|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOh and the article is littered with pseudo-science gibberish terms and claims to legitimize bullshit: Example: they call it gender "affirming" care. Affirming means to offer emotional support and encouragement. That's not what they're doing- they providing medical treatment that have profound and irreversible anatomical and physiological effects to children. Here's a doozy: [the kids] have “a deep sense of knowing” that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct, how can an eight year old have a deep sense of knowing that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria has a social, not medical solution. Yeah I'm neither here or there on this. You won't see me arguing for or against it. I've commented before I'm more on your side of the fence than the other but I don't know enough about it to get right into it. My point was you were saying if you were under 18 you could get your genitals chopped off and the taxpayer would foot the bill. That's not what the article said. It was "suggested" that it would be from 18 year- but I'd bet there will be efforts to lower the entry age. In any case, Victoria has done exactly that. Now you're speculating. But whatever, you claimed one thing when it said nothing of the sort. The problem for you and that other clown is I actually read the links.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Are you serious with your ensuite example? If you were omnipotent, like god is supposed to be, you'd wave your magic wand and your ensuite would magically appear in the right place. And all the other problems associated with 're-engineering it' would be sorted. Because god = omnipotent don't forget. Any problems would be trivial for an omnipotent intelligent designer. That's the point. god is supposed to be the 'intelligent designer'. Any flaw, of which the human body has dozens, is either god's fault or, as is a billion times more likely, a case of evolution being 'good enough to get the job done'. If anything you've proved my point. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles. BTW if you're building on reactive soil make sure there is fall away from the house slab in all directions, (50mm over the first metre), don't plant any trees nearby or gardens up against the house, make sure they use flexible plumbing joints at the egress points of the slab outside the house. If you're getting a waffle pad done be careful. They're nearly always undercooked. Min. 100mm slab on top (not 85mm) SL92 mesh, not SL82 or worse SL72. N16 bars in the ribs. If you're on reactive soils read this carefully and do what it says. https://www.arkle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSIRO-Foundation-Maintenance.pdfIt is published by the CSIRO though and they're full of those scientists with 'their arrogance and hubris' so take it with a pinch of salt. (Or have your house crack and move. Your call.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOh and the article is littered with pseudo-science gibberish terms and claims to legitimize bullshit: Example: they call it gender "affirming" care. Affirming means to offer emotional support and encouragement. That's not what they're doing- they providing medical treatment that have profound and irreversible anatomical and physiological effects to children. Here's a doozy: [the kids] have “a deep sense of knowing” that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct, how can an eight year old have a deep sense of knowing that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria has a social, not medical solution. Yeah I'm neither here or there on this. You won't see me arguing for or against it. I've commented before I'm more on your side of the fence than the other but I don't know enough about it to get right into it. My point was you were saying if you were under 18 you could get your genitals chopped off and the taxpayer would foot the bill. That's not what the article said. It was "suggested" that it would be from 18 year- but I'd bet there will be efforts to lower the entry age. In any case, Victoria has done exactly that. Now you're speculating. But whatever, you claimed one thing when it said nothing of the sort. The problem for you and that other clown is I actually read the links. The article literally writes "suggested". Victoria is treating literally 8 year olds. Your problem is you see only what you want to see.