Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[dad1]

ALL computers, cars... everything, is made assuming stable natural laws.

Name some that were made using those laws in Noah's day!? Focus.

 

[dad1]

Points to you --- "it's not clear." That is thinking with your whole brain -- that it's silly to leap to grandiose conclusions on a paucity of evidence.

One such conclusion we should not jump to is that the prints were not made by men.

 

[Valjean]

Science is a religion and happens to be responsible for a lot of that. Pollution, cancers, womd, etc.

Believers have nothing to do with religion, any more than Jesus did.

Science is pretty much the opposite of religion, being fact-based, tested, falsifiable and open to change.

 

[Valjean]

Name some that were made using those laws in Noah's day!? Focus.

The laws of chemistry, physics and mathematics were the same in Noah's day (whenever that was) as they are today and were before the Earth was formed. There is no reason to believe they've changed. All of science and technology is based on matter and energy behaving predictably.

 

[Altfish]

What a poor analogy.....last time I looked atomic bombs were created with the pure intention of wiping out an entire city and the surrounding areas of a perceived enemy in one fell swoop. (very economical)

Who designed the guidance systems for ICBM's...heat seeking? With what intention?

Who formulated Agent Orange? DDT? and all the other chemical poisons produced in science labs? If scientists are so smart, why do they never think of the consequences of their own 'inventiveness'? Or does $$$$ speak louder?

Who was responsible for making plastics out of poisonous petrochemicals? My research reveals that if hemp had been used instead, then all that plastic pollution choking our marine creatures would have actually fed them with benefits as a nutritional supplement, rather than killing them by the thousands because the big oil companies wanted to make more billions. Land fill would have material that was bio-degradable instead of stuff that stays in the earth for hundreds of years without breaking down.

Who developed ways to take gas out of the rocks (fracking) and in the process, contaminated the water supplies of many farming families who happened to have under their land what greedy men wanted to exploit?

Do you see science working hard to clean up their mess? Or are they carrying on as though they are not responsible? If you design something and manufacture it, surely your intelligence should be constrained by the outcome of possible catastrophic misuse. You know, the kind that sees men standing there wringing their hands when a nuclear power plant blows up and they know that the whole area will be contaminated and there is nothing they can do to prevent it? Would you eat fish from the waters around Fukushima?

Doesn't history teach us that humans always find ways to misuse everything? Why does history repeat? You know.

You are not thinking this through.
It was Rutherford who split the atom. He did NOT envisage its use in war.
It was the politicians/generals who then employed the non-inventors to further develop the technology already invented.
It was the same with evolution, Darwin/Wallace and the like described the mechanism but it was Frederick Osborn's journal that led to the atrocities in its name.

So, because some people develop technologies in non-favourable ways you decry all of science.
Do you blame all of religion for the death cults, child abuse, cover up of sex abuse, shunning of those who disagree with doctrines, etc., etc.

 

[Altfish]

Science is a religion and happens to be responsible for a lot of that. Pollution, cancers, womd, etc.

Believers have nothing to do with religion, any more than Jesus did.

Good grief,
You have a narrow world view.

I’ll ignore the pathetic ‘science is a religion’ jibe.

It isn’t science that pollutes; it is unregulated business and capitalism.

Cancer, were cigarettes invented by scientists? I thought tobacco was one of god’s products…perhaps god is responsible for cancer.

Not sure what ‘womd’ is so I’ll leave that

 

[Deeje]

Wow, look who's writing "blah blah blah", namely the one who uses uses massive word-mash to sermonize anyone here who may disagree with her.

What you call 'sermonizing' is merely me explaining why I believe as I do......but its all been said before metis.....the name calling and the accusations of ignorance and lies...seriously mate, its time to stop protesting and give us the evidence.....real evidence. Do you have any that does not need faith to believe it?

