[__ Science __ ] Noahs Flood explained and Evolution refuted.

[KV-44-v1]

I see your denial. But your attempts to revise scripture are out here for everyone to see.

I see your denial. But your attempts to revise scripture are out here for everyone to see.

As you just demonstrated, you don't understand what entropy is or how it works.

Everything operating under physics ultimately winds down. 1st and 2nd laws.

Show me one process, required for evolution that is ruled out by "entropy." Show your calculations. Prediction; we aren't going to see anything like that.

What do you believe that the processes needed are? EVOLUTION is ruled out, and so is significant unguided additions to the DNA.

But if you doubt this, show us a testable definition for "created kind."

Creation researchers have found that “kind” is often at the level of “family” in our modern classification scheme. For example, zebras, horses, and donkeys all belong to the family Equidae and can mate with each other to form hybrid animals such as mules (from a horse and donkey) and zonkeys (from a zebra and donkey). However, there is no reason to assume a one-to-one correspondence between our manmade system and the biblical terminology. So “kind” may be at a higher taxonomic level in some cases, lower in others.

God placed the potential for tremendous variety within the original created kinds. This original variation, altered by genetic mutations and other mechanisms after the Fall (such as natural selection), led to the great diversity of living things we see today.

A modern field of study, called baraminology (from the two Hebrew words bara, meaning “created,” and min, meaning “kind”), attempts to classify fossil and living organisms into their original created kinds (or baramins). This is an active area of creation research. As creation scientists, we are not ashamed to stand on the foundation of God’s Word for our research and understanding of living things.
According to Genesis 1, God made each type of creature “according to its kind.” Within their DNA, God placed the potential for tremendous variety, including new species. But every species belongs to its original kind—cats are still cats, and dogs are dogs.

Creationists are all over the map on this. Most seem to say "genus" but others say "species", "family" or even higher taxa.

Obviously, it's not species or genus. It's closer to family. Just use your eyes; does it look like a hippo? It's probably a hippo! You don't need to be a Creationist to know that animals give birth after their kind.
Also, which creationists? Are they Christian? There's muslim ones too, i think.

So, the "cat kind" is really several kinds? You sure? You just defined "species."

No. The cat kind is all one.

You can only offer vague definitions, because your notion of "created kinds" is an imaginary thing. Not knowing that you attempt to serve 2 masters (God and creationism) is what hurts you.

Ironic post of the day award. Why do you (indirectly) insist that God is a cobbler and not a Creator??
How is serving God and believing Creation serving 2 masters?? Goofy.
What's imaginary is 'god the cobbler' of the compromised believer as opposed to JESUS THE OMNIPOTENT CREATOR of the Solid Christian.
WHICH 'vague definitions'??

For the same reason it's called creation and not gravity. Creation is all of it. Gravity and evolution are just to phenomena that are part of creation. This is why it seems like you've never even read Genesis.

Genesis never indicates evolution once. Jesus took Genesis literally.
There's literally a website named AnswersinGenesis.org. I suggest visiting it.

 

[follower]

Depends on what you mean by required.

Not really. Reviewing recent posts, if anyone chooses to look into "compelling" information about ungodliness or ungodly science, they have already opened themselves up to embrace error , maybe even with their heart. I did embrace error for a few years once, but by sheer grace of God and Jesus, and because my heart and eyes and mind and soul all together continued to remain trusting and following Jesus, Jesus set me free from the deception I had fallen into. He gets all the credit and praise, as I could easily have continued in death dealing error , as the others who at the same time were tempted to did - they wanted what they could get in this world, what they thought maybe was good, so they remained at the time in error and admitted it was because they wanted the money.....

Even as a follower, a disciple, of Jesus, I made mistakes that could have brought about my damnation if I continued that direction (death dealing).
Arguing on this thread/ forum is useless as you have seen, and as others have seen.
For God's Sake, stop the arguing, no matter how well you know the truth. Spending time trying to change anyone's mind has helped no one.

One exception though - if someone becomes aware of the life/death errors that they did not even suspect before visiting and seeing the arguing , and that one leaves for a time as directed by God , seeking answers from God, they may find the simple direct answers from God as God Pleases, and have peace and have ongoing freedom from the errors of man, of the flesh, of the world.

 

[Uncle J]

Depends on what you mean by required.

It's not science if it contradicts God's Word. It is PSEUDOscience.

Like I said, if you want to tell young people today that they have to choose between Christianity and science, that's your choice.

It's just that in today's technology-driven world, that's probably more likely to turn people away than anything else (especially young people).