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe concept of gut-health is quite new. From my circle of friends, most people haven't caught on yet. But if you Google search for - gut health - you'll see if you are among those who've been slow to catch on. What this shows is that the human appendix, once through to be totally useless, now is understood to play a massive role in maintaining gut-health in the body. https://time.com/4631305/appendicitis-appendix-gut-bacteria/Something to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. This is actually a good point. One of the things I hate about modern day scientists is their arrogance and hubris. Many unfortunately have not taken a course in the History and Philosophy of Science. If they did they wouldn't be so cocksure about the current state of scientific knowledge. Two hundred years ago I bet the scientists of the day thought they knew "it". They were wrong. One hundred and twenty years ago physicists claimed there was nothing more for physics to learn. They were wrong. Your hatred of scientists is unhinged. Hey Munrubenmuz It is not "hatred of science" Are you are Far-Left ideologue, who labels any opposing idea as "hate"? Be truthful. I stand for science. I love scientific method. I have a qualification in a science-related field, (more the manufacturing side of things). I am against people that use "science" as a brand, but deny the truthfulness of science. True science is open to debate from all sides. True science considers arguments both for and against, and argues the case. Whereas false-science slanders and attacks anyone who disagrees with them, and says the other side's scientific arguments are "not following the science". False-science says that only those who are employed by governments are true scientists -- and that top scientists, with massive credentials, serving as top academics in top universities ... false-science insults those people because those people had the guts to voice opinions that are against the Mainstream. False-science is a weapon of totalitarianism that aims to crush any dissent in opposing opinions on scientific matters. False science does not know the limits of scientific-method. The main tool of false-science is insulting the other side, while pretending to be "scientific". False-science is propaganda, which feeds into the masses who are able to be controlled by insult-slogans that they are instructed to throw at the other side. Whereas true science makes its case by rational argument, presenting of facts and data.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOh and the article is littered with pseudo-science gibberish terms and claims to legitimize bullshit: Example: they call it gender "affirming" care. Affirming means to offer emotional support and encouragement. That's not what they're doing- they providing medical treatment that have profound and irreversible anatomical and physiological effects to children. Here's a doozy: [the kids] have “a deep sense of knowing” that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct, how can an eight year old have a deep sense of knowing that they are transgender. If gender is a social construct then gender dysphoria has a social, not medical solution. Yeah I'm neither here or there on this. You won't see me arguing for or against it. I've commented before I'm more on your side of the fence than the other but I don't know enough about it to get right into it. My point was you were saying if you were under 18 you could get your genitals chopped off and the taxpayer would foot the bill. That's not what the article said. It was "suggested" that it would be from 18 year- but I'd bet there will be efforts to lower the entry age. In any case, Victoria has done exactly that. Now you're speculating. But whatever, you claimed one thing when it said nothing of the sort. The problem for you and that other clown is I actually read the links. The article literally writes "suggested". Victoria is treating literally 8 year olds. Your problem is you see only what you want to see. This is what you said. 'If you're under 18 you're not mature enough to legally buy a pack of ciggies or a bottle of beer.
But soon you'll able to lop your genitals off and the taxpayer will pay for it, on the basis of something of a mental illness rather than a real condition.'
The article said this; 'the proposal, which will be considered at a meeting next month, suggests the Medicare rebates be limited to adults between 18 and 50 years old.'Whatever, you can't admit you're wrong. We move on. BTW To my outside eyes I don't agree with 8 year olds being treated but I'm not a doctor that specialises in this field so my knowledge is limited. But on face value I'm leaning towards no.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, The eye - in humans, animals, fish, birds. Have you wondered: if everything came about by random chance, how come all these creatures have an eye that has a perfectly formed lens? What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? This all points to an Intelligent Creator God, and then the next question is: out of all the spirits, good and evil, pretending to be god - which one is the true God? https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=eyehttps://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwin-vs-the-eye/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/eye-evolved-if-you-dont-look-closely/https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/didnt-darwin-call-the-evolution-of-the-eye-absurd/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/can-evolution-produce-an-eye-not-a-chance/https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/ministry/an-eye-for-creation/https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/darwins-challenge/https://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwinian-mechanismshttps://creation.com/charles-darwin-vs-the-eye
