientists are not con artists; they are scientists. They are seekers of truth. These people gain very little from researching and painstakingly working to understand the universe. Why do you hate them so much? Is it because you are afraid?
Believe whatever you want. I really don't care. But don't go insulting the rest of us because we believe the same things as 99% of the scientific community. You are the minority here. You are the one who has willingly set aside common, widely accepted scientific data.
I'm done arguing with you now.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only people who feel like they're losing an argument end up yelling and insulting the other side.
Totally not true. Tons of people here are not afraid whatsoever of ever losing or having lost an argument with ron but will still brazenly insult him. Usually, they're just excruciatingly tired of him and his crap.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, no. They're not just wrong, they're cowards, liars, blasphemers. It's certainly not clear to you but it is to others-when someone begins applying hysterically inflated charges in an argument, it's generally a sign they don't have much of an argument.
If you disagree with ron strenuously enough he processes it as evidence of literal demonic corruption. It's not that he doesn't have an argument which is perfect and clear to all open-minded individuals and inerrant in its wisdom and clarity and one in its truth with God, it's that you are in league with literally satan and it is about the only thing that can keep the magnificence of his persuasive argument from reaching you and bringing you into the light.
like not even making that up, we remember this right
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Only people who feel like they're losing an argument end up yelling and insulting the other side.
Totally not true. Tons of people here are not afraid whatsoever of ever losing or having lost an argument with ron but will still brazenly insult him. Usually, they're just excruciatingly tired of him and his crap.
Does OSC believe in Evolution? I remember reading in one of his newer books where he references it and treats it as fact. Yet the man is a Christian, and not just any Christian, but a conservative Mormon.
I mean, the guy is against gay marriage and all that stuff because the Bible tells him so, and yet even he accepts that Evolution is true. Is he possessed by the devil?
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Card is not conservative. Certainly not by self definition. He is certainly more conservative than most Democrats, but he still identifies as one.
2) Card does believe in evolution - it's been a consistent theme in his books since at least Xenocide, if not Ender's Game (the novel). He's even written at least one column where he calls out the ID movement for being bad science.
3) Card may have religious objections to gay marriage, but his articles concerning the subject are much more dependent on theories about society, nature, and psychology than anything the Bible or Book of Mormon says.
Also, just as not all young earth creationists are Usherites, not all think that those who believe in evolution are demon possessed.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Also, I know very well that not everyone believes evolutionists are demon-possessed. I was referring to only Ron.
Jeff, is this the only way you can counter my factual, evidence-based, and entirely logical arguments? To ascribe to me thoughts and motives that you merely make up in your own mind, and pretend apply to me? I have proven that evolution is wrong and impossible. Therefore evolution is bad science. Those who make a career of pushing the false science of evolution cannot be considered real scientists. They are anti-scientists, because they are anti-science.
Teachers who teach evolution to children are guilty of child abuse, and must answer for many of the violent acts of lawlessness and selfish cruelty seen in recent generations, who have been taught that man is merely the product of blind chance, and that there is no God to whom they must answer in Judgment. It is historical, documented fact that Adolph Hitler justified his attempted genocide of the Jewish people by invoking the evolution theory he was taught in school.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Do you deny you've stated in the past that people who disagree with you are under the influence of Satan, and this in part explains their supposed imperviousness to the truth of your arguments?
In any event, first there are a number of pointed, direct rebuttals to your 'proofs' which you haven't answered. Second, evolution doesn't teach that humanity exists due to 'blind chance'-your use of that phrase in this context betrays your very poor understanding of evolution, in fact. Third, you may lie all you like about Hitler, but the fact is that anti-Semitism had its roots in Christianity for literally nearly thousands of years before what you claim he was taught in school. Support for national-level prejudice, bigotry, and then violence against Jews undeniably did not stem from a belief in evolution. It was religious, cultural, and political before it was ever anything else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teaching evolution is not teaching "there is no God" and its definitely not teaching "there is no God so be as evil as you want."