 

[follower]

Jesus took Genesis literally.

He Revealed Genesis Literally, Truthful.
Yahweh delivered the Revelation of Genesis through Jesus by Yahweh's Choice as He Pleased to do.
Yahweh cannot lie as He is not a man.

 

[Uncle J]

if anyone chooses to look into "compelling" information about ungodliness or ungodly science, they have already opened themselves up to embrace error , maybe even with their heart.

There is no such thing as "ungodly science". Science is merely a method for investigating the world around us. As Barbarian likes to say, you may as well complain about plumbing being "ungodly".

 

[KV-44-v1]

I know science; you serve pseudoscience.

No. A difference between you and me is that you are basically asserting that God used physical means (evolution) to create, instead of OR in addition to supernatural means.

And I do not claim that Creation is science. Just because God didn't create using a naturalistic way doesn't warrant disbelieving Creation.

We all get it. I notice you used the word "entropy", but when I asked you do define it, and show us even one process necessary for evolution that was ruled out by entropy,

I don't need to rule out any processes. I can just rule out evo.

you declined to do that. We all know why

I declined nothing.
Entropy (4 defs!) :

1. A measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system.
2. A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
3. The tendency of a system that is left to itself to descend into chaos.

4. For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work.

God says that life was brought forth by the earth as He intended. All the evidence we've found so far, indicates that He's right. I believe Him. You should, too.

Are you using this to try and justify abiogenesis? Besides, Creation Week was a one-time event - NOT an ongoing process that continues today.
Also, it seems you are taking Genesis literally here. Hopefully you will take it literally in other places, too.

Meanings change. If you don't use words as they are used by others, you'll always have trouble.

True.


1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
Evolutionists 'preach' evolution all throughout the public school system in the West. This verse is usable on evo!
Creation is not childish as it follows the Genesis record.

Paul is speaking to you. Set aside your own wishes and thoughts and just accept God's word as it is. And you won't be troubled any longer.

For you^

 

[KV-44-v1]

There is no such thing as "ungodly science". Science is merely a method for investigating the world around us. As Barbarian likes to say, you may as well complain about plumbing being "ungodly".

I didn't say ungodly science. I said pseudoscience.
Don't get where you are getting your strawmannings from.
You are too busy laughing, to see what i am ACTUALLY saying.

Pseudoscience:

1. Any body of knowledge purported to be scientific, or supported by science, but which fails to comply with the scientific method.
2. An activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

 

[KV-44-v1]

you may as well complain about plumbing being "ungodly"

Your analogy crashes and burns because plumbing is from operational science, it isn't in the domain of historical.
And it doesn't go against God's Word like bioevo does.

 

[Uncle J]

I didn't say ungodly science.

That was in reply to follower, not you.

I said pseudoscience.
Don't get where you are getting your strawmannings from.
You are too busy laughing, to see what i am ACTUALLY saying.

Okay then, let's get specific. What are all the branches of science that you believe are pseudoscience?

Geology? It hasn't operated under the Biblical flood framework for over 200 years.
Physics? It operates under the framework that the same processes that occur today worked the same in the past (e.g., radioactive decay).
Genetics? Geneticists utilize evolutionary relatedness to discern genetic functions, and evolutionary relatedness is the framework geneticists use to scan genomes and interpret the results.
Biology? The entire framework of biology is that populations evolve.
Archaeology? The field hasn't utilized a young-earth framework for over 200 years.
Medicine? A lot of medical research centers on our understanding of how populations evolve (e.g., annual flu vaccines).

Does a person have to reject/deny all of that to be a Christian?

 

[Uncle J]

Your analogy crashes and burns because plumbing is from operational science

So is evolutionary biology.

it isn't in the domain of historical.
And it doesn't go against God's Word like bioevo does.

So does a person have to reject/deny all the historical sciences to be a Christian?

 

[KV-44-v1]

Geology? It hasn't operated under the Biblical flood framework for over 200 years.
Physics? It operates under the framework that the same processes that occur today worked the same in the past (e.g., radioactive decay).
Genetics? Geneticists utilize evolutionary relatedness to discern genetic functions, and evolutionary relatedness is the framework geneticists use to scan genomes and interpret the results.
Biology? The entire framework of biology is that populations evolve.
Archaeology? The field hasn't utilized a young-earth framework for over 200 years.
Medicine? A lot of medical research centers on our understanding of how populations evolve (e.g., annual flu vaccines).

Each one on your list is examples of real sciences.
All you have listed can even prove the Genesis account!!

