Just Accidental?

[Deeje]

How pathetic and childish on your part. I wonder.....do you honestly believe you're giving a positive representation of your faith here?

What has an honest observation got to do with a positive representation of my faith? There you go again with the emotional blackmail......
You think most people see my faith in a positive light to begin with? We are used to being the

JW's are not well received by evolutionary scientists or the churches of Christendom. We don't fit in with either because we only care about telling the truth. We are not beholden to anyone but our Maker. We are not one bit interested in the fabricated scenarios that came from men's imaginings. We have no peer pressure to lock us into an untenable position. I believe that the truth will always triumph in the end. We are patient.

Well, you kinda put me in that position when you do bizarre things like tell me all the theological ramifications you'd have to face if you were to become an evolutionist (it would make "God disappear", make "God out to be a liar", and you couldn't be a JW), and then less than a month later say "I have no "theological consequences" to face" when it comes to evolution.

This is you twisting what I said. You're good at that I see.
You create a strawman and then pride yourself on knocking him down.....

I believe I said that evolution was designed to make God disappear (if you can categorically settle in your own mind and heart that there is no Creator.) Or you makes him out to be a liar (if you try to push theistic evolution as if God somehow didn't directly create what he said he did.) I have no "theological consequences" because evolution is nothing but an unsubstantiated theory that has never been proven. You flatter yourself if you believe that you have convinced anyone on this thread who was not already sold on evolution before they got here. I hope I have at least given the undecided something to think about.

I've posted examples here before, and pointed out the fact that beneficial mutations happen all the time, every single day. We're actively fighting against them right now.

Show us these examples.....and the proof that we are fighting against them right now.
Its all empty talk.

So that's your childish way of saying that you really have no idea what they're talking about. But rather than take the time to learn the subject, you dismiss it and insinuate that the scientist who did the work are lying.

Well, one of us has dibs on childish behavior....... we'll let the readers determine who.

But I did. I told you exactly what that paper describes....the observed and documented evolution of a species that is physically unable to breed with its parent species, due to chromosomal differences.

What did it prove? Has one "kind" evolved or morphed into another kind....ever? Please provide the proof.

Or do we only see varieties within a species who would not naturally mate in the wild? Would Darwin's finches have mated with their mainland cousins? Were they different and unrelated to the point where you couldn't tell even with the naked eye that they were still finches? Same story with the iguanas. The "kinds" don't change.....do they?

The lab experiments revealed the same story. Variation within a species is adaptation, not the monstrous leaps over millions of years that evolution suggests. The flies were still flies...the fish were still fish, clearly recognizable as related to the originals. You don't have anything more.

Explain to me why I should try and present science to a person who very clearly declared that they could never accept it for religious reasons.

Because you aren't explaining anything just to me. Do you have any idea how many people read the posts here but do not comment? Do it for them..... C'mon...give it your best shot. Give us the proof that evolution ever happened except in the minds of men.....

 

[ArtieE]

Read Genesis and you will see it clearly states that God created all land animals, winged creatures, marine creatures and placed them in the habitats that he had already prepared for them. He even differentiated between "wild" animals and "domestic" ones. What need was there for evolution? The only "evolution" is adaptation, which is not the kind of evolution promoted by scientists. Adaptive change is not responsible for macro-evolution. You have no proof that evolution ever happened.

Until you believers can show that your god(s) actually exist, science has no choice but to work under the assumption that life arose and evolved naturally.

No need to repeat....just read my response to see that I did answer your (rather ridiculous) question. Once you acknowledge the Creator, the science become self explanatory. Is there some need for me to address ridiculous scenarios?

I know it's a ridiculous scenario but suppose all scientists in the world suddenly became Jehovah's Witnesses. What impact would that have on science? What would change if anything?

 

[ArtieE]

Explain to me why I should try and present science to a person who very clearly declared that they could never accept it for religious reasons.

What do you think would happen to science if all scientists turned Jehovah's Witnesses like Deeje overnight?

 

[gnostic]

What do you think would happen to science if all scientists turned Jehovah's Witnesses like Deeje overnight?

Oh, heaven forbids.

I'd rather lay on bed of nails before joining Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'd rather eat a bucketful of octopuses...raw...before joining Jehovah's Witnesses. arrgghhh...blah!

