• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

blueboy

Member
And, in case my response would seem equally bald and in a measured part hypocritical, may I offer some evidence of what has been done?

To begin:
Please to explain how any of your recent arguments advances the dialogue at all beyond what appears in this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
Nice article, but most people have little interest in the truth, or proofs, they are looking for validation.

I do not accept that life can be a product of non-life and we still have the conundrum of the infinite regression of evolution being a paradox.
 

Lawson

BANNED
Banned
Nice article, but most people have little interest in the truth, or proofs, they are looking for validation.
Your prediction has borne itself out. Our comrades and hosts are an ornery stubborn sort.
I do not accept that life can be a product of non-life
So abiogenesis is your conundrum rather than evolution.

and we still have the conundrum of the infinite regression of evolution being a paradox.
Requiring a creator creates its own infinite regress, does it not?

An influencer might well have been a part of our evolution, but the evidence shows that evolution was the process of our development.
 

blueboy

Member
"A bit"? Try a LOT. Stop using fake arguments and get to something real.

Right back to your ELEPHANT HURLING. Stop faking it and get on to some facts.

Telling falsehoods is no way to respect your Creator.

Made up nonsense. Again, giving us your beliefs instead of facts.

Fake news... stop telling us what you BELIEVE and start showing us some facts.

Again, with the false accusations. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Our friend, Lawson has put up a very nice article for you. Have a little read and see how you go.

If you have a good reaction to this article then we might provide links to more informative studies.

You keep demanding facts, so start with this article and then we can become a bit more fact specific and you will be up to speed in no time.
 

Lawson

BANNED
Banned
Why would it?
As you well know, the origin of the creator then is still always at issue. I know you will just say He is different and not created but cannot say how. One could just say we were never created and always existed and saved a step. Be a chap, and just do that then if you are so inclined.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
As you well know, the origin of the creator then is still always at issue.

No it's not.

God, the Creator of all things, does not have an origin, because He has always existed.

Everything that has a beginning has a cause, and nothing that has a beginning can cross an infinity.

God does not have a beginning, therefore does not have a cause. He is the Uncaused Cause.

I know you will just say He is different and not created but cannot say how.

God is definitely not a created being.

How, you ask? God has always existed.

You could just say we were never created and always existed and saved a step.

That would be false, though, and a lie.

Be a chap, and just do that then.

I will not lie just to suit your conscience.

Maybe if I hated you, but I don't.
 

blueboy

Member
Your prediction has borne itself out. Our comrades and hosts are an ornery stubborn sort.

So abiogenesis is your conundrum rather than evolution.


Requiring a creator creates its own infinite regress, does it not?

An influencer might well have been a part of our evolution, but the evidence shows that evolution was the process of our development.
Great questions and I do not have answers, but that's never stopped me before.

I have a great many conundrums, I'm afraid, starting with myself. I think cosmology has three distinctions. There is the unknowable Cause, God if you will. This is preexistent, 100% abstraction and thus beyond definition or human understanding. If physical reality is contingent then I think it reasonable to hypothesis that a state of preexistence must fix all realities from an impossible state of infinite regression.

Then there is the Primal Will, the expression to be and I have no idea if this involves multi-verses, or as in Hindu cosmology, great cycle of breath, the coming into being and the going out of being of a universe, only to begin again, so that there is no real beginning and no real end. This Primal Will is the essence of reality. Science can only describe and comprehend the attributes of reality, but clearly existence is built upon a foundation of Purpose and Will. The universe evolves, but it is like rolling out a great tapestry.

The third level in this three part play is Creation, which is not confined to physical reality, there is also a spiritual reality. Within this is the human and no doubt other sentient beings throughout the universe who are also capable of recognising God. Everything other than the parts of this world have to be described by metaphor.