YE God is 10,000 years old. God as seen in evolution is billions of years old. YE God is all about one little earth and its small history. God that creates evolution spans a universe that is Millions or Billions of Galaxies large.
I believe in evolution, and I believe in a mighty, ageless, universe expanding God that still focuses on the tiniest person, sparrow, atom, and quark.
You believe in a small God Ron.
You believe in a petty God, who has used his great creation--the Universe--to try and fool and deceive humans into eternal damnation.
I believe in evolution, in the universe not as I can understand it, or that I can put within the pages of one small book, but in a creation that spans thousands of centuries, where the creators truths are written in the smallest particles and the largest congregations of stars. It is a grand and glorious creation, filled with mysteries and wonder to fulfill us mere mortals.
God created reality, and to fudge, or lie, or ignore any part of it is to turn away from part of God. I believe in a God bigger than the Universe, whom we have not yet begun to understand and perceive. Yet God gives us the tools to do work on that understanding and perception.
You believe in a God that fits between the covers of one book, written and translated and passed down through generations of imperfect mortal hands.
You believe in a morality written in black and white on pages thousands of years old, which must be translated and understood only by experts, who list them for you.
I believe that there are four true sources for all evil in the world, and as long as I work against all of them, what I do is moral. Those four evils are Pain, Self-Absorption, Ignorance, and Entropy. There opposites are divine states I seek to attain, Joy, Love, Enlightenment, and Creativity. To Love like God, to be Enlightened like God, to Create like God and to give Joy like God, these are my goals. Are they the evil, Nazi, eugenics goal you assume all Evolutionists harbor? I am sorry to disappoint.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Teachers who teach evolution to children are guilty of child abuse, and must answer for many of the violent acts of lawlessness and selfish cruelty seen in recent generations, who have been taught that man is merely the product of blind chance, and that there is no God to whom they must answer in Judgment. It is historical, documented fact that Adolph Hitler justified his attempted genocide of the Jewish people by invoking the evolution theory he was taught in school.
You have proved nothing but your own amazing ignorance. If any part of your brain blames evolution for Hitler, than every other human should connect creationism to the murder of countless millions. My great parents were not gassed to death because of evolution. They were gassed to death because of extremism and the fear of change, something you know all too well.
Not only do I teach evolution in my science class, I also teach the Epic of Gilgamesh in my history class. I let them draw their own conclusions, but I definitely encourage them to connect it to the bible in the hope they will see the myths for what they really are. More than a few of them have.
Creationism isn't a science. It never will be a science. It is an example of the blind leading the blind.
I do envy the faith in a higher power that people have. But all evidence points away from it. I will even go so far as to say I hope you are right. So when I answer for "child abuse" as you so aptly put it, I can spit in your mythological god's eye and go hang out in Hell with the likes of Mark Twain and Albert Einstein.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Also, I know very well that not everyone believes evolutionists are demon-possessed. I was referring to only Ron.
Jeff, is this the only way you can counter my factual, evidence-based, and entirely logical arguments? To ascribe to me thoughts and motives that you merely make up in your own mind, and pretend apply to me? I have proven that evolution is wrong and impossible. Therefore evolution is bad science. Those who make a career of pushing the false science of evolution cannot be considered real scientists. They are anti-scientists, because they are anti-science.
Teachers who teach evolution to children are guilty of child abuse, and must answer for many of the violent acts of lawlessness and selfish cruelty seen in recent generations, who have been taught that man is merely the product of blind chance, and that there is no God to whom they must answer in Judgment. It is historical, documented fact that Adolph Hitler justified his attempted genocide of the Jewish people by invoking the evolution theory he was taught in school.
Ron Lambert, you coccoon yourself in swaths of self-affirming terminology which you think amounts to a scientific discipline, when actually it is you who have have no idea what genuine, actual reality is.
Another way to say it is that you have been brainwashed by creationists in positions of authority over you "teaching" you their "truth" since childhood on.
