The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

You definitely should not have included geology since it disproves your Great Flood.

Gelology diasagrees with the young Earth concept.
Does it *disprove* a Global Flood?
No, it does not!

Please carefully note the wording of my comment "your Great Flood". So, yes, geology disproves it.

But out of interest, I'll ask what Global Flood you are referring to.

 

[Bear Wild]

Every scientist here at RF assures me that there is no "proof" in evolutionary science. What they have is "evidence".....please understand the difference.
When you have bones and other fossilised remains, several different scientists may have different opinions about the details that those fossils are telling them. This means that "evidence" says what science wants to interpret it to say. It is not exact otherwise all the scientists would be coming to the same conclusion, but since they are all wanting the evidence to say the same thing, I find there is collusion.... a consensus based on supporting the same agenda......there simply cannot be an Intelligent Creator.



Please Google beneficial mutations in humans and then tell me how many there are and how life altering those mutations are.
The mechanism for evolution is missing quite a few cogs....most of them apparently.



Can you show us how life just popped up out of nowhere and knew how to produce the mechanisms to transform itself into the myriad life forms that exist today and in the past.

Show us the proof that a single celled organism suddenly and for no apparent reason became a multi-celled organism. Show us with evidence that multi-celled organisms can become all the creatures that inhabit planet Earth.....? I have seen the diagrams, but they are just drawings on a piece of paper....where is the real evidence?



Embryology is indeed fascinating....but what does it prove? Every cell in a developing embryo is 'programmed' to become a body part. Each cell knows what it is supposed to do and where it is supposed to be. So how is embryology a proof for anything? A chicken embryo is hardly going to become a lizard, now is it? Information in the DNA is not going to allow it to change into something else, outside of its taxonomy.



I am not a creationist. YEC is as much a fantasy to me as evolution is. There is a middle ground that does not demand that we choose science OR a Creator.....we can have both without compromise.
Since there is no way to prove that evolution ever happened, except by assumption and suggestion, why do scientists demand proof for a Creator when they have no real proof for organic evolution? As I see it, we have two belief systems.



There is no such thing. "Sufficient" is another way of saying that they can't really prove any of it, but they will spin a yarn that makes it appear that what they have is close enough. Add diagrams and computer generated images and presto......it's all real.

The "overwhelming evidence" is only overwhelming in its sheer volume....drowning people in assumption, assertion and suggestion......but no real content.

If you can't prove something, it's a belief, not a fact. I have a belief but so do the scientists....but they just can't admit it.

Can you prove to me with solid evidence that evolution isn't as much of a fantasy as you think creation is?

In your limited version of proof eliminates much of science because what you are asking for would require going back in time which of course you know we can't. In the more common use of the work there is proof. You must not accept plate tectonics or other geological information that takes describes the past since we cannot go in the past and see it happen first hand. What is different at least is there is evidence for evolution and plate tectonics and no evidence for a god creating the world. What is more believable, something with evidence (and a great deal of evidence) or one without. So I will not say prove god just give the believable evidence. Do you have any?

 

[Deeje]

In your limited version of proof eliminates much of science because what you are asking for would require going back in time which of course you know we can't. In the more common use of the work there is proof. You must not accept plate tectonics or other geological information that takes describes the past since we cannot go in the past and see it happen first hand. What is different at least is there is evidence for evolution and plate tectonics and no evidence for a god creating the world. What is more believable, something with evidence (and a great deal of evidence) or one without. So I will not say prove god just give the believable evidence. Do you have any?

You have missed the point entirely...as many atheists are want to do.....

We are not anti-science.....we appreciate what science can accomplish beneficially in many spheres of life....(others, not so much.) I would not put science on the same pedestal as the Creator.....science is limited by human knowledge and ability at the present. Compared to what is knowable, man knows very little....certainly not enough to strut around like Dawkins, giving the impression that science is a substitute for God.

Like other evolution promoters you just protest with empty words, but you have no response to my statements that science operates way more on assumption and guesswork than on verifiable fact. You do understand that a thousand scientists subscribing to the same idea is just a thousand people supporting the same guesswork....that doesn't that make any of it fact....does it?

