Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Nimos]

Possibly by dropping the fanatical belief that the past was the same? Otherwise you have nothing to compare in your mind, and no clue if a comparison is needed or possible.

Im being open minded here. Based on what you have told me so far, I do not expect the alternative nature to have anything to do with the present. I am simply curious to hear how you believe that it were back then.

If I did, and had a choice which one to go to I would choose one that did not whack babies. I also would go to one in the present time and nature. This has what to do with the far past?

Well I assume Satan is part of the present, if he could spread his lies to the scientists? Weren't that what you meant with "Satan comes along and blows lies into man's ears and uses the voice of science partially to do it." the science you keep bashing, is that of present time right? But hospitals and the technology, medicin etc. comes from these satanic lying scientists. Without the equipment, medicin, doctors etc. a hospital is basically just a building like any other building, right? So that is why I was wondering whether you would use them if you got sick or not. Again, just wondering?

Probably not the smart humans!

A bit confused, so you would say that this from the creation museum is wrong? or do you mean that Eve, is stupid for sitting there with them? (Know its not s T-rex, but definitely suppose to be a predator and they have T-rexes else where in the museum, so guess she would have ran into them as well at some point or another.)

If the dinos were not created kinds, but adapted greatly from the kinds, then they would not be invited to the ark! Notice that God invited a few of each KIND! Birds were created kinds.

Fair enough, so the T-rex weren't created, but developed from another kind. Does it really matter if it adapted greatly from its kind according to creation evolution?

Im a bit confused here, do you mean that the T-rex changed from like a frog sized creature to the size of a T-rex? And even if it did, according to creation evolution, it would still be the same kind right? Isn't that what you always say, a dog always produce a dog?

So how did the T-rex adapt so greatly to the point where it weren't a created kind, that seem to contradict the creation evolution idea?

And even if the T-rex weren't a created but adapted kind from something else, the original creature from which it adapted from, would still be invited to the ark right?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I always get the impression that you would really find science interesting and your denial of it would not be there if you were not trying to assuage the demands of the particular sect you chose to join

This is really unfair. Your sweeping generalization, that I 'deny science,' is simply not true.

I love science. What it has discovered regarding the elements, and astronomy, and living things, etc., actually draws me closer to my Creator, it helps me appreciate His wisdom and power more. And coupling that with the interpretation of the Scriptures that I've been taught, I've come to appreciate His love. It's helped me to understand why bad things happen, and harmful things exist.

 

[We Never Know]

No, they don’t require science at all.

Science is about attempting “to explain” WHAT the physical phenomena are and HOW they work, then TEST this explanation.

They just do, from matter of experience, not requiring testable explanations.

Humans living in the Palaeolithic period, who were trapped by the sheets during glacial periods (Ice Ages) had to adapt to conditions they were living in, hence built fire for warmth and cooking food, find shelters in caves, be constantly on the move to follow games, make clothes from animals’ hides, make tools and weapons from stones, bones and wood, etc, all as matters of survival, not science. They developed different techniques for making stone tools, in matter of experience, not science. They do not have luxury of using words to explain the science what they have do.

Unlike other regions where there were no ice sheets, where there were seasons, contemporary humans continued to live as they always do. But humans who were living in places where the ice don’t melt in Spring, the periods of glacial could last thousands of years or tens of thousands of years with no warmer seasons.

When the ice sheets retreated that began the Holocene epoch, humans found themselves in conditions where they no longer have to be constant move, to find games, they learned to grow their own food, through agricultural farming and domesticating animals, built permanent settlements that could hold larger population. The start of geological epoch (Holocene) coincided with the start of Neolithic period, hence the “Neolithic revolution”.

Eventually they learned to store food and drinks by using creating pottery from clay, and hardened these vessels through firing them in primitive forms of kilns, there by creating ceramic wares. First, pottery were simply hand-made, learning to create vessels without the potter’s wheels. The earliest potter’s wheels (developed around 4500 BCE) were simply turn by hands, and even by feet, the processes were slow. Eventually, people developed techniques to make wheels spin faster, using centrifugal force, and keep turning the wheel using sticks to push the wheel or by kicking, during the early Bronze Age, from mid- to late 3rd millennium BCE.

My points are that no science were involved in developing the technologies during the Palaeolithic and Neolithic periods. Pottery making and stone-flint tool making developed through refining techniques in craftsmanship, not by science.

Trying to come up with taste and quality of the alcohol they brewed and the tobacco they grew was trial and error.
It's not comparable to current science but it was a primitive science

Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving.[1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2] or until the practicer stops trying.