I'd rather become a Mormon before joining Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[Jose Fly]

What has an honest observation got to do with a positive representation of my faith?

Oh I see....when I say something about you, I'm throwing a tantrum. But when you say something about me, you're just giving an "honest observation".

How convenient.......for you.

You think most people see my faith in a positive light to begin with?

Doesn't seem so.

This is you twisting what I said. You're good at that I see.
You create a strawman and then pride yourself on knocking him down.....I believe I said that evolution was designed to make God disappear (if you can categorically settle in your own mind and heart that there is no Creator.) Or you makes him out to be a liar (if you try to push theistic evolution as if God somehow didn't directly create what he said he did.) I have no "theological consequences" because evolution is nothing but an unsubstantiated theory that has never been proven.

This is what I mean....you seem to be so delusional that you have now recreated the history of our previous discussions, even though it's right there for anyone to see.

I asked: "What would change for you if you became an "evolutionist"? Do you think you'd be forced to become an atheist? Could you still be a JW?"

You answered: "No, as a believer, I could never compromise my views on this subject. Evolution is used to make God either disappear or to make him out to be a liar....neither of which can be true according to my very strongly held beliefs."

So as we can see, I directly asked you what sort of theological consequences you'd have to face were you to become an "evolutionist". And you answered that you could never become an "evolutionist" because of how you believe it would "make God disappear or make him out to be a liar", and that those just aren't options because of your "very strongly held beliefs".

Now, I'm willing to consider the possibility that the real problem here is that you just don't know what the term "theological consequences" means, and as a result you don't realize that going from being a JW to an atheist or a non-JW who believes the JW God is a liar, is a "theological consequence".

Is that what's going on? Because otherwise, the only other conclusion I can reach here is that your blatant dishonesty is your means of covering for your delusion. IOW, you're so delusional that you're trying to get out of something that we can all clearly see you said, and the only way you can think of to do it is to throw out the bald faced lie that you never said it in the first place.

What's really going on here Deeje? Why are you behaving like this?

Show us these examples.....and the proof that we are fighting against them right now.

Why? Are you open to the possibility that beneficial mutations occur? Is mutations improving fitness potentially acceptable to you?

What did it prove? Has one "kind" evolved or morphed into another kind....ever?

I repeat....impossible to say, since you won't tell us what a "kind" is.

Or do we only see varieties within a species who would not naturally mate in the wild?

No, the paper I provided you describes the observed and documented evolution of a new species that is unable to breed with its parent species, due to chromosomal differences.

You don't have anything more.

Not true, as evidenced by the material I've posted. You simply saying that you don't understand any of it and insinuating that the scientists behind it are liars doesn't make reality go away.

Because you aren't explaining anything just to me. Do you have any idea how many people read the posts here but do not comment? Do it for them..... C'mon...give it your best shot. Give us the proof that evolution ever happened except in the minds of men.....

Already done. I've posted numerous examples of the evolution of new traits, genetic sequences, and species.

 

[Jose Fly]

What do you think would happen to science if all scientists turned Jehovah's Witnesses like Deeje overnight?

Science would come to a complete halt.

It's worthy of note that creationism has not contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world in well over a century.

 

[Deeje]

Oh, heaven forbids.

I'd rather lay on bed of nails before joining Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'd rather eat a bucketful of octopuses...raw...before joining Jehovah's Witnesses. arrgghhh...blah!

I'd rather become a Mormon before joining Jehovah's Witnesses.

Your revulsion is duly noted, gnostic....

....but certainly not unexpected. (John 15:18-21)

BTW you can't join Jehovah's Witnesses....you have to choose to become one. I assure you no one will stand over you with a big stick and force you to do anything against your will.....that is the whole point of this life in this world....choices. We all make them and all of them have consequences.

 

[Deeje]

Until you believers can show that your god(s) actually exist, science has no choice but to work under the assumption that life arose and evolved naturally.

God shows you that he exists by what he has created. If you are not convinced by that, then he doesn't want to know you. Which is more important do you think?.......you knowing that God exists or him knowing you exist? Some people think he owes them an explanation of himself......he doesn't.

