|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. In any debate, usually each side presents evidence in a way to substantiate their stance. Hence, you do not see a government health official ordering research to find out if the MRNA vaccines - that the compelled 95% of the population to take - whether those are dangerous or not. The government health official is not going to spend millions of dollars to find evidence that they themselves were culpable. Are you daft, or do you actually understand that? Hence, this is why, when evidence of vaccine danger is presented to the English and Australian Parliaments, hardly any MP's show up. The entire Parliament chambers are virtually empty. They don't want to know. And people like Muz, who trust the pollies, assume that no news is good news. Typically, you will not find an atheist scientist admit to evidence that would prove the existence of God. I give you an example. An atheist scientist did mathematical modelling of a fossil of a shoal of fish, and found that the orientation of the fish were consistent with how a shoal of fish will swim with respect to one another. Hence, the scientist concluded that these fish were, as it were, snap-frozen in time in the act of swimming. Now, in various articles I read on this -- and there are quite a few -- the scientist essentially said they had no explanation for it. Notice carefully that the atheist scientist will never go anywhere near the possibility that these fish were buried in a catastrophic mud slides consistent with torrential water flow during a global flood. A good scientist will at least canvass all possibilities. But a biased scientists will NOT discuss all possibilities. So the scientist left it as him having no idea how these fish were snap-frozen in mud. This shows why atheist scientists will violate their scientific method -- which should cover all possibilities -- to go nowhere near something that could substantiate the Bible. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/ Are you serious? You're appealing to the 'god of the gaps' because a scientist doesn't understand something? You also do know there has been more than one 'catastrophic mud slide' don't you? They happen all the time. One in PNG last month buried dozens of people that, in a million years time, will be fossilised. Clown. We're talking of fossils all around the world, even at the high peaks of the Himalaya https://www.google.com/search?q=fossils+Himalayas Which proves plate tectonics that occurred over hundreds of millions of years. Thanks for linking that. Also if a giant flood washed up fish etc to the Himalayas where has the water all gone?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI'm still waiting for you to provide ANY evidence from a non YEC source. In any debate, usually each side presents evidence in a way to substantiate their stance. Hence, you do not see a government health official ordering research to find out if the MRNA vaccines - that the compelled 95% of the population to take - whether those are dangerous or not. The government health official is not going to spend millions of dollars to find evidence that they themselves were culpable. Are you daft, or do you actually understand that? Hence, this is why, when evidence of vaccine danger is presented to the English and Australian Parliaments, hardly any MP's show up. The entire Parliament chambers are virtually empty. They don't want to know. And people like Muz, who trust the pollies, assume that no news is good news. Typically, you will not find an atheist scientist admit to evidence that would prove the existence of God. I give you an example. An atheist scientist did mathematical modelling of a fossil of a shoal of fish, and found that the orientation of the fish were consistent with how a shoal of fish will swim with respect to one another. Hence, the scientist concluded that these fish were, as it were, snap-frozen in time in the act of swimming. Now, in various articles I read on this -- and there are quite a few -- the scientist essentially said they had no explanation for it. Notice carefully that the atheist scientist will never go anywhere near the possibility that these fish were buried in a catastrophic mud slides consistent with torrential water flow during a global flood. A good scientist will at least canvass all possibilities. But a biased scientists will NOT discuss all possibilities. So the scientist left it as him having no idea how these fish were snap-frozen in mud. This shows why atheist scientists will violate their scientific method -- which should cover all possibilities -- to go nowhere near something that could substantiate the Bible. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/ Are you serious? You're appealing to the 'god of the gaps' because a scientist doesn't understand something? You also do know there has been more than one 'catastrophic mud slide' don't you? They happen all the time. One in PNG last month buried dozens of people that, in a million years time, will be fossilised. Clown. We're talking of fossils all around the world, even at the high peaks of the Himalaya https://www.google.com/search?q=fossils+Himalayas Which proves plate tectonics that occurred over hundreds of millions of years. Thanks for linking that. Also if a giant flood washed up fish etc to the Himalayas where has the water all gone? Snowcones?  