No one needs to travel back in time to see what happened. My beef with evolutionary science is that its assumptions are what form the basis for their theory. They examine evidence and then fit their interpretation into what they want it to say by suggesting all manner of scenarios, none of which hold any water.

If you cannot verify what you assume, then you have no facts....you have educated guesses. You must take what evolutionary science suggests on faith, because they can't prove any of it. That makes evolutionary science a belief system.....I have as much real evidence for my Creator as you do for your theory.

What real proof do you have that whales were once four-legged land animals? Give us your best evidence.....no suggestions allowed.

 

[ecco]

...certainly not enough to strut around like Dawkins, giving the impression that science is a substitute for God.

Science is not a substitute for God. Science only obviates the need for a god to explain the reality of nature and the nature of reality.

Science does not try to sell you on the idea of an afterlife of eternity sitting next to a god. Science does not tell you that you are going to see your long dead relatives again.

 

[Jose Fly]

We are not anti-science.

Says the person who referred to science as a "fraud factory".

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is a "natural process" and who invented the laws that govern the universe? Where did matter and energy come from? What makes them interact? Do you think they just popped up out of nowhere?

What law do you know that required no lawmaker?

What thing do you use for a specific purpose that was not the result of some intelligent mind addressing a need for it? Someone had to think up the concept, design the product, test it and then manufacture it.

I have a computer that I am typing on right now but if I was to tell you that it just appeared by "natural processes" and all the programs I have downloaded required no intelligent mind to invent them and then write a program for them....you'd think I was cracked....

There are way too many fortunate co-incidences for creation to be anything but the product of an intelligence way beyond our own.

Water is just part of the miracle....a very important part.

Where did God come from? Who created God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, I know! (He was so close! Lol.)

But that’s neither here nor there: it isn’t about specific beliefs in this instance. It’s about his study of the Bible, and recognizing it’s truthfulness.

If there really were valid discrepancies, he would have found them. I mean, he knew the Earth was an orb. If he thought the Bible stated otherwise, he wouldn’t have endorsed it as he did.

Why put so much stock in the personal beliefs of Isaac Newton? I mean, it's not exactly what he's known for (that would be his scientific findings).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

giving the impression that science is a substitute for God

God needs no substitute. One can simply live without any such belief and replace it with nothing.

but you have no response to my statements that science operates way more on assumption and guesswork than on verifiable fact. You do understand that a thousand scientists subscribing to the same idea is just a thousand people supporting the same guesswork....that doesn't that make any of it fact....does it?

Science works, which confirms the validity of its assumptions and methods.

Your comment has been rebutted and rejected repeatedly. It just was again.

My beef with evolutionary science is that its assumptions are what form the basis for their theory. They examine evidence and then fit their interpretation into what they want it to say by suggesting all manner of scenarios, none of which hold any water.

The theory is useful, and the scientific community , which considers it settled science, isn't waiting for creationists to agree.

If you cannot verify what you assume, then you have no facts....you have educated guesses. You must take what evolutionary science suggests on faith, because they can't prove any of it. That makes evolutionary science a belief system.....I have as much real evidence for my Creator as you do for your theory.

So what you are saying is that the theory of evolution is on a equal foundation with your religion.

Even if that were the case, what motivation would any of us have to abandon a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition for an idea like creationism that can do none of that, especially if you consider them both faith-based?

Seriously - why would I trade this idea for one that can't be used for anything if as you say you have no more evidence for your belief than the scientists do?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds from your post like I need to apologize for talking in lay terms. Sounds also like you will accept neither the love of Christ nor my friendship nor the love of true facts without my research papers for peer review...

...Of course, you couldn't have know I leave for a language conference tomorrow where I'm chairing two sessions, and delivering one of my papers. Sigh.

