A Geologic model that doesn't discern between different climates? Doesn't even discern between different landforms? The "Geologic Column" model doesn't even distinguish ocean from land! It takes layers from all over the world and just meshes all landforms together in one LINEAR column!
Completely stupid. And completely useless as a model, by the way.
Well I don't know what you really know about geology but dinosaur soft tissue does not have anything to do with the age of the Earth. Dinosaurs are a young creature to inhabit the earth. What about fossils from the Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian. Those are much older. Creationist Science is not credible because it can not be tested. Either way creation or evolution........ the same result was reached. Think about that.
@RomansGalatians Yeah sure they can. What about a penguin? How and why do you think whales and dolphins are mammals?......because they once were land animals that EVOLVED into an ocean living animal.....just like they penguin is doing today it is both a land animal and part ocean living. I know that the elevation doesn't matter but it is used to correlate rock facies within the same area.......so it is important. I don't know how I prompeted a reply from you but it is hard to follow? Sorry
@1212boochie My point is that a "column" is a linear model that meshes all landforms and climates together. Penguins live in the Arctic. Reptiles live in tropical regions. Sea life lives in the ocean.
Moreover, not all of the regions are of the same elevation. The sea floor is deeper than the swamps (where amphibians tend to live) which is lower than the forests.
All of this is joined linearly in the textbooks, and is like a mile and a half, which doesn't correlate with reality.
@1212boochie Evolutionists say that a layer in Australia can be "dated" by comparing the index fossils with a layer in North America. How do they know that they are not just comparing similar climates, not similar "ages"?
@RomansGalatians Well more than just index fossils are used like what the other rocks above and below can tell you and other things. To the last thing..... similar climates mean similar age. Similar fauna are going to live in similar climates there by determining the rock type.
@1212boochie The lowest levels, though yes, relatively younger than the ones above, will always be the ones of the lowest elevation. And the lowest elevation will always be the ocean. The next lowest elevation will be the swamps, etc.
It's not like dust is gathering on the earth, but rather sediment is flowing downhill. The water cycle is eroding away the mountains.
@RomansGalatians Its the other way around.....lower elevation rock will be older than rock in higher elevation(unless there has been movement like thrust faulting) No rock below another rock( unless it has moved) will NEVER be younger than the one above it. Don't forget about the sea floor though as being the lowest.
@1212boochie Well, I agree that the lower layer will be younger than any above it. But how much younger? Let's say there's an earthquake in Juneau and a huge mud and rockslide falls down the mountainside into the sea. The sea life on the bottom was in existence at the same time as the trees and land vegetation.
Whether the vast majority of the earth's crust was catastrophic or uniformitarian, you'd always get sea life on the bottom.
@1212boochie And if uniformitarian, and it took millions of years with slow erosion and sedimentation, then the land layers in existence on land would be eroded and lost, and the only record that we would have would be the ocean level.
I can't see how people can say "all life started in the ocean" merely because the bottom of elevation is in the ocean.
@RomansGalatians Man that is not how it works ok. The Gulf of Mexico for example the sediment in and around the gulf is lower in elevation but way way way way younger in age than rocks from say Tennessee that is much higher in elevation but older in age. Where there was once was ocean can now be high mountain tops. The elevation of the of earth strata is not why geologist say life started in the ocean. Life started as microscopic prokaryotes, single cell without cell nucleus in the ocean.
@1212boochie The elevation of the layers is how the column was established by Lyell. And it does not hold any consistency to levels of complexity. The example I gave of a shark with focusing eyes, digestive tract, sense of smell, is found much deeper in the layers than simple land plants like grass. That's just because it lived in the ocean.
I'm not being argumentative, but you just said that No rock below another rock( unless it has moved) will NEVER be younger than the one above it.
@1212boochie I guess what i'm trying to say is this: Are you organizing the layers according to your theory? Are you interpreting the data according to your presuppostions?
Because it sounds like the layers are all over the place. Some high, some low, some ocean, some land. And the way that your organize them is according to index fossils. And the way the index fossils are organized are according to Evolution Theory.
@1212boochie Dr. David Berlinski, professor at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia etc. doesn't believe in the Bible or Creation Theory, but he said that the fossil record is "simply mystifying. It does not sustain any kind of darwinian prediction that can be intelligently derived from darwinian theory. And it doesn't seem to sustain anything else. It's a perfectly mystifying record." I agree. We all organize the hodgepodge shuffle in the fossil record according to our presuppositions.
How do you explain absolute dating????? .......... I'm a geology student and a Christian, and God gave me a brain to use wisely. There have been rocks found that are Billions of years old, like in the grand canyon. The Earth is 4.6 Billion Years Old......not a few thousand. Don't be ignorant. To me there is room for both schools of thought. Besides, whatever you believe, does either one look any different from the other one? No they do not. So why not be scientific about it.
@1212boochie Yes, God did give you a brain. We have over 100 methods that show that the age of life on earth is young (the Bible actually doesn't tell us for certain the age of the earth anywhere...it could be young or it could be old). We have ~40 that point to an old earth, but many of these have been falsified by lots of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils. See my "creation-soft tissue..." playlist and notes. Both sides have anomalies, but where does the "weight of evidence" lead?
@1212boochie Sorry, but no, you can't say how old the earth is for certain. All estimates rely on many assumptions and the "certain" age of the earth has radically changed in the past and will almost certainly do so in the past.
There is not room for both Darwinian myth and Biblical Christianity. They are mutually exclusive. See video #1 and others here for great new evidence for the global flood, incl Grand Canyon.
@TruthIsLife7 I will agree that the age of the Earth will change but only because we will have dated a newly found rock that tells us differently. Yes! the scientific community says the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Can't be disputed scientificly untill a new discovery of a rock that can be dated to an older date.
@TruthIsLife7 Yes there can be both schools of thought. If you are not a narrow minded person you would see that they are NOT "mutually exclusive". If your focus is in the pages of a book and not your on your Faith, then I feel you loose what being Christ like really means.
@TruthIsLife7 So how is your understanding of Pasteur's work coming? Do you still insist that his work involved anything but modern life? Because it didn't.
@PhantomOfChaosSkin You consistently fail to understand how science works.Processes we see operating now are assumed to operate the same in history in general (there are a few exceptions, but not many). Without this, universal common descent has not a shred of basis in science. Neither does the Big Bang and many other things in forensic and historical science. Your delusions are only evidence for me to use in my university classes to demonstrate that atheism makes people stupid about science.
How do you explain absolute dating????? .......... I'm a geology student and a Christian, and God gave me a brain to use wisely. There have been rocks found that are Billions of years old, like in the grand canyon. The Earth is 4.6 Billion Years Old......not a few thousand. Don't be ignorant. To me there is room for both schools of thought. Besides, whatever you believe, does either one look any different from the other one? No they do not. So why not be scientific about it.
There is nothing unsubstantiated at all. You are just willfully ignorant. I have gotten very high recommendations from colleagues and students including the chairman of the department and doctors at 2 secular universities where I taught/teach. If you rejected scientific concepts supported with the same level of evidence as creation has (there are quite a few that are fully accepted and taught in schools), you couldn't even apply for a job or pass any course.
@TruthIsLife7 Just here for the daily reminder that Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life. Anyone claiming to be able to understand this is either lying about being a professor, or lying about not being able to comprehend it.
GreatHopeSprings, it is you who doesn't understand science AT ALL. Pasteur's experiments were explicitly directed at refuting the idea that life can come from non-life in any form, including biochemical forms. Others scientists have done numerous experiments&ALL have backed him up.Inferential science (the type the Big Bang is based upon and much other science) shows us that this must have been true in all history. Until you DEMONSTRATE an anomaly to this law, you aren't doing science, PERIOD.
@TruthIsLife7 No I'm clearly the only one who does understand science in this conversation. Pasteur's work had absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, he debunked spontaneous generation, the notion that MODERN life arose spontaneously
You can't even understand this and you expect people to believe you're a professor?
Still with the straw men. The millerites were a movement made up of believers from NUMEROUS churches..and just like the disciples had some mistaken ideas about the Messiah, so too, these people had some mistakes about Jesus 2nd coming. But, the millerite movement is not an SDA movement and William Miller himself never became an SDA...re: Numbers...he got out of Christianity too...something that happens to many who stop believing the Bible as it reads.
@lawilson200 Um, BIOGENESIS IS a 100% valid argument whether you want to admit it or not (and there are MANY others besides that..but no use talking about them if you can't admit this obvious one. Creation most certainly DID exist during the developing days of science and directly inspired it as even Dr. Hannam, an evolutionist with integrity, demonstrates. You have refused to follow science & God in case after case. YOU falsely claimed creation science was based on dispensationalism.
@TruthIsLife7 It is valid, only when viewed in its proper context, nothing more. As for the rest, you are providing yet another unsubstantiated claim. For someone who teaches, you do rely a great deal on innuendoes and conjecture. If you were my student, you would be receiving an F.
@ndrthrdr1 You obviously don't know how to read very well. I work in academia and one of my jobs is editing academic papers. This is NOT an academic journal (500 chars just doesn't allow any kind of in depth posting of proof). But, several posters below obviously don't know what counts as evidence or how to do objective science. Their way of reasoning would stifle almost all scientific progress in history, since they just accept whatever they are taught regardless of evidence&don't question it.
