On Evolution & Creation

[icant]

Dude, you do not know how to reason. You keep assuming that others are as ignorant as you are. You should be trying to learn how evolution works. You cannot refute that which you do not understand.

Neither can you as you do not understand how God works. Touche

 

[icant]

Well not with 100% surety, but as you should know there is no such thing as an "absolute fact". Your religion relies upon that heavily.

Welll after living 75 years with daily contact with my God I may not have 100% confirmation that would satisfy you with your warped views. But with my experiences I have had in my life and His leadership I would not exchange it for anything this world has to offer to replace my journey with Him

Almost all of your claims about others are actual descriptions of your own beliefs.

I don't know but 3 people that believe what I do, so I don't know what you are talking about. Could you please explain?

Enjoy,

 

[Argentbear]

When did oceans begin to exist?

Was it before or after all the material that decomposed and formed the trillions of barrels of oil that is up to five miles below the ocean floor? There is a lot of rock on top of that oil.

Enjoy,

you are of course aware that the natural gas and oil drilled for off shore was likely formed by the accumulation of dead aquatic plants that were burried. And i hope you understand that sediment is always ding deposited on ocean floors and over time that builds up.

I thought I could do a fair job with logic.
If I go out and see a pool of oil under my truck, I don't jump to the conclusion my truck evolved from oil.
If I go out in the field and see a bunch of weeds springing up I don't jump to the conclusion the weeds evolved from the ground.

you say you can do a fair job with logic but neither of these statements have any logical foundation.

 

[icant]

How would you test that? How would you confirm that? A book of myths that again and again tells us that God is evil, vain, and immoral and incompetent does not appear to be a rather reliable source.

Where does science say man and animals came from?

Enjoy,

 

[Argentbear]

I thought it was more like 500, million years.

Enjoy,

The oceans formed on Earth between 3.8 and 4.2 billion years ago. The formation of the oceans was a gradual process that took millions of years, as water remained a gas until the Earth cooled below 212°F. At this point, the water condensed into rain and filled the basins that eventually became the world's oceans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Neither can you as you do not understand how God works. Touche

No, you are projecting again. I can show how if your God does exist that he has all of the attributes that I discussed. You see, I do not understand logic. Using your version of God it is easy to show all of those claims about him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where does science say man and animals came from?

Enjoy,

Science shows that we are the product of common descent. That is that all life evolved from a single population of organisms. And it is very well supported by evidence. That is why in legal cases held before judges, who have to be experts on the concept of evidence as part of their job, have always found for the evolution side over the last 60 or seventy years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Welll after living 75 years with daily contact with my God I may not have 100% confirmation that would satisfy you with your warped views. But with my experiences I have had in my life and His leadership I would not exchange it for anything this world has to offer to replace my journey with Him

The problem is that you do not know how to properly test your beliefs. I can tell by what you describe that you are relying on confirmation bias. Also, testing your beliefs is not "testing God". One can still follow the Bible and not live a horrible life. That is not evidence for a god. And that appears to be all that you have.

I don't know but 3 people that believe what I do, so I don't know what you are talking about. Could you please explain?

Enjoy,

You constantly make false claims about others and science. They appear to be more descriptive of you than they are of science. For example you accuse others of not knowing. That describes you. You do not know and refuse to take steps that would enable you to know. If you were willing to learn I can show you how we know that we are the product of evolution. But I am very sure that you are not willing to learn.

 

[icant]

you are of course aware that the natural gas and oil drilled for off shore was likely formed by the accumulation of dead aquatic plants that were burried. And i hope you understand that sediment is always ding deposited on ocean floors and over time that builds up.

Yes it is under a lot of water thousands of feet of water but then you got up to 5 miles of rock on top of the ocean floor. You do not have time enough for all that accretion to take place.

At the rate of accretion today it would take between 57 and 114 billion years to add the material that covers the oil under the top of top of the earth. That does not even consider the construction of the rest of earth, or the time for the accumulation of the material for the oil

The math says there is not enough time in 13.8 billion years.

Enjoy,

 

[icant]

Science shows that we are the product of common descent. That is that all life evolved from a single population of organisms. And it is very well supported by evidence. That is why in legal cases held before judges, who have to be experts on the concept of evidence as part of their job, have always found for the evolution side over the last 60 or seventy years.

What is that common place? In other words where did it start originally?

Enjoy,

 

[metis]

If you can't create life from chemicals it did not ever happen.

That's not logical as there are innumerable possibilities.

 

[metis]

The math says there is not enough time in 13.8 billion years.

I've read several books by BB cosmologists and none of them made that claim.

 

[icant]

The problem is that you do not know how to properly test your beliefs. I

How would you test them?

And that appears to be all that you have.

That is just as much to go on as you have.

You constantly make false claims about others and science.

Is it a false claim, to question what existed at one billionth of a second after nothing existed.
Remember nothing exists outside of the universe as it is self-contained, or do you disagree that it is self-contained?
On billionth of a second for something to begin to exist and start expanding into the universe just seems impossible to me. But that's just me and my little pea sized brain.

Is asking the question, where the universe come from a false claim?
Is asking where life came from a false claim?
Is questioning experiments a false?

I can show you how we know that we are the product of evolution.

No, you can show me how you think, not know that we are the product of evolution.

Is questioning science period a false claim?

Enjoy,

 

[metis]

Remember nothing exists outside of the universe as it is self-contained, or do you disagree that it is self-contained?

No one could possibly know this with any certainty of being correct and I think more and more cosmologists think that we likely exist in a multiverse.

