12 votes

Dead Horse. Die!

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Fun things to think about

If God is literally omnipotent, then why did he create the world over the course of several 'days' (which in parts of the Bible are clearly shown are not 24 hours when it relates to God) instead of all in a single instant?

Don't you find it interesting that the order of creation described in Genesis loosely follows the order of creation described in the Big Bang theory and Evolutionary theory?

I don't claim to know exactly how the universe was created and anyone who pretends to know is lying. Scientific evidence is subject to interpretation just as the Bible, though admittedly science is slightly less subjective and the constant admission of new evidence helps test theories in a more methodical way.

Either way, evidence is not a synonym for truth and no one should be forced to believe any theory be it theological or scientific, regardless of how strongly you feel about it.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him?" -Thomas Jefferson

GoodSamaritan's picture

The answer to your first question

is in Exodus 20, verses 8-11:

"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

God established the weekly cycle by commandment and by setting the example during Creation for how He wanted us to use those days.

As for the definition of "day" (yom) in the Old Testament, the only proper contextual interpretation is a literal diurnal cycle.

Without exception, in the Hebrew Old Testament the word yom never means "period". The word which means a long period of time in Hebrew is olam. Even when yom is used in the indefinite sense, it is clearly indicated by the context that the literal meaning of the word "day" is not intended.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"God established the weekly

"God established the weekly cycle by commandment and by setting the example during Creation for how He wanted us to use those days."

Weekly cycle? Then your gawd messed up, hence the need for leap years. Unreal.

GoodSamaritan's picture

You should quit while you're behind

Apparently you're unaware of the many geophysical and astronomical forces accompanying events and processes that have affected our day length. Please do some research before bothering to respond.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

You theists try so hard.

You theists try so hard. Thank you, I love a good comedy.

Scientists find 55 million year old fossil

New fossil evidence of the earliest complete skeleton of an ancient primate suggests it was a hyperactive, wide-eyed creature so small you could hold a couple of them in your hand — if only they would stay still long enough.

The 55 million-year-old fossil dug up in central China is one of our first primate relatives and it gives scientists a better understanding of the complex evolution that eventually led to us. This tiny monkey-like creature weighed an ounce or less and wasn’t a direct ancestor. Because it’s so far back on the family tree it offers the best clues yet of what our earliest direct relatives would have been like at that time, according to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature.

“It’s a close cousin in fact,” said study author Christopher Beard, curator at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh. He said it is “the closest thing we have to an ancestor of humans” so long ago.

Primate is the order of life that includes humans along with apes, monkeys, and lemurs. Humans are set apart from other mammals because of our grasping five fingers and toes, nails, and forward-facing eyes. And this new species called Archicebus achilles fits right in, Beard said.
http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php?option=com_content&view...

Dinosaurs & Dragons


http://youtu.be/44Q9Zvb_EPI

15 minutes, please watch it's worth the time. I think everyone here will find this video to be very interesting in the first minute.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

A question for those making this into a chance to bash

Creationism outright. While this test is obviously silly I find silliness in the idea of non-created life or a God that can create a universe but not allow for evolution to occur. Here's the question: Have there ever been any documented cases of inorganic material creating life? And to follow that, has there ever been a documented case of a species becoming or branching off into a fully different species? Like a tree becoming a duck?
All of the science of evolution starts AFTER life was created. Whether the stories of creation are accurate or not, life had to be created by something to ever have the chance to evolve. I firmly believe God created the universe and everything in it. I also firmly believe that species evolve and adapt to their environments. I don't see how creation and evolution are seen as opposing views.
But I'm interesting in your responses.

You can't mix these two things

"While this test is obviously silly"

No, it isn't. The answers given were 100% biblical.

"I find silliness in the idea of non-created life or a God that can create a universe but not allow for evolution to occur."

Why? If He has revealed information about Himself, why would you contradict Him? That's the same error Adam and Eve made – telling Him they didn't need Him to determine truth. "I don't care what you say, God, I'll believe what I want."

"I don't see how creation and evolution are seen as opposing views."

