Science, Creation & EvolutionAge of the Earthtedlusk wrote: right. NOT absolute. actually, that's one of Sarfati's favorite arguments. i got it directly from him. really? what lineages have good support? the genetic instructions of the genome of an organism. to say it like that is goofy. but as explained as the Bible explains it and God is more realistic and makes sense. nope. not really. i take the Bible first, and if what these scientists conclude and test is accurate biblically, and makes sense, then it's easier to accept. i have a point of reference. you don't. so you're more of an agnostic. oddly enough, you're using that understanding of "reason" and "depiction" and sense of "offensive" and "absurdity" to argue against a Creator or God, and yet without a Creator God, who creates as explained in the Bible, you wouldn't even be able to have those capacities. indeed, nothing would even exist. it's as stupid as the idea of the person who argues against God's existence by claiming that there's too much evil in this world. well, without God there would be no such thing as good or evil in the first place. so in arguing against His existence, you're actually affirming it. the "absurdity" of religion and God very quickly turn around and point to the absurdity of the sceptic in the very challenge against religion and God. he's actually quite a bright person. but you seem to forget that he and his staff have degrees in different fields, and he's always checking his work and writings with them first. he even explains that to a challenger that questions him the same way. the first one that comes to my mind is Dr. Gary Parker. he was a former evolutionist, and is no longer. he understands evolution very well. Dr. Jobe Martin is another one. yeah, but the time-frame of the reversals can be challenged and is so done here and perfectly matches the Genesis creation account time-frame: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i3/fossil.asp you don't agree that if EVERYTHING is Naturalistic, then evolution's beginning must be too? how is that illogical?
have you seen how many animals are extinct each day? today, 35-150 species become extinct every day. and speciation has been observed to be a very quick process. many times not taking more than a couple generations. it fits perfectly well with the creation time line. as i explained before, the versions of the Bible are not the question here. there are many versions that true believers of the Bible don't agree with. just because it says "Bible" on the front, don't mean it's accurate. not really. check again. i refuted your "refutation". which means you STILL haven't answered my question. but we don't believe that, never have, and the Bible doesn't teach that. so why continue with the argument? desparate to find ways to mock and discredit? as much as thinking clearly is for you. and i've already shown your ideas to be false concerning this issue of "circle" earth. that's EXACTLY what we as TRUE believers are claiming. it hasn't been "re-written". it's been translated, and some copyist errors have been made, but nothing to the degree of what you're supposing. how much do YOU know? more foolishnes. my claim wasn't that life doesn't EXIST because we haven't been able to duplicate it's origins. it's that it seems unlikely (downright impossible) that it has had a purely naturalistic origin. your star analogy would've made more sense if you said "we can't recreate a star in a lab, therefore THEY MUST NOT HAVE ARISEN NATURALISTICALLY". not that they don't exist. the same odds i mentioned earlier. without a telos, there is no goal. if there is no goal, then all is accidental. the same odds as typing randomly on a computer and reproducing a book of the Bible. really? like the ones you mentioned before? and yet we still haven't been able to reproduce this process. sounds more like far fetched theories than "evidence-supported scenarios". so then it's all relative then. nothing is absolute and what you just said is simply your opinion, which is easily rejected by someone else's opinion. which means that it CAN'T legitimately reject those attrocities you mentioned before. your answer fails. the other part of that is that while you don't do to others as you wouldn't want them to do to you, you DO to people what you WOULD want them to do to you. so if a masochist likes pain and wants someone to inflict it on him, is he justified in inflicting it on someone else? your "morality" collapses under reality without a transcendant source that rises above people's opinions and desires. MORE foolishness. how do you even DEFINE "good"? someone's definition of "good" may be different than yours. so this "good" that you're doing to your neighbor could be perceived as "bad" by them, and therefore demonstrates the bankruptcy of your "moral" stance and reveals how subjective it is. not at all. but maybe the writers of the past didn't think about these amazing animals not being around anymore and therefore thought it of little importance to make comprehensive descriptions of them since they might never have thought that they'd ever "not be here". you assume too much. this also demonstrates the fact that even though these were amazing creatures, and too magnificent not to elaborate on them more, the fact that these people didn't demonstrates that these things pale in comparison to the desire to know and understand God the Creator. our system of thinking and recording and documenting is different than it used to be. we can see how helpful understanding the past can be if we can get as much detail as we can. that may not've been the concern back then. there may not have been that much focus given to foresight (in this particular case). and anyway, they had better things to talk about, like God and His laws and righteousness and Truth and salvation and repentance and forgiveness and the One Who created all these creatures to begin with. horses were used for battle and war and other things and would definitely get mentioned a bunch of times. dinosaurs probably weren't used that way so OF COURSE they would pale in comparison of mention. these animals were all mentioned in Genesis and as part of the very extensive and comprehensive Levitical Law, which mentions them numerous times. your comparisons are foolish because you don't understand the Bible and how it was written and what it says. see above. and it wasn't supposed to be some scientific dissertation on dinosaurs, just an allusion to the fact that they knew of LIVING dinosaurs then and mentioned them, questioning the WHOLE of the evolutionary time frame. how do you know such things were happening? man has shown incredible tact in dealing with animals of all different kinds, and have led many in obedience and training. man has always been the top hunter, and could've been then too. not at all. actually your arguments are getting more and more thin. you seemed very sure of yourself at first, but now it seems that your grasping desparately at justifications and answers. i'll leave you with one quote from C.S. Lewis regarding miracles:
|
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame