If we are made in Gods image, who made God?
18 Mar 2021, 6:36 pm
naturalplastic wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
I just tried to find some on the internet and they only show common breeds of chicken.
Like any other domestic animal chickens are derived from recent wild ancestors.
Dogs came from wolves, cats from north african wild cats. Chickens came from still extant southeast Asian jungle fowl. Small jungle pheasants that are still around crowing in the morning in the wild- much like the domestic ones great the morning in the barnyard. These in turn evolved in the wild from other ancestors - from other egg laying birds over millions of years.
The linneage goes back to the common ancestor of all birds - a small tree dwelling carnivorious dinosaur. A tiny T-rex of the trees. This critter also hatched from eggs.
It evolved from other ground bound dinosaurs...which evolved from the common ancestors of all dinosaurs...which evolved from the very first reptile. Maybe 300 million years ago.This was the first critter to lay a modern type "egg" that both birds and reptiles lay (as opposed to rudimentary eggs that fish and amphibians lay -that have to be layed in water) that enables the babies to go through the "tadpole stage" while getting nutrition and protection on land.
In conclusion: the domestic chicken is only a few thousand years old. But "the egg" is around 300 million years old.
Ergo....the egg came first!
Buuuuut....
Did it all work like that? What if God created them only 6000 years ago and science has it wrong? What if science is dating things on a wrong scale and the dinosaurs are just extinct animals? What if the Bible is true?
You see it takes the same amount of faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God and that His word is true.
Do you know there will come a day when we will find out for sure.
_________________
.
18 Mar 2021, 7:08 pm
Mountain Goat wrote:
Buuuuut....
Did it all work like that? What if God created them only 6000 years ago and science has it wrong? What if science is dating things on a wrong scale and the dinosaurs are just extinct animals? What if the Bible is true?
Did it all work like that? What if God created them only 6000 years ago and science has it wrong? What if science is dating things on a wrong scale and the dinosaurs are just extinct animals? What if the Bible is true?
What if ancient Islam is right? What if an ancient god is the right god? What if there is no god? What if we live in the matrix? A bunch of "what ifs"
Quote:
You see it takes the same amount of faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God
1. False equivalence, science by definition is not faith related. And faith=believing in religious doctrines not supported by empirical evidence.
2. Whether God exists or not is not relevant to Evolution
3. You would have to come up with an alternative theory with evidence, strong evidence with the right methodology in order to falsify Evolution, with a bunch of "what ifs"... no, that doesn't really work.
Quote:
Do you know there will come a day when we will find out for sure.
Whatever theory replaces Evolution, if that happens, we will know, until then, that's the best explanation we have for now.
18 Mar 2021, 9:14 pm
AngelRho wrote:
It is not a logical necessity that God had to be created. It’s impossible for an eternal, infinite being to have been created because anything or anyone that could be said to have begun to exist inherently cannot be eternal. The soul could be created immortal, meaning that it doesn’t cease to exist, but it cannot be said to be eternal because at some point it had a beginning. Anything that ever BEGAN to exist must by logical necessity have been created. The opposite is not true. God always was, always is, always will be. That such a being required a creator is not merely logically unnecessary, but absurd.
That’s because for everything that begins to exist, there must necessarily be a cause. The whole universe (something) had a beginning. If it didn’t, then that means the universe is infinitely ancient. There are too many stars in the sky for that to be true. The universe that includes a conscious entity responsible for creation makes the most sense, and the Christian worldview offers the only credible explanation for that.
Udinaas wrote:
Christian philosophers claim that god is necessary, but non-tautological necessity doesn't really make sense. They'll compare God's non-existence to the existence of contradictory things like square circles, as if there isn't more of a contradiction in the latter than the former.
Of course necessity would imply eternity. That doesn't explain why God is necessary. And defining God as necessary doesn't solve anything. It's like if someone asked why Stonehenge is a circle, and you responded by saying that it would be absurd for a circle not to be circular. People don't start with definitions; we invent them to describe and categorize concepts we already have.
I've studied the cosmological and contingency arguments and I understand that the three options are:
1. A brute contingency
2. An infinite regress
3. Something necessary
All of those options seem absurd but one must be true. What I'm not convinced of is that option three is more plausible than the others.
Of course necessity would imply eternity. That doesn't explain why God is necessary. And defining God as necessary doesn't solve anything. It's like if someone asked why Stonehenge is a circle, and you responded by saying that it would be absurd for a circle not to be circular. People don't start with definitions; we invent them to describe and categorize concepts we already have.