@ndrthrdr1 I'm sorry, but there are numerous top notch skeptic scientists, historians and others of the highest caliber both in history & the present who have been converted to Christianity SOLELY based on the evidence. There's a reason why many of Christianity's top defenders past and present were former atheists. They followed the wait of evidence to Christianity. Christianity based explicitly on the Bible has done more than anything else to build up science and most of modern civilization.
@ndrthrdr1 God is not going to force you to follow facts. You have freedom to refuse to do so. But, it will only hurt you in this life. Christianity, greatly increases self-control which is a foundation for many types of success. My Bible health science playlist shows Blue Zones, National Geographic, NIH, NCI, etc. confirming that those who follow Bible health principles live 10+ years longer than the average. For millenia this benefit came ONLY to those who trusted the Bible. Much more!
@ndrthrdr1 Here's just one example of how atheists make people stupid about what counts as historical evidence with agnostic Dr. Ehrman.
watch?v=JPvbQsJHY-w
The same is done in science. If you want to be an enemy of the weight of evidence in science and history and lose many benefits in life, being an atheist is one of the best ways ever to do that.
@ndrthrdr1 Oh..and "evolutionists"...it's a dictionary term. Merriam Webster says it is:
"a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution " similar to how a linguist is a student of languages. This is a gigantic Darwinian fail in understanding how languages work.
But, like many terms though is a term that's a bait&switch tactic of Darwinians since evolution just means change over time and creationists were pioneering&publishing on that LONG before Darwin. The issue is HOW MUCH change.
I cited Ronald Numbers who documents that SDAs who are not dispensationalists where the ones who pioneered it in THIS century, reintroducing it after many had gone chasing Darwin's speculations. You were completely wrong in that claim, but as usual refuse to admit your very obvious false claim. I did NOT make it an issue beyond that. YOU did.
Unfortunately, you do the opposite of how I treat EGW. If some human has an idea that sounds good to you, or if the majority of society has a certain view...you think that trumps what God has said. Just look at society at the time of Jesus or Elijah or many others. Just where would that philosophy put you? On the side of God,nature and reality or falsehood and pseudoscience?
@TruthIsLife7 - Science? I have yet heard you make a valid scientific argument. Do you have anything at all to conribute, or just demonstrate the falsity of your theological position. I am growing quite tired of this and wish you move on.
Creationism was accepted as scientific truth by the founders of science based on the solid scientific argument from design and others and people like John Wilkins explicitly used its principles to validate studying nature and specific concepts in it to hypothesize about speciation even way back in the 1600s. Then we had it verified by the Big Bang and biogenesis and verifications have continued to come in (now junkDNA is verifying it very strongly as well.)
@TruthIsLife7 - More unsubstantiated nonsense. I have had enough with this constant nonsense. If you are going to quote me history, than I want source. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. You have yet to show me that you are even qualified to teach. PS: If you PM me again, I will block you. This argument is over.
Let's be clear. Ellen White is not God&never was.So,if she and God conflict, I'll throw her words away in a HEARTBEAT.She is not the one who created the universe, made its laws, died on a cross or has power to give life forever. Only God is. She is secondary to God and the Bible and this has always been and is now the SDA position although we are sure that God gave her some new insights somewhat like how the NT writers had more insights over the OT writers. But the Bible is the test of all.
@lawilson200 Not only are you defying the Bible, you are opposing the fundamental principles of science that have undergirded most of its progress. Banning those with testable results as creation science has (biogenesis, universe has a beginning for starters) just because they are a small groups and just because they differ with the establishment would have killed many innovations in the past and for sure Pasteur's very significant triumph in creationist biogenesis over spontaneous generation.
@TruthIsLife7 - Bad science should not be allowed to see the light of day. If ID-ers and YECs want to play in our sandbox, then they need to conform to the rules of science. Not cry because various government agencies have correctly denied these groups funding. This line of argument from you is really getting quite old and stale, it is time for you to come up with a new game plan. Happy 4th of July!
Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist from U. Chicago wrote:
"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from invalid conventional wisdom that becomes effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks in every generation - people who keep challenging convention and thinking up new ideas for the sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness."
@TruthIsLife7 - I was wondering. Have you attended the MSHA 40 hour safety course. If you are going to do nothing but pass along quote-mines, you better attend the required mine safety training.
@lawilson200 Go online to Amazon.com and read the 1st chapters of the book 'The Victory of Reason' which I believe is by a Catholic writer I'm quite sure. It talks about how Christianity had a profound influence on modern culture (and this is often based on specific Bible principles). You are not even up to speed on what people from your liberal Bible defying perspective are teaching based on facts of history.
@lawilson200 No, most of this comes from what non-Christian Dan Buettner, head of the Blue Zones research foundation, called sterling research, often from secular sources such as Blue Zones, National Geographic, the NIH, NCI & many others which I will PM you soon. You said the Bible does nothing more that speak of walking with God and being stewards. It is possible but difficult to be more ignorant about the Bible. You are making egregious errors and defying what God has said in numerous areas.
@TruthIsLife7 Before lecturing me about my theology, I would first find support for following a prophetest. Just where is scripture gave Ellen White authority to be a prophet from god?
1)Creationists made the sandbox&most of its tools.This is an indisputable fact of history.Evolutionists stole it using political arguments,perversions of the constitution&perversions of the foundations of science.Even Catholic writers are documenting this fact.
2) I don't quote mine.You like most atheists don't even use the term properly.
3) Ah..the SDA red herring. See Joel 2:28. But, talking about SDA is not important when you don't even trust God.
1. False. Creationism did not exist during the developing days of science. Most involved during the stage followed the Baconian compromise, which deemphasize the role of religion. Evolution came out of those early traditions, plus those established by Whewell and Herschel.
2. Yet, you have given me two misrepresentations so far. Who is the liar?
@lawilson200 "Nothing more."? NOT EVEN CLOSE. You are defying the words of God, Jesus and most other Bible characters. Paul said:
“Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in THIS LIFE and in the life to come.” 1 Timothy 4:8 See also Deut. 28 & 30:15-20. When followed, Bible principles & specific concepts have:
1) inspired campaigns that helped 1.3 billion escape poverty in just the last 20 years.
@TruthIsLife7 These tiraids are really not helping you and none of this can be compared with your argument over creationism. Do you care to bring this back down to earth? If not, just call it quits.
@lawilson200 On idolatry, your definition isn't in the Bible. The Bible says this about idolatry. "Rebelling against God or disobeying him because you are proud is just as bad as worshiping idols or asking them for advice."1 Sam 15:23 Another version speaks of defiance being idolatry.You are defying Jesus own words and God's explicit claims throughout the Bible that He created the universe and people on this world at the beginning.Evolution is your idol,replacing the claims of the Almighty God.
@TruthIsLife7 Even at the top of your voice, you are still wrong. By requiring nature to conform to one's theological view is idolatry, pure and simple. To misrepresent nature and the discoveries made by science is bearing false witness.
@lawilson200 2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God&is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" It is this very Bible that you disrespect that God told us should be the foundation for our doctrines.If you don't make the Bible your foundation(sola scriptura),you have no way to test the validity of any feeling or spiritual emotion. The stance you have is the foundation of all cults and anathema to protestantism.
@TruthIsLife7 - Which is to say, how can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and not how the heavens are made. Scripture was written for us. Not for nature.
(btw, dotoree is more my family account, but has ability to upload long videos, while truthislife7 does not yet). Go watch this video of a recent presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. Hannam with 2 Ph.D.s from Oxford and Cambridge on how Christianity and creationist philosophy laid the foundation for modern science and pioneered it. It's by Dr. Hannam who is not a creationist (YET..I have personal contact with him and will be sending him some evidence soon).
Here are Jesus words to people who replaced God's Bible truth with traditions and thought they were worshiping.
Jesus says, 'How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote:
These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules
as though they were my laws! You put aside God's command and obey human teachings." Mark 7:6-8 (read v. 5-13)
@dotoree Hello, I would like to upload the video by Dr. Hannam. FYI Lawson is a Catholic and so has multiple authorities.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
@BereanBeacon1 Lawson has told me he's an Episcopalian which is not far from being Catholic I know...but still technically Protestant. But, the way he's talking, he's more of a Christian atheist...as pastor speaks about and has written a book on:
@lawilson200 I didn't claim that nature must conform to my view. Straw man. I claim that God has told us how nature came to be. He is a God of truth and expects us to believe what he says. That's the foundation of our relationship with Him as well as salvation.HE GAVE us the Bible text as a guideline to truth.You can't put what God said above God.They are the same, just different aspects of God.The Holy Spirit is a crucial guide, but any impression from God will always be in line with the Bible.