I know it's a ridiculous scenario but suppose all scientists in the world suddenly became Jehovah's Witnesses. What impact would that have on science? What would change if anything?

Nothing would change except that scientists would lose their silly theory and begin appreciating what creation is....."not accidental"......nothing in biology would change......nothing in chemistry would change....nothing in physics would change....in fact nothing in just about any branch of science would change, except the knowledge of its origins and its originator. That is where the true science has always been.

I see an attitude in evolutionists of "if you only knew what I know, you would change your mind".......I believe that ID'ers can say exactly the same thing with equal conviction. Our "ignorance" is continually brought up as if science knows everything about everything. I want people to know that science, especially in the field of organic evolution, is based on nothing but guesswork. Academia is a house of egos. Its also a house of cards because if the Creator shows up and asks for an accounting for the way we have treated this planet, (he says he will) then who do you suppose will be first on his hit list? Who is responsible for the world's pollution problems? Whose inventions and experiments have led the world into mass murder, heinous weapons and godlessness? Who invented nuclear capability? Plastic? Agricultural methods that rob us of healthy food sources? Who invented machinery that fills the atmosphere with poisons that we are forced to breathe every day, not to mention the technology that exposes every one of us to electromagnetic radiation whether we own Wi-Fi devices or not. All hail science!

Science has contributed many good things in the world, no doubt....but for every good thing there is list of detrimental things that affect the very lives of all of earth's inhabitants. How does it come to have such a high opinion of itself when in reality, it should hang its head in shame for the harm it has done.

Nuclear Power plants were never designed just for electricity production. But you knew that...right?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/fukush...n-crisis-of-worldwide-nuclear-radiation/28870

 

[Deeje]

Since this thread is becoming a shooting gallery for JW's and the evolutionist are resorting to shooting the messenger, it is very apparent that they have run out of defense and moved into attack mode. Very telling....

What happened to the evidence? Show us in layman's terms how life originated and then show us what science has in terms of real evidence for what it suggests "might have" taken place. You must have the real evidence that we can see.....not just suggestions and diagrams.

So give us your best efforts to convince us that macro-evolution ever happened and that ID is just a fairy story.

We will wait with bated breath......

 

[gnostic]

What happened to the evidence? Show us in layman's terms how life originated and then show us what science has in terms of real evidence for what it suggests "might have" taken place.

Again, evolution don't involve with origin of life.

For there to be evolution, life already have to exist, because it would require parents and offspring, to pass genes, from one generation to the next.

The active field to find the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

So that you want biologists to provide evidences for first life, is nothing more than straw-man, to use your own picture:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

God shows you that he exists by what he has created.

Okay, let's accept that. Nothing evolves, but every "kind" was "created" -- and created by your God. So let me introduce you to your God:

One and one-half BILLION human beings are infested with some of the worst parasites you can imagine. Just try Googling "worst human parasites" and see what you get. worms that swim up your pee-hole and lodge themselves there painfully until a doctor has to perform surgery. Guineau worms and sand worms - you won't believe them! And there's another worm that one day will suddenly leave you expelling (from you know where) what can only resemble spaghetti! When your child gets ringworm, or you bring home bedbugs from your last stay in a hotel (almost impossible to get rid of) to drink your blood every night -- please remember to say "thank you, God."

Scabies and crabs? All thanks to God Almighty. And snakes -- a mere 50,000 people a year succumb to their gentle kiss. God must have been having a merciful day when he created venomous creatures, I suppose.

The mosquito? 725,000 human deaths -- every year. And now, oh, joy, babies with tiny brains! Oh, Lord, you had fun with that one, didn't you?

Some of the ways that your God -- who created all of the above, plus every virus (flu and other respiratory viruses have killed millions), every amoeba, every bacterium, like clostridium botulinum -- botulism, you know -- or gonococcus (gonorrhea) and syphilis -- the list goes on!

If all of those things could not evolve, in exactly the way that Darwin describes -- then your God made them. And you are required to be grateful for them. As I've no doubt you are.

But you'd also have a bloody hard time explaining "why."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Again, evolution don't involve with origin of life.

For there to be evolution, life already have to exist, because it would require parents and offspring, to pass genes, from one generation to the next.