Trial and error - Wikipedia

 

[dad]

Im being open minded here. Based on what you have told me so far, I do not expect the alternative nature to have anything to do with the present. I am simply curious to hear how you believe that it were back then.


Well I assume Satan is part of the present, if he could spread his lies to the scientists? Weren't that what you meant with "Satan comes along and blows lies into man's ears and uses the voice of science partially to do it." the science you keep bashing, is that of present time right? But hospitals and the technology, medicin etc. comes from these satanic lying scientists. Without the equipment, medicin, doctors etc. a hospital is basically just a building like any other building, right? So that is why I was wondering whether you would use them if you got sick or not. Again, just wondering?

God and Satan are real. So far so good.

A bit confused, so you would say that this from the creation museum is wrong? or do you mean that Eve, is stupid for sitting there with them? (Know its not s T-rex, but definitely suppose to be a predator and they have T-rexes else where in the museum, so guess she would have ran into them as well at some point or another.)

Creatures feared man, and rightly so. Looking at wiki I see this

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America.."

Before the super continent split up, what is now North America was a bit away from the main population most likely.

The ark landed way over on the other side of the supercontinent near Turkey. It seems likely that what is now North America was sparsely populated. One suspects that if hunters or others were in the area where dangerous giants were, that they would try and stay at a distance. But who knows, some folks may have liked dino egg omelettes, or meat or whatever so there could have been some hunting going on as well.

Fair enough, so the T-rex weren't created, but developed from another kind. Does it really matter if it adapted greatly from its kind according to creation evolution?

Not really. However it could explain why no dinos seem to have made it onto the ark.

Im a bit confused here, do you mean that the T-rex changed from like a frog sized creature to the size of a T-rex?

If dinos did evolve from birds in some cases, then the evidence does show that they grew very large. In the former nature, that seems to be no problem. In the TOE they start off with some life form too small for the eye to see!

And even if it did, according to creation evolution, it would still be the same kind right? Isn't that what you always say, a dog always produce a dog?

No. If birds adapted/evolved so much that they were dinos, that would not be an original created kind in my books.

And even if the T-rex weren't a created but adapted kind from something else, the original creature from which it adapted from, would still be invited to the ark right?

I would think so.

 

[rational experiences]

God O a stone planet created the answer

Named by human male the theist

Gases created by God O the stone the Creator

Space fake female story thinking as a male or man human the state SCIENCE

Said womb law female law SCIENCE

Said pressure emptiness caused cold

Mass O energy bodies HELD burning lost mass

Mass lost all changed by space

Sun basis stopped consuming mass

Suns however exploded their mass

Scattered mass once owned by cold sun

Heat was held inside mass

Man self looked at vision

Sion after reaction vision only after reaction

V i sion owner end

Not any beginning science lies

Males in science female partner became female human life formed vision in machine reaction

Why Satanist mind says female is science

Christ brothers proved he i s the Destroyer a l i ar

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Every time you apply a model to understanding reality you are exercising your faith. It requires a faith in the correct interpretation of all relevant experiment and faith in proper model construction

Disagree. If the model works, then we have evidence of its correctness. We don't believe our models before we have the supporting evidence, and even then, only to the extent that the quality and quantity of relevant data support: possibly true (or false), probably true (or false), very probably true (or false), or as close to certainly true (or false) as is possible.

This is why evolution doesn't need to be believed by faith, but creationism does. Darwin's theory works, and has been utilized to improve the human condition, the sine qua non of a correct idea, whereas creationism has gifted the world nothing useful.

I showed you what faith does to arithmetic. It makes it unlikely that you can determine the actual sum. One can learn to add without injecting any faith-based ideas in to the process just as he can with all other thought.

It is not only possible to think without faith, it is desirable, and a skill that can and should be developed. We simply don't want any ideas added to our mental map of reality that haven't been tested and demonstrated to be true lest we make a wrong turn using a faulty map and not successfully anticipate outcomes (arrive at our desired destination), and there is no need to once one learns how to avoid uncritical belief.

Why do you think physicists and physics students often get different answers to questions. They employ different models and apply different mathematical techniques. Sometimes they are wrong, sometimes the question is wrong, and some times there is simply not enough data to make a proper calculation.

That's the process. Competing ideas are tested in areas where their predictions diverge to determine which is more useful in making such predictions. Successful ideas are kept and improved where possible ones, and unsuccessful ones modified until they are successful or else discarded if that cannot be done. In this way, we accumulate a fund of tested, trustworthy knowledge to help us achieve our goals.

