Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[URAVIP2ME]

No, the bible doesn't state 24-hour day.
No one here is claiming it was 24-hour day except you, so you have basically bludgeon this straw man to death.
But Genesis was very clear and explicit that one "creative day" is "evening and morning". So it does mean a day is equaled to light and darkness, or day and night:
The same pattern of "And there was evening and there was morning...the ____ day." is repeated 5 more day in Genesis 1.
What does that tell me, URAVVIP2ME?
I don't know how I can make any clearer to you. Sure, it does say hours, or 24-hour, but "there was evening and there was morning", is not unknown measure of time.
It tell me that a "day" in Genesis 1, is just that - a day - and that "day" comprises of "evening and morning".
What It doesn't say the "evening and morning" is made of one year, one decade, one century or one millennium.
What is written in 2 Peter 3:8, about "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day", which SOME Christians used to interpret Genesis 1, is nothing but apologetic BS. This verse by Peter has nothing to do with Genesis 1.
The correct way to interpret Peter's verse (3:8), is that one day and one thousand years have no meaning to this Lord, but it say nothing about creation. The theme about 1 Peter 3, and I am talking about the whole chapter, is that God is willing to wait for any amount of time for you to repent of your sin, whether that be 1 day from now, or 1000 years. It had nothing to do with Genesis 1.
Genesis 1 is very specific about each day, is nothing more than just one "evening and morning".
So your claim that it is "but literal unknown length-of-time days.", is BS, because it does say "evening and morning" in verses 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19 1:23 & 1:31. To say that "evening and morning" is "unknown" measure of time, only just show the absurdity of your dishonesty.
One of the reason why I didn't convert and become Christians, is people like you, trying to twist words around, to make the bible say what you believe it say, taking verses out of context. That's the sort of dishonesty, I wouldn't want to be associated with.
The chapter (Genesis 1) may not specify 24 hours, but it is very specific with the time frame for each day: "And there was evening and there was morning..."
2 Peter 3 was written from different time with different theme to Genesis 1, so you can't really them together, as if they are related when they are not.

Genesis chapter one is about getting the earth ready for mankind to inhabit earth.

No, I am Not claiming a 24-hour creative day. Each creative day can be of the same of differing time lengths.
Just as your grandfather's day can be different in time length from Noah's day. Yet both are referred to as ' day '

What does Genesis 2:4 say about all of the creative days?
Doesn't it say ' in the day ' (singular ) that God made earth and heaven?

What does Genesis 1:5 say ? God called the light ' day ' and the darkness He called ' night'
So, yes, daylight hours can properly be called ' day ' but that does Not mean the 24-hour day is Not 24-hours long.

An ' evening and morning ' does Not mean each creative day was 12 hours long.
So, the word ' day' in Scripture has shades of meaning.

We are nearing the threshold of Matthew 25 vs 31,32 the ' time of separation ' when Jesus will involve himself into mankind's affairs and wicked people will have No more length of time to repent but be cut off from all life and be destroyed forever - Psalm 92:7

 

[Monk Of Reason]

' transitional form ' as mutations - starting with elementary molecules in primeval free-form soup or slime are degenerative in nature.
Schools teach that water dilutes things rather than binds things together.

Schools teach that water acts as a medium for chemical reactions

How had life been preceding before the complete formation of both male and female?

We have tons of examples of asexual reproduction in animals today. Not having male and female isn't a problem

Where is the hint connection of an evolutionary sequence among all the diverse cells on earth ?

Which ones are you talking about? Pre multicelular life? We have fossil records of bacteria that go well before plants or animals. Well before the Cambrian explosion if that is what you are looking for.
Fossil Record of the Bacteria

Isn't evolution about pre-existing life?

For the most part. But I dislike this constant attempt to remove abiogensis from evolution. Abiogensis is part of evolution. It is a special part of evolution and the validity of abiogensis or our understanding of it has no real affect on the amount of understanding we have the process as it exists now and has existed for the better part of the life of the planet we currently inhabit.

Since life does Not come from non-life, then scientists are only human in educated guesses.