Why is this all so personal with you? I do not accept what you accept as truth and you do not accept what I accept as truth.....its a polar opposite difference of opinion, but the way you react, you'd think I had attacked your child instead of your beliefs. I accused you of being a "believer" like myself. How horrible! You have a belief system just the same as I do.....as has been demonstrated on many threads and debates already. This apparently doesn't sit well with you. It isn't personal...OK?
Why do you act so wounded?

That's a lie as I do not ever "whine" against your religion, which I would assume is Christianity. Do you really think a lie like this helps to show how supposedly "moral" you are? It says that "you shall know them by their fruit", and at least on this item yours is quite rotten.

Funny, I thought you said....."It's a shame that some use their religion as a set of blinders as it no only mocks them but also their denomination or religion."

Was this not a direct mocking on your own part? Is the pot calling the kettle black? Would you know rotten fruit from God's viewpoint anyway? You assume a lot for someone who does not claim to be Christian and confesses that he 'doesn't know' the answer to the hard questions.

My faith is backed up by true science.....not the theoretical stuff that no one can prove. Do you acknowledge the difference? By your responses it appears as if one runs right into the other. One has proof but the other has nothing substantiated. But you don't separate them....I do because my faith is not in the musings of men who think way too much of their own suggestions, downgrading anyone who dares to question their interpretation of evidence. I question it because it needs questioning. Everything should be questioned and answers should not be beyond what is taught in scripture if one professes to be a Bible believer. Obviously you never question the science because you are a science believer. I know you will argue with this of course.

I never denounce Christianity nor any other religion, but I do denounce know-it-all-ism and those leaders who teach dishonesty and the "my way or the highway" approach. When you left the Anglican Church, which is quite a respectable one because it largely avoids the above, and you joined the JW's, you took one huge step backwards, imo, as I have no respect for their know-it-all judgemental approach.

You said "I never denounce Christianity nor any other religion"..... But you just denounced JW's whilst extolling the virtues of an apostate church. I left the Anglican Church because it was not following the teachings of Jesus Christ and never did. It was a decision I have never regretted in 45 years as a JW. I know what I believe and why I believe it.....the apostles did too.....why shouldn't we?

The Church of England splintered off from Roman Catholicism for very unchristian reasons whilst retaining all the false doctrines adopted by the RCC centuries after Christ died.

"I dunno" has never been a satisfying answer for me, though it seems to be an acceptable (even noble) position for other folks. There was no uncertainty in what Jesus taught....and no reason to disbelieve him.

BTW, in your knowledge of Judaism you should have noticed that it was God who had the "my way or the highway" approach. The Jews were not free to bandy about their own ideas as an excuse to disobey their God. When they did, he wanted to "destroy them". (Exodus 32:9-10)

Do you have the ability to ignore scripture with impunity? If Israel didn't have that prerogative, then I wouldn't either.

 

[dad1]

Science is pretty much the opposite of religion, being fact-based, tested, falsifiable and open to change.

No facts are involved in the origins sciences, except as objects of molestation by their beliefs.

 

[dad1]

The laws of chemistry, physics and mathematics were the same in Noah's day (whenever that was) as they are today and were before the Earth was formed.

Nice claim. Now prove it.

There is no reason to believe they've changed.

Oh no!! Really? You now appeal to belief for you claim?

Is that what you thought real science was?

All of science and technology is based on matter and energy behaving predictably.

So what technology was there in Noah's day then, if you offer what technology is based on as proof of a same state past?

 

[dad1]

Good grief,
You have a narrow world view.

I’ll ignore the pathetic ‘science is a religion’ jibe.

That won't make it go away, science is a religion, a belief based methodology.

It isn’t science that pollutes; it is unregulated business and capitalism.

They had that since the garden of Eden. Yet the planet seemed to be in better shape without the science. Did we see a Hiroshima with people in the ancient world?

Cancer, were cigarettes invented by scientists?