Also, one possible hypothesis for when and where our universe emerged was energy that was spit out from a black hole.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Darwin became an agnostic later in life but one wonders if that may be at least in part of so many insults thrown at him by so many Christians.

Thanks for the welcome.

I think he was trying to make religion and science agree, and you are probably right about insults. I have had a few of those thrown my way because I believe in a very, very, very old earth.

Science teaches us that energy and matter can not be created or destroyed. Then where did all the energy and matter in the universe come from?
Every thing in the universe came from energy and matter whether you believe in evolution or God.
So if they can't be created or destroyed they must be eternal in existence which is what Einstein thought, until it was discover that the universe was expanding.

Had he read Isaiah and Jeramiah he would have known why the universe was expanding.

Talking about these things have caused me a lot of grief in the past 70 years. People know what they believe and can't be bothered by the facts.

I am just a simple farm boy that believes if God said it I believe it because it is fact. The problem lies with mankind as our Bible translators introduced a lot of things they believed that God did not say as they were listening to their father the devil, just like the woman in the Garden did.

I'm trying to reconcile your statements there...

On the one hand you believe the earth is "very old", on the other you claim "I am just a simple farm boy that believes if God said it I believe it because it is fact."

Can I ask, are you claiming the following are all translational errors? (may I suggest you "carefully read" the texts below BEFORE answering)

1. Genesis chapters 1 and 2
2. Exodus 20:8-11
3. Matthew 24:38&39
4. 2 Peter 2:5-7

Also, how do you explain Peter saying he recieved his revelation from 3 sources(2 Pet 1:16-21)...
1. The writings of the prophets (moses was a prophet)
2. Christs ministry (christ speaks of Noah in Matthew 24)
3. Direct revelation from God in heaven (God revealed himself to Moses face to face, to the apostle John in dreams/visions)

If men mistranslated all of the above, which scribes stuffded up....Moses scribes, Mathews scribes, Peters scribes...who? If you claim a co spiracy by scribes to corrupt translations, how do you explain that the KJV translation managed to avoid the corruption of Chinese whispers given it is the result of the textus receptus translation that was not controlled directly and traversed hundreds of years of passing its writings between uneducated every day people and yet when compared to controlled translations is almost identical? (compare kjv with codex sinaticus when reading the above texts ive referenced).

If you claim Satan controlled even the textus receptus as well as critical text. How can we not also claim Satan manipulated the geological record after the flood...particularly since God apparently preserved His Word (the bible)?

If Christians believe Gods word is authoritative and recorded faithfully, why would the scribes for all of the above lie to produce doubt in evolutionary theory given they wrote all this down 2000+ years ago before evolution theory arose?

If old age earth theology dates back to Christs time, which early Christian church founders followed it, Moses, Christ, Matthew, Peter...who? They all appear to agree with each other in that Noahs flood was a real global event and that it was recent. Ie men were eating, drinking, giving in marriage...the inference here, partying...early hominid behaviour according to evolution dont fit that description...so the statements of Christ mean its recent even by evolutionary standards
.

Christ read from the scroll of Isaiah and claimed old testament prophecies were being fulfilled by his presence here, and the Mosaic sanctuary service clearly prophecisied His sacrifice on the cross as atonement for the wages of sin is death, where's the consistency in corruption there? The entire point of the sanctuary service demonstrates a model to the then Israelites explaining the wages of sin, and salvation is offered and fulfilled by the future sacrifice of a perfect lamb...Christ!

If Isaiahs writings weren't corrupted at the time of Christ because Christ quoted them, why claim corruption/error in Moses writings that also phrophesy Christs coming?

Finally, are you claiming Christ (incarnate God) who created this world made an error in His statements about Noah and the flood in Matthew 24?

 

[icant]

That's not logical as there are innumerable possibilities.

Yes and one of those is creation by God, creating mankind and all animals and fowls from the dust of the ground.

Enjoy,

 

[YoursTrue]

Darwin certainly did draw away from the church as he grew older. Scientists may ponder over how it all happened without any divine intelligence. And not everything is easy to understand in the Bible. It doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[icant]

Also, one possible hypothesis for when and where our universe emerged was energy that was spit out from a black hole.

Where did the black hole exist?

No one could possibly know this with any certainty of being correct and I think more and more cosmologists think that we likely exist in a multiverse.

That is what the BBT is based on.

But I know that scientist have been trying to remove the little pin point sized universe that existed 1 billionth of a second after T=0 for many years.

Enjoy,

 

[LuisDantas]

Creationists have weird expectations and standards.

 

[icant]

've read several books by BB cosmologists and none of them made that claim.

The annual accretion of thickness added to earth by accretion is approximately 0.07 to 0.14 micrometers (0.07 to 0.14 x 10^-6 meters).
Minimum time: ( \frac{8,046.72 \text{ meters}}{0.14 \times 10^{-6} \text{ meters/year}} \approx. 57.48 \times 10^9 \text{ years} )
Maximum time: ( \frac{8,046.72 \text{ meters}}{0.07 \times 10^{-6} \text{ meters/year}} \approx. 114.95 \times 10^9 \text{ years} )
So, it would take approximately 57.48 to 114.95 billion years to add a thickness of 5 miles to the Earth’s surface through accretion at the current rate.
Taking the smaller number there would not be enough time in 4 times the amount of time to cover the oil 5 miles deep under the crust of the ocean floor.

Maybe they did not do the math.

Now maybe you can see why I question everything about our universe.

Enjoy,