[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[th1b.taylor]

And how does this bear on the fact that many Christians have no problem with evolution as a manifestation of God's creation and evolutionary theory as a description of that phenomenon?

Much, there are, as I believe I said, only about 2% of the Church Membership that fits the requirement of salvation and if you read all of the post, it is in there. and if you read the passage, with common comprehension, it is quite clear that the luke warm do not believe the truth but h ave bough into some fibs.

If you are citing a memory from 1990, do you not think that perhaps if the replacement theory was so strong it might have been more widely circulated by now?

As I stated in a more polite and preferred manner, if you are unwilling to research, I am useless to you. When I took courses from the university by mail, I could, usually, ask very limited questions of the professor and much like being present in the class, I had to do the research because it is expected and that is because one remembers, most accurately, what they discover, themselves.

Words can have multiple definitions depending on context. In this specific scientific context, 'theory' does not mean the same thing as it does in popular usage.

No, What you are doing here is exactly what I note. Revisionism! Only context changes the common usage of a word and 'evolution' attached does not change the definition of the word, Theory. You can harp and harp but the definition of the word will not change because you were taught Trash Science in school.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

I didn't say it did but you are, of course, wrong. Without the Theory of the Big Bang, the theory of Evolution is stupid science n addition to being trash science.

I have never heard of mini-evolution. Macro- and microevolution are not widely used terms as evolution is just evolution. Microevolution is used as a convenient shorthand for talking about evolution below the species' 'level', macroevolution for that above it. What makes evolution acceptable is the evidence that supports it from a variety of different fields of research.

Now, now. Bating me is a troll maneuver and in person or over the Internet, it is unacceptable. I absolutely am old, I absolutely am a decade into the final stage of my MS but I do recall enough to know that the difference between Mini and Micro is the spelling, only. What you have said in this paragraph is venting and when I did that a while back I received a 30 day Coffee Break so please, don't again, I'm not mad and I do not want you to leave that way.

 

[lordkalvan]

Much, there are, as I believe I said, only about 2% of the Church Membership that fits the requirement of salvation and if you read all of the post, it is in there. and if you read the passage, with common comprehension, it is quite clear that the luke warm do not believe the truth but h ave bough into some fibs.

So there are multiple sects of Christianity and there are disagreements amongst them as to the context and implications of biblical stories. So on what basis do you propose one judges amongst them? Why, for example, is Ken Ham's view of evolution to be preferred over Francis Collins'?

As I stated in a more polite and preferred manner, if you are unwilling to research, I am useless to you. When I took courses from the university by mail, I could, usually, ask very limited questions of the professor and much like being present in the class, I had to do the research because it is expected and that is because one remembers, most accurately, what they discover, themselves.

All I can say is that it is not usual in discussions like this that others carry out the research necessary to support the claims of those against whom they take a contrary stance.

No, What you are doing here is exactly what I note. Revisionism! Only context changes the common usage of a word and 'evolution' attached does not change the definition of the word, Theory. You can harp and harp but the definition of the word will not change because you were taught Trash Science in school.

You have provided no substance to discredit the scientific definition of what 'theory' constitutes. The 'attachment' of the word evolution to theory has no bearing on this definition, as demonstrated by even a cursory examination of, for example, germ theory, atomic theory and molecular theory.

I didn't say it did but you are, of course, wrong. Without the Theory of the Big Bang, the theory of Evolution is stupid science n addition to being trash science.

Again, Big Bang theory is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. Throwing around terms like 'trash science' does little to substantiate your criticism.

Now, now. Bating me is a troll maneuver and in person or over the Internet, it is unacceptable. I absolutely am old, I absolutely am a decade into the final stage of my MS but I do recall enough to know that the difference between Mini and Micro is the spelling, only. What you have said in this paragraph is venting and when I did that a while back I received a 30 day Coffee Break so please, don't again, I'm not mad and I do not want you to leave that way.

I am sorry for your illness, but in no way am I baiting you. There is indeed a difference between 'mini' and 'micro', but even if you intended that 'Mini-Evolution' be read as meaning the same as microevolution, this changes nothing in what I wrote.

 

[Edward]

Edward... I've really quite had it with all this...