Just so you know, @Deeje has been told that at minimum 50 times here, and probably more like over 100 -- and has not yet noticed it. This is one of those things she is simply going to ignore, or can't understand. I'll leave figuring out "why" to others -- I could only speculate.

 

[gnostic]

Read Genesis and you will see it clearly states that God created all land animals, winged creatures, marine creatures and placed them in the habitats that he had already prepared for them. He even differentiated between "wild" animals and "domestic" ones. What need was there for evolution?

Because all that are generalised description and absurd oversimplification.

Even the most dumbest Neolithic farmer in the Near East, could distinguish the difference between birds and land animals, wild and domesticated animals. The Genesis is so general that it doesn't take a genius to come up with it.

If God was indeed the true author of Genesis, then are you saying that God has no more intelligence than average Neolithic farmers?

Biology required a lot more intelligence than that.

Biology, like all other science (eg physics, chemistry, etc) does more than just merely describe a phenomena or an event; it "explain".

Explanation required to explain in detail, like WHAT it is and HOW it work...and lastly, once you figure out these two, HOW can I use that information. And in science, these explanations are then tested in laboratory or in the real world.

And these tests not only show if it is true, but show which explanation are false or wrong. The more test results or evidences found, the better you can determine which is false and which is true.

With Genesis, you don't require to test anything; you just have to believe, and that's why we call religion and theology - "FAITH", not science.

And evolution passed the falsification, scientific method and peer review, because it is testable, and have been successfully tested.

The same can't be said about creationism and Intelligent Design, because both required to accept the preconception without testing.

How do you test for an invisible Creator or Designer?

You can't. So that's why neither ID or creationism are "science". To accept ID or creationism, a person require to use circular reasoning, confirmation bias, straw man, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, false equivalence, argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, and the list goes on.

 

[gnostic]

Just so you know, @Deeje has been told that at minimum 50 times here, and probably more like over 100 -- and has not yet noticed it. This is one of those things she is simply going to ignore, or can't understand. I'll leave figuring out "why" to others -- I could only speculate.

I can speculate too as to why she does it, but if I said my speculation out loud, I am afraid I would be banned for life.

 

[Deeje]

Again, evolution don't involve with origin of life.

The active field to find the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

How convenient for you. You don't have to address that problem because it is someone else's nightmare.

Don't even mention abiogenesis because that is not our field.......as if the origin of life has no bearing on your theory. It can only topple the whole thing.....not our problem.....move along.....nothing to see here

For there to be evolution, life already have to exist, because it would require parents and offspring, to pass genes, from one generation to the next.

Wow! That is quite a revelation gnostic........did you need a science degree for that little gem?

So that you want biologists to provide evidences for first life, is nothing more than straw-man, to use your own picture:

Is it a strawman to expect scientists to know how life began? They certainly like to expound on their theory about how life evolved, but talk to them about how that life originated and they fob it off to the other guys to explain because they haven't got a clue. Again I have to declare...how convenient!

ID'ers have no such problem......the Creator created. It isn't more complicated than that....no science degree required. No complex explanations using high sounding jargon or big egos looking down on the uneducated masses and assuming that anyone who believes in the Creator must be an uneducated moron......I believe that we will see who fits that description in due time. I can wait.

 

[Deeje]

Okay, let's accept that. Nothing evolves, but every "kind" was "created" -- and created by your God. So let me introduce you to your God:

One and one-half BILLION human beings are infested with some of the worst parasites you can imagine. Just try Googling "worst human parasites" and see what you get. worms that swim up your pee-hole and lodge themselves there painfully until a doctor has to perform surgery. Guineau worms and sand worms - you won't believe them! And there's another worm that one day will suddenly leave you expelling (from you know where) what can only resemble spaghetti! When your child gets ringworm, or you bring home bedbugs from your last stay in a hotel (almost impossible to get rid of) to drink your blood every night -- please remember to say "thank you, God."

Scabies and crabs? All thanks to God Almighty. And snakes -- a mere 50,000 people a year succumb to their gentle kiss. God must have been having a merciful day when he created venomous creatures, I suppose.

The mosquito? 725,000 human deaths -- every year. And now, oh, joy, babies with tiny brains! Oh, Lord, you had fun with that one, didn't you?