Well they are educated guesses based upon evidence. We already know that it is possible that life could have arose from non life. Since we don't have any evidence at all for a god but know that the process can be done naturally it is the obvious choice that we should be looking into natural explanations.

If you have evidence or even legitimate reasons to look elsewhere why not look there? Many scientists work on developing completely conflicting theories all the time. Any research done on abiogensis shouldn't really affect the research done in other venues of the creation of life. The problem is that there is no real alternative that we have in the scientific community. Abiogensis simply continues to be the most likely and best explanation. We don't fully understand it which isn't a bad thing. We simply need to study it more and thankfully we are. We know far more about abiogensis now than we did 10 years ago for example.

 

[JM2C]

I didn't say that it wasn't. I just asked you a simple question as to why the sun seems to be so well organized and isn't simply exploding randomly. All of the events we have were, to at least some degree, ordered.


Let me re-phrase the question for you to make it simpler. And I am not interested in any kind of tangent but simply answering this exact question.


"Why is the sun a sphere instead of an explosion spilling all over the universe?"

The stars are dying by using up their energies [2nd LoT] and at the same time some are being form but not as much as those that are dying. The energy that the stars produced are the one that is causing entropy as they heat up the universe to avoid equilibrium. Imagine if all the stars, including our sun, used up their energies, the universe, and that’s us too, will freeze to death, but before all this happen our sun will peak its energy and burn the earth to death.

2Pe 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

So, the sun is the same thing as the stars. It uses its energy every minute non-stop to give life here on earth, to increase entropy, and like the stars, someday the sun will peak its energy and this is what we witnessed, the solar storm.

According to NASA the sun in not a perfect sphere and gravity or space is pushing the explosion back to the sun, but effect of this explosion can generate solar wind or solar storm that can reach the earth’s magnetic field that can cause chaos here on earth and that is just the beginning of earth's destruction.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The stars are dying by using up their energies [2nd LoT] and at the same time some are being form but not as much as those that are dying. The energy that the stars produced are the one that is causing entropy as they heat up the universe to avoid equilibrium. Imagine if all the stars, including our sun, used up their energies, the universe, and that’s us too, will freeze to death, but before all this happen our sun will peak its energy and burn the earth to death.

2Pe 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

So, the sun is the same thing as the stars. It uses its energy every minute non-stop to give life here on earth, to increase entropy, and like the stars, someday the sun will peak its energy and this is what we witnessed, the solar storm.

According to NASA the sun in not a perfect sphere and gravity or space is pushing the explosion back to the sun, but effect of this explosion can generate solar wind or solar storm that can reach the earth’s magnetic field that can cause chaos here on earth and that is just the beginning of earth's destruction.

The bold underlined portion is what I am getting at. There are MUTLIPLE laws at play. No single law has total dominion over the rest. The way that these laws work with each other can help create systems. They create patterns.

 

[JM2C]

The bold underlined portion is what I am getting at. There are MUTLIPLE laws at play. No single law has total dominion over the rest. The way that these laws work with each other can help create systems. They create patterns.

The basic law here is the 2nd LoT. Energy is becoming a waste therefore it will end someday. The 2nd LoT is about life and life is subject to death by means of disorder or entropy. Entropy is death to all.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The basic law here is the 2nd LoT. Energy is becoming a waste therefore it will end someday. The 2nd LoT is about life and life is subject to death by means of disorder or entropy. Entropy is death to all.

Eventually life will be snuffed out. That much is understood. Eventually the reactions that give us light in our stars will go out. The conditions that support life will not be indefinite. But it doesn't mean that it can't have started or exist for a short period of time.

 

[JM2C]

No....in an open system, the addition of energy can prevent an increase in entropy.

“Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.” –From Methis’ post.

This is exactly Emergence and I were discussing the other day.

The increase in entropy that the Sun is producing through nuclear fusion massively offsets any decrease in entropy that the biosphere gains from photosynthesis of its light.

Let’s be clear here. Increase in entropy is disorder and chaos. Decrease in entropy is order and complex.