When all other argument and what you think is persuasion fail, you resort to insults and ridicule, because at the heart of it you cannot respect challenges to your world view. You cannot agree to disagree, you cannot admit that your opponents have reasonable positions that are supported by real evidence; you have to despise. I have witnessed this over and over again, so that I can only conclude that this must be an inherent characteristic of all defenders of creationism that eventually turns up sooner or later. It is not just your brainwashed world view that scientists must contend with, they must also endure your hatred. Have you ever asked yourselves who is really pulling your strings, and making you feel the things that you feel?
Yes. Satanic influence. You are influenced by devils to believe false things.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Teaching evolution is not teaching "there is no God" and its definitely not teaching "there is no God so be as evil as you want."
YE God is 10,000 years old. God as seen in evolution is billions of years old. YE God is all about one little earth and its small history. God that creates evolution spans a universe that is Millions or Billions of Galaxies large.
I believe in evolution, and I believe in a mighty, ageless, universe expanding God that still focuses on the tiniest person, sparrow, atom, and quark.
You believe in a small God Ron.
You believe in a petty God, who has used his great creation--the Universe--to try and fool and deceive humans into eternal damnation.
I believe in evolution, in the universe not as I can understand it, or that I can put within the pages of one small book, but in a creation that spans thousands of centuries, where the creators truths are written in the smallest particles and the largest congregations of stars. It is a grand and glorious creation, filled with mysteries and wonder to fulfill us mere mortals.
God created reality, and to fudge, or lie, or ignore any part of it is to turn away from part of God. I believe in a God bigger than the Universe, whom we have not yet begun to understand and perceive. Yet God gives us the tools to do work on that understanding and perception.
You believe in a God that fits between the covers of one book, written and translated and passed down through generations of imperfect mortal hands.
You believe in a morality written in black and white on pages thousands of years old, which must be translated and understood only by experts, who list them for you.
I believe that there are four true sources for all evil in the world, and as long as I work against all of them, what I do is moral. Those four evils are Pain, Self-Absorption, Ignorance, and Entropy. There opposites are divine states I seek to attain, Joy, Love, Enlightenment, and Creativity. To Love like God, to be Enlightened like God, to Create like God and to give Joy like God, these are my goals. Are they the evil, Nazi, eugenics goal you assume all Evolutionists harbor? I am sorry to disappoint.
I'm LDS, and this is what I believe as well. Not all members agree with me, and in fact I'd say the majority do not.
What does time mean to God if He is truly infinite and all-powerful?
In Genesis, it says God essentially created the universe in six days. How would you explain eternity to someone? It is like explaining what salt tastes like. We literally cannot comprehend eternity, because we have never experienced it. How would God explain eternity to beings whose lives are governed by time?
If you look at the creation story in Genesis, it states that the creation of the universe was a process. The concept of time is never really dealt with in the bible. It simply calls the time periods "days" and leaves it at that.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, the Genesis account of Creation says "the evening and the morning were the first day," etc. And on the seventh day He rested, and He ordained and sanctified that day to stand as a memorial to His Creation of earth, codified within the Ten Commandments, written by His own finger on tablets of stone. That is pretty explicit and precise. The account does not indicate that the whole universe was created during the Genesis Creation week; obviously something existed prior to the Creation of life on earth, since it says that the "Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." (Gen. 1:1; NASB)
But there is no physical evidence that indicates we must conclude the universe is billions of years old. Some claim there is; but they are willfully blind to the persuasive arguments against that interpretation of the evidence. Belief in a vast age for the universe is based solely upon the desperation of evolutionists to provide enough time for the impossibility of evolution to seem somehow less implausible. It is the hand-waving of con-men, hoping the masses will be flummoxed and impressed by the trumpeted credentials of the liars.
Nor does the Bible indicate that the universe always existed. There is an eternity future spoken of in the Bible. But not eternity in the past. Obviously time as well as space had to have a beginning. It is not a valid question to ask what time it was before time was created--because there was no time before time was created, so the question by definition is meaningless. The first words of the Bible are: "In the beginning God...." That is what was first.