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't. Gosh, are you seeking truth through dialogue? Of course there are differences in the eyes of all the animals. But what I mean is, they're all based on the structure of having a lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Are you serious with your ensuite example? If you were omnipotent, like god is supposed to be, you'd wave your magic wand and your ensuite would magically appear in the right place. And all the other problems associated with 're-engineering it' would be sorted. Because god = omnipotent don't forget. Any problems would be trivial for an omnipotent intelligent designer. That's the point. god is supposed to be the 'intelligent designer'. Any flaw, of which the human body has dozens, is either god's fault or, as is a billion times more likely, a case of evolution being 'good enough to get the job done'. If anything you've proved my point. BTW if you're building on reactive soil make sure there is fall away from the house slab in all directions, (50mm over the first metre), don't plant any trees nearby or gardens up against the house, make sure they use flexible plumbing joints at the egress points of the slab outside the house. If you're getting a waffle pad done be careful. They're nearly always undercooked. Min. 100mm slab on top (not 85mm) SL92 mesh, not SL82 or worse SL72. N16 bars in the ribs. If you're on reactive soils read this carefully and do what it says. https://www.arkle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSIRO-Foundation-Maintenance.pdfIt is published by the CSIRO though and they're full of those scientists with 'their arrogance and hubris' so take it with a pinch of salt. (Or have your house crack and move. Your call.) I admit I don't know enough about Intelligent Design- does it necessary imply perfection? Or only that the individual pieces of the design are essential and fit for purpose and could not have happened randomly? Evolution has its own problems: If its random, then it would need a long time to come up with the complexity needed to go from single cell to a human..which also depends on how long for next generation to evolve...and the rate of mutation...mutation is the mechansim for evolution but contrary to recent scientific consensus, most mutations seem to be deleterious, and not beneficial https://news.umich.edu/study-most-silent-genetic-mutations-are-harmful-not-neutral-a-finding-with-broad-implications/Complex life is one hell of a fluke if evolution is real.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Are you serious with your ensuite example? If you were omnipotent, like god is supposed to be, you'd wave your magic wand and your ensuite would magically appear in the right place. And all the other problems associated with 're-engineering it' would be sorted. Because god = omnipotent don't forget. Any problems would be trivial for an omnipotent intelligent designer. That's the point. god is supposed to be the 'intelligent designer'. Any flaw, of which the human body has dozens, is either god's fault or, as is a billion times more likely, a case of evolution being 'good enough to get the job done'. If anything you've proved my point. BTW if you're building on reactive soil make sure there is fall away from the house slab in all directions, (50mm over the first metre), don't plant any trees nearby or gardens up against the house, make sure they use flexible plumbing joints at the egress points of the slab outside the house. If you're getting a waffle pad done be careful. They're nearly always undercooked. Min. 100mm slab on top (not 85mm) SL92 mesh, not SL82 or worse SL72. N16 bars in the ribs. If you're on reactive soils read this carefully and do what it says. https://www.arkle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSIRO-Foundation-Maintenance.pdfIt is published by the CSIRO though and they're full of those scientists with 'their arrogance and hubris' so take it with a pinch of salt. (Or have your house crack and move. Your call.) I admit I don't know enough about Intelligent Design- does it necessary imply perfection? Or only that the individual pieces of the design are essential and fit for purpose and could not have happened randomly? Evolution has its own problems: If its random, then it would need a long time to come up with the complexity needed to go from single cell to a human..which also depends on how long for next generation to evolve...and the rate of mutation...mutation is the mechansim for evolution but contrary to recent scientific consensus, most mutations seem to be deleterious, and not beneficial https://news.umich.edu/study-most-silent-genetic-mutations-are-harmful-not-neutral-a-finding-with-broad-implications/Complex life is one hell of a fluke if evolution is real. Sure is. Took 3 billion years to get going. Billions upon billions of dead ends, multiple mass extinctions along the way. Massive problems for sure, multiple competing theories but evolution is writ large in our genes and our DNA. It