Carcinogenics come in many forms. You do realize there is more now than in the days of hunters and gatherers and farmers? Science is involved in cigarettes of course also. The paper they are in, the glue, the chemicals they add to the tobacco, the tractor and machinery they use to grow and pick the crops, the pesticides and fertilizers they use, the lighters and matches that light the smokes, the trucks that ship them to your stores, the fuel in those trucks, the motors, the tires...etc etc etc etc etc.

Not sure what ‘womd’ is so I’ll leave that

Weapons of mass destruction...thank you science.

 

[Altfish]

That won't make it go away, science is a religion, a belief based methodology.

They had that since the garden of Eden. Yet the planet seemed to be in better shape without the science. Did we see a Hiroshima with people in the ancient world?

Carcinogenics come in many forms. You do realize there is more now than in the days of hunters and gatherers and farmers? Science is involved in cigarettes of course also. The paper they are in, the glue, the chemicals they add to the tobacco, the tractor and machinery they use to grow and pick the crops, the pesticides and fertilizers they use, the lighters and matches that light the smokes, the trucks that ship them to your stores, the fuel in those trucks, the motors, the tires...etc etc etc etc etc.

Weapons of mass destruction...thank you science.

Welcome to the 18th Century.

 

[Yerda]

Some modern man like footprints have been found. This could easily be pre flood man prints. Man would have evolved since the flood, so changes in heel or feet could be expected. Yet science fantasizes only about some supposed ancestor to man. Besides showing their stories were wrong, it shows they have a very limited pool to draw water from intellectually.

Fossil footprints challenge established theories of human evolution

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170831134221.htm

Does this mean that creationists are ready to accept the scientific methods of dating strata of rock and deducing the correct age of fossils?

 

[dad1]

Does this mean that creationists are ready to accept the scientific methods of dating strata of rock and deducing the correct age of fossils?

No. It means we do not take the ages seriously, and raise the issue just to show division within your religion internally, with the new imaginary dates.

 

[metis]

Why is this all so personal with you?

Because when you have me saying things I did not say, ya, I get angry. And any Christian should be angry too because "bearing false witness", which you have repeatedly done against me, scientists, and the Catholic Church, is one of the Ten Commandments that you violate over and over again. Even when you are shown that you are clearly wrong from "the horse's mouth", all you do is to double-down on your dishonesty, such as your claim that I demeaned your religion (Christianity) and your dishonest accusation that the Catholics worship the sun, amongst other false accusations.

Was this not a direct mocking on your own part? Is the pot calling the kettle black?

I was not "mocking" you but condemning your use of false accusations, which is "bearing false witness", Deeje.

Would you know rotten fruit from God's viewpoint anyway?

Some more condescending clap-trap from one who portrays herself in a holier-than-Thou manner. I have studied theology for over five decades, so I do believe I well know what the Bible generally says. Your "theology" would have a first year seminary student in stitches it is so utterly shallow.

You assume a lot for someone who does not claim to be Christian and confesses that he 'doesn't know' the answer to the hard questions.

Well, at least I'm being honest rather than pretending to know answers that are virtually unknowable at this time objectively.

Obviously you never question the science because you are a science believer. .

That is just another bold-faced lie, and anyone here who has seen me post on scientific matters, including you, should well know that. Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje? Is this symblomatic of your JW "faith"? How utterly dishonest of you. In science, we question evidence all the time because it goes with the "territory"!

You said "I never denounce Christianity nor any other religion"..... But you just denounced JW's whilst extolling the virtues of an apostate church

The JW's are not a "religion", Deeje, they're a denomination of a religion.

I left the Anglican Church because it was not following the teachings of Jesus Christ and never did.

Well, at least they teach about honesty, basic Christian morality, and the necessity of good Bible scholarship, Deeje. Some of the best Christian theologians during the 20th century were/are Anglican, such as William Barclay and Dr. Hanson ("Tradition In the Early Church" with the latter theologian and author, which is the bast single history of the early church I've ever read).

BTW, in your knowledge of Judaism you should have noticed that it was God who had the "my way or the highway" approach.