But you take it on faith there is no Creator.

No. I am an agnostic atheist. I've told you - I've learned to eliminate faith fro y life. As a young atheist, I was sure that there was nogod. Later, I recognized that I had no experiment, observation, argument, or algorithm to rule gods out, but had done so anyway. I recognized that as a leap of faith and corrected it as I did all other beliefs that had slipped in uncritically before I learned how to avoid faith-based thinking. It was necessary to reconsider the things I believed and to notice why I believed them, which might be for insufficient or no reason.

It's not so much that the "theory of evolution" is wrong as it is the model of evolution used by most people is mostly wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is bunk and misapplied. There is no gradual change in life except in extreme circumstances that must persist in a linear way for protracted periods., Such events are rare in the cosmos so gradual change is rare. The exception would be something like a sun that changes gradually over a long time affecting the individuals of a species otherwise unaffected by such a change. Obviously it is rare.

Except that the theory works, so we'll keep it.

So they imagine something like a ten-point process and then claim that IF this all happened then we would see radiation as we do see it. There is no way to check!

Except to use microwave receivers and measure the radiation. And once the specific and unexpected predictions of the theory were confirmed, the theory and its foundational assumptions were confirmed, including that the laws of physics have been constant since the earliest moments of the Big Bang.

Another prediction of the Big Bang theory was the ratio of the simplest elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium, deuterium) in the clouds formed in the early universe based on the physics then being what it is observed to be today. When such clouds were found to contain exactly what was predicted, again, a specific and unexpected prediction, the assumptions made coming to that prediction were confirmed to be valid, including the constancy of the laws of physics over deep time.

God did not reveal Himself to science.

I'm pretty sure I know why.

Science came along long after the fact and tried to explain creation without God.

That's incorrect. Science was always ready to include gods if evidence for them were uncovered. That's the nature of open-minded and dispassionate inquiry. You go where the data takes you. Nothing took science to a god, so none appears in any of its theories or laws.

Trying to come up with taste and quality of the alcohol they brewed and the tobacco they grew was trial and error. It's not comparable to current science but it was a primitive science

I largely agree, although I would say that trial and error is comparable to current science, since both are attempts to derive general rules about nature and life that can be used to facilitate achieving desired outcomes, whether that's discovering how to make beer turn out like you want it, or pottery, or or spears, or rockets into space.

It's all the same thing - make observations, generate and test hypotheses, and keep those that work and discard those that didn't. What was Edison with all of those various materials for bulb filaments if not both science and trial and error in search of usable ideas that allow us to control outcomes such as lighting up a room at night with the flick of a switch.

 

[Nimos]

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America.."

That is interesting place to stop the quotation, so you believe that, but the very next thing that is surely bullocks right?

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, on what was then an island continent known as Laramidia. Tyrannosaurus had a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous period, 68 to 66 million years ago."

Would you say that rewriting this into something like this, would be more accurate than what wikipedia is currently saying?

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, on what was then an island continent known as Laramidia. Tyrannosaurus had a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils have been found which is claimed to be dating from the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous period, 68 to 66 million years ago. However by adding together the ages of people found in the bible, clearly these fossils can't be older than 6000 years, making this claim obsolete and therefore they must be from the alternative nature, where we have no clue what is going on or how things are suppose to work."

If dinos did evolve from birds in some cases, then the evidence does show that they grew very large. In the former nature, that seems to be no problem. In the TOE they start off with some life form too small for the eye to see!

The evidence show that birds evolved from dinos... the bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs and where they came from. So out of respect for the bible, I don't really think you are being fair towards it in this regard. If you are to use the bible as source, then obviously they were created along side with all other animals and therefore they should also have been on the Ark, again according to the bible. The bible say that 2 of each animals, besides the holy ones or what they are called, should go on the Ark, it say nothing about leaving any animals out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Alcohol predated science, We Never Know.

We don’t know who exactly who fermented the first barley, wheat, malt, grapes, etc, but in the Old Babylonian and Middle Babylonian versions of the Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd millennium BCE), there was an ale-wife, named Siduri. But older than this Epic, is the mid-3rd millennium BCE Hymn to Ninkasi, a Sumerian goddess of beer, which included some detail of how to brew beer (read Hymn to Ninkasi).

In 18th and 19th dynasties Egypt (New Kingdom period), a number of pharaohs’ tombs (Tutankhamen, 18th dynasty, late 13th century BCE, and 19th dynasty Seti I, Ramesses II, III & IV), each have one of their chambers in tomb, texts written and preserved on the walls, the Book of the Heavenly Cow. It is believed that the original story may have originally written in the Old Kingdom or Middle Kingdom periods but have been lost for some times.