In Genesis 1:31, after completing the creation of the world, including all plant, animal and human life, we read, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was VERY GOOD." (my emphasis)

Evolution (including the compromise known as "theistic evolution") tells us that it took God millions of years of suffering, disease, struggling, pain, bloodshed, war, ignorance, poverty, mutilation, anguish, rape, misery, torment, violence, and death to get us to the point where He said it was "very good."

Christianity, otoh, tells us that God created the world, plants, animals, Adam and Eve, and THEN sin entered the world (Romans 5:12), and we have been under a curse since then.

Why would the omnipotent loving Creator of the universe use such a wasteful and cruel process of "survival of the fittest" (meaning that animals have been ripping each other up over millions of years) to bring about the higher forms of life?

Those that wish to merge God with evolution are saying that the perfectly good God couldn't come up with anything better than a ghastly procedure which involves the torture and death of billions of creatures to keep the few remaining alive so they can reproduce and hunt down, torture, and kill more billions, this horrendous process continuing for millions of years. This view of "theistic evolution" goes against God's very nature, logic itself and what is clearly revealed in scripture. That's why they are opposing views.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

So I'm not the only one!

I've been actually saying this out loud in discussions for a couple of years now. Everybody wants to split the two. Why? It drives me crazy.

Yes.... documented cases

As I've mentioned below, I see hundreds of thousands of fossils in my daily work. With just a little education and a smidgeon of common sense, it's easily documented that species evolve into different species.

The flaw in your logic is the expectation that a tree would evolve into a duck. Of course, there could never be such a dramatic jump in evolution. Evolution occurs slowly and subtly over millions of years... a horse-like critter might evolve into a giraffe, for example. That's not such a stretch is it?

What started life originally, that's arguable. But evolution is not... it happened, it happens, and it will happen. I see it with my own eyes, but this horse has been beat to death and the closed minds will not be changed.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Ok Then

Please list one species that have evolved into another species?

OK

Biscutum zulloi.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

GoodSamaritan's picture

Nope

The question from cheesewhiz was not quite accurate.

Variations in a species merely shows change within kind - clearly taught in Genesis and basic biology classes. A better request would be, "please list one kind of organism that has evolved into another kind of organism."

The only way to prove that such evolution has occurred is if it can be demonstrated that the new "kind" came from the old "kind" but can no longer hybridize with it and produce fertile offspring.

Scientists have recently discovered several previously unknown species of Biscutum zulloi but they have NOT demonstrated that it evolved into a new kind.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

I used tree and duck as an example

I know evolution happens and I know how but what I don't understand is where the VARIETY of like comes from. The post under mine from GoodSamaritan is what I'm talking about I think. Have there been documented cases of a new species evolving from another or a computer model or something of the evolutionary steps between, strictly for example, a tree and a duck. I hope you know by now that my mind is anything but closed.
I am honestly seeking something that I have never found. Every time I ask the question, I get written off as some "evolution denier" and never get a good answer. Forget that I think there is a God and please help me understand how so many different creatures evolved from one original. Honestly, it wouldn't change my opinion on God because creating one life that can become every form of life on the planet is amazing. And with the way it appears God created the universe, it would seem far more likely than the 4000 accounts people have written or kept as oral tradition.

Good post MikeL...

I understand your position now, and agree that God, or whatever you want to call this force that's beyond our comprehension, set nature in motion, I believe in a much different way than the Adam and Eve fable.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Not a fable

Jesus said it was truth. Genesis is historical narrative, not a fable.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

Genetics

Genetics have proved the y chromosone in everybody came from one single "mother" ... So you can start believing in Eve Bugman

So every human on Earth is

So every human on Earth is incestuous? Gross.

Who was Eves mother?

Hmmm.

No mom or dad

Neither Adam nor Eve had a physical mother or father. Adam was created from the dust of the Earth, and Eve was created from Adam's side.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

hmmm...

So where did the y chromosome in Adam come from?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

He was created

With it. Males have one X and one Y chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes.
The Bible says Eve was made from a rib from Adam. To make the female the Y was dropped and replaced with a second X chromosome.
Evolution is still at a loss to explain male and female. When it is tried it quickly descends into confusion.
As an example read these comments: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?82067-How-does-evolu...