@lawilson200 Stop lying.I made dotoree LONG ago to share videos of my daughter in Korea with my parents in America.But, atheists and evolutionists were posting perverted comments about her there after we debated on other sites. So, I decided to have a family account and a separate one for debates. How is that a crime? I have recently been attacked by a fairly famous youtube evolutionist using no less than ~7 sock puppets AND impersonating me. Go here:
@lawilson200 They are NOT just words. They are the statements of GOD to people. You insist on demeaning the truths of the God who created the universe, to just some trivial ink...just astounding disrespect for the God you claim to honor. The Bible is the scientific method for Christians against which everything is tested. Nature does not conflict with the Bible. Speculative interpretations with hosts of assumptions that are consistently proven false over time sometimes do, but not nature.
@TruthIsLife7 It is you who is demeaning scripture, by making more out of scripture then what there is.Scripture teaches how we can walk with Christ and to serve as good Christian stewards. Nothing more.
3) laid the foundations for science&inspired scientific innovations, including some that have saved literally billions of dollars for industry&billions of lives.
4) inspired Christians to pioneer education & build hospitals around the world as well as Bible concepts stopping plagues in the middle ages.
5) inspired many Christians to lead successful human rights movements.
6) greatly improved the quality of marriage and reduced divorce.
@TruthIsLife7 - Wow! Like this came from a survey? Do you care to name to source? Just what this new lone of nonsence have to do witht the current price of tea in China anyway?
@lawilson200 You have fundamental misunderstandings of theology and the Bible. The ONLY thing the Bible calls idolatry and vain is when you put man made gods and ideas above God's.This is what JESUS said Mark 7:5-13. There is NO IDOLATRY WHATSOEVER in following Jesus &the Bible.NONE.Your worship is VAIN Jesus says if you put man's ideas above what God has said in his word.For some reason you don't wish to follow Jesus truths. God tells us that if we reject his truths, our worship is useless.
I should be clear that Christian establishments of all kinds can be wrong and have been wrong. It's good to question them as I do, including recently strongly criticizing the president of our worldwide church in public. If you find some way that an idea of Christians is wrong and prove it by the Bible, I'll thank you and change quickly. But, it is the height of stupidity to call God a liar and refuse to believe what God who gave you life says esp. when it's based on vast evidence.
@TruthIsLife7 By claiming that nature must conform to your theological view, not only are you calling God a liair, you are now placing the text above the worship of God. This is idolatry.
There are quite a few cult leaders who have put impressions they got above God's truths in the Bible and caused a world of trouble as well as often death. Jim Jones for example and others. Roger Morneau documented one case where a group of people studying the Bible came in contact with an angel who slowly led them not to trust the Bible. They ended up involved in vandalism and murder as has happened with others. There is no safety in putting our feelings above God's truth in the Bible. NONE.
@lawilson200 Jesus said,"Haven't you read, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female...‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife’?" Matthew 19:4,5 The very institution of marriage is based on the fact of creation according to Jesus.
Btw,I scored in the top 1-2% in the nation all through school. Research on 50k students in schools teaching creation science show they score higher than avg & they have the best advantage in science areas.
Btw,there is no difficulty with fossil footprints in Wise's model. A quaking bog would have no problem in the right conditions making them.
Google:
The mastodons and mammoths of Michigan "quaking bogs"
To see that fossils of different kinds are made by quaking bogs which is what Wise is proposing (note I don't claim that his idea is perfect..but it explains much more of the data than evolution does).
I will be making a video soon, hopefully this summer & have made a couple already (but old).
@TruthIsLife7 - The existence of quaking bogs does not assist with Wise model. Remember, Wise is proposing an entire continent size ecosystem that supposedly floats on water. Bogs are wetlands areas which are highly saturated with water, but there are still some connection with the ground. Wise need to explain how it is possible for a continent size ecosystem can be supported by water alone. We also have evidence of massive forest fires and many forests were buried by pryoclasitic flows!
Quaking bogs were the inspiration for Wise's model. His model explains more of the data than any rival, but there may come a better idea than the continent floating forest part. What is important from Dr. Wise and Dr. Veith (former atheist) is the data lines up far better with fossils being laid down basically from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling & for plants also very similar to what we would expect if a flood happened.This fossil order we see does NOT match evolution.
You haven't listed EVEN ONE SINGLE verse to support your dogma. NOT ONE. Idolatry is when you ignore God's statements and go your own way instead. Read the story of the calf that Israel made in direct opposition to God's statements and claims.
@lawilson200 SDA is steering me wrong? This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with SDA and the fact that you have to descend to straw men and many other fallacies means you know you don't have a good argument. As for SDA tho, we live 10+ years longer than the average, the longest in America and some experts say the world. They steer me to the Bible which you clearly dislike. Your beef is with the Bible, not SDA. I don't need SDA at all to read what's in the Bible and trust God at his word.
THAT is the benefit of taking God seriously and trusting him. We get benefits in THIS life as 1 Timothy “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come.” It fulfills this promise of God.
“Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come.” 1 Timothy 4:8
You claim to be a Christian, but don't trust what God says, meaning you are not.
No, you are far worse than Fox News (which I can't stand and have OFTEN criticized for it's dishonesty. It is almost as dishonest as atheists & evolutionists who you are right now parroting.) I'm not losing anything...there just comes a point when people are willfully lying and opposing science, that it's obvious no amount of evidence will change their mind. They've decided apriori to oppose the Bible, science, facts and truth and will twist anything and everything to hold on to their dogma.
@TruthIsLife7 - Yes, this is no longer about God, but insteading transforming scripture into a form of idol wohsip. Your continued protests and outlandish behavior is only digging your hole deeper.
When you deny that something that has confirmations of predictions is science, you are undermining every bit of science that has ever been done in all history. When you slander one of the biggest leaps forward in science (biogenesis), that's childish. When you refuse to believe God at his word, you show you are an atheist, possibly a Christian atheist as a recent book is titled.
@TruthIsLife7 - Once again you are not scoring any points with these ongoing rants of yours. You are demonstrating what is common among YECs, to advance their bad theology they are more than willing to violate the Second Commandment and the Ninth. Now do you have a specific example to support your case?
Btw, ROK is not prejudiced against truth like you and many people in America are and they are far more objective. My daughter goes to a public school and they have students reading Bible stories as well as from Confucius, Buddha, etc. There are MANY creationists here, including top notch ship builders who verified with science that Noah's ark was ideal for stability. They don't apriori ban religious facts from education hindering knowledge like the US does. And compare crime rates.
@TruthIsLife7 Well bully for ROK. Perhaps you should spend more time listening to the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, because the SDA is certainly steering you in the wrong direction.
Age has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. You should know better than to talk such stupidity. Galileo dropped his weights off a tower centuries ago...doesn't matter an iota as to whether it's fact or not. If you knew anything about Wise you would know that fossilized footprints are not at all impossible.
It is a bold faced lie that Darwinian levels of evolution is an observed process. The ONLY levels that have EVER been observed are creationist levels published LONG before Darwin. The majority of papers deal ONLY with creationist levels and do a bait and switch fallacy. And by the way...asking hard questions is NOT the way science judges truth. They can point to more areas for research. The weight of evidence IS how we judge truth & creation has that in most areas more than evolution.
@TruthIsLife7 This keeps on getting better. You seem to be willng to say anything to justify your bad theology. Folks I think we have a good candidate for Dimbulb of the week. Now if you produce a video of your own, I will nominate you for the Golden Crocoduck Award.
How obvious something is now has nothing to do with whether it is scientific or not. If it's had confirmations of it's predictions, it has scientific evidence no matter how badly your emotions want to refuse to admit it. Since every form of evolution continues to be falsified every few years and since creation science has so much vindication in areas ranging from biogenesis to junkDNA, the fossil record and more, plus saving billions of lives, it's a crime to deny it research funds.
@TruthIsLife7 - This is a sign you are losing the debate. I have noticed today that you are not even bothering to hit the reply button, which will inform me that you have submitted a response. I am okay if you want to debate with yourself.
However, I am not Fox News, Repeating the same lie over and over again, will not convince me of the sincerity of your position. In the real world, evolution is an observed process, supported by more that 400,000 peer review papers. Stop the bull shit!
Wise has produced it and done seminars and papers on it. the only problem is you are dishonest.
I sent you a PM by a Nobel prize winner about how people don't realize and are ignorant of how profound Pasteur's achievements were. You are making the really ignorant mistake of assuming that what is common sense was common sense in the past. It wasn't.
You are violating science left right and center. It's supposed to follow evidence wherever it leads. People like you are preventing that.
@TruthIsLife7 - I have noticed that you did not answer my question. If Wise claim is correct, how is it possible for their to be fossilized footprints at Joggins and various other sites with fossilized trees and coal deposits?
Quote mining a 1954 Scientific American Journal will only earn you scorn from me. So you better rethink your strategy.
Frankly, I am still waiting for you to present a valid scientific argument. So far, all I have gotten out of you is propaganda bull shit!
There is worse discrimination against creationists than there was against blacks in economic areas (not physical violence tho). See:
watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
Your heartless insensitivity to this fact is shocking and now you are talking exactly like atheists I have dialogued with as well as lying. It is solely creationist levels of evolution that have been observed (We are NOT appealing to a deity), not Darwinian. Creationist biogenesis is the rival of abiogenesis,
@TruthIsLife7 - I suppose you were directing this towards me, so I will give you a response. In the immortal words of Rex Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a day-um."