I've studied the cosmological and contingency arguments and I understand that the three options are:
1. A brute contingency
2. An infinite regress
3. Something necessary
All of those options seem absurd but one must be true. What I'm not convinced of is that option three is more plausible than the others.
That’s because for everything that begins to exist, there must necessarily be a cause. The whole universe (something) had a beginning. If it didn’t, then that means the universe is infinitely ancient. There are too many stars in the sky for that to be true. The universe that includes a conscious entity responsible for creation makes the most sense, and the Christian worldview offers the only credible explanation for that.
We don't know that anything begins necessarily has a cause, only that this is what we observe in the part of reality that we can observe (and its not even clear if this is true on a quantum level). The universe having a beginning is compatible with an infinite regress of causes or contingencies outside the universe. If the universe was created by a mind, than that mind would itself be a series of contingent events, since a mind is a collection of simpler mental entities (such as beliefs and desires) that are connected in a casual chain.
18 Mar 2021, 9:52 pm
Mountain Goat wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
I just tried to find some on the internet and they only show common breeds of chicken.
Like any other domestic animal chickens are derived from recent wild ancestors.
Dogs came from wolves, cats from north african wild cats. Chickens came from still extant southeast Asian jungle fowl. Small jungle pheasants that are still around crowing in the morning in the wild- much like the domestic ones great the morning in the barnyard. These in turn evolved in the wild from other ancestors - from other egg laying birds over millions of years.
The linneage goes back to the common ancestor of all birds - a small tree dwelling carnivorious dinosaur. A tiny T-rex of the trees. This critter also hatched from eggs.
It evolved from other ground bound dinosaurs...which evolved from the common ancestors of all dinosaurs...which evolved from the very first reptile. Maybe 300 million years ago.This was the first critter to lay a modern type "egg" that both birds and reptiles lay (as opposed to rudimentary eggs that fish and amphibians lay -that have to be layed in water) that enables the babies to go through the "tadpole stage" while getting nutrition and protection on land.
In conclusion: the domestic chicken is only a few thousand years old. But "the egg" is around 300 million years old.
Ergo....the egg came first!
Buuuuut....
Did it all work like that? What if God created them only 6000 years ago and science has it wrong? What if science is dating things on a wrong scale and the dinosaurs are just extinct animals? What if the Bible is true?
You see it takes the same amount of faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God and that His word is true.
Do you know there will come a day when we will find out for sure.
One issue at a time please.
The answer to chicken-egg question does indeed differ between those who accept evolution, and those who deny science for Young Earth Creationism, and Biblical literalism.
If you're a Biblical literalist who believes that all species of living thing were created in one day in the first week of Creation in the year 4000 BC, then ...the answer is..."the Chicken came first".
If you believe in evolution then "the egg came first". Even if you mean just "chicken eggs" (and not vertabrate amniotic eggs with shells...in general- just eggs of the chicken species) it is still "the chicken egg came before the chicken". That because the first true chicken must have hatched from an egg. And that egg was laid by a red jungle fowl hen that had not yet completely evolved into a domestic chicken, but may have been trending in that direction.
But if you believe in YEC then God created the adult chicken first (which later laid eggs). The Bible doesnt say that god created cartons with eggs that lay around not being attended by mother birds, and its hard to imagine that happening anyway. First came the adult specimens of everything. And then the critters began to reproduce by whatever means they still do it by today (which for chickens is laying eggs).
So that much I agree with. The differing beliefs lead to different answers to the chicken-egg question.
But that has nothing to do with how much "faith" it takes to believe one belief over the other.
There is plenty of evidence for evolution, and for an old earth. And tons of evidence against a young earth. And dinosaurs dont even fit into the Biblical scheme at all. The Bible doesnt mention them one way or the other (either Noah saving them, or Noah letting them drown).
18 Mar 2021, 10:47 pm
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
_________________
.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,499
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2021, 11:24 pm
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
18 Mar 2021, 11:34 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
Which in itself is the opposite of what science teaches as science looks to gather all evidence before coming to a conclusion.
_________________
.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,499
Location: Right over your left shoulder
18 Mar 2021, 11:53 pm
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
Which in itself is the opposite of what science teaches as science looks to gather all evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Which is the problem with 'creation science'. They start with the conclusion that the events described in Genesis happened and attempt to warp anything they can to support that conclusion. The problem isn't with actual science it's with pseudoscience done to support an anti-scientific agenda.