I find it difficult to believe that God would have the universe go on for billions of years, before finally dealing with the cataclysmic problem of the rise of sinful rebellion against the Creator. The Bible indicates that an angel named Lucifer is the one who originated sin, and likely was the first angel God created (since he is called the "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12). The Bible also flatly declares that God knows "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). So this indicates to me that God purposed to deal with the sin problem proactively, as soon as possible; therefore He created Lucifer first. For a time Lucifer lived harmoniously in Heaven. He lead the choirs of angels. He was one of the two covering cherubs, who were closest to God, flanking the throne of God. It does not seem likely to me that it took billions of years for the apostasy of Lucifer to develop and ripen into open rebellion. These things speak of a mere duration of thousands of years, not billions.
[ November 25, 2013, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, most of what you and your snarling cohorts have to say is unworthy of response. But I will note this: I was originally an evolutionist. I believed in evolution, until sometime after the age of 15 I began re-examining the issue objectively, and I concluded that the scientific evidence favored Creation by God.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strange, isn't it-that actual scientists, those people who make the pursuit of verifiable truth and are the ones who make useful discoveries whose benefits we can plainly see here in the real world...they almost never, ever follow that same path.
What useful discoveries has your Creationism based 'science' led to? Prayer healing? I look around for all of these marvels I ought to be able to attribute to your belief system, and all I see is a bunch of 'it's so obvious' and 'it's already been proven' and 'if you didn't rebel against God, you would see...' I don't look around and see any medical breakthroughs. I don't look around and see any advancements in agriculture. I don't see any bridges built using Creationist 'science'. I don't even see any new weapons systems or computer programs.
Oh, and again-whine and lie all you like about Samprimary's 'cohorts', but (if there's even the slightest chance) don't lie to yourself: you are reliably and loudly more insulting than anything said to you. Unprompted you attributed the Holocaust and anti-Semiti and even WWII to evolution, and labelled science teachers child abusers. You're a bully but at least as can be thankful that your fawning, toadying behavior to your deity no longer has the protection of just the status quo, and so it has to stand and fall on its own merits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, most of what you and your snarling cohorts have to say is unworthy of response.
But why, exactly? Are you going to claim that what I'm saying is offensive and in a uselessly antagonistic tone? One that I should not use if I want to prove I'm intent on honestly debating the issue with you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The speed of light is a constant, for the light of even the closest stars to reach us, they would've had to travel for something at the order of 20,000 years minimum.
Literal Biblical account is disproven, I'll be providing you some crow.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well now, technically the closest star is only 4.3 lightyears away. Additionally, Ron is about to claim either that the speed of light isn't constant, or that the light was created already on the way here.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it's that claim which completely invalidates his model. As pointed out earlier, if everything could be created 6000 years ago with the apparent age of billions of years, then it could just as easily have been created 20 minutes ago, again with the apparently much greater age. Certainly it's within God's capacity to do so.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dawn of creation was actually the premiere episode of Magic Johnson's The Magic Hour, with all of humankind experiencing either an implanted hallucinatory vision of false prior time, or the gradual descent and inexorable loss of our zenith after the cancellation of our Genesis.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well now, technically the closest star is only 4.3 lightyears away. Additionally, Ron is about to claim either that the speed of light isn't constant, or that the light was created already on the way here.
Which is hilarious, because you can't argue against "magic". After all, I can say all day long that a great Spaghetti Monster created the universe in three days and that we've only been alive for five thousand years. You can't disprove it. Every piece of evidence you provide, I can dismiss. The light stuff? Spaghetti Monster made the light instantly appear here. All those dinosaur bones? Placed there because the Spaghetti Monster wanted to test our faith.
Obviously.
And this is why people like Ron can't be reasoned with. You guys shouldn't even try anymore. He is going to keep believing in that narrow minded, mightier-than-thou philosophy and there's nothing you can do about it. It's sad, but that's how it is.