When I say the "hypothesis method" I refer to how I was taught as a child to use logic, which I apply to Bible and non-Bible claims of all kinds, and at most times:

1) Assume X is true aka "innocent until proven guilty" aka "being open minded" aka "being unafraid of what skeptics believe or what the Bible teaches"
2) Predict what Y(s) will result from X being true
3) Test, observe, hypothesize again as needed--be open-minded, reframe as needed

As for a Bible test to start with,

Jesus says to tithe and receive exactly what is needed on life necessities. God has come through hundreds, looks like perhaps thousands, of times, for me on finances, via tithes and offerings, exactly as promised, and exactly as He says TO TEST HIM regarding tithes and offerings.

a) Don't lecture me on magical thinking or etc. please--I used to be a data analyst for a CFP, and I've taught many classes on finances for different size groups--I even outlined a book on finances for a major publishing house--I understand how finance works and I'm testifying to you that God has my back!

b) I dare you to test God in this way--inexplicably, the more people give away without hope of repayment, the more the money returns to them (if they are giving biblically, to the church/evangelical outreach, etc.) - this is impossible per "finance"!

Thanks.

Your God has never come through for me, on any of the things you've mentioned.
My anecdotal personal experiences contradict your anecdotal personal experiences. Where do we go from there, using your "hypothesis method?"
Also, did you bother counting the number of times your God didn't answer your prayers?
How did you attempt to filter out your own bias?
Are you under the impression that your method is scientific in any way? I hope not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Instead of posting rhetoricals like your point 3 above, why not ASK?

"Supporting evidence?" Mount Everest has MARINE FOSSILS near its summit. There is evidence for vertical lifting of the mountains and vertical dropping of sea beds that explain things like sedimentary deposits and why the ark came to rest in Genesis on a mountain instead of being washed out to sea by receding flood waters--and why present sea levels do not account for covering the Earth with water.

I ask every day to test my assumptions and presuppositions. I know many of the Flood refutations because I read both sides. Your post shows you care little about anything creationists say, presuming us all some kind of pseudoscience worshipers.

Why do you respond to me if you neither read what creation SCIENTISTS have to say nor ask me questions?

So?? Do you know how mountains are formed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Was that a scientific statement or just your own opinion?

Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

Need I say more?

I have yet to see a shred of convincing evidence for macro-evolution.....so we are at an impasse....I actually have more "evidence" for an intelligent Creator than you have for a long, drawn out evolutionary process.....its a con of monumental proportions as I see it. I hear about all this "overwhelming evidence" for evolution and then find out that the only thing overwhelming about it is the volume not the content.....there is not a single thing that science presents for organic evolution that can be substantiated. But you knew that...right?



You produce proof that evolution ever happened. Give us the clear unequivocal proof that dinosaurs evolved from amoebas. Show us how it all happened and while you're at it perhaps you could tell us how life originated?



Then you will excuse me for not believing a word that science says about how life evolved over all those millions of years......? They believe without sufficient evidence.....perhaps we need to define the word, "sufficient"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is there some reason why you have not responded to my post to you, but twice now you have responded to my replies to @ecco?



Leaving YEC for evolution is hardly a leap forward IMO. It's a no brainer as far as I am concerned.....like swapping pink marshmellows for white ones. Both are baseless....they have no foundation in fact.

What cannot be supported is YEC, which the Bible does not teach anyway. We are on an old earth in an old universe, and the Bible supports creation as a slow and deliberate process over many thousands or even millions of years. This is what the I support. I don't have to give up science for the Bible, or the Bible for science because I find them to be completely compatible.



Yes, that is what I said.....people make their choices for their own reasons. As I mentioned, some need to belong to the pack, while others can stand alone, confident of their position without the need for approval from others.



It's the subject matter. No other branch of science relies so heavily on things that cannot be substantiated, with no way to prove their validity except by the sheer weight of numbers all agreeing with the core belief without question.

Take adaptation for example....it has been demonstrated in lab experiments for speciation where it was clearly seen that organisms have the ability to adapt to new environments...from bacteria to large animals, this is seen. But all adaptation ever produced was variety within one taxonomic family of creatures or organisms. Science OTOH wants to take adaptation ( micro-evolution) and take it past all established boundaries and propose that it could go way beyond what any experiment could establish (macro-evolution).