Some of the ways that your God -- who created all of the above, plus every virus (flu and other respiratory viruses have killed millions), every amoeba, every bacterium, like clostridium botulinum -- botulism, you know -- or gonococcus (gonorrhea) and syphilis -- the list goes on!

If all of those things could not evolve, in exactly the way that Darwin describes -- then your God made them. And you are required to be grateful for them. As I've no doubt you are.

But you'd also have a bloody hard time explaining "why."

In actuality, I have no problem explaining any of it. You assume that life in this world is the way God intended it to be...that is far from the truth. This world, though created by God is not ruled by him at present and never has been from the day humans decided to separate themselves from him.

A lot of disease is spread by ignorance and poor hygienic practices. Venereal disease is spread by immoral sexual practices....all addressed in God's laws. The truth is, we are living in a world ruled by God's enemy who inferred to humans that he would do a better job than a God who restricted their freedom. His motto is "do what I tell you and you will be truly free to do whatever you like". So how has that been working for the human race? Was the "knowledge of good and evil" really worth the cost?

Is the devil a better ruler? Is he a better source of information on how to live a happy and productive life?

All we have to do is look at the laws that God gave to Israel to see what measures were put in place to ensure their good health.
Excrement was to be buried outside the camp which eliminated all diseases that came from human waste spreading to other people....quarantine measures were to be taken with communicable diseases like leprosy. Washing of the hands was encouraged. Regular bathing and the washing of garments, as well as the prohibition of touching dead bodies, all contributed to good health. Even medical practitioners didn't get that memo until the early 20th century. Talk about ignorance! A simple washing of hands could have prevented the spread of disease.

The single most common reason for the parasitic diseases in third world countries is contaminated water where it is often mixed with human waste, the carcasses of dead animals, or other contaminants. So all those diseases are actually caused by lack of education and poor hygiene. God is not responsible...humans are.

Snakes and other venomous creatures usually stay away from man unless man invades his territory. I live in Australia and we have some of the most venomous snakes on earth. Why are we not dropping like flies? Because we respect their habitat and try our best to avoid them. They are usually more scared of us than we are of them. (Read Genesis 9:1-7)

Sharks are a problem here too, but the ocean is their habitat and we can only imagine how many species of fish are being harvested from their feeding grounds by greedy humans, so that they have to go closer to shore to find food and we are sometimes mistaken for food because men often wear black wetsuits and look like seals.

As for mosquito and tick born viruses....as a result of what happened in Eden, humans no longer have an immune system that is up to the task of keeping these viruses under control. "Sin" is human imperfection, lost when Adam rebelled...it results in sickness, old age and death. Our immune system is amazingly designed so that if it functioned at full capacity, it would stop disease viruses before they even took hold.

Coupled with that, if we ate the correct food, grown in mineral rich soil, with natural fertilizers, and had access to fresh, clean, uncontaminated water (chemical free) and eliminated all the junk food from our diet, then what a different story we could tell.....but human greed and disobedience has stopped things from being the way God intended. The only way for the Creator to demonstrate how futile life is without his guidance is to allow humans to experience that life for themselves. Do we ever learn? Do we accept responsibility for our own stupidity and disobedience? You be the judge of that. Its easy to blame God....but he has very little to do with any of it.

 

[Deeje]

Because all that are generalised description and absurd oversimplification.

God did not write Genesis for scientists. He wrote the simple truth for his people who were not yet ready for the kind of science that arose in the 20th century. The simplicity of the account does not mean that creation was simple however.

Even the most dumbest Neolithic farmer in the Near East, could distinguish the difference between birds and land animals, wild and domesticated animals. The Genesis is so general that it doesn't take a genius to come up with it.

If God was indeed the true author of Genesis, then are you saying that God has no more intelligence than average Neolithic farmers?

Well, actually I am saying that God never talked above his audience. He kept information on a level that was readily assimilated. Science today is only understood by the educated elite.....full of egos and men with big ambitions. Very little humility is found in those institutions.

Biology required a lot more intelligence than that.

And that says it all.....scientist elevate themselves by assuming that they are more intelligent than everyone else.....
their doctorates and degrees are paraded like a banner proclaiming their superior intellect.