Also, Ron, you have not disproven evolution. You're a fool if you think that. You are playing with pseudo-science, which is to say, it isn't science at all. Anytime you answer a question with "God did it", it stops being science and it starts becoming religion. Your belief is religious and biased and completely irrational. Stop fooling yourself.
I mean, come on. What's more likely? That there's a vast conspiracy between all scientists across every known field all over the world, or that you simply are wrong?
Personally, I'm sticking with the PhD's on this one.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bear in mind, the important "scientific" proof of the Bible, to Ron, is not to be found in Genesis; it is to be found in Daniel.
The belief that Daniel was written decades after the historical events it describes, and that the later books of the New Testament laying out the genealogy and actions of the Messiah were written specifically to comply with the requirements of Daniel and Isaiah, is one that would completely invalidate his faith. But pointing out that the Genesis account is ridiculous is always going to wind up with a "But...Magic!" response from him, since his faith is actually rooted somewhere else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Geraine, the Genesis account of Creation says "the evening and the morning were the first day," etc. And on the seventh day He rested, and He ordained and sanctified that day to stand as a memorial to His Creation of earth, codified within the Ten Commandments, written by His own finger on tablets of stone. That is pretty explicit and precise. The account does not indicate that the whole universe was created during the Genesis Creation week; obviously something existed prior to the Creation of life on earth, since it says that the "Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters." (Gen. 1:1; NASB)
But there is no physical evidence that indicates we must conclude the universe is billions of years old. Some claim there is; but they are willfully blind to the persuasive arguments against that interpretation of the evidence. Belief in a vast age for the universe is based solely upon the desperation of evolutionists to provide enough time for the impossibility of evolution to seem somehow less implausible. It is the hand-waving of con-men, hoping the masses will be flummoxed and impressed by the trumpeted credentials of the liars.
Nor does the Bible indicate that the universe always existed. There is an eternity future spoken of in the Bible. But not eternity in the past. Obviously time as well as space had to have a beginning. It is not a valid question to ask what time it was before time was created--because there was no time before time was created, so the question by definition is meaningless. The first words of the Bible are: "In the beginning God...." That is what was first.
I find it difficult to believe that God would have the universe go on for billions of years, before finally dealing with the cataclysmic problem of the rise of sinful rebellion against the Creator. The Bible indicates that an angel named Lucifer is the one who originated sin, and likely was the first angel God created (since he is called the "son of the morning" in Isaiah 14:12). The Bible also flatly declares that God knows "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). So this indicates to me that God purposed to deal with the sin problem proactively, as soon as possible; therefore He created Lucifer first. For a time Lucifer lived harmoniously in Heaven. He lead the choirs of angels. He was one of the two covering cherubs, who were closest to God, flanking the throne of God. It does not seem likely to me that it took billions of years for the apostasy of Lucifer to develop and ripen into open rebellion. These things speak of a mere duration of thousands of years, not billions.
You are using "time" to rationalize your way of thinking though Ron. Do you know how long it took God to create the Earth? The Universe? How long Satan/Lucifer and the rest of us resided with God before we came to this planet?
Again, time is a man made creation. If in the Bible it said "In the beginning God spent 4 billion years causing the emptiness of space to expand into a universe from a singularity" do you think most people would understand what that meant? When a vision of the creation was shown to Moses, how do you think he could interpret how long it took to create the earth?
In 2nd Peter it actually says a day to God is "Like unto a thousand years." Notice the statement wasn't "It is a thousand years." it was "LIKE UNTO." In other words, a very long time. Look at that in the scope of the creation. Major events took place, and each of them took time. Billions of years for the universe to expand. The earth's core and crust being formed. Water receding from the land. Life evolving and becoming plants and animals.