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

we cannot even figure out gravity.

many people THINK that we can but the fact is we cannot.
it was not until the 1500's that northern Europeans finally accepted that the sun does not circle the earth.
Saturn and it's moons are drenched in "organic" hydrocarbons.... and yet MANY still insist they only come from "fossils"

my point is that MANY cling to false beliefs. I imagine that God finds this quite humorous.

if God really made all of these wondrous things that we cannot figure out..... then figuring him out is probably not any easier.

peace.

hydrocarbons

I don't claim that oil comes ONLY from organic remains, but certainly the VAST majority does and is easily explained and documented by pretty darn solid evidence.

Those few cases of claims of non-organic source of oil are suspect to me... unless you have a link to something credible? I expect you do.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

is the Earth on fire? or is it cooling off?

you can really have a lot of fun with that simple question.
and if we do not know the answer, then we don't know what is down there.
if you divide the depth of the Kola super bore hole(7.6 miles) into the average radius of our blue marble. (6000 miles) we have not gone down even 1%.
I do not doubt what you know to be true.
but the mixing at the surface might not tell the tale.

Titan has lakes and oceans of hydrocarbons. Saturn has even more.

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2...

to me this is very compelling information.
peace.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Speciation is repeatable, testable and observable

One kind of organism changing into another has never been observed and there is no demonstrable mechanism to even indicate that it's possible. Every species is bounded by the ability to hybridize with true fertilization.

No one has ever seen proof of the general theory of evolution because it posits the impossible and never-observed:

- Life from non-life
- Information from non-information
- Speciation without limit
- Statistically impossible odds that the simplest self-sustaining life arose by chance
- Irreducible complexity throughout cell structures, proteins, DNA, etc.
- Fossils emerge suddenly and with all their particular features fully present

And the evidence against it keeps piling up...

In 1993, DNA was discovered in supposedly 68-million year old dinosaur bone, and those findings were confirmed 20 years later.

However, a team of paleogeneticists reported in 2012 that the half-life of DNA preserved under perfect conditions is 521 years. This means that all traces of DNA are completely gone within 6.8 million years: here, here and here.

Oops.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Since

There was never any case of information being added to the DNA there is no such thing as "Darwinian" Macro evolution .. what you have is already in the DNA in just gets activated or switched differently .. like dogs look at all the variety of dogs .. they didn't "evolve" that is variation and fits in exactly with the Bible ... Just like the big bang you mean everything came form a singularity of matter which contained all the matter in the universe .. give me a break .. and where did the singularity come from???

I think you just agreed with me

There were like 15 people refuting creationism and lauding evolution before I posed this question. Where are they? I would really like to hear how they deal with the moment or moments when nothing became everything.

Fake Quiz - Followup Post to original (detailed)

Buried someplace way way below, where the logical points of why the paper looks - (is) - fake. It's a reasoning process, so with more facts, this is where I was right and wrong about:

1) The paper is different colored and isn't the same quiz.
Story as known so far: The first page has been photo shopped, it's dimensions re-adjusted, color adjusted (more on that below), and the last three questions clipped off.

2) There is an original quiz on someone's site someone grabbed, so the fact that the 2nd page uses a slightly different format for true false questions (no "?" on first page, there are on second page), is not why the numbering sequence of the questions is different (it isn't two quizzes, someone doctored the first photograph).

3) The handwriting gives indication of not having been written by the same person all the way through. Particularly on questions 3, 4, and 5 on the first page. The lines are too sharp, compare to the warble handwriting at the top, and the style of the a is completely different than the second page. Note the difference in straight lines verses a whirling tilt at the bottom. This sometimes occurs when you change from writing from right to left hands - although I am no handwriting expert. Now look at the circle on question 4. Every other circle connects on the left side. But this circle connects on the right. Like someone forgot to use his left/right hand there!

Also, I've blown up the picture, and again, while I am no expert, the answers on 3 and 5 are far finer, denser and darker, and stay that way all the way as you blow it up. It looks considerably different than the other words written with a pencil. I guess these were written with a pen, which makes the whole think really odd, like what exactly is someone trying to pull.

The photoshopping of the photograph made it lighter, but it wasn't enough to make those lines less light. Also, it cut off 3 answers, and it would have been useful for a further look at the handwriting.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.