You are living in ROK now. How much money does the South Korean government spend on creationist research? Is there any government in the world poring good mney after bad? Creationism main goal is apologetics and evangelism. It is the only reason it exist. You don't need government to fund that.
a form of which Pasteur conclusively debunked, vindicating creation as hard science. You should know Pasteur’s & Borlaug’s work without any references (but I'll PM you a bit on that from an evolutionist to help you understand). Pasteur’s work is one of the most famous experiments ever done in history and Borlaug won the Nobel prize and both worked with aspects of creation science.
@TruthIsLife7 This is just pathjetic. I view Pasteaur work in the regard as a form of a modern day episode of Mythbusters. Except this myth of spontaneous generation dates back to the time of Ancient Greeks. Pasteaur showed what should have been obvious to anyone. Leave your meat exposed to flies, you will get maggots. Cover your meat and the flies cannot have access to lay eggs, Dah! To claim this supports creation in exhilo, or creation science is nothing more that propaganda BS!
You are conflating definitions & parroting atheists. Darwinian levels of evolution have never had evidence like gravity or atomic theory. No one has ever seen even one case of them, not even with bacteria. We ONLY see creationist levels.
If you don't think funding is important, then you shouldn't mind if all funding goes to creation for a while. For 40+ years, billions has been given to evolutionists and NONE to creationists even though we have more scientific in quite a number of areas.
Your review of Wise shows you either don’t know what counts as evidence in science or don’t know anything about Wise or both. He has observations AND also EXPLAINS more of the data than rival concepts do and it is extremely well done. BOTH of these are pure science and considered real science by scientists the world over, both secular and Christian. It’s also better and more than almost any evolutionist presentation I’ve EVER seen.
@TruthIsLife7 If Wise has somethjing, it is up to him to produce it. Remember though our earlier conversation regarding Occam's Razor. Charles Lyell and William Dawson in 1852, after visitiing the coal depsits and fossil trees of Joggins Cliffs in Nova Scotia, reported they discovered fossilized footprints in the coal seam. A decade earlier, Lyell found the fossilized remains of an amphibian that was examined by Owen. Just how do you get fossil footprints in a floating habitat?
@lawilson200 FACT. Pasteur did rigorous experiments based on creation science claims of biogenesis. Borlaug did rigorous experiments using creation science levels of speciatin. There is not the slightest particle of truth in your claims about Wise. He DOES have data. He does have modern similar examples. He doesn’t ignore established work. In the very first video he reviews the evolution claims. The majority of published papers on evolution actually deal with creation levels of speciation.
@TruthIsLife7 "Pasteur did rigorous experiments based on creation science claims of biogenesis." And his relates to evolution how? Please provide actual citations. Would you allow students taking your classes to pass off sloppy work?
Okay, if Wise is so wise, where is the published results? There is just one paper that I know of (ICC 2003) and it is poorly crafter paper at best. I am surprised that Gould did not better prepare him on the art of publication. I am all ears.
I’m going to boil this down to 1 question. Were Pasteur and Borlaug doing science and is biogenesis scientific? If so, by THAT ALONE creation science is BY DEFINITION scientific. PERIOD. Btw, it’s a fallacy to compare evolution with the act of creation. They don’t even deal with the same question. Abiogenesis and the act of creation deal with the origin of life. Creation wins because of biogenesis. Creationist speciation (species to family levels) beats UCD (family to kingdom levels).
@TruthIsLife7 - Are you telling me there has been no follow-up work since Pasteur and Bortaug? No one to double check on their claims (assuming they made any - I am still waiting on your citation of an actual source). Tell you what, give me a reference and I will look it up.
And where does abiogenesis come into this? You have been told this already, abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and those who are working on abiogenesis must develop their own model. Evolution is an observed process.
If you have been blinded so badly that you can’t admit that Pasteur's, Borlaug's work show that creation is scientific&that Wise has made many good predictions and found solid confirmation as well as his theory having great explanatory power (all of which are BY DEFINITION science), then you are willfully blind and we need to correct your understanding of basic science, philosophy & integrity before talking about the 1000s of other ways creation is fully scientific.
@TruthIsLife7 - I am not in a position to comment of Pasteur, you haven't given me a reference yet.
But, I can comment on Wise. His paper is a work of fiction that does not come close to actual natural observations. I suppose this is a problem when your ability to reason become blinded by fiedelity to a bad-theology. He should have started small and worked his way up. Instead, he tried to take on the entire enchilada in a single bite and chocked.
You seem to think that something can only be science if it lines up with your current views. That’s not science. That’s dogma AND an attack on real science that stultifies all progress. Something is scientific when it makes predictions and has confirmations, when it can explain more of the data than its rivals and uses falsifiability, the scientific method, etc. Evolutionists are using outright deceit (refusing to admit that creation has many scientific confirmations),
@TruthIsLife7 - Where do my personal views come into play? I think you are projecting from your own dificiencies again. Science is the study of natural processes. Evolution is one of those observed natural processes. Its been studied, tested and yes, used for predictions and confirmations. As theories goes, it is even on stronger ground that Newton's Gravity and Atomic Theory. Creationism does not even come close. As long as you must make appeals to a diety, it's not science.
they refuse to be objective and admit facts, they use intentional propaganda to silence opposition (violating the foundations of science & using govt. money to do it), free thought, cut off funding to creationists who are the ones who built modern science, pioneered its processes, started many of its fields and has many more confirmations and experiments in many areas than evolution does. Many evos are innocent because they are unaware of these facts tho.
@lawilson200 Creation is fully authentic science and you would not even HAVE modern science without creationists. You need to learn history. Watch this seminar just given at the royal society:
tinyurlDOTcomSLASH68s462b
It shows how Creation science helped Christians avoid science stagnating & they laid the foundation for modern science and started most of its fields based on the idea that God was a rational being who created an intelligent and designed planet and universe
@TruthIsLife7 - I am begining to see the problem. You are making the assumption that since there were "Christians" who were also scientists, they must have been promoting creation science. This is a false assumption. Fundamentalism and (in your case) the SDA are relatively modern doctrines with no corollaries to theological view points of the 19th Century. YECism is a modern doctrine as well. The terms creationism or creation science also did not exist. You assumption is a false one.
which could be understood and that using science to understand nature was a way to understand their Creator better and use their talents better for Him.
Pasteur as a hardcore creationist challenged spontaneous generation based on creationist principles. NUMEROUS evolution concepts have been complete falsified and many hoaxes exposed and the current versions are in the process of being falsified because they can't explain universal common descent.
Norman Borlaug used creationist levels of speciation based on Mendel's work which is within Genesis limits of variation to develop many varieties of wheat, rice, etc. that saved the lives of 1 billion people. Creationist predictions on vestigial organs, junkDNA and others have been proven while evolutionist claims debunked. These are only VERY obvious ways that creation is fully scientific, BOTH DIRECT and INFERENTIAL. Ph.Ds. have MANY more detailed confirmations of creationist predictions.
See Dr. Wise for example and his floating forest theory (my playlist “Creation-evidence for the flood” videos 1-8). He has a Ph.D. in geology and his theory explains more of the evidence than any competing evolution theory.
@TruthIsLife7 - Good old Wise. Talk about the impracticality. You do realize there is no modern corrollary to what Wise proposed. Wise idea is an example of bad science. He shows no experiments, no data, no modern example to support his claim of vast floating forests and finally, he ignores established work. There is no mystery of how insitu fossil forest developed. There was very good review published in the March 2011 edition the Journal of the Geological Society.
Anyone who says that creation is not science is either deplorably ignorant a flagrant deceiver or both (I hope for the 1st in all cases)
The conduct of evolutionists is what is embarrassing...advocating concepts that make God a liar, lying that creation isn't science when even in biogenesis alone, it has billions of confirmations, and using lies to avoid a fair playing field.
@TruthIsLife7 - So far, all you have done is provide a theological argument, based on a very bad theology (I include SDA thrology on this list). Moreover, you are earning my contempt. This current exchange is getting us nowhere. If you claim creationism is based on science, then present your evidence. The two examples you have given so far, represent the poor scholarly research that I have come to expect from a YEC/
If you don’t understand that funding gives you FAR more time and enables far more people to work on developing a scientific field, I am frankly dumbfounded. That position does not have a shreds of rationality to it, nor does it understand the history of how science has developed.
Sorry, but no I don’t have much free time handy. I have family plans and am working on 2 books, 1 showing how Christianity and creation easily beat atheism and evolution as rational concepts
using Dr. Thomas Kuhn’s concepts of science (and a video on this as well) and the other in linguistics. I’ve been reading atheist and evolution books for 2 decades already..just finished “Your Inner Fish” and have quite a number of refutations of their dogma I haven’t seen anyone use. I need to organize the vast info I have so it can be shared by many to prove that God is not a liar when he says He created the world at Eden. Maybe I’ll read your recommendations after that tho.
@lawilson200 Yes, it is good to leave out bad science from academia and education. That would mean getting rid of evolution and giving creation back it's rightful place...esp. since so many types of evolution have been conclusively falsified and the same pattern keeps repeating:
lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis, orthogenesis have all been falsified. The modern synthesis, punctuated equalibrium are also in big trouble...