God setting these events in motion doesn't diminish his power. Ask yourself this: Why did God take 7 days to make the earth? Why didn't he just snap his fingers and make the universe and earth appear instantaneously?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I have previously referred you to the best, most recent scholarship that proves that the book of Daniel was written when it purports to be written, in about 600 B.C. Even if it had been written in 200 B.C., as some skeptics claim, in hopes of explaining away the precision of the prophetic outline of history given in Daniel 11, that still does not do away with the fact that Daniel's prophecies correctly outline world history clear up to the present. Consider again Daniel two, with its prediction that the Roman Empire would not give rise to yet another world empire, as had happened previously four times, but instead would be changed into a religio-political entity, and after that would be divided into the "ten toes," as the barbarian tribes who conquered Rome went on to found the modern nations of Europe. Then I could take you through the seven seals, which predicted the great World Wars (the second seal), and the dominion of the "command economy" of Soviet-style communism, plus the fall of the same as the people finally judged the system wanting (the third seal).
The prophecies of Daniel 9:24-27, which correctly points to the exact year that Yeshua Messiah was annointed, and when He would be sacrificed (but "not for Himself"), was in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and no one disputes that those date from at least 100 years before the birth of Christ.
By the way, there are many qualified scientists with actual Ph.D.s who admit that the Intelligent Design hypothesis makes a lot more sense, and better explains the observed phenomena, than does evolution. I have provided this information previously, but you evidently ignored it. If you dare to expose yourself to the actual reality of how many scientists support Creation/Intelligent Design, check the website for the Creation Research Society Quarterly: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html
And of the majority of scientists who pay lip-service to evolution, I wonder how many of them have serious reservations about it, but are afraid to speak openly about it because they have seen what has happened to others who have spoken out--denial of grants, denial of tenure, and other forms of overt persecution. As documented in the movie Ben Stein made, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. A movie I highly recommend.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, I have previously referred you to the best, most recent scholarship...
*sigh* Ron, please understand that I do not believe you capable of evaluating Biblical scholarship.
quote:By the way, there are many qualified scientists with actual Ph.D.s who admit that the Intelligent Design hypothesis makes a lot more sense, and better explains the observed phenomena, than does evolution. I have provided this information previously, but you evidently ignored it.
Ron, we've discussed this at length. I remember your points, because I read what you write and am capable of remembering things. Do you remember how I destroyed you in that last conversation? Do you recall what my rebuttals were?
I don't need you to agree to those rebuttals, mind. I'm just curious if you remember what they were. I suspect that they failed to penetrate the forcefield you have set up around your cerebellum.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, you are not a very trustworthy evaluator of the merits of our debate. You have never "destroyed" me in any conversation, ever, except obviously in your own mind. Any rebuttals you actually attempted (beyond resorting to sheer insult and ridicule) were invalid, as I showed. You show yourself unworthy of being taken seriously.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hands up, anyone here who thinks I have failed to destroy Ron in argument?
For that matter, anyone who thinks that Ron has managed to conclusively prove any of his assertions -- ever -- can speak up now. Except for Ron. We know how he feels about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Ron's made it clear that persons and authorities to be listened to and respected on these matters are carefully pre-selected. By definition, disagreement means you're not to be paid any mind and in fact the very act of disagreeing serves (in his mind at least) as a further criticism of the one disagreeing and praise for Ron and his point of view.
It's all a very neat arrangement, but the good part about it is that it's very easy to recognize that sort of thinking for what it is. To those not captured by it, approaching the conversation for the first time, Ron might appear to be honest when he says he respects science and scientists. He even puts on a decent show to those who might not know him. But it's easy to illustrate the confirmation-bias-run-wild by calling to mind that when he or people like him bring forth an expert, it's not the product of careful consideration and research the way we usually think of it. Instead, each authority that's respected, each article that's linked, is the deliberate result of a conscious or unconscious selection process that pressupposes the answer. A google search won't read 'how old is the universe', for instance, but 'Biblical age of the universe' or 'creationist timeline' or something. The question won't be 'what was the major source of anti-semitism prior to WWII', it'll be 'how was Evolution responsible for the Holocaust?'
So there's that at least. As obstinate, dishonest, hypocritical, and insulting a participant as you routinely are, Ron, at least you serve as a cautionary tale. And if anyone takes issue with that characterization, I'm happy to refer them to scientists as fraudulent child abusers and evolution believers as Holocaust causers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