You are saying the sun is increasing entropy, i.e., disorder and chaos, and at the same time it offsets or equalize to decrease entropy, i.e., order and complex. You have a very good point here, it gives or sustains life, but if we apply the 2nd LoT in all of these, the life that it gives also dies and cannot live again or produce life again. IOW, no non-living things can produce life base on the principle of the 2nd LoT. It’s not going to happen and this is what abiogenesis/evolutionist been teaching ever since.

To balance life on earth we must have energy, the sun, although the sun increase in entropy it decrease entropy by giving life, and the sun that gives life is the same that takes it because of entropy. Entropy can be localized to decrease disorder so it can give life, not from a non-life, but from life itself, but at the end entropy takes it back to become a non-life. Entropy is death to all.

 

[Revoltingest]

“Systems that are not isolated may decrease in entropy, provided they increase the entropy of their environment by at least that same amount.” –From Methis’ post.
This is exactly Emergence and I were discussing the other day.

That's correct.

Let’s be clear here. Increase in entropy is disorder and chaos. Decrease in entropy is order and complex.
You are saying the sun is increasing entropy, i.e., disorder and chaos, and at the same time it offsets or equalize to decrease entropy, i.e., order and complex. You have a very good point here, it gives or sustains life, but if we apply the 2nd LoT in all of these, the life that it gives also dies and cannot live again or produce life again. IOW, no non-living things can produce life base on the principle of the 2nd LoT. It’s not going to happen and this is what abiogenesis/evolutionist been teaching ever since.
To balance life on earth we must have energy, the sun, although the sun increase in entropy it decrease entropy by giving life, and the sun that gives life is the same that takes it because of entropy. Entropy can be localized to decrease disorder so it can give life, not from a non-life, but from life itself, but at the end entropy takes it back to become a non-life. Entropy is death to all.

This doesn't make sense.
Thermodynamics doesn't say life is more or less complex than non-life.
"Order" is defined differently from how you use it.
This might help.....
Entropy (order and disorder) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JM2C]

The above translation to 40:18, come from NRSV ("likean ox"in 40:15,"likea cedar"in 40:17), so it used"like", KJV, on the other hand, used "like" for verses 17 & 18, but "as" in 40:15: "he eateth grassasan ox.".

meaning mammoth are not meat eater and this prove that dinosaurs were not necessarily meat eater..

So in the case with 2nd line in 40:18, the limbs are "like", but they aren't literally "bars of iron". To put it simply, limbs are not iron.

I can write "Usain Bolt runslikethe wind", meaning that Bolt can run very fast, it doesn't mean I am saying Bolt is the "wind".

your interpretation of the wind is very fast.

Wind: air in natural motion, as that moving horizontally at any velocity along the earth's surface: A gentle wind blew through the valley. High winds were forecast.

It says here wind can be slow or gentle to high or fast so you can’t actually say that Usain Bolt runs like a wind or very fast unless you saw him actually running very fast, right?

IOW, only you can interpret the meaning of the wind based on your observation, and that is, “runs like the wind” is running very fast even though the other meaning is slow or gentle, but since you are the one who saw this, then one cannot argue from you. I cannot say he runs slow of gentle because I did not witness the way Bolt runs, right?

So, eats grass like an ox, tail like a cedar, limbs are like bars of iron. Did you witness any of this like you’ve witnessed Usain Bolt runs like the wind? NO, you did not, so you cannot interpret this the way you like because if you do I would argue that Usain Bolt runs very slow or gentle base on the other meaning of the wind, that is, slow or gentle.

 

[Revoltingest]

meaning mammoth are not meat eater and this prove that dinosaurs were not necessarily meat eater...

Them choppers weren't for Belgian endive......

That fella craved meat!

 

[Unification]

Interesting post ^above^, but what about dating things before the Deluge of Noah's day ?
Can such flooding have an effect on the rate of decay dating methods.

We know how accurate CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation ) dating is because of the accuracy of microwaves.
Thus, through CMBR we can know the accurate dating of the earth and universe, but just how far back can dating things on earth be with K-Ar /Ar/Ar ?

The Permian extinction and it was volcanic eruption from the ocean, flooding with water levels elevating a little. Volcanic eruptions cause much rain, sometimes acid rain. The mountains were mid-ocean ridges. After the Permian extinction, mass amounts of sulfate were left in the seas and elevated.