It was a virtual play on the old adage that "if a little is good, a lot must be better"....and that is where the true science ended, and the fantasy began. You see when Darwin was making his observations on the Galápagos Island, he noticed that the finches had some physical differences in their beaks compared to their cousins on the mainland. He noticed that the tortoises were different too....and the iguanas. What Darwin did NOT see however, was finches changing into some other kind of bird. They were all still clearly part of the finch family. The tortoises were still tortoises and the iguanas, although adapted to a marine environment, were still clearly identifiable as iguanas. So you see why I have a problem with science's leap of faith on that score. Adaptation never changed taxonomy....and there is no way to prove that it ever could. Creatures only breed with their own "kind".

Ask science students at any University if they believe in creation and see how many affirmatives you get. Then ask them if they believe in evolution.....the very fact that you have to ask if they "believe" it, is confirmation that evolution is not provable and therefore requires belief in the first place. If it were a fact, we would not be having this conversation.



Feel superior? Are you serious? Who challenges evolution and expects to feel superior? According to scientists, I am nothing but an uneducated ignoramus....but I am just exposing evolution's very naked underbelly and they don't like it.....it makes them feel uncomfortable because they have no real defense. Sometimes it is tantamount to criticising one's child. It evokes all kinds of hurt emotions and knee jerk reactions for some reason.



Do you know how many times I have been told that I don't understand the theory of evolution....? I understand it well enough because people like you keep trying to "educate" me.....what you fail to understand is that I have researched this subject quite thoroughly and the whale evolution diagram that I posted is how science understands the process of how whales supposedly began as four-legged land animals that, over many millions of years, morphed themselves into what we now identify as whales. But the truth is, there is no biology to link these creatures in some evolutionary chain. It is assumed that this might be the case, but there is no way to prove it. It is an assumption....not to be confused with a fact.

This is the exact same stuff you've been repeating since the first day you were here. Somehow, amazingly enough, you still do not understand how evolution works. People are telling you this because you keep demonstrating over and over that you don't understand it. People would stop telling you that, if you only you would take the time to understand it.
Please, please, please learn how to take in new information. For your own sake (and everybody else's as well).

 

[ecco]

Where did God come from? Who created God?

Which G(g)od(s)?

 

[ecco]

Yeah, I know! (He was so close! Lol.)

But that’s neither here nor there: it isn’t about specific beliefs in this instance. It’s about his study of the Bible, and recognizing it’s truthfulness.

If there really were valid discrepancies, he would have found them. I mean, he knew the Earth was an orb. If he thought the Bible stated otherwise, he wouldn’t have endorsed it as he did.

So, Newton read in the Bible that the earth is an orb and it and the planets revolve around the sun. Then Newton said to himself, "by golly, I'm going to prove these Biblical Truths".

Uh huh.


Did you know that his studies of the Bible also led him disbelieve the Holy Trinity?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Did you know that his studies of the Bible also led him disbelieve the Holy Trinity?

Yes. I don’t see where the Bible teaches it, either.

 

[Deeje]

Where did God come from? Who created God?

This was a response to my post? You think this question replaces all the questions I have asked on this, and other threads with no solid answers? I am the one with the belief system....if you don't have one, then please show us the scientific explanation for how four legged animals morphed themselves into whales....but please don't use suggestions in that that explanation....just real facts. OK? Similarity does not prove relationship. Nor does an ear bone.

What is not new is the avoidance of evolutionists in providing more than suggestion, assumption and assertion for the entire evolutionary scenario. Your theory is based on matchsticks, not concrete.....it doesn't pass the building code. This failure to be able to produce evidence gives rise to feelings of frustration and often spills over into abusive language....but it never leads to answers.

You got some? Let's hear it.....

 

[Bear Wild]

You have missed the point entirely...as many atheists are want to do.....

We are not anti-science.....we appreciate what science can accomplish beneficially in many spheres of life....(others, not so much.) I would not put science on the same pedestal as the Creator.....science is limited by human knowledge and ability at the present. Compared to what is knowable, man knows very little....certainly not enough to strut around like Dawkins, giving the impression that science is a substitute for God.

Like other evolution promoters you just protest with empty words, but you have no response to my statements that science operates way more on assumption and guesswork than on verifiable fact. You do understand that a thousand scientists subscribing to the same idea is just a thousand people supporting the same guesswork....that doesn't that make any of it fact....does it?

No one needs to travel back in time to see what happened. My beef with evolutionary science is that its assumptions are what form the basis for their theory. They examine evidence and then fit their interpretation into what they want it to say by suggesting all manner of scenarios, none of which hold any water.

If you cannot verify what you assume, then you have no facts....you have educated guesses. You must take what evolutionary science suggests on faith, because they can't prove any of it. That makes evolutionary science a belief system.....I have as much real evidence for my Creator as you do for your theory.

What real proof do you have that whales were once four-legged land animals? Give us your best evidence.....no suggestions allowed.

Whales have a pelvis structure and femur structures that have no current function to help the whales that are the same structures found in four-legged land animals. You may not have heard vestigial structures which gives no advantage or purpose for the animal but are derived from evolutionary changes. Or do you really thing that an intelligent design would put unnecessary structures in organism which help prove evolution over creation.
So you do not believe in evidence? Tell may any real evidence for your Creator theory. Please. There is so much overwhelming evidence for evolution that you apparently ignore because you do not want to believe it which shows your ignorance in the evidence for evolutions. Just saying it does not exist does not mean it does not exist
Facts, we have many facts that support evolution with no facts to support your creator. Give one fact.
So you pick and choose science as it benefits you? Either you accept the scientific method or you do not. Picking and choosing shows a lack of understanding. We have much to learn that is true but we are continually gaining knowledge and what we learn supports evolution.
All science has assumptions it starts with. Evolutionary theory takes information we have and tests it to see if it is supportive or not. Creator theory does not. Do not compare the two when one has testable information and the other has imaginary information unable to be tested and ignores the information that is fact and testable.
Read the research about evolution and the evidence before saying there is no supportive facts.

 

[Deeje]

Science is not a substitute for God. Science only obviates the need for a god to explain the reality of nature and the nature of reality.

Now it occurs to me that as rational human beings, that we need reasons for everything....its in our nature to need those reasons to give us a sense of who we are, and where we are, and why we are here. We need a sense of purpose. Its a natural curiosity that is programmed into us.

For centuries, humans relied on religions to provide them with the reason for their existence....but by the end of the 19th century, the tide began to turn as science was making headway into some areas that opened religious ideas up to investigation on a whole new level. it seemed as if academia was now on a collision course with the church.....and the church was losing.

As human scientific advancement continued, it gave men a bold new position from which to challenge old and entrenched ideas about a Creator. The church insisting on a YEC approach began to make religious belief seem like a dinosaur that should perhaps become extinct.

In this day and age, that is exactly what it is seen to be by the majority of those in the scientific world....it has indeed become a substitute for God.

Science does not try to sell you on the idea of an afterlife of eternity sitting next to a god. Science does not tell you that you are going to see your long dead relatives again.

Science has nothing to offer anyone beyond this life, so it gives people an "eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" kind of attitude.
But I think it is significant that replacing God with science has seen humans plunged into an epidemic of depression, never seen before on such a global scale. I believe that it is sweeping the world at present because, science may have seemed to take away the need for a Creator, but it did not anticipate the fall-out that occurred when all hope is taken away for things to ever get better. Often people have their lives cut short by accident or illness and there is nothing to offset the tragedy but that dreadful sense of loss. Without hope, the sense of loss is accentuated. The feelings of hopelessness do not sit well.

You might like the idea of that reality, feeling as if you may have accomplished much of what you wanted to in this life....but for most people its an empty prospect and not what makes life worth living at all. When you take away hope, you take away all purpose in living. If this is all there is, then what is the point of it?

 

[Deeje]

Whales have a pelvis structure and femur structures that have no current function to help the whales that are the same structures found in four-legged land animals. You may not have heard vestigial structures which gives no advantage or purpose for the animal but are derived from evolutionary changes. Or do you really thing that an intelligent design would put unnecessary structures in organism which help prove evolution over creation.

Are you sure about that?

"Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.

New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose, but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.

“Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,” said Matthew Dean, assistant professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and co-corresponding author of a paper on the research that was published online by Evolution on Sept. 3."

Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips

This article is 4 years old.

So you do not believe in evidence? Tell may any real evidence for your Creator theory. Please. There is so much overwhelming evidence for evolution that you apparently ignore because you do not want to believe it which shows your ignorance in the evidence for evolutions. Just saying it does not exist does not mean it does not exist

See, here we go again.....a lot of bluster but still no sign of all this "overwhelming evidence". Give us the evidence Wild Fox.....you must have some that does not have to resort to suggestion and guesswork.

Facts, we have many facts that support evolution with no facts to support your creator. Give one fact.

Give us these many facts then. I have yet to see them.
I have a firm belief in my Creator through my observation of creation and from personal experience, but I can no more produce him than you can prove your theory. I admit that but the evolution promoters never seem to be able to back up their assumptions with anything concrete. If you guys have the facts (which science tells me it doesn't) then what are you talking about?

So you pick and choose science as it benefits you? Either you accept the scientific method or you do not. Picking and choosing shows a lack of understanding. We have much to learn that is true but we are continually gaining knowledge and what we learn supports evolution.
All science has assumptions it starts with. Evolutionary theory takes information we have and tests it to see if it is supportive or not. Creator theory does not. Do not compare the two when one has testable information and the other has imaginary information unable to be tested and ignores the information that is fact and testable.

Show us the testable assumptions. Show us what tests demonstrate that four legged land creatures became whales.

Read the research about evolution and the evidence before saying there is no supportive facts.

Which is another way of saying "I can't find anything...I know it must be there somewhere, so you better find it yourself".
You honestly think I haven't read the research....why do you think I can challenge this subject so confidently? None of you are disappointing me right now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the ones accusing us "Bible believers" of being conned by an old myth are themselves the victims of the biggest con job in history?

 

[Bear Wild]

Are you sure about that?

"Both whales and dolphins have pelvic (hip) bones, evolutionary remnants from when their ancestors walked on land more than 40 million years ago. Common wisdom has long held that those bones are simply vestigial, slowly withering away like tailbones on humans.

New research from USC and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHM) flies directly in the face of that assumption, finding that not only do those pelvic bones serve a purpose, but their size and possibly shape are influenced by the forces of sexual selection.

“Everyone’s always assumed that if you gave whales and dolphins a few more million years of evolution, the pelvic bones would disappear. But it appears that’s not the case,” said Matthew Dean, assistant professor at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, and co-corresponding author of a paper on the research that was published online by Evolution on Sept. 3."

Whale reproduction: It’s all in the hips

This article is 4 years old.



See, here we go again.....a lot of bluster but still no sign of all this "overwhelming evidence". Give us the evidence Wild Fox.....you must have some that does not have to resort to suggestion and guesswork.



Give us these many facts then. I have yet to see them.
I have a firm belief in my Creator through my observation of creation and from personal experience, but I can no more produce him than you can prove your theory. I admit that but the evolution promoters never seem to be able to back up their assumptions with anything concrete. If you guys have the facts (which science tells me it doesn't) then what are you talking about?



Show us the testable assumptions. Show us what tests demonstrate that four legged land creatures became whales.



Which is another way of saying "I can't find anything...I know it must be there somewhere, so you better find it yourself".
You honestly think I haven't read the research....why do you think I can challenge this subject so confidently? None of you are disappointing me right now.

Wouldn't it be funny if the ones accusing us "Bible believers" of being conned by an old myth are themselves the victims of the biggest con job in history?

If you have read the research you would not argue the way you do. You have nothing to challenge the subject with any real evidence so you just make uneducated commentary. You have no evidence for you side so you make inaccurate statements about evolution thinking they have meaning when they are not based on knowledge of the natural world. You do not produce any support for your view. So who is the biggest con in history? The one making claims not supported with anything but their opinion.