happened. How it kicked off may never be discovered. No one has ever disputed mutations are not deleterious. Nobody involved seriously in evolutionary biology does. The thing is you just need a single mutation to give you a slight reproductive advantage and they will eventually out compete their peers. From the article you linked. To their surprise, the researchers found that 75.9% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious, while 1.3% were significantly beneficial.Watch this 2 minute video which perfectly elucidates how the walls are impermeable until a mutation occurs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8Remember you only need 1 out of billions. (Your study linked is saying 1.3 in a hundred.) I wish people knew more about this sort of thing.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xThe concept of gut-health is quite new. From my circle of friends, most people haven't caught on yet. But if you Google search for - gut health - you'll see if you are among those who've been slow to catch on. What this shows is that the human appendix, once through to be totally useless, now is understood to play a massive role in maintaining gut-health in the body. https://time.com/4631305/appendicitis-appendix-gut-bacteria/Something to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. This is actually a good point. One of the things I hate about modern day scientists is their arrogance and hubris. Many unfortunately have not taken a course in the History and Philosophy of Science. If they did they wouldn't be so cocksure about the current state of scientific knowledge. Two hundred years ago I bet the scientists of the day thought they knew "it". They were wrong. One hundred and twenty years ago physicists claimed there was nothing more for physics to learn. They were wrong. Your hatred of scientists is unhinged. If you ever took the time to watch or read what scientists have to say on any subject rather than facebook or sky news you would see that 99.9% of the time scientists couch their work with disclaimers and limitations. They always say 'at the moment this is what we think' or 'there may be some information that disproves this hypothesis' or 'we cannot be 100% certain but...etc'. If you ever picked up a New Scientists or a Scientific American or any type of scientific periodical journal and actually read a few articles you would understand that. And BTW the jury is still out whether the appendix has evolved to harbour good bacteria or it was co-opted by the body after it became a vestigial organ. If it was actually 'necessary' for good health then the millions of people that have had them removed would be suffering from illness or dying in large numbers over and above people that retain theirs. There's little to no evidence that that is the case. I did actually subscribe to Scientific American for over 20 years. A few years back they started becoming political, pushing left wing propaganda, and more and more publishing what amounted to pseudo-science from the social studies, psychology and even economics, and that I couldn't support. It was obvious that they had been corrupted by politics and money. That's what I hate. Corruption. I don't hate the honest humble scientist beavering away diligently and meticulously. RE: Appendectomy We identified 914,208 patients who underwent appendectomy, and after matching with control patients, a total of 486,844 patients were included for analysis. Patients who underwent appendectomy showed a significantly higher incidence of Crohn's disease (IRR 4.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.78-5.13) and ulcerative colitis (IRR 1.78, 95% CI 1.63-1.93) compared to the control group during the 5-year follow-up period. The associations between appendectomy and Clostridium difficile infection, sepsis, and colorectal cancer were all found to be significant.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33594506/
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't. Gosh, are you seeking truth through dialogue? Of course there are differences in the eyes of all the animals. But what I mean is, they're all based on the structure of having a lens. Nope. Just an answer to the question I asked. Spare me the waffle. Actually seeing you think there's a debate amongst scientists could you please link me some peer reviewed papers from Hindu, Buddhists, Shintoists, Sikhs or Taoists that back up YEC doctrine. (Or are they all in on it too?) Thanks.