Genesis7:11 the same day were all the fountains OF THE GREAT DEEP broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

[Unification]

I have no idea why you think Lucy is a fraud. As I've pointed out twice now, scientists have found the remains of more than 300 individuals of the Australopithecus afarensis species.

Nebraska man wasn’t so much a fraud as a misidentification that was never really accepted by the scientific community at large.




The question I asked you when you provided Bible verses as evidence against evolution, which was:

Why should words from the Bible count as evidence, or hold any weight at all? Especially in light of empirical evidence to the contrary.

We can learn a lot from the bible. Such as just in the story of Lot, of the mind and evolution.

First, evolution...

When cells undergo replication, DNA and the information it stores is copied and subsequently passed on to the daughter cells. Biochemical blueprints are conveyed to the next generation through DNA replication. This process generates two ‘daughter’ molecules which are identical to the ‘parent’ DNA molecule. Once replication is complete, the two generated DNA molecules are distributed between the daughter cells produced during cell division.

The name Lot means "myrrh or resin" and comes from Commiphora. The replication and so-called "incest" was evolution. Lots two sons from the two daughters were "Ammonites" and "Moabites." Ammonites in ocean and Amoeba in ocean. Ammonites are the most abundant fossil.

It is faith that dinosaurs became extinct from a meteor and the Ammonites becoming extinct at roughly about the same time. The bible says that the Ammonites were the ones who destroyed all of the "giants." Makes perfect sense since dinosaurs ate them and were one of their favorite foods, and the water drank from the ocean may be have contaminated the dinosaur giants with ammonia and salt.

Maybe another extinction period where it rained sulfur and brimstone from the heavens.

Now, the mind:

Lot also means: WRAPPED up, covered, veiled.

Sodom: depravity/pleasure
Gomorrah: fear

Amygdala: attached to hippocampi, plays key role in emotions, pleasure, and fear.

Sodom/Siddim: SALT Sea.

Hippocampus: SEA horse.

The hippocampus of the brain is also called cornu ammonis and is responsible for memory.

Ammon was an Egyptian god, near whose temple ammonia or the SALT of Ammon was prepared. The hippocampus is also called Ammon’s Horn because the TWO hippocampi WRAP around in the form of the HORNS of a ram. One hippocampi in the left hemisphere of brain and another in the right hemisphere.

Daughters in scripture: emotions of mankind.

Lot and his two daughters: The sons of these daughters are the tribal HEADS of the Moabites and the AMMONites. Moab and Ben-Ammi.

High-salt diet enhances hippocampal oxidative stress and cognitive impairment in mice hippocampus and salt.

The destruction of depravity/pleasure and fear by "God."
Lot's wife(subconscious mind) looked back to those ways and was covered with salt.

The name "ammonite", from which the scientific term is derived, was inspired by the spiral shape of their fossilized shells, which somewhat resemble tightly coiled rams' horns. Pliny the Elder (d. 79 AD near Pompeii) called fossils of these animals ammonis cornua ("horns of Ammon") because the Egyptian god Ammon (Amun) was typically depicted wearing ram's horns.[1] Often the name of an ammonite genus ends in -ceras, which is Greek (κέρας) for "horn".

 

[Parsimony]

Let’s be clear here. Increase in entropy is disorder and chaos. Decrease in entropy is order and complex.

That's not necessarily true. Entropy can also be view as a reduction of available potential energy to do work. A rock sitting on a cliff has more gravitational potential energy than the same rock would have if it was sitting in the valley below. However, both situations are equally complex (since they have the same number and kinds of parts).

You are saying the sun is increasing entropy, i.e., disorder and chaos, and at the same time it offsets or equalize to decrease entropy, i.e., order and complex. You have a very good point here, it gives or sustains life, but if we apply the 2nd LoT in all of these, the life that it gives also dies and cannot live again or produce life again. IOW, no non-living things can produce life base on the principle of the 2nd LoT.

The second law would not be the obstacle to overcome for abiogenesis, as we already know that non-living systems can decrease in entropy under the right circumstances. Self-replicating molecules have been created, including those which can evolve over time.