Now even God can not Create from absolute nothingness, so something has always existed, we have always existed in some state. Now my take on the sentient state of being human, the reason we have arts, crafts, music and poetry, dance, great written works and the ability to manipulate nature itself is because we each have a spirit which is of the same substance, for want of a better word, as God. Our spirit is Created and then associated with our individual self. This is what separates us so vastly from the animal kingdom and drives us to understand, create and produce great works.

As for evolution, there is no doubt about this reality, however I'm not convinced that it is all that random, or that life can be the product of non-life. I think abiogenesis is everybody's conundrum whether they know it or not.
 

blueboy

Member
Your prediction has borne itself out. Our comrades and hosts are an ornery stubborn sort.

So abiogenesis is your conundrum rather than evolution.


Requiring a creator creates its own infinite regress, does it not?

An influencer might well have been a part of our evolution, but the evidence shows that evolution was the process of our development.
Evolution can not be infinitely regressed because of the paradox this causes and we know that something can not arise from absolute nothingness. The exactitude of mass and energy, natural laws, the centripetal waltz of galaxies and solar systems in a balance with gravity so that habitable zones might exist, is telling, of what I'm not sure. The alternative is that nothing did everything and I can't fathom any likelyhood of that being our reality.

So it's perfectly logical that a state of preexistence, God, must exist without understanding anything about the nature of God. The foundation of all great societies seems to be because of religion and I have yet to find a single tribe, culture, gathering of humans who do not have a spiritual disposition. That too is telling, even if I don't know why, but we are clearly hardwired for religion.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Our friend, Lawson has put up a very nice article for you. Have a little read and see how you go.
As @JudgeRightly has already pointed out, that article is nothing but a list of straw-man arguments. It's silly and useless.
If you have a good reaction to this article then we might provide links to more informative studies.
Always the vagueness from you. Pick something factual to discuss.
You keep demanding facts, so start with this article and then we can become a bit more fact specific and you will be up to speed in no time.
I'll already well studied on the topic, but I don't fall for the propaganda of the anti-truth squad. Like you do.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Evolution can not be infinitely regressed because of the paradox this causes and we know that something can not arise from absolute nothingness.
Just exactly how do we "know" this?
The exactitude of mass and energy, natural laws, the centripetal waltz of galaxies and solar systems in a balance with gravity so that habitable zones might exist, is telling, of what I'm not sure.
You sure seem to like to do the word waltz.
The alternative is that nothing did everything and I can't fathom any likelyhood of that being our reality.
That is where the atheist has a big problem.
So it's perfectly logical that a state of preexistence, God, must exist without understanding anything about the nature of God.
That is insane.
The foundation of all great societies seems to be because of religion and I have yet to find a single tribe, culture, gathering of humans who do not have a spiritual disposition. That too is telling, even if I don't know why, but we are clearly hardwired for religion.
You need to read the Bible without your blinders on. It has all of those answers.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
As for evolution, there is no doubt about this reality, however I'm not convinced that it is all that random, or that life can be the product of non-life.
Your definition (or lack of it) of evolution means that you are just punching air.
I think abiogenesis is everybody's conundrum whether they know it or not.
It's no conundrum for me. It's clearly documented in the Bible.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have read your post, it employs the very same derogatory tone as the others. I'm wondering if you are all schooled in how to respond?
The derogatory tone comes from you acting like you don't understand clear English. You said, "I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible." I gave you a clear definition of what failed science was that had nothing to do with my understanding of the Bible. I even provided an example that was not from the Bible.

Yet you showed no interest in an honest conversation. If you were honest, even you would have to admit you deserved an answer with a derogatory tone at the very least.
As for evidence of a global Flood, none exists.
You just learned the evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming.
There is evidence in the sediments of huge regional floods
:ROFLMAO::LOL:😅 Dude, a continent sized sediment layer is not a regional flood.
, but, there simply is not enough water in the planetary system to produce a flood even remotely similar the the Flood of Noah
From your blunder above, you clearly have no concept of how the flood happened. You should listen to science instead of imagining that it rained from clouds until the water was above mt Everest.
 

blueboy

Member
The derogatory tone comes from you acting like you don't understand clear English. You said, "I'm not sure how science becomes failed science when it contradicts your understanding of the Bible." I gave you a clear definition of what failed science was that had nothing to do with my understanding of the Bible. I even provided an example that was not from the Bible.