Absolutely false. Matter of fact, if you actually carefully read your Bible, you would know that the Tanakh offers praise for those countries that may not be of Judaism as long as they believe in God and act morally: Micah6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Gentiles are not obligated to follow Jewish Law but need to believe in God and try and live morally. Therefore nations outside of Judaism can do God's will. We don't expect Christians and Muslims and Hindus (etc) to convert to Judaism, nor do we judge them negatively because they belong to another faith. Some other Christian denominations no longer do that either, including Anglicans, Catholics, and some others. Quite a bit different than the JW's and your acute judgementalism that defies both Jesus' and Paul's teachings about not judging others.

Deeje, it is truly hypocritical for you to claim have such a faith in the Bible when you ignore so much of it that includes your repeated "bearing false witness" as well as your continued stereotyping and condemnation of other Christian faiths like Catholicism, or of other religions, or of scientists, and or of myself and some others here.

I have had more than enough of your utter dishonesty here, Deeje. In actuality, you do the JW's far more harm than good with your approach here, and I sincerely hope that someday you may actually come to realize that basic morally, Christian or otherwise, is far more important than trying to win an argument through "bearing false witness" and stereotyping other people and other groups. One can only hope.

 

[Yerda]

No. It means we do not take the ages seriously, and raise the issue just to show division within your religion internally, with the new imaginary dates.

Ok. I thought for a second I might have detected the emergence of intellectual honesty among creationists. No such luck. As you were.

 

[gnostic]

How do genes today allow man to live 1000 years? How do genes today allow animals and man from an ark to evolved in days or years rather than the slow processes we have today? Science doesn't know, they have never even seen any DNA from the time.

I am neither biologist, nor medical doctor, nor palaeontologist.

But as I understand it, some specialists can through science, determine the age of person, when they die, by examining bones and teeth.

I am sure someone else in this thread can explain this better than I can, but science are able to determine the age, by examining the enamels of a tooth.

It is sort of like people who study tree rings can determine its ages, I think they can do something similar with tooth enamels.

Humans living less than 10,000 years ago, their skeletal remains have less chance to fossilise.

But at whatever periods, Neolithic periods or the Bronze Age (Early Bronze Age or the wnd half of 3rd millennium BCE, would be the supposed time for Noah’s Flood, based Iron the calculations of Masoretic-based source Old Testament), examining the teeth will show the general life expectancies are not very high.

Only those who lived like royal, few would reach the age of 100.

No one 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago, lived over 130 years of age. And the further back in time you, it should show even shorter life span, not the mythological 200-plus (eg Enoch, aged 365) or 900-plus years (eg Adam, 930 years, Seth, 912, Methuselah, 969, and Noah, 950).

If scientists found a tooth of person that lived to 200 years or more, the news would spread like wildfire, and everyone would know about.

So can you imagine what would happen if they should find a person who lived to 900 years or more like in Genesis 5? We would not the hear the end of creationists boasting that they were right.

But what do we hear of, from discoveries of some people living past 200 years?

Absolute silence.

 

[Jose Fly]

My faith is backed up by true science.....not the theoretical stuff that no one can prove.

I would love to see you back this claim up Deeje. What "true science" that is not theoretical and is provable do you think substantiates your religious beliefs?

 

[Deeje]

Because when you have me saying things I did not say, ya, I get angry. And any Christian should be angry too because "bearing false witness", which you have repeatedly done against me, scientists, and the Catholic Church, is one of the Ten Commandments that you violate over and over again.

Show me where I have ever deliberately told a lie about anything metis....science, religion or where I have purposely accused you of saying things you never said..... If I have done this so many times it should be easy to quote examples.

Even when you are shown that you are clearly wrong from "the horse's mouth", all you do is to double-down on your dishonesty, such as your claim that I demeaned your religion (Christianity) and your dishonest accusation that the Catholics worship the sun, amongst other false accusations.