Biology, like all other science (eg physics, chemistry, etc) does more than just merely describe a phenomena or an event; it "explain".

English is not your first language is it gnostic? May I just illustrate something here (no offense intended) but how you phrase your posts sometime makes you sound infantile to someone from an English speaking country. It isn't that you lack intelligence, but your command of English is not what would be expected from someone born to speak the English language. So if the Bible uses language to convey something complex in simple terms, don't be put off by the phrasing, it doesn't mean that the author is unintelligent. I wouldn't teach physics to an newborn.

Explanation required to explain in detail, like WHAT it is and HOW it work...and lastly, once you figure out these two, HOW can I use that information. And in science, these explanations are then tested in laboratory or in the real world.

And these tests not only show if it is true, but show which explanation are false or wrong. The more test results or evidences found, the better you can determine which is false and which is true.

I don't believe that is true. I believe that scientists have a pet theory and will do their level best to demonstrate that it is true by the way they interpret their evidence. They can make the fossils and other "evidence" match up with their predictions. Who in the world of science is in a hurry to prove them wrong?

With Genesis, you don't require to test anything; you just have to believe, and that's why we call religion and theology - "FAITH", not science.

You are correct...belief in God does require faith. But faith and science are not opposites to us...they are just opposites to you because you place the Creator in the realms of fantasy. We place your evolution scenario in the realms of fantasy. It actually requires more faith to believe what you believe.

And evolution passed the falsification, scientific method and peer review, because it is testable, and have been successfully tested.

Nonsense. There is no test for organic (macro) evolution. You can test adaptation, (cosmetic changes within a species) but you cannot prove that macro-evolution ever took place outside the scientist's vivid imagination.

The same can't be said about creationism and Intelligent Design, because both required to accept the preconception without testing.

How do you test for an invisible Creator or Designer?

The same way that you test the wind.....or magnetic forces.....by the effect you see with your own eyes. It is observed by its impact on material things. A tree tells you when its windy and a compass tells you that magnetic forces are at work, but you can't see either of them......creation tells you a lot about the Creator. The forces responsible for the existence and operation of the universe didn't come from nowhere. If the creative forces are at work in both animate and inanimate matter, then try to imagine a being capable of creating something as large as the universe and as small as an atom.

So that's why neither ID or creationism are "science". To accept ID or creationism, a person require to use circular reasoning, confirmation bias, straw man, appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, false equivalence, argument from ignorance, shifting the burden of proof, and the list goes on.

And to believe that the universe and all that occupies it, just happened to create itself by random chance is not equally far fetched....? Really? You are entitled to your own fantasy.

 

[gnostic]

God did not write Genesis for scientists. He wrote the simple truth for his people who were not yet ready for the kind of science that arose in the 20th century. The simplicity of the account does not mean that creation was simple however.

God didn't write the Genesis at all.

But that's not my problem. I have no problem if it was written by men, or written by men inspired by any god, or it being divinely written by god. I really don't care.

I am not saying that because of science or history.

No, I am saying that, because Genesis was written in the time, when people don't know much about nature, and they still believe in all sort of superstitions and silly and outdated customs.

Again, I don't have trouble with that too, because I am actually quite accustomed reading such literature during my research for Timeless Myths, Dark Mirrors of Heaven and my postponed project of another website (which I still have valuable notes that I have taken).

My problem is not the bible, believe or not. My problem is YOU and your interpretation of the Bible, especially with regards to Genesis. I have this same problem with other creationists, like yourself, where you all pretend it is science book.

You have continuously tried to browbeat us to accept your religion as "scientific" or "historical" fact, when the facts are, they have very really little do. My problem is you trying to mix religion with science, and creationists attempting to promote the bible as science books.

That's my main issue, and the issues are not the writings themselves, because I actually love reading the bible. No my issues is with you and every creationists, trying to push the scriptures into modern "scientific" contexts.

That's where I see your fatal mistakes (as well as mistakes by other creationists). Because of the way you push your agenda, you have exposed yourself that you know very little about science, and you don't have any scruple in lying to us.

If I can see your transparent lies, so can others. And that much is clear, from other replies you have been getting.