19 Mar 2021, 12:07 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
Which in itself is the opposite of what science teaches as science looks to gather all evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Which is the problem with 'creation science'. They start with the conclusion that the events described in Genesis happened and attempt to warp anything they can to support that conclusion. The problem isn't with actual science it's with pseudoscience done to support an anti-scientific agenda.
So in conclusion neither is based on science but both are based on belief.
_________________
.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,499
Location: Right over your left shoulder
19 Mar 2021, 12:48 am
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
Which in itself is the opposite of what science teaches as science looks to gather all evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Which is the problem with 'creation science'. They start with the conclusion that the events described in Genesis happened and attempt to warp anything they can to support that conclusion. The problem isn't with actual science it's with pseudoscience done to support an anti-scientific agenda.
So in conclusion neither is based on science but both are based on belief.
Science is based on evaluating evidence and realigning belief to match the evidence, 'creation science' is not based on science but is instead based on belief.
If 'creation science' had compelling evidence to back it that would be the position science would be obliged to support.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
19 Mar 2021, 5:58 am
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
The term "Dinosaur" did not exist. If you want to use a Bible term then "Living creatures" or a term like that which encompasses all. Incidently, I heard it said that the interpretation for birds can also mean flying insects.
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Now if we take a young earth, dinosaurs still very much fit into the picture. Think of the description of Behemoth and Leviathan. Nothing on earth fits those descriptions that are living today but they do fit the descriptions of some dinosaurs.
There is evidence foe a young earth and also evidence for the Bible accounts of long ago. North America has many accounts of giants bones uncovered which have repeatedly been desteoyed by museums and various masonic infultrated institutions over the years over there and it was only when it came into the law courts in recent years did some of these institutions admit to what they had done. Why is it significent? Because it is part of the picture of evidence which has been destroyed.
Various other evidential items have been destroyed over the years along with significent sites which have been banned from anyone doing any further research or entry after it was discovered what they were. Could it be there is a conspiracy among the scientific community to subdue this information and divert the facual evidence which errodes the foundations of the concept of evolution and points to a young rather then an old earth?
I often see people claiming they have the facts but they ignore certain evidence because it comes from Christian archeologists, and indeed, those other scientists who stumble on evidence that points against evolution ad have come out with their work often find themselves struck off as scientists and are out of a job. I know this as some very intelligent thinkers became Christians after having this treatment and then went on to follow the evidence which eventually led them to believe in creation and a young earth, and many of them became Christians after they found that their work tallied exactly with Biblical accounts.
Now if you want a small area of evidence which goes against the grain of what evolution teaches, then try a well known site like this:
http://www.arkdiscovery.com
(I hope the link still works as I have not looked at it for a while).
Scientists generally ignore pseudoscientific claims, especially when they involve fundamental misunderstandings or are presented with the intention of pushing a non-scientific agenda (like YEC).
Which in itself is the opposite of what science teaches as science looks to gather all evidence before coming to a conclusion.
Y
Which is the problem with 'creation science'. They start with the conclusion that the events described in Genesis happened and attempt to warp anything they can to support that conclusion. The problem isn't with actual science it's with pseudoscience done to support an anti-scientific agenda.
So in conclusion neither is based on science but both are based on belief.
Science is based on evaluating evidence and realigning belief to match the evidence, 'creation science' is not based on science but is instead based on belief.
If 'creation science' had compelling evidence to back it that would be the position science would be obliged to support.
How do you come to the conclusion that you should believe evidence? Who determines what counts as evidence?
I don’t “believe” or claim to know how old the earth is or how everything got here. If Genesis had meant to tell us how old we are, it would have explicitly stated that. YEC/OEC is more a silly internal debate within Christianity and rather pointless.
sorrowfairiewhisper
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2015
Gender: Female
Posts: 837
Location: United Kingdom Dorset
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Documentary ‘Understanding Autism’ made by Autistic |
09 Mar 2024, 4:13 pm |
| Uranus & Neptune Aren't Made of What We Thought |
17 Apr 2024, 5:53 pm |
| why does she chew like that oh my gods |
04 Mar 2024, 7:40 am |
| Ceasar Chavez’s family to Kennedy - stop using his image |
30 Mar 2024, 10:22 am |