The horse's mouth is not exactly a reliable source of information when you consider that the horse suffers from terminal bias. I have provided solid evidence for my claims metis, which is more than you have done.
Sun worship in the RCC is as plain as the nose on anyone's face. Denial does not make it disappear.
Do you have some scripture that allows the church to change the Sabbath to Sunday? Is it a coincidence that it just happened to be Rome's pagan holy day, dedicated to whom? Have you never wondered why Pope Gregory retained the names of pagan gods for the days of the week and months of the year when implementing his new calendar?

I was not "mocking" you but condemning your use of false accusations, which is "bearing false witness", Deeje.

I have never deliberately done that. You denying what I have said doesn't make it a lie. "Bearing false witness" is lying....I would never deliberately lie, just as I assume you would not. That is a pretty serious charge.

Some more condescending clap-trap from one who portrays herself in a holier-than-Thou manner. I have studied theology for over five decades, so I do believe I well know what the Bible generally says. Your "theology" would have a first year seminary student in stitches it is so utterly shallow.

So its wrong to be confident instead of wishy-washy about my beliefs? The "theology" that you studied and taught was formulated by Christendom. It has precious little to do with the Bible and more to do with misinterpretation of the Bible in the apostasy Jesus foretold, which was to begin as soon a the apostles passed off the earthly scene.

Believe me I have had my share of conversations with seminary students...some of whom have become Jehovah's Witnesses because of their experiences in those institutions. What they learned was of no benefit to anyone because what they taught was according to human tradition rather than God's word. I know who teaches the clap trap because I once lived in that confused state, not knowing the answers to anything.
I know the answers now after 45 years of study.

Well, at least I'm being honest rather than pretending to know answers that are virtually unknowable at this time objectively.

You don't know because you can't believe. James said that if you have no faith, you will not receive anything from God.

"So if any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching, and it will be given him. 6 But let him keep asking in faith, not doubting at all, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven by the wind and blown about. 7 In fact, that man should not expect to receive anything from Jehovah; 8 he is an indecisive man, unsteady in all his ways." (James 1:8-9)

This is not the time for indecision. Jesus said "whoever is not for me is against me"......where does that leave the majority of people today?

 

[Deeje]

That is just another bold-faced lie, and anyone here who has seen me post on scientific matters, including you, should well know that. Have you no shame whatsoever, Deeje? Is this symblomatic of your JW "faith"? How utterly dishonest of you. In science, we question evidence all the time because it goes with the "territory"!

Metis, you accept so much on hearsay. If the top scientists say something about evolution, you do not question them. Why? Because you trust them. I have that same trust in God. My being a JW has nothing to do with this topic. Our exchange here is way off topic in fact.

The JW's are not a "religion", Deeje, they're a denomination of a religion.

Jehovah's Witnesses are not attached to Christendom in any way. We hold no beliefs in common with them at all. We are not a denomination, but a separate religion. We did not break away from any church.....our ranks are filled with people from all nations and faiths and our study of the Bible does not depend on any theology formulated by a fractured and divided church system...so you are dead wrong about that.

Well, at least they teach about honesty, basic Christian morality, and the necessity of good Bible scholarship, Deeje.

Now that is funnier than you can imagine, since their honesty is decidedly questionable when they teach doctrines formulated by men hundreds of years after Christ's death rather than what the Bible itself teaches.
Their basic Christian morality is a paper thin veneer that can be torn up when justification is needed to break God's law. Support for SSM and killing in the bloody wars of the nations, just to mention two. Marriage and divorce, sex without marriage are others. Their Bible scholarship is very biased towards their own doctrines. They score a very big zero on all counts as far as I am concerned...that is why I left them and never went back.

Some of the best Christian theologians during the 20th century were/are Anglican, such as William Barclay and Dr. Hanson ("Tradition In the Early Church" with the latter theologian and author, which is the bast single history of the early church I've ever read).

We quote Barclay's writings a lot in our publications. I am pleased that you mentioned him. He provides many historical details that help to bring the Bible to life. Doctrines of course are a different matter.