It’s not going to happen and this is what abiogenesis/evolutionist been teaching ever since.

You're conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Not good. Even if abiogenesis was not possible, evolution would still work just fine.

To balance life on earth we must have energy, the sun, although the sun increase in entropy it decrease entropy by giving life, and the sun that gives life is the same that takes it because of entropy. Entropy can be localized to decrease disorder so it can give life, not from a non-life, but from life itself, but at the end entropy takes it back to become a non-life. Entropy is death to all.

See above.

meaning mammoth are not meat eater and this prove that dinosaurs were not necessarily meat eater.

There is a very strong correlation between the type of dentition that an animal has and its diet. Are you saying the dinosaurs were somehow an exception to that rule? Why would they be?

 

[gnostic]

The stars are dying by using up their energies [2nd LoT] and at the same time some are being form but not as much as those that are dying. The energy that the stars produced are the one that is causing entropy as they heat up the universe to avoid equilibrium. Imagine if all the stars, including our sun, used up their energies, the universe, and that’s us too, will freeze to death, but before all this happen our sun will peak its energy and burn the earth to death.

2Pe 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."

So, the sun is the same thing as the stars. It uses its energy every minute non-stop to give life here on earth, to increase entropy, and like the stars, someday the sun will peak its energy and this is what we witnessed, the solar storm.

According to NASA the sun in not a perfect sphere and gravity or space is pushing the explosion back to the sun, but effect of this explosion can generate solar wind or solar storm that can reach the earth’s magnetic field that can cause chaos here on earth and that is just the beginning of earth's destruction.

Are you saying stars, including the Sun, will go supernova?

 

[gnostic]

meaning mammoth are not meat eater and this prove that dinosaurs were not necessarily meat eater..

You are generalising.

I did not say ALL dinosaurs were all meat-eaters.

I said that tyrannosaur-rex were meat eaters, they didn't "eat grass like ox", like Job's behemoth in Job 40.

I had stated that some were carnivores, more were herbivores, but very few were omnivores (can eat meat inane plants).

When we were arguing earlier, it would seem that you were linking the Job's behemoth to the tyrannosaur rex. My counter-argument were stated that T-rex were never plant-eater (ie not herbivores), so the the t-rex couldn't be behemoth, because they didn't eat grass.

For some reasons or another, you argue that I was wrong about the tyrannosaur rex, that they could eat grass, like ox.

Your argument began with countering my argument later about me saying that Job (book) was full of non-scientific superstitions (post 1315), when you linked behemoth to dinosaurs (post 1319):


But all paleobiologists and paleozoologists have cleared stated that the tyrannosaur rex were carnivorous dinosaurs, and it is not because of the movie Jurassic Park.

Job 38 and 40 just showed utterly uneducated God and the author are. It showed God as superstitious as Job and the author.

”uneducated God” WOW!

Speaking of Job 40:15 “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.,

“BEHEMOTH”, the DINOSAUR species? Yes! And the “LEVIATHAN” in Job 41:1, Job 3:8 and Psalm 104:26 known as the sea monsters.

You just gave us more proof from Job that human were living contemporaneously with dinosaurs and the leviathans.

Now, tell me who is the “uneducated” here, you, who provided this evidence against evolutionist, or God? You should have kept your thoughts with you.

Then in your next post (1320), you wanted to know why Dr Horner refused to C14 date soft tissues of T-rex:

When Dr. Horner was asked if he could carbon-14 test the T-Rex soft tissue discovered by Mary Schweitzer in 1993, why did he refuse? Was he concern about what might be the outcome of the test? You should do a research on this and find out yourself and you will be surprise that those millions and billions of years were nothing but lies.

“He was concerned about the “spin” that creationists might put on such a result and that a radiometric dating result in thousands of years “is not going to help us.” By helping us, he means those of the evolutionary faithful. He is absolutely correct with regard to his concerns. The evidence of dinosaurs that date back to the biblical story of creation in the book of Genesis would be a tragedy for those who are hanging their hats, not to mention their professional reputations, on the Darwinian assumption of deep time.”