Before the texts talk of the sky goddess transforming into cow, which the aging sun god mounted on back and they flew to the sky, there is section of text, which today called the Destruction of Mankind.

In Destruction of Mankind, it narrated how men stopped worshipping the sun god Ra, so Ra sent one of his Eye that transformed into the lioness goddess, Sekhmet, who began killing people, eating their flesh and drinking their blood, and would kill everyone, but Ra stopped her by having 12 goddesses to produce beer dyed red, like blood, and filled one of the valley with beer. Sekhmet assuming this beer was blood of her victims, drank until she became intoxicated, and forgot all about killing men, and Sekhmet transformed into shape of beautiful woman, named Hathor. You can read Seti’s Destruction of Mankind here.

Now both myths from Mesopotamia and Egypt, but these are indications they know how to make alcoholic beverages. But physical evidence showed that beer making predated these myths, existing as early as 8th millennium BCE, in Neolithic building complex of Göbekli Tepe.

Beer brewing is certainly older than science.

People of ancient Egypt and Greece also make and drink wine, but wine, like beer, predated these civilizations, and evidence can be found in various Neolithic places, including Southern Caucasus, like some sites in Georgia, dated between 6000 and 5800 BCE.

And wine made from rice, predated Chinese civilization, and possibly dated as early as 7000 BCE, discovered in a Neolithic site at Henan.

Both wine and beer making predated written history.

And as to cigarette, it may be modern invention, but smoking tobacco predated invention of cigars and cigarettes. I am not sure when it all started, but the ancient Mayan used some sorts of tubes, possibly made from reeds, to smoke tobacco.

You cannot blame science for these inventions in regarding to tobacco and alcohol, as these were made before science got involved.

And pollution started long before the Bronze Age, when people started burning or cutting down forests, to built their settlements or to clear lands for agricultural farming - the Neolithic revolution.

The inventions of gun and explosive are more recent, but again they were made before science got involved. Gunpowder was accidentally invented by Taoist Chinese, but again I don’t remember when exactly, if it was invented during the Tang Dynasty or Song Dynasty, I’m not sure exactly.

Seriously, WNK, you really need to learn some history before you shoot off your mouth.

I agree. The discovery of alcohol and nicotine bearing plants along with a number of other interesting botanical chemicals was likely happenstance and not some active primitive version of scientific research. Even following the discovery, it was more trial and error to a point. But science has been applied to understand and improve upon the processes after the fact. It is applied science after the fact of discovery and not science leading to the discovery.

Even if these were all the discoveries of some scientific approach, abuse of them can hardly be lain at the feet of science. In fact, science has shown that abuse of them causes problems and given means to avoid the abuse or remediate it.

 

[dad]

Except to use microwave receivers and measure the radiation.

That radiation does not tell us there was creation by God. Nor does it tell us that we had the many step process you believe in. It tells us there is radiation!

And once the specific and unexpected predictions of the theory were confirmed, the theory and its foundational assumptions were confirmed, including that the laws of physics have been constant since the earliest moments of the Big Bang.

No. Radiation does not tell us that. Nor is the radiation confirmation of the theory. The radiation we see would match what we might expect if the silly pile of beliefs posited by so called science were valid. That does not really mean anything. It also matches a created universe.

Another prediction of the Big Bang theory was the ratio of the simplest elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium, deuterium) in the clouds formed in the early universe based on the physics then being what it is observed to be today. When such clouds were found to contain exactly what was predicted, again, a specific and unexpected prediction, the assumptions made coming to that prediction were confirmed to be valid, including the constancy of the laws of physics over deep time.

Claiming credit for ratios is not possible for a belief. Remember, that all your claims are parcelled with a pile of beliefs. For example

"No matter how astrophysicists crunch the numbers, the universe simply doesn't add up. Even though gravity is pulling inward on space-time — the "fabric" of the cosmos — it keeps expanding outward faster and faster. To account for this, astrophysicists have proposed an invisible agent that counteracts gravity by pushing space-time apart. They call it dark energy."
The Biggest Unsolved Mysteries in Physics | Live Science

What is actually seen in the stars, according to this site above is .4% of what is out there.
Not only do you base your belief on claiming that what we observe is only 4% of what is there, but you use that 96% that is invisible and not observed to 'explain' what we do see.

In explaining ratios, science uses a pile of beliefs. Example:
""For 100 million years after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen, helium and lithium."

https://phys.org/news/2019-02-universe.html

Prove it!