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xThe concept of gut-health is quite new. From my circle of friends, most people haven't caught on yet. But if you Google search for - gut health - you'll see if you are among those who've been slow to catch on. What this shows is that the human appendix, once through to be totally useless, now is understood to play a massive role in maintaining gut-health in the body. https://time.com/4631305/appendicitis-appendix-gut-bacteria/Something to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. This is actually a good point. One of the things I hate about modern day scientists is their arrogance and hubris. Many unfortunately have not taken a course in the History and Philosophy of Science. If they did they wouldn't be so cocksure about the current state of scientific knowledge. Two hundred years ago I bet the scientists of the day thought they knew "it". They were wrong. One hundred and twenty years ago physicists claimed there was nothing more for physics to learn. They were wrong. Your hatred of scientists is unhinged. If you ever took the time to watch or read what scientists have to say on any subject rather than facebook or sky news you would see that 99.9% of the time scientists couch their work with disclaimers and limitations. They always say 'at the moment this is what we think' or 'there may be some information that disproves this hypothesis' or 'we cannot be 100% certain but...etc'. If you ever picked up a New Scientists or a Scientific American or any type of scientific periodical journal and actually read a few articles you would understand that. And BTW the jury is still out whether the appendix has evolved to harbour good bacteria or it was co-opted by the body after it became a vestigial organ. If it was actually 'necessary' for good health then the millions of people that have had them removed would be suffering from illness or dying in large numbers over and above people that retain theirs. There's little to no evidence that that is the case. I did actually subscribe to Scientific American for over 20 years. A few years back they started becoming political, pushing left wing propaganda, and more and more publishing what amounted to pseudo-science from the social studies, psychology and even economics, and that I couldn't support. It was obvious that they had been corrupted by politics and money. That's what I hate. Corruption. I don't hate the honest humble scientist beavering away diligently and meticulously. RE: Appendectomy We identified 914,208 patients who underwent appendectomy, and after matching with control patients, a total of 486,844 patients were included for analysis. Patients who underwent appendectomy showed a significantly higher incidence of Crohn's disease (IRR 4.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.78-5.13) and ulcerative colitis (IRR 1.78, 95% CI 1.63-1.93) compared to the control group during the 5-year follow-up period. The associations between appendectomy and Clostridium difficile infection, sepsis, and colorectal cancer were all found to be significant.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33594506/ Cool. Thanks for linking the study. Interesting. They do say 'may' but that just means more work should be done. (Which they should do.) That doesn't mean the appendix is not a vestigial organ that has been co-opted by the body to harbour gut bacteria. Again more work needs to be done. Now explain why the human body doesn't synthesise it's own vitamin C like most animals. Sort of dumb move by god. Like wouldn't you just jam that function into the kidney or liver like you did for all the other animals? (Or did he just forget?)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Here's an even better example than vitamin C. Now remember Noah and his progeny walked off the ark and repopulated the world. Leaving aside the fact there are multiple races even that's now in dispute) and ethnicities isn't it interesting that 2/3s of the world are lactose intolerant? Odd wouldn't you say? To what purpose is it beneficial for people descending from Noah and his children to not have the gene for lactose tolerance? I mean Asian babies can be breastfed so why allow that but not the consumption of other dairy products to their detriment? Or.............. A genetic mutation approximately 7500-9000 years ago allowed Northern Europeans to be able to consume lactose. And that genetic variation spread. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/12/27/168144785/an-evolutionary-whodunit-how-did-humans-develop-lactose-tolerancehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7551416/
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Are you serious with your ensuite example? If you were omnipotent, like god is supposed to be, you'd wave your magic wand and your ensuite would magically appear in the right place. And all the other problems associated with 're-engineering it' would be sorted. Because god = omnipotent don't forget. Any problems would be trivial for an omnipotent intelligent designer. That's the point. god is supposed to be the 'intelligent designer'. Any flaw, of which the human body has dozens, is either god's fault or, as is a billion times more likely, a case of evolution being 'good enough to get the job done'. If anything you've proved my point. BTW if you're building on reactive soil make sure there is fall away from the house slab in all directions, (50mm over the first metre), don't plant any trees nearby or gardens up against the house, make sure they use flexible plumbing joints at the egress points of the slab outside the house. If you're getting a waffle pad done be careful. They're nearly always undercooked. Min. 100mm slab on top (not 85mm) SL92 mesh, not SL82 or