@TruthIsLife7 - For someone who holds a job teaching, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance of history. This does not mention the modern science itself. Tell you what. I am assuming you now have some free time handyl It is time to hit the books. Start with MJS Rudwick series on the history of geology. Micheal Ruse would also do you some good, But, now you are just wasting my time,
and evolution is EVOLVING yet again to self-reorganization, something almost 100% faith based. So basically we've wasted billions of dollars on fiction propagated by evolution..and much of the hard testable evidence that supports creation and or the fact that it points to creation that has only gotten stronger with time is being kept out.
I am SURE that you can criticize, probably rightly, some of the articles of creationists, esp. when some are trying to cover numerous fields that they haven't had time to get Ph.Ds. in. They are stretched way way past the limit due to extreme deprivation of funding and the hatred and discrimination of academia against creation science. But, what they have done even so far is nearly miraculous considered the extreme discrimination. You should be helping God's cause, not harming it.
@TruthIsLife7 Wow! This is a serious charge. "Extreme discrimination." Yes, it is a good thing we discriminate bad science. A case in point. The people who claimed to have discovered cold fusion, were correctly given the boot and denied further funding from public and private resources. Are you saying this is discrimination? The secret to getting funding is to have a solid reputation and to present a proposal worthy of funding. It discrimination if YECs do not even present a good model.
You know less about ROK than creation science. Their students routinely beat the pants off US students, esp. in science, math, etc.They don't focus much on evolution and DO allow Christian concepts in school (as well as some buddhists). Korea has technology years ahead of America as well as science in some areas. They often win top prizes all around the world. Doctors I teach won the top prize in the world at an intl. ENT conference recently. Ridiculing people falsely is not Christian.
@TruthIsLife7 This is true, My father fought in Korea in 1952, mostly lobbing artillary shells at the Chinease and North Korean forces. A very friend of mine was station in Korea during the 1980's, while serving in the Army and one of my first cars was a Hyundai. But this hardly makes me an export Meanwhile it is sad to see the decline of education standards, so we can give rich people tax breaks. Then again, who needs an education to work for Wal-Mart.
@lawilson200 Because when the govt. gives BILLIONS to evolutionists, they have LOTS of TIME and 1000s of people to research, figure out answers to hard questions, high tech tools and machines, etc. Give that to creationists and we can find answers that are better than evolutionists and already are in MANY areas even without govt. funding. The playing field is completely lopsided in favor of evolution for solely political and ideological reasons that violate the foundations of science.
@TruthIsLife7 - That's not going to happen. Frankly I hate seeing government money wasted, especially when I end up paying for what is essentially a prayer session.
As to republicans, I supported Obama. Republicans promise many things to Christians and seldom deliver anything. At least the Democrats follow some of the human rights and economics ideas of the Bible. But, America was first in the world in science when creationists were in charge. It was creationists like Werhner Von Braun, father of Space Science and director of NASA who sent us to the moon. Evolutionists took over and in a generation look how we've plummeted (there are several reasons).
@TruthIsLife7 I am keeping in mind that you are employed as a teacher (at a ROK school), but considering this statement, perhaps it is a good thing you are in ROK.
All views have some hard questions, but evolution and esp. atheism have the hardest of all. Creation can explain what you talk about, such as the CRBG (and others too I'm sure). Google:
“Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA” and read some of the evidences there that point to creationist explanations. The basalts reveal rapid extrusion, rapid cooling, and rapid succession of lava flows and there are indications that the lavas were extruded under water.
@TruthIsLife7 Good old Oard, Yes, I read this paper many years ago. He should have stuck with meteorology. His knoweldge on geology is nearly as accurate as his weather forecast. That is to say, sticking your head out of the window will give you better results.
@lawilson200 I'm sorry, but creationists can make predictions and find confirmations just as well as evolutionists can in MANY areas (not all). What SHOULD happen is that we have equal money and time for research and then people with Ph.Ds. in the same field present evidence.When that happens, creation USUALLY wins.
Sir, you are not acting Christian. It is 100% deceit to say that creation science is a prayer session. That is flagrant intentional deceit and you know who the father of lies is.
@TruthIsLife7 - Speaking as a Christian, I am embarrassed by the conduct of creationists and the harm they cause to the Gospel message. Often times I have to end up correcting assumptions some have about people of faith, thanks to the bad conduct of creationists. So I am not going to ease my comments in anyway to satisify you.
As for your constant whine about the absence of funding, I am not interested. Creationism is not even a science, I don't care hjow many PhDs you claim to have.
A Geologic model that doesn't discern between different climates? Doesn't even discern between different landforms? The "Geologic Column" model doesn't even distinguish ocean from land! It takes layers from all over the world and just meshes all landforms together in one LINEAR column!
Completely stupid. And completely useless as a model, by the way.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
Scvience is happy with creation, it fits. Evolutionism is a knowing lie put forward by evolutionists and not science.
warriorprince1010 2 months ago
Well I don't know what you really know about geology but dinosaur soft tissue does not have anything to do with the age of the Earth. Dinosaurs are a young creature to inhabit the earth. What about fossils from the Cambrian, Ordovician, and Silurian. Those are much older. Creationist Science is not credible because it can not be tested. Either way creation or evolution........ the same result was reached. Think about that.
1212boochie 4 months ago
@1212boochie Land animals cannot survive in the ocean.
The ocean floor is lower in elevation than land.
Strange that we find sharks in rock layers that are lower in elevation than grass and simple land plants.
The elevation of the rock layers doesn't mean time, nor degrees of complexity. But it does mean marine or land fossils.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians Yeah sure they can. What about a penguin? How and why do you think whales and dolphins are mammals?......because they once were land animals that EVOLVED into an ocean living animal.....just like they penguin is doing today it is both a land animal and part ocean living. I know that the elevation doesn't matter but it is used to correlate rock facies within the same area.......so it is important. I don't know how I prompeted a reply from you but it is hard to follow? Sorry
1212boochie 1 month ago
@1212boochie My point is that a "column" is a linear model that meshes all landforms and climates together. Penguins live in the Arctic. Reptiles live in tropical regions. Sea life lives in the ocean.
Moreover, not all of the regions are of the same elevation. The sea floor is deeper than the swamps (where amphibians tend to live) which is lower than the forests.
All of this is joined linearly in the textbooks, and is like a mile and a half, which doesn't correlate with reality.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie Evolutionists say that a layer in Australia can be "dated" by comparing the index fossils with a layer in North America. How do they know that they are not just comparing similar climates, not similar "ages"?
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians Well more than just index fossils are used like what the other rocks above and below can tell you and other things. To the last thing..... similar climates mean similar age. Similar fauna are going to live in similar climates there by determining the rock type.
1212boochie 1 month ago
@1212boochie I meant, 100 miles thick.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie The lowest levels, though yes, relatively younger than the ones above, will always be the ones of the lowest elevation. And the lowest elevation will always be the ocean. The next lowest elevation will be the swamps, etc.
It's not like dust is gathering on the earth, but rather sediment is flowing downhill. The water cycle is eroding away the mountains.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians Its the other way around.....lower elevation rock will be older than rock in higher elevation(unless there has been movement like thrust faulting) No rock below another rock( unless it has moved) will NEVER be younger than the one above it. Don't forget about the sea floor though as being the lowest.
1212boochie 1 month ago
@1212boochie Well, I agree that the lower layer will be younger than any above it. But how much younger? Let's say there's an earthquake in Juneau and a huge mud and rockslide falls down the mountainside into the sea. The sea life on the bottom was in existence at the same time as the trees and land vegetation.
Whether the vast majority of the earth's crust was catastrophic or uniformitarian, you'd always get sea life on the bottom.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie From the mountains to the sea.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie Under what possible model, whether Catastrophic or Uniformitarian, would you NOT see the ocean floor as the lowest layer?
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians LOL.....What????????????????
1212boochie 1 month ago
@1212boochie And if uniformitarian, and it took millions of years with slow erosion and sedimentation, then the land layers in existence on land would be eroded and lost, and the only record that we would have would be the ocean level.
I can't see how people can say "all life started in the ocean" merely because the bottom of elevation is in the ocean.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@RomansGalatians Man that is not how it works ok. The Gulf of Mexico for example the sediment in and around the gulf is lower in elevation but way way way way younger in age than rocks from say Tennessee that is much higher in elevation but older in age. Where there was once was ocean can now be high mountain tops. The elevation of the of earth strata is not why geologist say life started in the ocean. Life started as microscopic prokaryotes, single cell without cell nucleus in the ocean.
1212boochie 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1212boochie The elevation of the layers is how the column was established by Lyell. And it does not hold any consistency to levels of complexity. The example I gave of a shark with focusing eyes, digestive tract, sense of smell, is found much deeper in the layers than simple land plants like grass. That's just because it lived in the ocean.
I'm not being argumentative, but you just said that No rock below another rock( unless it has moved) will NEVER be younger than the one above it.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie I guess what i'm trying to say is this: Are you organizing the layers according to your theory? Are you interpreting the data according to your presuppostions?