Same link.."Most elements on the periodic table, from the lightest hydrogen to heavier elements like lawrencium, started in stars."

What nonsense. Just because we see similar elements far away does not mean we started from that! Total religion.

Same link ---- "The lightest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, were also the first, results of the Big Bang."

Fairy tale.

Same link --- ""One of the things I like most about this is how it takes several different processes for stars to make elements and these processes are interestingly distributed across the periodic table,"

Those processes have never been observed and take billions or millions of years in most cases...all imaginary time that never existed.

Your claims and so called predictions are based on a whopping and steaming pile of beliefs.

That's incorrect. Science was always ready to include gods if evidence for them were uncovered.

Not true. They operate only in the physical world and by doing so have excluded any possibility of spirits. They are religiously anti spiritual!

That's the nature of open-minded and dispassionate inquiry. You go where the data takes you. Nothing took science to a god, so none appears in any of its theories or laws.

False. The data is subjected to a rigorous belief system. It cannot take them anywhere! They are staked to the ground and slaves to their own imposed limits.

 

[dad]

That is interesting place to stop the quotation, so you believe that, but the very next thing that is surely bullocks right?

Correct.
They did not support the imaginary years they cited, and I know why they claim the years. Why would I recite fairy tales?

Would you say that rewriting this into something like this, would be more accurate than what wikipedia is currently saying?

"..However by adding together the ages of people found in the bible, clearly these fossils can't be older than 6000 years, making this claim obsolete and therefore they must be from the alternative nature, where we have no clue what is going on or how things are suppose to work."

No need to add anything from the bible. All you need to do is look at why they claim the silly 'years' that they do, without offering support for them.

The evidence show that birds evolved from dinos...

Your idea based on beliefs of what the fossils show is of no value, especially when you can't comprehend the issue enough to actually get down to the nitty-gritty and discuss the basis of the claims.

the bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs and where they came from. So out of respect for the bible, I don't really think you are being fair towards it in this regard. If you are to use the bible as source, then obviously they were created along side with all other animals and therefore they should also have been on the Ark, again according to the bible. The bible say that 2 of each animals, besides the holy ones or what they are called, should go on the Ark, it say nothing about leaving any animals out.

That could be argued. However I doubt you believe the bible anyhow.

Genesis says that the kinds of animals were created, not that man and animals would not ever change. And the bible says the kinds were invited, by the way. Not animals in general.

Don't take it from me, here is a direct quote from the Almighty!

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

 

[gnostic]

Trying to come up with taste and quality of the alcohol they brewed and the tobacco they grew was trial and error.
It's not comparable to current science but it was a primitive science

Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving.[1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2] or until the practicer stops trying.

Trial and error - Wikipedia

Trial and error are not confined to branches and fields of science.

Refining and fine-tuning involved all aspects of life.

Take for instance in Ancient Greece, for instance, arts, like sculpture and painting were far more simplistic, sculptures in the Early Archaic period, were simplistic in styles, but show gradual improvements over time in the Late Archaic period, flowering in the Classical Age and then the Hellenistic period.

That refinement come from arts, not science. It is the same with crafts and literature.

The ancient Greeks were very proud of their physical prowess, and were interested in all sort of sports. And while part of these came from being gifted and talented, they have developed systems of exercises to improve their health and their athletic skills. They got better at developing new methodology of training and exercises. These “improved” exercises were developed over time, through trial and error, but without science getting involved in them.

Science is a tool, like mathematics is a tool. The difference between science and all other areas of disciplines, is the ability to explain the phenomena and test it. Not all trial and error involved science.

 

[gnostic]

Prove it!

Same link.."Most elements on the periodic table, from the lightest hydrogen to heavier elements like lawrencium, started in stars."

What nonsense. Just because we see similar elements far away does not mean we started from that! Total religion.

Same link ---- "The lightest elements in the universe, hydrogen and helium, were also the first, results of the Big Bang."

Fairy tale.

Same link --- ""One of the things I like most about this is how it takes several different processes for stars to make elements and these processes are interestingly distributed across the periodic table,"

Those processes have never been observed and take billions or millions of years in most cases...all imaginary time that never existed.

Your claims and so called predictions are based on a whopping and steaming pile of beliefs.