Yet you showed no interest in an honest conversation. If you were honest, even you would have to admit you deserved an answer with a derogatory tone at the very least.

You just learned the evidence for a worldwide flood is overwhelming.

:ROFLMAO::LOL:😅 Dude, a continent sized sediment layer is not a regional flood.

From your blunder above, you clearly have no concept of how the flood happened. You should listen to science instead of imagining that it rained from clouds until the water was above mt Everest.
I have looked at and appraised everything that has been put in front of me regarding the Flood. Now you may try to emoji me to death, but it simply is not evidence of the Flood of Noah. It's evidence of something, but when you apply a Creation prejudice to the evidence you come up with a wrong conclusion.

No evidence exists for a global flood. Significant evidence exists for catastrophic regional floods, especially the Black Sea about 7,500 years ago. We just had a massive flood in NSW Australia that covered major towns up to the second story.

Honest, to you is me accepting what you say, I'm sorry I can't because you are misguided and influenced by a closed minded belief in a literal Genesis. That's your problem, not mine, nor is it a problem with God, the Bible, Judaism from which this story comes, or Christianity that can't leave the Scripture of Judaism alone. The literal belief is your problem and no amount of carry-on on your part will make fake evidence real.

My concept of the Flood is symbolic, I have no intension of trying to shoehorn real science into a literal belief that has absolutely no bearing on the Word of God or Biblical teachings.

Noah received a Revelation from God over a 40 year period, 40 days and nights of rain from God being 40 in human terms. He then established a covenant with God and those who also entered into that covenant it was as if they were protected from a great flood of self and passion.

And this is the least contradictory aspect of this story in a literal context. You then have 8 people inbreeding to produce Pygmies, Zulu, Australian Aboriginals, NZ Maoris, red-headed Vikings, American First Nations peoples, Indians, Anglo Saxons, Arabic peoples, etc, etc, all with extensive cultures that goes back tens-of thousands of years.

Then you have a planet rebounding from total devastation to flourishing in the blink of an eye.

Then you have genetics that tell us that humans and animals were not throttles back to two of each, or 8 in the case for humans.

Then you have animals for all the islands of the world, unique species of marsupial and monotreme from Australia, how did they get of the Ark? Then you have animals that are bound to very specific environments, how did they survive away from their absolutely required ecosystems?

Then you have a wooden boat that would have broken its own back so impossibly large was it. One end would have rotted by the time they got to the other end. Boat building, engineering experts have said that such an Ark could not be built.

Then you have all the animals requiring very specific diets, many needing living creatures to eat. The elephants alone, there are 4 species, but we can say African and Asian, there had to be at least 4 elephants because they are so far apart. 4 elephants eating 300 lb each a day.

Now how long was Noah and the elephants on that Ark? Some say 370 days x 300 x 4 = 84 tons of vegetation. Now let's move on to the giraffes and the hypos and the rhinos and the water buffalo and the bison and the moose and the musk ox and the, well, I'm sure you get the point.

Now there is an honest conversation, sediment is the least of your worries.

It is not a literal story, it is a symbolic teaching of how God protects those who entering into a loving covenant with Him.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have looked at and appraised everything that has been put in front of me regarding the Flood.
This implies that you have looked at the continent-sized sedimentary layers. But if you had actually investigated those layers you would have found even greater difficulties with the idea that the flood was a local event - their vast sizes are just the beginning of problems for your view. Thus we can conclude that you have not looked at the sedimentary layers.