Absolutely false. Matter of fact, if you actually carefully read your Bible, you would know that the Tanakh offers praise for those countries that may not be of Judaism as long as they believe in God and act morally: Micah6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Gentiles are not obligated to follow Jewish Law but need to believe in God and try and live morally. Therefore nations outside of Judaism can do God's will.

Do you just quote scripture out of context and then give them your own meaning? Do you carefully read your Bible? Micah's judgment message was directed to Israel.

Verses 12, 13 go on to say.....
"For her rich men are full of violence, And her inhabitants speak lies; Their tongue is deceitful in their mouth. “Therefore, I will wound you by striking you, Making you desolate because of your sins."

Micah 7:2-3 tells of Israel's deplorable state....
"The loyal one has perished from the earth; Among men there is no one upright. All of them lie in ambush for bloodshed. Each hunts his own brother with a dragnet.
Their hands are expert at doing what is bad; The prince is making demands, The judge asks for a reward, The prominent one makes known his desires, And they work it out together."

In order to have God's favor, they needed to give back to Jehovah what he asked of them in Micah 6:8.....
"what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Does the verse make sense now? They had failed on all levels.
If you taught theology metis, lets just say I am glad you never taught me.

 

[Deeje]

We don't expect Christians and Muslims and Hindus (etc) to convert to Judaism, nor do we judge them negatively because they belong to another faith. Some other Christian denominations no longer do that either, including Anglicans, Catholics, and some others. Quite a bit different than the JW's and your acute judgementalism that defies both Jesus' and Paul's teachings about not judging others.

I am not remotely interested in what other denominations do and it doesn't matter what religion people are...we are told to offer the message of salvation to all of them. Jesus preached to his fellow Jews.....you know how that was received. Did the first Christians preach to Gentiles with a view to them remaining so? We are to judge beliefs metis, not people. Everyone is free to choose their beliefs, but not all beliefs are acceptable to God. I can tell you what God says but I can't make you do anything....God doesn't either.

Christians are to preach to people of all nations and all faiths metis....it is the basis for their judgment....the example of Noah is used to help us understand why we need to find them and offer them the good news of the Kingdom as well as God's warning of what is to come. (Matthew 24:14, 37-39) If there was no need to preach to them, then Jesus would not have assigned us that work. (Matthew 28:19-20; Matthew 10:11-15)

Deeje, it is truly hypocritical for you to claim have such a faith in the Bible when you ignore so much of it that includes your repeated "bearing false witness" as well as your continued stereotyping and condemnation of other Christian faiths like Catholicism, or of other religions, or of scientists, and or of myself and some others here.

Seriously metis, repeating something over and over might make you feel better, but it doesn't make it true. I have never told an untruth....I have merely told you things you do not want to hear...big difference. I have backed up everything I have said regarding the RCC and its place in Biblical history. You have not proved me wrong.

I have had more than enough of your utter dishonesty here, Deeje. In actuality, you do the JW's far more harm than good with your approach here, and I sincerely hope that someday you may actually come to realize that basic morally, Christian or otherwise, is far more important than trying to win an argument through "bearing false witness" and stereotyping other people and other groups. One can only hope.

You appear to be fond of repeating phrases but not terribly good at providing a solid defense for either religion or science metis. You are just whining again. I wish your faith in God was as strong as your faith in men. I believe that those who cannot commit to God or who imagine that when he reveals himself, then they will take action, will not fare well. The Bible tells us that not one soul survived the flood who did not follow God's instructions to the letter. It wasn't just Noah, it was a united family effort.

It would be difficult to know what faith you are representing metis since you have changed you mind so often over the years, its a bit confusing to know what you are or what beliefs you subscribe to. Does attending your wife's Catholic church make you a Catholic....or even a Christian? Are you Jewish? I can't tell.

Only God knows our heart and why we make our choices.
We all have the same judge according to Jesus. I am confident of my choices....how about you?