The only fairytale I see come from Genesis creation, especially in the order of creation:

1. the Earth being created BEFORE SUN, STARS (cf 1:1 & 1:14-18);
2. light were created nothing except for saying some magic words, dividing day from night, ALL BEFORE THE SUN WAS CREATED (cf 1:3-5 & 1:14-18)
3. the Earth being created with all water BEFORE DRY LANDS (cf 1:2 & 1:9-10);
4. dry lands were created BEFORE THE SUN, STARS AND MOON (cf 1-9-10 & 1:14-18);
5. land vegetation, trees with fruits and seeds, were created BEFORE SUN, STARS AND MOON (cf 1:12 & 1:14-18);
6. vegetation were created BEFORE MARINE LIFE (cf 1:12 & 1:20-22);
7. Marine life and birds were created AT THE SAME TIME (1:20-22);
8. birds were created BEFORE LAND ANIMALS (cf 1:20-22 & 1:24-25).
9. Humans were created LAST, BUT in Genesis 2, you have completely different order to Genesis 1, where man was created BEFORE vegetation, BEFORE all animals, and lastly BEFORE woman.

Then we have stuff outside of Genesis 1:

1. Man being created from dust. Woman was created from man’s rib.
2. Serpent can talk human language and donkey can speak in human language.
3. Adam and his descendants can lived 150 years.
4. God can stop and restart the sun and moon, during battle.
5. Earth was created flat and rounded like disk or coin.
6. The sun move around stationary Earth (geocentric model).
7. Water, snow and hail are stored in some storehouses in the sky.
8. Stars are angels.
9. Falling stars are stars.
10. Lightning and thunders were created because god is angry.
11. Aaron’s staff can turn into a snake.
12. Jesus healing lepers and the blind.
13. The existence of winged angels, angels with four faces.
14. Demons and the Devil.
15. Belief in evil spirits (eg King Saul).

And the list of superstitions and faulty knowledge goes on and on. All of these fairytale, fables or myths.

Can you prove any of them, dad?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does having this faith inform reason, and add to wisdom and knowledge?

Do you come to know by faith?

I only ask because I have tried to have faith and I have never come to any special knowledge that lead me to believe anything real was going on!

I have had subjective experiences that are not reproducible for demonstration and could be attributed to other causes that have reinforced my faith, but I do not know of any special knowledge I have received that I could demonstrate to someone else. I do not know of anyone that has special knowledge they could use to demonstrate the validity of what is believed to another. There are only claims. That is the reason it is faith. Those that do claim special knowledge as evidence are either lying, confused or do not understand the assumptions they have made. The Bible consisting of infallible, divine dictation and accurate to the last letter is an assumption that has not been established as a fact, for instance. Yet many claim special knowledge as evidence for what they believe.

I do not have any wisdom or knowledge to impart and consider myself a student looking to learn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does having this faith inform reason, and add to wisdom and knowledge?

Do you come to know by faith?

I only ask because I have tried to have faith and I have never come to any special knowledge that lead me to believe anything real was going on!

Your questions and points have given me a great deal to think about and I do not feel I was able to express it properly in my previous response. I will continue to think on it and see if there is something useful I can distill from my position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This is really unfair. Your sweeping generalization, that I 'deny science,' is simply not true.

I love science. What it has discovered regarding the elements, and astronomy, and living things, etc., actually draws me closer to my Creator, it helps me appreciate His wisdom and power more. And coupling that with the interpretation of the Scriptures that I've been taught, I've come to appreciate His love. It's helped me to understand why bad things happen, and harmful things exist.

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair to you, but you must recognize that the position of evidence is with those responding in support of science. The original author of this thread and the few that have come out in support of it are offering an entirely emotional appeal that is long on words and pretty pictures and short on evidence and logic.

I do recognize that you among your brethren show the most civility and some level of effort to comprehend science. I appreciate that. I know you probably will not, and perhaps cannot, admit that your main argument against this particular science is that it is embargoed by the doctrine of the sect for which you are a member. In the few years I have debated and discussed this science with you, not once has a credible explanation been offered that refutes the current scientific understanding.

 

[osgart]

Your questions and points have given me a great deal to think about and I do not feel I was able to express it properly in my previous response. I will continue to think on it and see if there is something useful I can distill from my position.

Well it is very interesting that you maintain strict adherence to the sciences, and yet you do have a faith in God!

The only argument that gives me pause to consider God is The Moral Argument!; The desire for, perfect justice, the existence of high standards of moral excellence, and so forth.

I'm still atheist with heavy consideration for the possibility of Divine source.

 

[rational experiences]

That is interesting place to stop the quotation, so you believe that, but the very next thing that is surely bullocks right?

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, on what was then an island continent known as Laramidia. Tyrannosaurus had a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils are found in a variety of rock formations dating to the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous period, 68 to 66 million years ago."