I can take being wrong, Deeje; I simply don't like being lie to.

 

[gnostic]

The same way that you test the wind.....or magnetic forces.....by the effect you see with your own eyes. It is observed by its impact on material things. A tree tells you when its windy and a compass tells you that magnetic forces are at work, but you can't see either of them......creation tells you a lot about the Creator.

Which all have nothing to do with God, and you have absolutely no evidences that God is involved in any of it.

And all these events can be explained by science.

Does the bible explain any of your examples?

The simple answer is no to the wind, and no to the magnet.

The Bible, like in Job 38:

25 “Who has cleft a channel for the flood,
Or a way for the thunderbolt,
26 To bring rain on a land without people,
On a desert without a man in it,
27 To satisfy the waste and desolate land
And to make the seeds of grass to sprout?
28 “Has the rain a father?
Or who has begotten the drops of dew?
29 “From whose womb has come the ice?
And the frost of heaven, who has given it birth?
30 “Water becomes hard like stone,
And the surface of the deep is imprisoned.

Not a single of these explain, HOW it happen or HOW it work.

These verses certainly have no "scientific values".

All these verses in 4 excruciating chapters (38 to 41) implied that God can do all these things, and Job can't.

This amount to saying a stupid thing like "God did it".

Those verses are no useful to anyone, especially of no use to anyone. It is simply a continuous rants by God who is only interest in bullying Job into submission. The verses provide no more insight of nature and natural phenomena, but it does provide insight to God being autocratic moron, as superstition as the man (author) of that period.

 

[Deeje]

God didn't write the Genesis at all.

We believe that God inspired the writing of the whole Bible, not just Genesis.(2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

I am saying that, because Genesis was written in the time, when people don't know much about nature, and they still believe in all sort of superstitions and silly and outdated customs.

It was written for the Jews after their release from slavery in Egypt. Moses was raised in Pharaoh's household and would have received a very good education as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He was not an uneducated man. The Jews were not allowed to believe in superstitions and their customs were certainly not "outdated" for the times in which they lived. God prescribed their worship and their way of life. They knew exactly what they believed and why they believed it.They were informed about their origins in language they understood.

My problem is not the bible, believe or not. My problem is YOU and your interpretation of the Bible, especially with regards to Genesis. I have this same problem with other creationists, like yourself, where you all pretend it is science book.

Who is pretending? It is a science book but not of the sort that you are used to obviously. Any website for children will give you a simple rundown of the teachings of science from a child's level of understanding. Forcing the theory of relativity on a 5 year old would be a bit futile, but it doesn't mean that the simple explanation is in error.....just lacking the kind of detail that young children would not understand. Our "interpretation" of the Bible is as valid as your "interpretation" of evolution. We have as much solid evidence for our beliefs as you do. That is a fact.

You have continuously tried to browbeat us to accept your religion as "scientific" or "historical" fact, when the facts are, they have very really little do. My problem is you trying to mix religion with science, and creationists attempting to promote the bible as science books.

You are correct...it is YOUR problem.

I have not "browbeaten" anyone. I have posted my own views on this topic in the hope of exposing the flaws in the teaching of macro-evolution. If you have a problem with that...again it's YOUR problem. Provide the proof of your theory that goes beyond adaptation.

Let's see it.

That's my main issue, and the issues are not the writings themselves, because I actually love reading the bible. No my issues is with you and every creationists, trying to push the scriptures into modern "scientific" contexts.

Try not to let it upset you...the truth hurts sometimes, I know....

The Bible is as scientific as it needs to be.

That's where I see your fatal mistakes (as well as mistakes by other creationists). Because of the way you push your agenda, you have exposed yourself that you know very little about science, and you don't have any scruple in lying to us.

If I can see your transparent lies, so can others. And that much is clear, from other replies you have been getting.

I can take being wrong, Deeje; I simply don't like being lie to.

Really? You can take being wrong? Where have we seen that happen?

I have taken an oath before God that I will never lie gnostic......I can't fool him.....so I guess that means that you have no idea what the truth actually is? I have never lied here and no one has given any evidence that I have ever stated something I believed to be untrue. This effort at emotional blackmail is reminiscent of another poster here. It doesn't work.