You quoted Job several times, about the behemoth's tail and sinews of the thighs or femurs, before linking the sinews and tail that of T-rex in comparison with that of Job's behemoth, like post 1336 and 1340:

”Religious rhetoric” is not in any way related to the description itself? Where do you think this rhetoric came from? Try this verse JOB 40:15 “Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox.

There wouldn’t be any rhetoric or any narrative at all if there was no “BEHEMOTH” that God created.




JOB 40:17 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.


Cedar can grow up to 130 feet and that is just the tail of this Behemoth.

If I describe an elephant I would probably use a tree to describe the height. I did not say 130 feet but it can grow up to 130 feet.

JOB 40:17 “He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.

Cedar can grow up to 130 feet and that is just the tail of this Behemoth.

A tendon (or sinew) is a tough band of fibrous connective tissue that usually connects muscle to bone[1] and is capable of withstanding tension. Tendons are similar to ligaments and fasciae; all three are made of collagen.

“The sinews of his thighs are knit together.” The T-rex’s femur or thigh is where they found the tissue or collagen/sinew. Do you think this is just a coincidence, or it’s God’s work?

Post 1340 (above) is when directly linked behemoth and T-Rex together.

Emergence argued that T-Rex don't eat grass (1341), as did I in post 1353:

You are the one who brought up behemoth in Job 40. And you are the one who brought up t-rex.


It would seem to me that you are linking behemoth to Tyrannosaurus rex.

T-rex is carnivore dinosaurs. They wouldn't eat grass, because they are meat eaters.

Tyrannosaurus rex is indeed a dinosaur, but not all dinosaurs are Tyrannosaurus rex.

You don't know anything about dinosaurs, and it would seem that you don't know what a Tyrannosaurus rex is, nor know what they eat.

Again, it would seem that your own education is seriously lacking. You don't know much about T-rex, and you don't know what they eat. One thing is certain, T-rex don't eat grass, because plants are not part of their diet.

You did just link any species of dinosaurs to behemoth, you linked the t-Rex to behemoth.

Not all dinosaurs are tyrannosaurus, and not all dinosaurs were plant-eaters, but you dismissed my point, as if all dinosaurs were the same, and have the same diet as your bloody behemoth.

 

[Bunyip]

You are generalising.

I did not say ALL dinosaurs were all meat-eaters.

I said that tyrannosaur-rex were meat eaters, they didn't "eat grass like ox", like Job's behemoth in Job 40.

I had stated that some were carnivores, more were herbivores, but very few were omnivores (can eat meat inane plants).

When we were arguing earlier, it would seem that you were linking the Job's behemoth to the tyrannosaur rex. My counter-argument were stated that T-rex were never plant-eater (ie not herbivores), so the the t-rex couldn't be behemoth, because they didn't eat grass.

For some reasons or another, you argue that I was wrong about the tyrannosaur rex, that they could eat grass, like ox.

Your argument began with countering my argument later about me saying that Job (book) was full of non-scientific superstitions (post 1315), when you linked behemoth to dinosaurs (post 1319):


But all paleobiologists and paleozoologists have cleared stated that the tyrannosaur rex were carnivorous dinosaurs, and it is not because of the movie Jurassic Park.


Then in your next post (1320), you wanted to know why Dr Horner refused to C14 date soft tissues of T-rex:


You quoted Job several times, about the behemoth's tail and sinews of the thighs or femurs, before linking the sinews and tail that of T-rex in comparison with that of Job's behemoth, like post 1336 and 1340:




Post 1340 (above) is when directly linked behemoth and T-Rex together.

Emergence argued that T-Rex don't eat grass (1341), as did I in post 1353:

You did just link any species of dinosaurs to behemoth, you linked the t-Rex to behemoth.

Not all dinosaurs are tyrannosaurus, and not all dinosaurs were plant-eaters, but you dismissed my point, as if all dinosaurs were the same, and have the same diet as your bloody behemoth.