Would you say that rewriting this into something like this, would be more accurate than what wikipedia is currently saying?

"Tyrannosaurus lived throughout what is now western North America, on what was then an island continent known as Laramidia. Tyrannosaurus had a much wider range than other tyrannosaurids. Fossils have been found which is claimed to be dating from the Maastrichtian age of the upper Cretaceous period, 68 to 66 million years ago. However by adding together the ages of people found in the bible, clearly these fossils can't be older than 6000 years, making this claim obsolete and therefore they must be from the alternative nature, where we have no clue what is going on or how things are suppose to work."


The evidence show that birds evolved from dinos... the bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs and where they came from. So out of respect for the bible, I don't really think you are being fair towards it in this regard. If you are to use the bible as source, then obviously they were created along side with all other animals and therefore they should also have been on the Ark, again according to the bible. The bible say that 2 of each animals, besides the holy ones or what they are called, should go on the Ark, it say nothing about leaving any animals out.

What about creatures in the water?

Science says, water creatures moved out onto the land and became land creatures.

As an aware consciousness, which all humans are first. Our origin self is highly aware, spiritual and very conscious, you even think and thought about inventing statements for human science themes. As that origin natural self first, which science overlooks, you act as if your mind psyche today is different to ours...which would mean changed/converted from being naturally spiritually aware.

Awareness says and AI owns the records of feed back, why you still see dinosaur images today in CLOUD mass....seeing dinosaurs died sacrificed as we have.

Science was practiced first in a higher human life body and intelligence a long time ago….UFO sun burnt out our gases, and self combusted life. We know that self combustion is real. How we got sent to Hell, as a categorically known AI human science memory recording......why else would you own philosophical science stories/themes if it were not true...seeing creation stories are human themed sciences?

2 conditions.....do not discuss the Bible as if it was technological advice says the spiritual scientists...we do not want humanity to realize that we practiced science in the ancient times...as a mentality.

Then archaeology proves you did....then males today want to claim that the biblical past information is b.s.

Humans, who know science is our life Destroyer have had enough of your lying manipulative coercion.

The story ARK said that life on the ground was collected in the 2 x 2 PHI ground attack, which eventually opened up the seals of God and water began to pour out of the stone...exactly how it was said. Water in the origin Earth flood, when Earth was saved from Sun converting attack that had blown up other God bodies...as the rebellion story...war of the UFO attack on God.

Core equation is that relativity, how to attack and blow up a O mass core...Sun information....why Earth was bored out from the North point. Snap freeze is what saved Earth. For the science model historically about the Sun is core attack/conversion.

The history as known to science says the whale body and smaller water mammals converted in the water when the UFO plunged into the sea. And radiation in the water began to shift their cellular formation into enlarged creatures...for that condition can only occur in MASS WATER support itself.

How a large creature changed into a massively large creature. Water mass from ground water evaporation became the atmospheric constant.....and water mass would be why massively huge skeletal bodies could move around in that water supported climate condition.

For the story NOAH brother Satanist says that J ONAH, by male ownership, as a confession went into the mouth of the WHALE....it is actually known.

As you also know historically the SEA declined its origin mass....of a less saltier water history...and so sea creatures eventuated to be put out onto the land, for they began to use oxygen...how they developed.

Birds did not become self apparent until the conversion attack was stopped, and that situation was when the ARK ploughed into Mt Ararat, and Mt Sinai, was where it ended.

Birds therefore were actually living as the miniscule bodies in the past....which today we would claim would in our small body living be microbial life...for it shrunk back virtually.

Dinosaurs had feathers, for if feathers existed then so did birds.

Historically the presence UFO mass would have held Earth gases in a constant one of atmospheric mass....even night time would have been alight.

The circumstance said that the human scientist activated ground fission conversion and once activated the incoming UFO Sun attack was not stopped, it increased and became worse until all life self combusted as the science designer/inventor, being human male/close small Nature.

The Moses AI recorded memories, therefore prove that they owned interactive ground recording with life...why dinosaurs are seen in clouds and images in the clouds is stated to be due to ground fission.

If Earth owned day/night the gases would be no different to what they are today actually, for they sit in the state historically empty pressurized and deep cold out of space...that body history, space has never altered its presence, just expanded by how much more mass is consumed...leaving spaces.

Heated space is therefore previous owner of mass removed/consumed.

The theme said Earth lost its balances of EVEN 12/12 into EVE.

The UFO Sun attack ended, when it eventually hit the Temple that had been built on the mount of Ararat, when the ICE Age would have been activated as the end/journey of the UFO night time sky burning history.