worse SL72. N16 bars in the ribs. If you're on reactive soils read this carefully and do what it says. https://www.arkle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSIRO-Foundation-Maintenance.pdfIt is published by the CSIRO though and they're full of those scientists with 'their arrogance and hubris' so take it with a pinch of salt. (Or have your house crack and move. Your call.) I admit I don't know enough about Intelligent Design- does it necessary imply perfection? Or only that the individual pieces of the design are essential and fit for purpose and could not have happened randomly? Evolution has its own problems: If its random, then it would need a long time to come up with the complexity needed to go from single cell to a human..which also depends on how long for next generation to evolve...and the rate of mutation...mutation is the mechansim for evolution but contrary to recent scientific consensus, most mutations seem to be deleterious, and not beneficial https://news.umich.edu/study-most-silent-genetic-mutations-are-harmful-not-neutral-a-finding-with-broad-implications/Complex life is one hell of a fluke if evolution is real. Sure is. Took 3 billion years to get going. Billions upon billions of dead ends, multiple mass extinctions along the way. Massive problems for sure, multiple competing theories but evolution is writ large in our genes and our DNA. It happened. How it kicked off may never be discovered. No one has ever disputed mutations are not deleterious. Nobody involved seriously in evolutionary biology does. The thing is you just need a single mutation to give you a slight reproductive advantage and they will eventually out compete their peers. From the article you linked. To their surprise, the researchers found that 75.9% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious, while 1.3% were significantly beneficial.Watch this 2 minute video which perfectly elucidates how the walls are impermeable until a mutation occurs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8Remember you only need 1 out of billions. (Your study linked is saying 1.3 in a hundred.) I wish people knew more about this sort of thing. If you dig down to the biochemical level, there are huge numbers of long and interdependent chains of biochemical processes that all must be there to create a human. And this is all due to a sequence of unlikely flukes, most of which are harmful? BTW thanks for the engineering advice-its been a pain in the arse to build on this site, and yes I've gone for a raft slab, which will cost more but hopefully give a better result.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The blind spot is the exit point of the retina at the back of the eye on its way to the brain. 1. the blind spot isn't visually detrimental if you have two eyes, and 2. isn't visually detrimental if you have eyes that can move. 3. Where else would you put it? The retinal vessels are where they are to supply the tissues closest to them ie the inner retina. At the back there is a separate blood supply to supply the retina closest to it. It makes every sense to put them there. Visually the retinal vessels make no detrimental difference because the eye is actually never still-there are tiny rhythmic movements called micro-saccades which negate the blocking of light falling on the retina. To add o this, the retina is back to front-light has to pass through the retina to get to the photoreceptors. Even so there is no significant image degradation AND further that's exactly how it should be designed because photoreceptors require the support of the RPE- but the RPE is non transparent so you can't put it first and it too needs the dense net of blood supply called the choroid so you can't put the photoreceptors first. Myopia is mostly a function of human environmental factors: urbanization, excess near work, lighting, Astigmatism is linked with eyelid morphology and eye rubbing. The crystalline lens has a function to protect the retina from ionizing radiation at the expense of loss of its transparency hence cataract. Some vision is better than none. The retinal image is upside down because the eye has an overall power of plus 60-or so diopters. This plus power is needed to focus distance light down to the length of the eye 25 mm or so. Plus lenses form inverted real images. Hence the retinal image is inverted. Its the optics of light. Why add the additional complexity of another plus lenses to make the image upright or add more processing power inside the volume limited eye to flip the image when there is more volume in the brain to do it? The wavelengths we can't see are either high energy ionizing radiation or heat. Why would we need to see them? Relative to the size of eyes its only really the birds that beat our visual acuity. We could get bigger eyes and bigger heads, but why? To be clear I'm not saying God made the eye, I just don' believe those negatives of the eye and vision are strong arguments per se against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Are you serious with your ensuite example? If you were omnipotent, like god is supposed to be, you'd