Because it sounds like the layers are all over the place. Some high, some low, some ocean, some land. And the way that your organize them is according to index fossils. And the way the index fossils are organized are according to Evolution Theory.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
@1212boochie Dr. David Berlinski, professor at Stanford, Rutgers, Columbia etc. doesn't believe in the Bible or Creation Theory, but he said that the fossil record is "simply mystifying. It does not sustain any kind of darwinian prediction that can be intelligently derived from darwinian theory. And it doesn't seem to sustain anything else. It's a perfectly mystifying record." I agree. We all organize the hodgepodge shuffle in the fossil record according to our presuppositions.
RomansGalatians 1 month ago
How do you explain absolute dating????? .......... I'm a geology student and a Christian, and God gave me a brain to use wisely. There have been rocks found that are Billions of years old, like in the grand canyon. The Earth is 4.6 Billion Years Old......not a few thousand. Don't be ignorant. To me there is room for both schools of thought. Besides, whatever you believe, does either one look any different from the other one? No they do not. So why not be scientific about it.
1212boochie 5 months ago in playlist land rig 2
@1212boochie Yes, God did give you a brain. We have over 100 methods that show that the age of life on earth is young (the Bible actually doesn't tell us for certain the age of the earth anywhere...it could be young or it could be old). We have ~40 that point to an old earth, but many of these have been falsified by lots of soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils. See my "creation-soft tissue..." playlist and notes. Both sides have anomalies, but where does the "weight of evidence" lead?
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@1212boochie Sorry, but no, you can't say how old the earth is for certain. All estimates rely on many assumptions and the "certain" age of the earth has radically changed in the past and will almost certainly do so in the past.
There is not room for both Darwinian myth and Biblical Christianity. They are mutually exclusive. See video #1 and others here for great new evidence for the global flood, incl Grand Canyon.
wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/user/TruthIsLife7#g/c/14FDE276E5C97E24
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I will agree that the age of the Earth will change but only because we will have dated a newly found rock that tells us differently. Yes! the scientific community says the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Can't be disputed scientificly untill a new discovery of a rock that can be dated to an older date.
1212boochie 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Yes there can be both schools of thought. If you are not a narrow minded person you would see that they are NOT "mutually exclusive". If your focus is in the pages of a book and not your on your Faith, then I feel you loose what being Christ like really means.
1212boochie 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 So how is your understanding of Pasteur's work coming? Do you still insist that his work involved anything but modern life? Because it didn't.
PhantomOfChaosSkin 3 months ago
@PhantomOfChaosSkin You consistently fail to understand how science works.Processes we see operating now are assumed to operate the same in history in general (there are a few exceptions, but not many). Without this, universal common descent has not a shred of basis in science. Neither does the Big Bang and many other things in forensic and historical science. Your delusions are only evidence for me to use in my university classes to demonstrate that atheism makes people stupid about science.
TruthIsLife7 3 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You dodged my question. Do you understand that Pasteur's work only involved modern life? Yes or no.
PhantomOfChaosSkin 3 months ago
How do you explain absolute dating????? .......... I'm a geology student and a Christian, and God gave me a brain to use wisely. There have been rocks found that are Billions of years old, like in the grand canyon. The Earth is 4.6 Billion Years Old......not a few thousand. Don't be ignorant. To me there is room for both schools of thought. Besides, whatever you believe, does either one look any different from the other one? No they do not. So why not be scientific about it.
1212boochie 5 months ago in playlist land rig
There is nothing unsubstantiated at all. You are just willfully ignorant. I have gotten very high recommendations from colleagues and students including the chairman of the department and doctors at 2 secular universities where I taught/teach. If you rejected scientific concepts supported with the same level of evidence as creation has (there are quite a few that are fully accepted and taught in schools), you couldn't even apply for a job or pass any course.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Just here for the daily reminder that Pasteur's work had nothing to do with the biochemical origin of life. Anyone claiming to be able to understand this is either lying about being a professor, or lying about not being able to comprehend it.
GreatHopeSprings 6 months ago
GreatHopeSprings, it is you who doesn't understand science AT ALL. Pasteur's experiments were explicitly directed at refuting the idea that life can come from non-life in any form, including biochemical forms. Others scientists have done numerous experiments&ALL have backed him up.Inferential science (the type the Big Bang is based upon and much other science) shows us that this must have been true in all history. Until you DEMONSTRATE an anomaly to this law, you aren't doing science, PERIOD.
TruthIsLife7 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TruthIsLife7 No I'm clearly the only one who does understand science in this conversation. Pasteur's work had absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, he debunked spontaneous generation, the notion that MODERN life arose spontaneously
You can't even understand this and you expect people to believe you're a professor?
GreatHopeSprings 6 months ago
Still with the straw men. The millerites were a movement made up of believers from NUMEROUS churches..and just like the disciples had some mistaken ideas about the Messiah, so too, these people had some mistakes about Jesus 2nd coming. But, the millerite movement is not an SDA movement and William Miller himself never became an SDA...re: Numbers...he got out of Christianity too...something that happens to many who stop believing the Bible as it reads.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@lawilson200 Um, BIOGENESIS IS a 100% valid argument whether you want to admit it or not (and there are MANY others besides that..but no use talking about them if you can't admit this obvious one. Creation most certainly DID exist during the developing days of science and directly inspired it as even Dr. Hannam, an evolutionist with integrity, demonstrates. You have refused to follow science & God in case after case. YOU falsely claimed creation science was based on dispensationalism.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 It is valid, only when viewed in its proper context, nothing more. As for the rest, you are providing yet another unsubstantiated claim. For someone who teaches, you do rely a great deal on innuendoes and conjecture. If you were my student, you would be receiving an F.
lawilson200 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 You should refrain from further comments. Your cluelessness is obvious.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 You obviously don't know how to read very well. I work in academia and one of my jobs is editing academic papers. This is NOT an academic journal (500 chars just doesn't allow any kind of in depth posting of proof). But, several posters below obviously don't know what counts as evidence or how to do objective science. Their way of reasoning would stifle almost all scientific progress in history, since they just accept whatever they are taught regardless of evidence&don't question it.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I read just fine. Anyone who refers to the Bible as if it were factual and refers to "evolutionists" is no scientist.
Why not just pray that we will take you seriously? Your sky wizard isn't helping you at all so far.
ndrthrdr1 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 I'm sorry, but there are numerous top notch skeptic scientists, historians and others of the highest caliber both in history & the present who have been converted to Christianity SOLELY based on the evidence. There's a reason why many of Christianity's top defenders past and present were former atheists. They followed the wait of evidence to Christianity. Christianity based explicitly on the Bible has done more than anything else to build up science and most of modern civilization.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 God is not going to force you to follow facts. You have freedom to refuse to do so. But, it will only hurt you in this life. Christianity, greatly increases self-control which is a foundation for many types of success. My Bible health science playlist shows Blue Zones, National Geographic, NIH, NCI, etc. confirming that those who follow Bible health principles live 10+ years longer than the average. For millenia this benefit came ONLY to those who trusted the Bible. Much more!
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Here's just one example of how atheists make people stupid about what counts as historical evidence with agnostic Dr. Ehrman.
watch?v=JPvbQsJHY-w
The same is done in science. If you want to be an enemy of the weight of evidence in science and history and lose many benefits in life, being an atheist is one of the best ways ever to do that.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Oh..and "evolutionists"...it's a dictionary term. Merriam Webster says it is:
"a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution " similar to how a linguist is a student of languages. This is a gigantic Darwinian fail in understanding how languages work.
But, like many terms though is a term that's a bait&switch tactic of Darwinians since evolution just means change over time and creationists were pioneering&publishing on that LONG before Darwin. The issue is HOW MUCH change.
TruthIsLife7 4 months ago
I cited Ronald Numbers who documents that SDAs who are not dispensationalists where the ones who pioneered it in THIS century, reintroducing it after many had gone chasing Darwin's speculations. You were completely wrong in that claim, but as usual refuse to admit your very obvious false claim. I did NOT make it an issue beyond that. YOU did.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 How about that. Numbers was smart enough to get out of the SDA, Bad theology is stil bad theology. Including the Millerites
lawilson200 7 months ago
Unfortunately, you do the opposite of how I treat EGW. If some human has an idea that sounds good to you, or if the majority of society has a certain view...you think that trumps what God has said. Just look at society at the time of Jesus or Elijah or many others. Just where would that philosophy put you? On the side of God,nature and reality or falsehood and pseudoscience?
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Science? I have yet heard you make a valid scientific argument. Do you have anything at all to conribute, or just demonstrate the falsity of your theological position. I am growing quite tired of this and wish you move on.
lawilson200 7 months ago
Creationism was accepted as scientific truth by the founders of science based on the solid scientific argument from design and others and people like John Wilkins explicitly used its principles to validate studying nature and specific concepts in it to hypothesize about speciation even way back in the 1600s. Then we had it verified by the Big Bang and biogenesis and verifications have continued to come in (now junkDNA is verifying it very strongly as well.)
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - More unsubstantiated nonsense. I have had enough with this constant nonsense. If you are going to quote me history, than I want source. Otherwise, shut the fuck up. You have yet to show me that you are even qualified to teach. PS: If you PM me again, I will block you. This argument is over.
lawilson200 7 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
Let's be clear. Ellen White is not God&never was.So,if she and God conflict, I'll throw her words away in a HEARTBEAT.She is not the one who created the universe, made its laws, died on a cross or has power to give life forever. Only God is. She is secondary to God and the Bible and this has always been and is now the SDA position although we are sure that God gave her some new insights somewhat like how the NT writers had more insights over the OT writers. But the Bible is the test of all.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@lawilson200 Not only are you defying the Bible, you are opposing the fundamental principles of science that have undergirded most of its progress. Banning those with testable results as creation science has (biogenesis, universe has a beginning for starters) just because they are a small groups and just because they differ with the establishment would have killed many innovations in the past and for sure Pasteur's very significant triumph in creationist biogenesis over spontaneous generation.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Bad science should not be allowed to see the light of day. If ID-ers and YECs want to play in our sandbox, then they need to conform to the rules of science. Not cry because various government agencies have correctly denied these groups funding. This line of argument from you is really getting quite old and stale, it is time for you to come up with a new game plan. Happy 4th of July!
lawilson200 7 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
Dr. D. M. Raup, Paleontologist from U. Chicago wrote:
"Perhaps the only thing that saves science from invalid conventional wisdom that becomes effectively permanent is the presence of mavericks in every generation - people who keep challenging convention and thinking up new ideas for the sheer hell of it or from an innate contrariness."
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - I was wondering. Have you attended the MSHA 40 hour safety course. If you are going to do nothing but pass along quote-mines, you better attend the required mine safety training.
lawilson200 7 months ago
@lawilson200 Go online to Amazon.com and read the 1st chapters of the book 'The Victory of Reason' which I believe is by a Catholic writer I'm quite sure. It talks about how Christianity had a profound influence on modern culture (and this is often based on specific Bible principles). You are not even up to speed on what people from your liberal Bible defying perspective are teaching based on facts of history.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@lawilson200 No, most of this comes from what non-Christian Dan Buettner, head of the Blue Zones research foundation, called sterling research, often from secular sources such as Blue Zones, National Geographic, the NIH, NCI & many others which I will PM you soon. You said the Bible does nothing more that speak of walking with God and being stewards. It is possible but difficult to be more ignorant about the Bible. You are making egregious errors and defying what God has said in numerous areas.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Before lecturing me about my theology, I would first find support for following a prophetest. Just where is scripture gave Ellen White authority to be a prophet from god?
lawilson200 7 months ago
@lawilson200 Oh please.
1)Creationists made the sandbox&most of its tools.This is an indisputable fact of history.Evolutionists stole it using political arguments,perversions of the constitution&perversions of the foundations of science.Even Catholic writers are documenting this fact.
2) I don't quote mine.You like most atheists don't even use the term properly.
3) Ah..the SDA red herring. See Joel 2:28. But, talking about SDA is not important when you don't even trust God.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7
1. False. Creationism did not exist during the developing days of science. Most involved during the stage followed the Baconian compromise, which deemphasize the role of religion. Evolution came out of those early traditions, plus those established by Whewell and Herschel.
2. Yet, you have given me two misrepresentations so far. Who is the liar?
3. You made the SDA an issue, Live with it!
lawilson200 7 months ago
@lawilson200 "Nothing more."? NOT EVEN CLOSE. You are defying the words of God, Jesus and most other Bible characters. Paul said:
“Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in THIS LIFE and in the life to come.” 1 Timothy 4:8 See also Deut. 28 & 30:15-20. When followed, Bible principles & specific concepts have:
1) inspired campaigns that helped 1.3 billion escape poverty in just the last 20 years.
2) added decades to life.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 These tiraids are really not helping you and none of this can be compared with your argument over creationism. Do you care to bring this back down to earth? If not, just call it quits.
lawilson200 7 months ago
@lawilson200 On idolatry, your definition isn't in the Bible. The Bible says this about idolatry. "Rebelling against God or disobeying him because you are proud is just as bad as worshiping idols or asking them for advice."1 Sam 15:23 Another version speaks of defiance being idolatry.You are defying Jesus own words and God's explicit claims throughout the Bible that He created the universe and people on this world at the beginning.Evolution is your idol,replacing the claims of the Almighty God.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Even at the top of your voice, you are still wrong. By requiring nature to conform to one's theological view is idolatry, pure and simple. To misrepresent nature and the discoveries made by science is bearing false witness.
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God&is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" It is this very Bible that you disrespect that God told us should be the foundation for our doctrines.If you don't make the Bible your foundation(sola scriptura),you have no way to test the validity of any feeling or spiritual emotion. The stance you have is the foundation of all cults and anathema to protestantism.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Which is to say, how can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and not how the heavens are made. Scripture was written for us. Not for nature.
lawilson200 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(btw, dotoree is more my family account, but has ability to upload long videos, while truthislife7 does not yet). Go watch this video of a recent presentation at the Royal Society by Dr. Hannam with 2 Ph.D.s from Oxford and Cambridge on how Christianity and creationist philosophy laid the foundation for modern science and pioneered it. It's by Dr. Hannam who is not a creationist (YET..I have personal contact with him and will be sending him some evidence soon).
watch?v=I-k24Q01vck
dotoree 8 months ago
Comment removed
dotoree 8 months ago
Here are Jesus words to people who replaced God's Bible truth with traditions and thought they were worshiping.
Jesus says, 'How right Isaiah was when he prophesied about you! You are hypocrites, just as he wrote:
These people, says God, honor me with their words, but their heart is really far away from me. It is no use for them to worship me, because they teach human rules
as though they were my laws! You put aside God's command and obey human teachings." Mark 7:6-8 (read v. 5-13)
dotoree 8 months ago
@dotoree Hello, I would like to upload the video by Dr. Hannam. FYI Lawson is a Catholic and so has multiple authorities.
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
BereanBeacon1 7 months ago
@BereanBeacon1 Lawson has told me he's an Episcopalian which is not far from being Catholic I know...but still technically Protestant. But, the way he's talking, he's more of a Christian atheist...as pastor speaks about and has written a book on:
watch?v=er6ZnklfJOM
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@lawilson200 I didn't claim that nature must conform to my view. Straw man. I claim that God has told us how nature came to be. He is a God of truth and expects us to believe what he says. That's the foundation of our relationship with Him as well as salvation.HE GAVE us the Bible text as a guideline to truth.You can't put what God said above God.They are the same, just different aspects of God.The Holy Spirit is a crucial guide, but any impression from God will always be in line with the Bible.
dotoree 8 months ago
@dotoree - Anf yet, you insist on nature conforming to words on a printed page. This is idolatry.
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 Stop lying.I made dotoree LONG ago to share videos of my daughter in Korea with my parents in America.But, atheists and evolutionists were posting perverted comments about her there after we debated on other sites. So, I decided to have a family account and a separate one for debates. How is that a crime? I have recently been attacked by a fairly famous youtube evolutionist using no less than ~7 sock puppets AND impersonating me. Go here:
watch?v=DQOQnVx9n24 to see an example.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Even at the top of your voice, you are stll wrong. I frankly don't care how many accounts you have.
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 They are NOT just words. They are the statements of GOD to people. You insist on demeaning the truths of the God who created the universe, to just some trivial ink...just astounding disrespect for the God you claim to honor. The Bible is the scientific method for Christians against which everything is tested. Nature does not conflict with the Bible. Speculative interpretations with hosts of assumptions that are consistently proven false over time sometimes do, but not nature.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 It is you who is demeaning scripture, by making more out of scripture then what there is.Scripture teaches how we can walk with Christ and to serve as good Christian stewards. Nothing more.
lawilson200 8 months ago
3) laid the foundations for science&inspired scientific innovations, including some that have saved literally billions of dollars for industry&billions of lives.
4) inspired Christians to pioneer education & build hospitals around the world as well as Bible concepts stopping plagues in the middle ages.
5) inspired many Christians to lead successful human rights movements.
6) greatly improved the quality of marriage and reduced divorce.
7) reduced crime and immorality.
This is JUST for starters.
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Wow! Like this came from a survey? Do you care to name to source? Just what this new lone of nonsence have to do witht the current price of tea in China anyway?
lawilson200 7 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 7 months ago
@lawilson200 You have fundamental misunderstandings of theology and the Bible. The ONLY thing the Bible calls idolatry and vain is when you put man made gods and ideas above God's.This is what JESUS said Mark 7:5-13. There is NO IDOLATRY WHATSOEVER in following Jesus &the Bible.NONE.Your worship is VAIN Jesus says if you put man's ideas above what God has said in his word.For some reason you don't wish to follow Jesus truths. God tells us that if we reject his truths, our worship is useless.
dotoree 8 months ago
@dotoree - Now you are showing that you have a sock pocket account. Thisis getting frm bad to worst. You better quick now.
lawilson200 8 months ago
I should be clear that Christian establishments of all kinds can be wrong and have been wrong. It's good to question them as I do, including recently strongly criticizing the president of our worldwide church in public. If you find some way that an idea of Christians is wrong and prove it by the Bible, I'll thank you and change quickly. But, it is the height of stupidity to call God a liar and refuse to believe what God who gave you life says esp. when it's based on vast evidence.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 By claiming that nature must conform to your theological view, not only are you calling God a liair, you are now placing the text above the worship of God. This is idolatry.
lawilson200 8 months ago
There are quite a few cult leaders who have put impressions they got above God's truths in the Bible and caused a world of trouble as well as often death. Jim Jones for example and others. Roger Morneau documented one case where a group of people studying the Bible came in contact with an angel who slowly led them not to trust the Bible. They ended up involved in vandalism and murder as has happened with others. There is no safety in putting our feelings above God's truth in the Bible. NONE.
dotoree 8 months ago
@lawilson200 Jesus said,"Haven't you read, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female...‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife’?" Matthew 19:4,5 The very institution of marriage is based on the fact of creation according to Jesus.