Behemoth is also described as having a navel - only mammals have navels. Hilariously for this particular creationist claim, the 'tail like a cedar' actually refers to a penis. So we are looking for a giant mammal with a huge penis, as opposed to T-Rex.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not necessarily true. Entropy can also be view as a reduction of available potential energy to do work. A rock sitting on a cliff has more gravitational potential energy than the same rock would have if it was sitting in the valley below. However, both situations are equally complex (since they have the same number and kinds of parts).

The second law would not be the obstacle to overcome for abiogenesis, as we already know that non-living systems can decrease in entropy under the right circumstances. Self-replicating molecules have been created, including those which can evolve over time.

You're conflating abiogenesis and evolution. Not good. Even if abiogenesis was not possible, evolution would still work just fine.

See above.

There is a very strong correlation between the type of dentition that an animal has and its diet. Are you saying the dinosaurs were somehow an exception to that rule? Why would they be?

In thermodynamics, order cannot be measure by number & kinds of parts.
It's about the number of possible states of those parts.
Entropy (order and disorder) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This whole concept of order is less useful than thinking in terms of energy available to do work.

 

[gnostic]

your interpretation of the wind is very fast.

Wind: air in natural motion, as that moving horizontally at any velocity along the earth's surface: A gentle wind blew through the valley. High winds were forecast.

It says here wind can be slow or gentle to high or fast so you can’t actually say that Usain Bolt runs like a wind or very fast unless you saw him actually running very fast, right?

IOW, only you can interpret the meaning of the wind based on your observation, and that is, “runs like the wind” is running very fast even though the other meaning is slow or gentle, but since you are the one who saw this, then one cannot argue from you. I cannot say he runs slow of gentle because I did not witness the way Bolt runs, right?

So, eats grass like an ox, tail like a cedar, limbs are like bars of iron. Did you witness any of this like you’ve witnessed Usain Bolt runs like the wind? NO, you did not, so you cannot interpret this the way you like because if you do I would argue that Usain Bolt runs very slow or gentle base on the other meaning of the wind, that is, slow or gentle.

Usually, using simile like "run like the wind" means the person run fast. Usain Bolt was one of the fastest sprinters in the Olympics, so naturally one would assume that's what it mean by "run like the wind".

Homer, in both the Iliad and the Odyssey, often used simile, including "wind" with a person (like Achilles, Teucer, Odysseus, etc) as similes for fast runners.

The simile never used gentle breeze in comparison to people's running speed.

 

[gnostic]

Behemoth is also described as having a navel - only mammals have navels. Hilariously for this particular creationist claim, the 'tail like a cedar' actually refers to a penis. So we are looking for a giant mammal with a huge penis, as opposed to T-Rex.

I'd guess that's one of several possibilities.

 

[JM2C]

Actually, Quirinius didn't serve as legate (governor) in Syria twice.

He only served in Syria between 6 and 12 CE.

There were 2 legates who had held offices in Syria the last decade of Herod the Great's life:

• Gaius Sentius Saturninus 9 – 7/6 BCE
• Publius Quinctilius Varus 7/6 – 4 BCE

Around that time, Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (Cyrenius, Κυρήνιος) became consul in 12 BCE, then as general in a war against the Homonadenses, at the provinces of Galatia and Cilicia, from 12 BCE to 1 BCE, during which time, he became legate of Galatia, between 5 and 3 BCE.

There were no two censuses in Judaea, and certainly not when Herod was alive, and not while Judaea wasn't a Roman province. There was no procurator (minor governor) in Judaea at that time, so why would Augustus ordered a census when Judaea wasn't a province.

Census were only carried on Roman provinces, and Judaea didn't become a province till 6 CE, when Archelaus was banished from Judaea by Augustus:

Quirinius served as Governor of Syria twice or two terms, and in both terms, two census were ordered, one is in 8 B.C. “This was the first/PROTOS census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. –Luke 2:2”. Why did Luke say “protos/first” census?

Because there was a 2nd census in 6 A.D. “In the days of the census- Acts 5:37”


How do we know that Quirinius served twice as governor of Syria?


“A fragment of stone discovered at Tivoli [near Rome] in A.D.1764 contains an inscription in honor of a Roman official who, it states, was twice governor of Syria and Phoenecia during the reign of Augustus.”