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
side note Muz - I have worked out the issue with copying/pasting images (if you're using the screen snipper?) The new program for Windows 11 is shithouse - you'll need to redownload the old one @ https://www.elevenforum.com/t/old-snipping-tool.15407/
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI mean it's obvious to everybody who's not a certain subset of Christian fundamentalists. We have one here. An avowed 'truth seeker' who is anything but. It's laughable. Muz, this is your thinking. (a) There is no God-of-the-Bible, therefore (b) since there is no God-of-the-Bible, it follows that the was no God to create the world in 6 days. Not all great minds have been locked into this thinking. ChatGPT was asked: "Give me a list of scientists who concluded there must be a god because of the complexity of DNA" ChatGPT's answer: Several scientists and thinkers have argued for the existence of God or an intelligent designer based on the complexity of DNA. Here are a few notable ones:Francis Collins: He is a geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and later became the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins wrote a book called "The Language of God," where he discusses his belief in God influenced by his scientific work. Michael Behe: A biochemist and advocate of intelligent design, Behe is known for his concept of "irreducible complexity," arguing that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved through natural selection alone. Stephen Meyer: Meyer is a philosopher of science and advocate for intelligent design. He has written extensively on the topic, arguing that the information-rich nature of DNA points towards an intelligent designer. Richard Smalley: Although primarily known as a chemist and Nobel laureate for his work in chemistry, Smalley also expressed views suggesting the fine-tuning of the universe and the complexity of life pointed towards an intelligent creator. Anthony Flew: A philosopher who was initially an atheist, Flew later in his life became a deist, citing arguments from complexity and information in DNA as influencing his change of views.
These scientists and thinkers have different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence, with some explicitly advocating for intelligent design and others more generally arguing for the plausibility of a divine creator based on scientific findings. ___ You've heard of Richard Dawkins the famous atheist-scientist. Well, in an earlier generation, Anthony Flew was the "Richard Dawkins" of his generation, but, as ChatGPT acknowledges, late in his life, he switched sides because of the complexity of DNA. And now, a generation later we know so much more of the complexity of DNA. These things do not happen by random chance from seawater sitting there, even for billions of years. ____ Muz, I actually didn't know that Francis Collins, the geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, believes in God. https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/Blurb from amazon.com "An instant bestseller from Templeton Prize–winning author Francis S. Collins, The Language of God provides the best argument for the integration of faith and logic since C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity." "It has long been believed that science and faith cannot mingle. Faith rejects the rational, while science restricts us to a life with no meaning beyond the physical. It is an irreconcilable war between two polar-opposite ways of thinking and living. Written for believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, The Language of God provides a testament to the power of faith in the midst of suffering without faltering from its logical stride. Readers will be inspired by Collin’s personal story of struggling with doubt, as well as the many revelations of the wonder of God’s creation that will forever shape the way they view the world around them." Funny how when ChatGPT doesn't work in your favour that it's just flat out ignored hey. Isn't that the test you were talking about the other day? I tend towards a big-picture approach. As long as you're the one painting the picture, right? Everyone paints a picture, so it comes down to whose facts/evidence are more compelling. One of the biggest proofs that there is a God is: that everyone recognises evil throughout the world, and throughout all recorded history. If there is no God who defines holiness by his own holiness - then you have no basis for calling anything evil, since, in every evil action the one who perpetrates the evil seems to benefit -- and they think they're doing good. So why do you object to certain people benefitting because of the evil they do? Because you instinctively know there is such a thing as evil. And that is only possible if there is an internal yardstick of what is not evil. This sort of thinking is starting at the big picture, then all the bits start to fit together. Whereas the extreme small-thinking is when a person disses the whole thing because he thinks the kangaroos couldn't have made it from Ararat to Australia. Well over half of recorded history is pretty convinced there is more than one God , in fact even till this day the majority of humans on earth believe this to still be the case if you acount Hindus, Taoists, Budhists, etc etc..... what makes YOUR version of God the right one? Extremely small thinking? Even just for the fun of it .... can you clearly state what proof and evidence do you require - that would satisfy your requirement - such that you would accept the God of the Bible's offer to come back into restored relationship with him? After you state what level of proof you require, I'll respond by letting you know whether, from what I see, God has actually provided us with that level of proof/evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