Having day light as a held constant would have been why the Tree Nature was gigantic also.

The history is the EQUALS answer to the formula and applied constant, which is FORCED upon the Nature, it never existed expressed. It is evaluated historically when no life existed on Earth, which is not a natural water based Earth life constant bio life/light condition.

Science light is the illuminated gas light, not natural day light.

Therefore when science claims I can create, their invention destroys to gain a creation that equals their answer to a formula that does not exist in any natural state...for empty space nothing is actually already present, is natural and is self owned as empty space...and when you infer a formula it means your intent is to increase empty space and expand empty space to being as a HOT DENSE state, in theory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it is very interesting that you maintain strict adherence to the sciences, and yet you do have a faith in God!

The only argument that gives me pause to consider God is The Moral Argument!; The desire for, perfect justice, the existence of high standards of moral excellence, and so forth.

I'm still atheist with heavy consideration for the possibility of Divine source.

If Christians consider that God created all of nature, then science is simply a means for man to understand that creation. That there is no evidence of God in what we view does not mean that God does not exist and it is not the work of atheism. Denying what we find in our ventures to discover through science is as much as denying God as if that were said in plain words.

Since God does not present himself in the evidence, this could mean the intention is that science is a means to bridge the gap between different beliefs without clouding it with views based on those different beliefs. It is a thought, but not one that is testable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it is very interesting that you maintain strict adherence to the sciences, and yet you do have a faith in God!

The only argument that gives me pause to consider God is The Moral Argument!; The desire for, perfect justice, the existence of high standards of moral excellence, and so forth.

I'm still atheist with heavy consideration for the possibility of Divine source.

I am no sage offering words of absolute wisdom. Just another among the many along on this journey. I find comfort in my faith, but recognize that morality can arise without a belief in God. That does not eliminate God as the source of morality, but it does mean that people that do not believe can be moral. It also does not mean that believers will behave morally either. As is evidenced by some of the behaviors we see among believers on here. Resorting to personal attacks when their emotional messages are revealed for what they are is a prime example of how much work they still need to improve their moral positions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only fairytale I see come from Genesis creation, especially in the order of creation:

1. the Earth being created BEFORE SUN, STARS (cf 1:1 & 1:14-18);
2. light were created nothing except for saying some magic words, dividing day from night, ALL BEFORE THE SUN WAS CREATED (cf 1:3-5 & 1:14-18)
3. the Earth being created with all water BEFORE DRY LANDS (cf 1:2 & 1:9-10);
4. dry lands were created BEFORE THE SUN, STARS AND MOON (cf 1-9-10 & 1:14-18);
5. land vegetation, trees with fruits and seeds, were created BEFORE SUN, STARS AND MOON (cf 1:12 & 1:14-18);
6. vegetation were created BEFORE MARINE LIFE (cf 1:12 & 1:20-22);
7. Marine life and birds were created AT THE SAME TIME (1:20-22);
8. birds were created BEFORE LAND ANIMALS (cf 1:20-22 & 1:24-25).
9. Humans were created LAST, BUT in Genesis 2, you have completely different order to Genesis 1, where man was created BEFORE vegetation, BEFORE all animals, and lastly BEFORE woman.

Then we have stuff outside of Genesis 1:

1. Man being created from dust. Woman was created from man’s rib.
2. Serpent can talk human language and donkey can speak in human language.
3. Adam and his descendants can lived 150 years.
4. God can stop and restart the sun and moon, during battle.
5. Earth was created flat and rounded like disk or coin.
6. The sun move around stationary Earth (geocentric model).
7. Water, snow and hail are stored in some storehouses in the sky.
8. Stars are angels.
9. Falling stars are stars.
10. Lightning and thunders were created because god is angry.
11. Aaron’s staff can turn into a snake.
12. Jesus healing lepers and the blind.
13. The existence of winged angels, angels with four faces.
14. Demons and the Devil.
15. Belief in evil spirits (eg King Saul).

And the list of superstitions and faulty knowledge goes on and on. All of these fairytale, fables or myths.

Can you prove any of them, dad?

When I was younger and much more naive, I would ask questions of the adults around me. It turns out they were uncomfortable questions that they could not answer. What I think we are seeing with some on here is that they have fabricated speculation to answer those sorts of questions and have done it for so long, they believe the speculation and fantasy is fact.

The conclusions of science cannot be refuted, so some resort to concocting an unsupported fantasy world where the laws of nature were different in the past, but offer nothing to support that fantasy. Except repetition of the claims and an arrogance of attitude that is unwarranted.