wave your magic wand and your ensuite would magically appear in the right place. And all the other problems associated with 're-engineering it' would be sorted. Because god = omnipotent don't forget. Any problems would be trivial for an omnipotent intelligent designer. That's the point. god is supposed to be the 'intelligent designer'. Any flaw, of which the human body has dozens, is either god's fault or, as is a billion times more likely, a case of evolution being 'good enough to get the job done'. If anything you've proved my point. BTW if you're building on reactive soil make sure there is fall away from the house slab in all directions, (50mm over the first metre), don't plant any trees nearby or gardens up against the house, make sure they use flexible plumbing joints at the egress points of the slab outside the house. If you're getting a waffle pad done be careful. They're nearly always undercooked. Min. 100mm slab on top (not 85mm) SL92 mesh, not SL82 or worse SL72. N16 bars in the ribs. If you're on reactive soils read this carefully and do what it says. https://www.arkle.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CSIRO-Foundation-Maintenance.pdfIt is published by the CSIRO though and they're full of those scientists with 'their arrogance and hubris' so take it with a pinch of salt. (Or have your house crack and move. Your call.) I admit I don't know enough about Intelligent Design- does it necessary imply perfection? Enzo, intelligent design implies that the World and all the living organisms - as created in the 6 Days of Creation -- was created in perfection. So everything was perfect at the beginning. But the Bible explains that, because of the Fall of mankind and the incoming of sin into the world, everything was damaged. "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now." (Romans 8:20-22) The above verse is saying that when mankind fell into sin, and transferred their allegiance to the devil, God subjected the entire world and Nature to ... whatever "subjecting it to futility" means. Death entered the world. As a consequence, everything in Nature right now is NOT as God designed it in the beginning. So many diseases we see today are due to mutation of DNA. The law of nature is that a system can only from order to disorder. There is no such thing as a chemical soup, over millions and millions of years, becoming the amazing wonder of complexity we see in the DNA molecule. Instead, it is the opposite. In the beginning, the intelligent design of God created it perfect. But because of the Fall of mankind and the consequent fall of everything in the world, what we see is the original Creation in a process of decline and progressive damage.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. According to the premise of there being a God over this universe who is capable of creating the world, and the universe, in 6 days ... it means that the dinosaurs died out at some stage, such that we do not see them now. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/dinosaur-extinction/how-did-dinosaurs-die/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaur-and-human-cohabitation-conflict/There is the theory that there was a period when some dinosaurs were still alive during civilisations, and these are explained by the observation that dragon-legends exist all over the globe. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/were-dinosaurs-dragons/Moreover, the pictures/drawings of dinosaurs in all these civilisations are actually very similar, even though these civilisations were never in contact with each other, e.g. European legends of dragons with St. George and the dragon -- versus dragons being part of China legends.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers.
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. Consider the time-sequence of events. Until Noah's Ark, all of humanity had a common language. It wasn't until after the Flood that, through the Tower of Babel, that God scattered the language of the people, and each different language group went their separate ways. (Genesis 11, this will be interesting to tsf who has a qualification in linguistics). Therefore, all those civilisations - Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians - came after Noah's Ark. And a quick Google search for - Egyptians dragon legends - show that they had such legends too. The premise of the answersingenesis.org is that the existence of legends of dragons in all civilisations spanning the entire globe are indication that at some early stage, dinosaurs did co-exist on the planet with mankind. Of course, the specific word "dinosaur" is quite new, but each civilisation had their own language words to describe these large beasts. And, at some stage, something caused the dinosaurs to die out. Let's go back to the big picture. All this bickering about dinosaurs etc is because of your insistence that the Bible is nonsense - and hence, by having these sorts of accusations against the Bible, you feel self-satisfied that you have no need to investigate the message of Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.)