To paraphrase the evidence discussed so far: you said the flood was a series of local floods. I countered the vast sizes of the sedimentary layers precluded that claim. You reiterated the floods were local without accounting for the size of the layers that makes that impossible.

You are now going to expect me to answer your many challenges. I tell you what, I'll answer one of yours but no more until you answer mine.

Now you may try to emoji me to death,
:ROFLMAO::LOL:😂🤣😅😄 Talk about a first world problem! "You're emoji-ing me to death!" Get a grip man, emojis enhance the conversation if they aren't overdone.

but it simply is not evidence of the Flood of Noah.
That you can't recognize the evidence was not emojis but the sedimentary layers is telling.
It's evidence of something, but when you apply a Creation prejudice to the evidence you come up with a wrong conclusion.
The size of the layers is simply consistent with the worldwide flood as reported in the bible. Part of the process of coming up with right conclusions is this kind of consistency.
No evidence exists for a global flood.
The vast sedimentary layers is just the beginning of the evidence for a global flood. Actually there are many beginning evidences for a global flood depending on the discipline, but I chose this one.

Significant evidence exists for catastrophic regional floods, especially the Black Sea about 7,500 years ago. We just had a massive flood in NSW Australia that covered major towns up to the second story.
Was that flood continent sized? As big as Asia?

Honest, to you is me accepting what you say, I'm sorry I can't because you are misguided and influenced by a closed minded belief in a literal Genesis. That's your problem, not mine, nor is it a problem with God, the Bible, Judaism from which this story comes, or Christianity that can't leave the Scripture of Judaism alone. The literal belief is your problem and no amount of carry-on on your part will make fake evidence real.
I don't think you realize that sedimentary layers are real.
My concept of the Flood is symbolic, I have no intension of trying to shoehorn real science into a literal belief that has absolutely no bearing on the Word of God or Biblical teachings.

Noah received a Revelation from God over a 40 year period, 40 days and nights of rain from God being 40 in human terms. He then established a covenant with God and those who also entered into that covenant it was as if they were protected from a great flood of self and passion.
Sure, that's a possible interpretation. But I can go with the physical evidence since it is consistent with my view and not the view you mention here.
And this is the least contradictory aspect of this story in a literal context. You then have 8 people inbreeding to produce Pygmies, Zulu, Australian Aboriginals, NZ Maoris, red-headed Vikings, American First Nations peoples, Indians, Anglo Saxons, Arabic peoples, etc, etc, all with extensive cultures that goes back tens-of thousands of years.

Then you have a planet rebounding from total devastation to flourishing in the blink of an eye.

Then you have genetics that tell us that humans and animals were not throttles back to two of each, or 8 in the case for humans.

Then you have animals for all the islands of the world, unique species of marsupial and monotreme from Australia, how did they get of the Ark? Then you have animals that are bound to very specific environments, how did they survive away from their absolutely required ecosystems?

Then you have a wooden boat that would have broken its own back so impossibly large was it. One end would have rotted by the time they got to the other end. Boat building, engineering experts have said that such an Ark could not be built.

Then you have all the animals requiring very specific diets, many needing living creatures to eat. The elephants alone, there are 4 species, but we can say African and Asian, there had to be at least 4 elephants because they are so far apart. 4 elephants eating 300 lb each a day.

Now how long was Noah and the elephants on that Ark? Some say 370 days x 300 x 4 = 84 tons of vegetation. Now let's move on to the giraffes and the hypos and the rhinos and the water buffalo and the bison and the moose and the musk ox and the, well, I'm sure you get the point.

Now there is an honest conversation, sediment is the least of your worries.

It is not a literal story, it is a symbolic teaching of how God protects those who entering into a loving covenant with Him.
These are all worthy challenges that deserve an answer. I'm not sure which to pick since I don't know which one you consider the hardest to answer. I'll go with the genetic one: we couldn't have the diversity of humans we see today branching out of a 4 couple bottleneck from about 4000-5500 years ago.