So, the geneticists are simply using bad assumptions. This does not discredit genetics one bit.

Just because some scientists make crazy assumptions does NOT mean that the whole field is bad.

If evolution and all other anti-Genesis historical claims to the origin of universe and life are falsified (I can give many articles from several sources), will you believe that ALLL of science is falsified?? I sure hope not!!

 

[KV-44-v1]

So is evolutionary biology.

No. Also, EvoBio violates occam's razor.

So does a person have to reject/deny all the historical sciences to be a Christian?

No.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Barbarian

creation.com/atheism-needs-evolution
creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-idea

Here's some material to chew on. Hope it tastes good.

 

[Uncle J]

Each one on your list is examples of real sciences.

Even when they reach conclusions that conflict with how you interpret the Bible?

So, the geneticists are simply using bad assumptions.

Like what?

If evolution and all other anti-Genesis historical claims to the origin of universe and life are falsified (I can give many articles from several sources), will you believe that ALLL of science is falsified?? I sure hope not!!

Heck, if you can do that I suggest you write it up in a manuscript and submit it to a top science journal ASAP. You'll easily go down as one of the most famous people in history, and probably the greatest young-earth creationist of all time.

And if you don't want to do all that, send it to me and I'll do it.

 

[Uncle J]

No. Also, EvoBio violates occam's razor.

How so?

No.

So when geneticists utilize the evolutionary relatedness between humans and other taxa to discern genetic functions, that's just fine with you.

Good to know.

 

[follower]

I don't need to rule out any processes. I can just rule out evo.

We do not even have to consider for one nano second that
we were born from a rhinoceros and a giraffe mating.
See? No need to rule it out. No need to give it even one molecule of thought !
Faith and Truth are so wonderful together ! The errors attempt to distract us all. We do not have to think of them though.

 

[follower]

ALLL of science is falsified??

Close but no cigar. That is all the desires of the world , the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life are declared in God's Word as things of the world, things opposed to truth, opposed to spirit.

The chapter "The Mind Behind The System" clearly identifies , as God Reveals by Scripture, His Word,
the mind behind the system.

Note that the mind behind the system is not something good, not something right, not something to be trusted at all.

 

[KV-44-v1]

Even when they reach conclusions that conflict with how you interpret the Bible?

Yes.
You can say "the Bible is a lie" but all 5 words used are still useful and legit.
Science is a tool. When used for attacking the Bible, it's being abused, when it's used for defending, that's a good thing.

Like what?

Evolutionary ones.

Heck, if you can do that I suggest you write it up in a manuscript and submit it to a top science journal ASAP. You'll easily go down as one of the most famous people in history, and probably the greatest young-earth creationist of all time.

if i can refute bioevo, you mean?
I'll probably be censored.
crev.info/2023/11/big-science-has-lost-its-way/
crev.info/2023/01/tenure-no-longer-protects-creationist-professors/
crev.info/2022/03/censorship-strikes-again/


Well, here's some evidence against bioevo:

crev.info/2020/05/archive-classic-neo-darwinism-falsified-in-the-lab/
crev.info/2019/11/evolutionists-surprised-but-never-falsified/
crev.info/2015/05/genetic-evolution-falsified/
crev.info/2012/11/more-falsified-darwinian-expectations/
--
answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/darwinism/4-tremors-made-darwin-irrelevant/
answersingenesis.org/blogs/bryan-osborne/2016/03/15/death-sin-why-millions-years-matters/
--
creation.com/evolution-40-failed-predictions
creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
--
evolutionnews.org/2024/03/the-incompatibility-of-evolution-and-design/

--------

Sure seems like evolution is as scientific as Phlogiston, does it not??

 

[KV-44-v1]

geneticists utilize the evolutionary relatedness between humans and other taxa to discern genetic functions, that's just fine with you.

That's an individual thing. And "evo relatedness" stems from faulty assumptions.
A car and a plane have tires, but do you assume they evolved?

 

[Uncle J]

Yes.

Oh, so a geneticist who concludes that humans share a common ancestry with other primates can also be a Christian.

Good to know.

Evolutionary ones.

Like what?

if i can refute bioevo, you mean?...

Sure seems like evolution is as scientific as Phlogiston, does it not??

No, it just seems like you know how to do a search and post the links that agree with you.

Is there anything specific at any of those links you feel is particularly noteworthy and want to discuss?

And "evo relatedness" stems from faulty assumptions.

Like what?

A car and a plane have tires, but do you assume they evolved?

Since they're inanimate objects that don't reproduce, no. You didn't know that?