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. According to the premise of there being a God over this universe who is capable of creating the world, and the universe, in 6 days ... it means that the dinosaurs died out at some stage, such that we do not see them now. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/dinosaur-extinction/how-did-dinosaurs-die/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaur-and-human-cohabitation-conflict/There is the theory that there was a period when some dinosaurs were still alive during civilisations, and these are explained by the observation that dragon-legends exist all over the globe. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/were-dinosaurs-dragons/Moreover, the pictures/drawings of dinosaurs in all these civilisations are actually very similar, even though these civilisations were never in contact with each other, e.g. European legends of dragons with St. George and the dragon -- versus dragons being part of China legends. Only looking at the links not clicking on them but I see no answer to my why aren't human fossils found in the same sedimentary layers as dinosaurs. Recorded WRITTEN history predates 4500 years ago so you're wrong on the point of those other civilisations coming after 2500 BCE. Some I listed yes, not all. https://historycooperative.org/ancient-civilizations/https://www.worldhistory.org/timeline/civilization/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_historyNow watch this tsf. Lowercase johnsmith will now claim those dates are unreliable because..........reasons. They're like a metronome. Nothing stops them. I've done all this before. I know he'll never admit he's wrong but it's more to show you how tortuous their logic is.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) My common sense reaction is scepticism. But, like a good scientist, you must be open to competing theories. I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. According to the premise of there being a God over this universe who is capable of creating the world, and the universe, in 6 days ... it means that the dinosaurs died out at some stage, such that we do not see them now. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/dinosaur-extinction/how-did-dinosaurs-die/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/dinosaur-and-human-cohabitation-conflict/There is the theory that there was a period when some dinosaurs were still alive during civilisations, and these are explained by the observation that dragon-legends exist all over the globe. https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/dragon-legends/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/were-dinosaurs-dragons/Moreover, the pictures/drawings of dinosaurs in all these civilisations are actually very similar, even though these civilisations were never in contact with each other, e.g. European legends of dragons with St. George and the dragon -- versus dragons being part of China legends. Now watch this tsf. Lowercase johnsmith will now claim those dates are unreliable because..........reasons. https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=carbon+datinghttps://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-dating/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-dating/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radioactive-dating-failure/https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/dinosaurs-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/age-of-the-earth/radiocarbon-dating/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radio-dating-in-rubble/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/carbon-14-dating/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/a-creationist-puzzle/https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/carbon-dating-neanderthals-spain-overturns-beliefs/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-in-diamonds-confirmed/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-fallacies-of-radioactive-dating-of-rocks/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/the-maximum-date-for-carbon-14/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/not-infallible/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-back-to-basics/
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God -- in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It's like the doctors warning about the dangers of the Covid vaccines. In the early months, those brave doctors who dared to sound the alarm, were forced out of their jobs. Dr Peter McCullough had his medical licence nearly terminated. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/101529https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/on-being-a-prebunked-malinformantHere is a two part video of Australian doctors who lost their jobs because of their stand against the Covid vaccines: https://rumble.com/v15aan1-world-premiere-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-ou.htmlhttps://rumble.com/v15rlnb-part-2-conference-of-conscience-australian-doctors-finally-speak-out.htmlProfessor Robery Clancy from our Newcastle University was slammed by his university for not being in expert in his field. https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/7111340/newcastle-uni-says-professor-backing-kelly-virus-claims-not-an-expert/ Everywhere, you have doctors that are being silenced by threat of losing their medical licences. Even Dr Jordan Peterson is having his practice licence being threatened because, on social media, he says there is just male and female genders. https://youtu.be/UqoeO7zp65I?So the average academic keeps his head below the trenches in order to retain their job - and they're not going to publish anything that hints of God, 6-Day creation or Noah's Ark.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17887101
Now, 2 years later, when it's slightly easier to say something against the Covid vaccines -- because Pfizer themselves have admitted to the European Parliament that the vaccines did not stop transmission, and there is more public data --- the likes of Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University dare to publish a paper warning of the dangers of the Covid vaccine. Too late, for most people who just followed their GP and the Mainstream Media.
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287 Everywhere, university professors are at risk of losing their jobs if they don't follow the Mainstream mantra: https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/us/stanford-instructor-jewish-holocaust-comments-reaj/index.htmlSo if you're waiting for peer-reviewed papers, it's not going to happen. People would rather keep their jobs than search for truth. Basically, Muz, you're going to have to decide if you'll just be a crowd-follower. Or will you test and examine the evidence and data. Because it's not going to be in any peer-reviewed papers, since no academic will risk their job to publish an opinion pointing towards God. It will be very difficult for any person to step out of the group-think, and do the unusual and test the evidence. Jesus said: “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|