Don't say, "blessings to you and yours from God brother," after you are basically mocking me and laughing at me in your comments, asking me if I "want a band-aid."


Fallacious appeal to authority to start with.. just because a guy has a PhD, doesn't mean he is honest or knows what he is talking about. He had a particular focus with his PhD, and that was Nuclear Physics, not Earth Science, Biology, etc. I say this based off of his remarks in the 60 minutes of video that I watched and didn't see anything honorable about him. I just saw fallacy after fallacy, falsehood after falsehood. The Bible makes remarks about what happens to liars you know.

Please don't use the Lord's name in vain.


Where did I say that? Please quote me.

I said you needed credible and reliable evidence, which none has ever been presented here. I also don't really care how I appear to you.


Heaven forbid that YOU actually defend your own claims Edward, continually dodging is all I ever see. Zero content besides posting Creationist videos.


I listened to all 60 minutes of the videos you posted, and even laid out my critique of what he said, proving that I listened to them. How am I then unwilling to listen to a "real PhD."

How about I lay out several hours of video for you to watch and then flame you when you don't take the time to respond. Sheesh!

Also, I'm just asking you to support your claim that you have listened to both sides. I can name loads of Creationists from whom I have heard their arguments in addition to this board. Many debates, and at one time even heard several presentations at a conference I was at. My personal opinion is that if you've heard one "professional Creationist," you've basically heard them all. Obscure outdated science, or just outright falsehoods, to try and deceive the masses.


No... I'm just pointing out the blatant contradiction you just posted. One contradiction doesn't invalidate a person. Though in this case it does prove you absolutely have a bias, despite at sometimes not believing you do.


You provide insufficient evidence to the table in regards to arguments against evolution, and I break it down why it's insufficient... but it must be ME that has the problem.. I won't think anything is valid..

You realize that this very same thing could be said of yourself, except you never actually address the content of our critiques in any substantial way.


Actually I listened to all 60 minutes... did you? If you read my comments you would see that they are all based on the arguments he presented.

So if you're going to call me scared or a liar... at least substantiate such claims with actual evidence. These are just low blows based upon supposition. Fact of the matter is I did listen to Russel Humphreys, and here from memory is a brief description of most of the video.

1. Argument from Galaxy rotation.. spinning too fast.
2. Magnetic fields in the universe and on earth.
3. Ocean sea floor mud accumulates too fast without enough being removed.
4. Too much salt water in the ocean without being removed.
5. Biological material decays too quickly.
And on and on.. here are some from the second video..
6. Starts with his background
7. Carbon 14 Dating is invalid, helium escaping from diamonds proves young earth.. yada yada he spends like half the time talking about this stuff.
8. The old God must have sped up radioactive decay argument.
9. Book plug..
10. Yet another assertion of "wow the evidence really is overwhelming." I have never seen anything like that in a secular scientific source, the evidence speaks for itself.

Yeah, I was trying to keep it light and joked with you a little bit. Are you so thin skinned that you can't take a little joke?
And because I said God bless you that I'm somehow wrong in doing that too? Because we disagree, do I now have to hate you and go fist fight with you?

So we disagree. Big whoop de doo. It still doesn't mean that we have to become hostile to one another. Take a deep breath brother. It's not that bad. And yes...I hope that God blesses you and your family regardless of how angry you are.

Have a good day brother.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah, I was trying to keep it light and joked with you a little bit. Are you so thin skinned that you can't take a little joke?
And because I said God bless you that I'm somehow wrong in doing that too? Because we disagree, do I now have to hate you and go fist fight with you?

So we disagree. Big whoop de doo. It still doesn't mean that we have to become hostile to one another. Take a deep breath brother. It's not that bad. And yes...I hope that God blesses you and your family regardless of how angry you are.

Have a good day brother.

I'm not buying that it was a "joke."

So a highly educated man, PHD in fact, which starts out as an atheist, delving into it to prove the creationists wrong, and his honest study and so forth leads him to understand the truth, that evolution is impossible, and he's a big man about it and honorable both to himself and scholastically, admits he was wrong and receives the truth and therefore modifies his belief system... you will have no respect for and begin labeling him in a demeaning way...because he didn't say what you wanted him to!!! Oh...my...God...brother.