I'd be happy with you explaining where all the water went that put all those fossils in the Himalayas.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'd be happy with you explaining where all the water went that put all those fossils in the Himalayas. You'll therefore be deliriously happy to read these two articles: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/where-did-earths-water-come/https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/feedback-where-did-all-floodwater-go/
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
I still say it got used up in snowcones
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Hahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
How's the logic though? 'Fossils don't exist'. Also 'look at the fossils on this mountain'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHow's the logic though? 'Fossils don't exist'. Also 'look at the fossils on this mountain'. How cruel -- yes, cruel -- it is for you to twist my words. I said that merely finding bones of lions in a cave in Israel is not the same as finding fossils of lion-bones. How do you twist that to say I claim that "fossils don't exist"? If you're willing to descend to that level of gutter tactics, then I'm out of here.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't. A non-YEC website is not going to argue that they got it wrong. That's like expecting Pfizer publishing data that their MRNA vaccines were dangerous. For example, in the U.S. Court case where a group of scientists sued Pfizer to get them to reveal their secret data on their MRNA vaccines under Freedom of Information. And when that succeeded, Pfizer applied to the court to let them have 75 years to reveal the information. (Handing over the damaging data in 75 years means that all the people affected by the MRNA would no longer around to sue Pfizer). https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-judge-ordered-fda-to-release-covid-19-vaccine-data-prontoI don't know if this manner of argument is how you argue in all your debates, even in your family -- that you cannot see that you cannot expect data/evidence to come from those that are biased against it. i.e. you cannot expect a non-YEC website to offer evidence in favour of YEC.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHow's the logic though? 'Fossils don't exist'. Also 'look at the fossils on this mountain'. If you're willing to descend to that level of gutter tactics, then I'm out of here. If only.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xHahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't. A non-YEC website is not going to argue that they got it wrong. So no.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xHahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't. A non-YEC website is not going to argue that they got it wrong. So no. It's a yes ... provided Muz expects: - Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Obama, all the write praises of Donald Trump, explaining why Trump is the greatest American President since Washington or Lincoln. - tsf writing a post, like his essays for linguistics, praising me, @johnsmith, as the greatest living Aussie philosopher since Norman Gunston, Aunty Jack or Paul Hoges Hogan.
|
|
|
|
|
NicCarBel
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xHahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't. A non-YEC website is not going to argue that they got it wrong. So no. It's a yes ... provided Muz expects: - Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Obama, all the write praises of Donald Trump, explaining why Trump is the greatest American President since Washington or Lincoln. - tsf writing a post, like his essays for linguistics, praising me, @johnsmith, as the greatest living Aussie philosopher since Norman Gunston, Aunty Jack or Paul Hoges Hogan. So both are examples of people bullshitting against their beliefs - is that what you're doing when you provide your evidence then?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xHahahahaha. Nope. Try linking a non YEC site. You can't. A non-YEC website is not going to argue that they got it wrong. So no. It's a yes ... provided Muz expects: - Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Obama, all the write praises of Donald Trump, explaining why Trump is the greatest American President since Washington or Lincoln. - tsf writing a post, like his essays for linguistics, praising me, @johnsmith, as the greatest living Aussie philosopher since Norman Gunston, Aunty Jack or Paul Hoges Hogan. So both are examples of people bullshitting against their beliefs - is that what you're doing when you provide your evidence then? Except one side is not ideologically blinded. Pastor john starts with a belief and then discards any data and research that doesn't align with those beliefs. Science starts with the data and research and then builds a hypothesis, slowly forming a theory that is continually tested and adjusted as more data is made available/becomes known. The 2 couldn't be more wildly different. I'm somewhat annoyed to be lumped in the same basket with that nutjob.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|