First, realize humans are not very diverse on the DNA level.
Paleogenomic research has shown that modern humans, Neanderthals, and their most recent common ancestor have displayed less genetic diversity than living great apes. The traditional interpretation that low levels of genetic diversity in modern humans resulted from a relatively recent demographic bottleneck cannot account for similarly low levels of genetic diversity in Middle Pleistocene hominins. A more parsimonious hypothesis proposes that the effective population size of the human lineage has been low for more than 500,000 years, but the mechanism responsible for suppressing genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominin populations without similarly affecting that of their hominoid contemporaries remains unknown.



Then realize our dating of human history is not as clear-cut as you are implying:
The pre-Columbian settlers of the New World, who gave rise to the present-day Native Americans, are commonly believed to have come from Siberia, through the Bering land bridge, in the period 30,000–12,000 years before present (ybp).


The above was published in 2009 while more recent and more accurate scientific findings from AIG author Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson shows Native North American Indians arrived about the same time as the Muslim empire was developing. Can you figure out what that means and why it is important?

While Dr John Sanford and Dr Robert Carter et al shows the simple math of genetic diversity consistent with the work of L. S. Premo and Jean-Jacques Hublin listed above, which is a simpler and more logical solution to the problem they raise. The solution being highly heterogeneous couples just a few thousand years ago.

Now, go and be as honest as you claim and find the sediment layer maps. Take note of the adjacent layers, too.
 
Last edited:

blueboy

Member
This implies that you have looked at the continent-sized sedimentary layers. But if you had actually investigated those layers you would have found even greater difficulties with the idea that the flood was a local event - their vast sizes are just the beginning of problems for your view. Thus we can conclude that you have not looked at the sedimentary layers.

To paraphrase the evidence discussed so far: you said the flood was a series of local floods. I countered the vast sizes of the sedimentary layers precluded that claim. You reiterated the floods were local without accounting for the size of the layers that makes that impossible.

You are now going to expect me to answer your many challenges. I tell you what, I'll answer one of yours but no more until you answer mine.


:ROFLMAO::LOL:😂🤣😅😄 Talk about a first world problem! "You're emoji-ing me to death!" Get a grip man, emojis enhance the conversation if they aren't overdone.


That you can't recognize the evidence was not emojis but the sedimentary layers is telling.

The size of the layers is simply consistent with the worldwide flood as reported in the bible. Part of the process of coming up with right conclusions is this kind of consistency.

The vast sedimentary layers is just the beginning of the evidence for a global flood. Actually there are many beginning evidences for a global flood depending on the discipline, but I chose this one.


Was that flood continent sized? As big as Asia?


I don't think you realize that sedimentary layers are real.

Sure, that's a possible interpretation. But I can go with the physical evidence since it is consistent with my view and not the view you mention here.

These are all worthy challenges that deserve an answer. I'm not sure which to pick since I don't know which one you consider the hardest to answer. I'll go with the genetic one: we couldn't have the diversity of humans we see today branching out of a 4 couple bottleneck from about 4000-5500 years ago.

First, realize humans are not very diverse on the DNA level.
Paleogenomic research has shown that modern humans, Neanderthals, and their most recent common ancestor have displayed less genetic diversity than living great apes. The traditional interpretation that low levels of genetic diversity in modern humans resulted from a relatively recent demographic bottleneck cannot account for similarly low levels of genetic diversity in Middle Pleistocene hominins. A more parsimonious hypothesis proposes that the effective population size of the human lineage has been low for more than 500,000 years, but the mechanism responsible for suppressing genetic diversity in Pleistocene hominin populations without similarly affecting that of their hominoid contemporaries remains unknown.



Then realize our dating of human history is not as clear-cut as you are implying:
The pre-Columbian settlers of the New World, who gave rise to the present-day Native Americans, are commonly believed to have come from Siberia, through the Bering land bridge, in the period 30,000–12,000 years before present (ybp).