No joke here.

Before, you was all, oh we have to have a real scientist, physicist yada yada yada. So I give him to you, the fully educated one, and you refuse to believe him or to even give him any credit whatsoever. That's hilarious brother. A statement like that from you, an admitted non-scientist, to that degree with that tone...makes you look bad brother.

No joke here. Was telling me that it, "makes me look bad brother," keeping it light?

Why? Would you suddenly give me respect or think more highly of me? No you wouldn't. All you're doing here is fishing for something so that in some way, you can turn it around and denounce me. I've read this stuff on and off for years and didn't keep a list for you. A lot was on the internet too. I already told, I'm not college educated (well, in any relevant way at least). So it would be pointless for me to provide that information, especially when you aren't even willing to listen to a real PHD, lol. Even if I threw a couple names at you...guaranteed that you don't like them or have heard something yada yada yada.

No joke here. Entering laughing emoticons after those statements just makes you look like someone I can't name on this forum. These are not designed to have the person you are talking to laugh with you.

You rose right up to it too, didn't you brother?! Here's your big point, right here. Ohh you got me. You know what that means, right. Now I'm invalid, been proven wrong.
In a way though, bias for the Word of God isn't on the same level that bias or prejudice to a scientist is. That's the main reason I left it. I stand by it too.

No joke here either.. just more of you laughing with yourself when clearly there isn't anything funny happening.

Oh yeah, I know. You've demonstrated that nothing that anyone could post is a valid critique of your position or belief, not even scripture. So it is what it is.

SO FUNNY... way to keep it light "brother."

Yeah, that's probably the best thing to do at this point. Agree to disagree and move on. It is a shame though that you're scared to listen to men speak the truth. Those are some good videos with Chuck Missler especially. That you've effectively debunked him without listening to him ( ) is an awesome skill that you have. Others who do not have all the answers already as you do may find them very interesting though.

This one's hilarious! You basically call me a liar!!!

It's not that I have "thin skin," but that I have social skills beyond that of a sociopath and I can surmise when it is appropriate to laugh and I know what keeping it "light" actually is.

Read through what you wrote again, and then use your thinking cap to imagine yourself in the person's shoes who isn't yourself. Mmkay?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Much, there are, as I believe I said, only about 2% of the Church Membership that fits the requirement of salvation and if you read all of the post, it is in there. and if you read the passage, with common comprehension, it is quite clear that the luke warm do not believe the truth but h ave bough into some fibs.

God? Is that you?

Sorry I mistook you for the judge of hearts for a minute.

Strange that you can assess the hearts of 2% of 2 billion people. How did you come to this calculation? One day you just imagined.. oh there is only about 4 million Christians based upon that is the number of people who fit the stringent requirement of salvation.

What a hoot! How about you worry about your own status... mmkay?

 

[Edward]

Oh come on. The joke was about the band-aid. I was serious in the rest of the post. Too much extreme thinking brother.

 

[Edward]

God? Is that you?

Sorry I mistook you for the judge of hearts for a minute.

Strange that you can assess the hearts of 2% of 2 billion people. How did you come to this calculation? One day you just imagined.. oh there is only about 4 million Christians based upon that is the number of people who fit the stringent requirement of salvation.

What a hoot! How about you worry about your own status... mmkay?

Here we go...boy, you all riled up aren't you?

and so these threads go...Who you mad at brother? Me? Mr. Taylor? God? The evolutionists? Who is it? Mad that you can't prove evolutionism and shove it down our throat? Mad that you can't teach us a bunch of crap and have us accept it? Wow.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Oh come on. The joke was about the band-aid. I was serious in the rest of the post. Too much extreme thinking brother.

Well the band-aid was patronizing and condescending. Poor joke.

And Heaven forbid someone actually analyzes what you say and points out the glaring flaws your critiques of me..

Don't tell me to chill out or say "oh come on," when you accuse me of saying I didn't do something I actually did.. aka a liar. That tends to get people riled up in the big boy world.. mmkay?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Here we go...boy, you all riled up aren't you?

and so these threads go...Who you mad at brother? Me? Mr. Taylor? God? The evolutionists? Who is it? Mad that you can't prove evolutionism and shove it down our throat? Mad that you can't teach us a bunch of crap and have us accept it? Wow.