The above was published in 2009 while more recent and more accurate scientific findings from AIG author Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson shows Native North American Indians arrived about the same time as the Muslim empire was developing. Can you figure out what that means and why it is important?

While Dr John Sanford and Dr Robert Carter et al shows the simple math of genetic diversity consistent with the work of L. S. Premo and Jean-Jacques Hublin listed above, which is a simpler and more logical solution to the problem they raise. The solution being highly heterogeneous couples just a few thousand years ago.

Now, go and be as honest as you claim and find the sediment layer maps. Take note of the adjacent layers, too.
Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - BioLogoshttps://biologos.org › articles › flood-geology-and-the-...

The sedimentary layers do not support the Flood of Noah, a mere geological blink ago at 4,500 years. Read the article. I'll send you more if you like.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is a Creationist. If you want truth without prejudice you have to challenge yourself to look beyond the walls of your belief. As for Native Americans arriving about 1,500 years ago, one has to wonder what dear old Dr Nathaniel has been smoking. Just let the evidence speak for itself, don't try to torture it into a mistaken belief, the world has moved on and you are being left and ignored like some useless relic of the past. Look at all the human hours lost and wasted trying to force real science into a literal Genesis story.

Yes there has been a throttling down of human DNA, likely our ancestors were reduced at times to a small, vulnerable group, but certainly not within the last few hundred-thousand years or so.

Now here's the kicker. The Flood of Noah would have rendered the DNA of all animals back to the same reduced diversity as humans, in fact with 8 humans able to interbreed, we should have more divery DNA than the apes, because there was only two of them. Remember we only have two great apes, two orangutang, two chimps, etc. So if apes have diverse DNA this is yet another proof that the Flood of Noah is not literal and I thank you for pointing that out.

I have just read several papers regarding the sediment layers and there is not the slightest suggestion that this reflects some great flood of only 4,500 years ago.

As for emojis, I'm happy for you to use them if you feel they help you communicate.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Flood Geology and the Grand Canyon - BioLogoshttps://biologos.org › articles › flood-geology-and-the-...

The sedimentary layers do not support the Flood of Noah, a mere geological blink ago at 4,500 years. Read the article. I'll send you more if you like.

Yes, we know that Biologos does not support a Biblical creation model. Nice people, but not an authority by any means.

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson is a Creationist.

There are different kinds of creationists. Not all of them agree with the Bible that the Earth is young.

If you want truth without prejudice you have to challenge yourself to look beyond the walls of your belief.

Like I said, we Young Earth Creationists are well aware of what Biologos promotes. Enough to know that they're wrong.df

As for Native Americans arriving about 1,500 years ago, one has to wonder what dear old Dr Nathaniel has been smoking. Just let the evidence speak for itself, don't try to torture it into a mistaken belief, the world has moved on and you are being left and ignored like some useless relic of the past. Look at all the human hours lost and wasted trying to force real science into a literal Genesis story.

You should watch this:


Yes there has been a throttling down of human DNA,

Y-chromosomal Adam (AKA, Noah) would like to have a word with you.

likely our ancestors were reduced at times to a small, vulnerable group, but certainly not within the last few hundred-thousand years or so.

False.

Now here's the kicker. The Flood of Noah would have rendered the DNA of all animals back to the same reduced diversity as humans, in fact with 8 humans able to interbreed, we should have more divery DNA than the apes, because there was only two of them. Remember we only have two great apes, two orangutang, two chimps, etc. So if apes have diverse DNA this is yet another proof that the Flood of Noah is not literal and I thank you for pointing that out.

I have just read several papers regarding the sediment layers and there is not the slightest suggestion that this reflects some great flood of only 4,500 years ago.

Of course there wouldn't be, because they, like you, are missing the forest for the trees. They think that the layers represent long periods of time, when in fact ALL the layers were laid down within half a year by a single event.
 
Top