I don't care what you believe Edward, don't kid yourself. You are free to believe that men were running away from Dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.

Why don't you post another video, since you have so much of your own knowledge to bear on the matter.

 

[Edward]

Yeah ok.

 

[Edward]

Why don't drop it now. You believe what you want, and I will too. So we'll just drop it before they lock the thread so others can talk.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Why don't drop it now. You believe what you want, and I will too. So we'll just drop it before they lock the thread so others can talk.

Have a nice life!..

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?

I didn't say i didn't understand it.

I realize you didn't admit it. However, the fact that you are unable to even present the argument here is sufficient evidence.

 

[jay55]

When ("If" for those of you of little faith) God creates things in our world is it not reasonable that they are created with the appearance of age. Did God create Adam as a newborn - no, he was created as a man with some appearance of age. When God created a partner for Adam (Eve) did he create her as a newborn. I'm not seeing how this would translate into God being dishonest and purposely trying to deceive us.

 

[Edward]

Barbarian asks:
The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?



I realize you didn't admit it. However, the fact that you are unable to even present the argument here is sufficient evidence.

You too huh? Boy oh boy, you evolutionists scramble to grasp onto every little thing you can to try to make creationists look bad when we don't bow down to you for explaining the truth (Ha!) of evolution to us, don't you? You believe whatever you want to about me there brother. I understood it just fine and I don't give a hoot if you believe it or not, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

Your preferred usage of the word is incorrect and is a modern day Revisionist idea, just not true.

Hmm... Newton used it the way we use it today. He made a distinction between his laws of motion (which made predictions without explanations) and what he called his theory of gravitation, which predicted things and explained them. Kepler's Laws described the motions of planets, but did not explain them. That is why Newton's theory is more powerful than Kepler's laws.

You've been fooled by the modern colloquial use of "theory." Learn about it here:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

Sorry, but revising might and does work on youngsters but for us old fossils, it ain't true

Sorry, this is a very old Barbarian and he remembers. And he also remembers that God hasn't definded "theory."

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?

You too huh? Boy oh boy, you evolutionists scramble to grasp onto every little thing you can to try to make creationists look bad when we don't bow down to you for explaining the truth (Ha!) of evolution to us, don't you?

I'm just trying to figure out why you think the video is right, if you don't understand the arguments it makes.

You believe whatever you want to about me there brother. I understood it just fine and I don't give a hoot if you believe it or not, lol.

But you're still not going to present any of it for us, are you? Can you see why that makes people think that you don't get it?

 

[Edward]

See that's the thing about God and His word though. It's very simple and designed that way. Only the "wise" can not understand it and must reach for understanding and through the complexity of their fleshy minds complicate it and never will "get it" because of their pride and foolish wisdom. Scripture to back this up...

2 Corinthians 1:12 - For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

1 Corinthians 14:33 - For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Luke 10:21 - In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

That said, I would think that it be a fallacy to try to in a long round about way to think that theory meant something else than what is commonly thought to be a theory. When we go and get all technical and legalistic with Gods word...it leads us down the wrong path,

 

[Edward]

Barbarian asks:
The point remains. If you don't understand the video well enough to present its arguments to us, what makes you think it's right?



I'm just trying to figure out why you think the video is right, if you don't understand the arguments it makes.



But you're still not going to present any of it for us, are you? Can you see why that makes people think that you don't get it?

I'm done trying to explain my belief to you guys because no matter what I say, you always, wont receive it, tell me I'm wrong, and find some way to denounce anything that is said. First, I;m not the PHD that's saying it, then, who cares what the PHD says, what do I say? Merry go rounds are cool for a bit, but at some point it's time to get off of it. You want it in my words now, go reread the thread from the beginning, and in the other thread(s) too. It's all there already.

 

[Free]

I see a lot of rhetoric going on. Address the arguments and provide evidence to back up your own arguments. If that is proving too difficult, I suggest leaving the discussion.

Keep it from getting anymore personal than it has. I will shut this down if I have to.