Btw,I scored in the top 1-2% in the nation all through school. Research on 50k students in schools teaching creation science show they score higher than avg & they have the best advantage in science areas.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
-
Btw,there is no difficulty with fossil footprints in Wise's model. A quaking bog would have no problem in the right conditions making them.
Google:
The mastodons and mammoths of Michigan "quaking bogs"
To see that fossils of different kinds are made by quaking bogs which is what Wise is proposing (note I don't claim that his idea is perfect..but it explains much more of the data than evolution does).
I will be making a video soon, hopefully this summer & have made a couple already (but old).
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - The existence of quaking bogs does not assist with Wise model. Remember, Wise is proposing an entire continent size ecosystem that supposedly floats on water. Bogs are wetlands areas which are highly saturated with water, but there are still some connection with the ground. Wise need to explain how it is possible for a continent size ecosystem can be supported by water alone. We also have evidence of massive forest fires and many forests were buried by pryoclasitic flows!
lawilson200 8 months ago
Quaking bogs were the inspiration for Wise's model. His model explains more of the data than any rival, but there may come a better idea than the continent floating forest part. What is important from Dr. Wise and Dr. Veith (former atheist) is the data lines up far better with fossils being laid down basically from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling & for plants also very similar to what we would expect if a flood happened.This fossil order we see does NOT match evolution.
dotoree 8 months ago
You haven't listed EVEN ONE SINGLE verse to support your dogma. NOT ONE. Idolatry is when you ignore God's statements and go your own way instead. Read the story of the calf that Israel made in direct opposition to God's statements and claims.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@lawilson200 SDA is steering me wrong? This has NOTHING whatsoever to do with SDA and the fact that you have to descend to straw men and many other fallacies means you know you don't have a good argument. As for SDA tho, we live 10+ years longer than the average, the longest in America and some experts say the world. They steer me to the Bible which you clearly dislike. Your beef is with the Bible, not SDA. I don't need SDA at all to read what's in the Bible and trust God at his word.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Bad theology, idolatry and false witnessing. Frankly, it is your own salvation that you should be worried about.
lawilson200 8 months ago
THAT is the benefit of taking God seriously and trusting him. We get benefits in THIS life as 1 Timothy “Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come.” It fulfills this promise of God.
“Physical training is good, but training for godliness is much better, promising benefits in this life and in the life to come.” 1 Timothy 4:8
You claim to be a Christian, but don't trust what God says, meaning you are not.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
Comment removed
lawilson200 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Yes indeed, bibliolatry.
lawilson200 8 months ago
No, you are far worse than Fox News (which I can't stand and have OFTEN criticized for it's dishonesty. It is almost as dishonest as atheists & evolutionists who you are right now parroting.) I'm not losing anything...there just comes a point when people are willfully lying and opposing science, that it's obvious no amount of evidence will change their mind. They've decided apriori to oppose the Bible, science, facts and truth and will twist anything and everything to hold on to their dogma.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Yes, this is no longer about God, but insteading transforming scripture into a form of idol wohsip. Your continued protests and outlandish behavior is only digging your hole deeper.
lawilson200 8 months ago
When you deny that something that has confirmations of predictions is science, you are undermining every bit of science that has ever been done in all history. When you slander one of the biggest leaps forward in science (biogenesis), that's childish. When you refuse to believe God at his word, you show you are an atheist, possibly a Christian atheist as a recent book is titled.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Once again you are not scoring any points with these ongoing rants of yours. You are demonstrating what is common among YECs, to advance their bad theology they are more than willing to violate the Second Commandment and the Ninth. Now do you have a specific example to support your case?
lawilson200 8 months ago
Btw, ROK is not prejudiced against truth like you and many people in America are and they are far more objective. My daughter goes to a public school and they have students reading Bible stories as well as from Confucius, Buddha, etc. There are MANY creationists here, including top notch ship builders who verified with science that Noah's ark was ideal for stability. They don't apriori ban religious facts from education hindering knowledge like the US does. And compare crime rates.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Well bully for ROK. Perhaps you should spend more time listening to the teachings of Buddha and Confucius, because the SDA is certainly steering you in the wrong direction.
lawilson200 8 months ago
Age has nothing to do with whether something is true or not. You should know better than to talk such stupidity. Galileo dropped his weights off a tower centuries ago...doesn't matter an iota as to whether it's fact or not. If you knew anything about Wise you would know that fossilized footprints are not at all impossible.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - So then you have no answer. In this case, Wise hypothesis is falsified by your own words. Thanks for playing the game. Next!
lawilson200 8 months ago
It is a bold faced lie that Darwinian levels of evolution is an observed process. The ONLY levels that have EVER been observed are creationist levels published LONG before Darwin. The majority of papers deal ONLY with creationist levels and do a bait and switch fallacy. And by the way...asking hard questions is NOT the way science judges truth. They can point to more areas for research. The weight of evidence IS how we judge truth & creation has that in most areas more than evolution.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 This keeps on getting better. You seem to be willng to say anything to justify your bad theology. Folks I think we have a good candidate for Dimbulb of the week. Now if you produce a video of your own, I will nominate you for the Golden Crocoduck Award.
lawilson200 8 months ago
How obvious something is now has nothing to do with whether it is scientific or not. If it's had confirmations of it's predictions, it has scientific evidence no matter how badly your emotions want to refuse to admit it. Since every form of evolution continues to be falsified every few years and since creation science has so much vindication in areas ranging from biogenesis to junkDNA, the fossil record and more, plus saving billions of lives, it's a crime to deny it research funds.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - This is a sign you are losing the debate. I have noticed today that you are not even bothering to hit the reply button, which will inform me that you have submitted a response. I am okay if you want to debate with yourself.
However, I am not Fox News, Repeating the same lie over and over again, will not convince me of the sincerity of your position. In the real world, evolution is an observed process, supported by more that 400,000 peer review papers. Stop the bull shit!
lawilson200 8 months ago
Wise has produced it and done seminars and papers on it. the only problem is you are dishonest.
I sent you a PM by a Nobel prize winner about how people don't realize and are ignorant of how profound Pasteur's achievements were. You are making the really ignorant mistake of assuming that what is common sense was common sense in the past. It wasn't.
You are violating science left right and center. It's supposed to follow evidence wherever it leads. People like you are preventing that.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - I have noticed that you did not answer my question. If Wise claim is correct, how is it possible for their to be fossilized footprints at Joggins and various other sites with fossilized trees and coal deposits?
Quote mining a 1954 Scientific American Journal will only earn you scorn from me. So you better rethink your strategy.
Frankly, I am still waiting for you to present a valid scientific argument. So far, all I have gotten out of you is propaganda bull shit!
lawilson200 8 months ago
There is worse discrimination against creationists than there was against blacks in economic areas (not physical violence tho). See:
watch?v=Y6rzaM_BxBk
Your heartless insensitivity to this fact is shocking and now you are talking exactly like atheists I have dialogued with as well as lying. It is solely creationist levels of evolution that have been observed (We are NOT appealing to a deity), not Darwinian. Creationist biogenesis is the rival of abiogenesis,
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - I suppose you were directing this towards me, so I will give you a response. In the immortal words of Rex Butler, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a day-um."
You are living in ROK now. How much money does the South Korean government spend on creationist research? Is there any government in the world poring good mney after bad? Creationism main goal is apologetics and evangelism. It is the only reason it exist. You don't need government to fund that.
lawilson200 8 months ago
a form of which Pasteur conclusively debunked, vindicating creation as hard science. You should know Pasteur’s & Borlaug’s work without any references (but I'll PM you a bit on that from an evolutionist to help you understand). Pasteur’s work is one of the most famous experiments ever done in history and Borlaug won the Nobel prize and both worked with aspects of creation science.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 This is just pathjetic. I view Pasteaur work in the regard as a form of a modern day episode of Mythbusters. Except this myth of spontaneous generation dates back to the time of Ancient Greeks. Pasteaur showed what should have been obvious to anyone. Leave your meat exposed to flies, you will get maggots. Cover your meat and the flies cannot have access to lay eggs, Dah! To claim this supports creation in exhilo, or creation science is nothing more that propaganda BS!
lawilson200 8 months ago
You are conflating definitions & parroting atheists. Darwinian levels of evolution have never had evidence like gravity or atomic theory. No one has ever seen even one case of them, not even with bacteria. We ONLY see creationist levels.
If you don't think funding is important, then you shouldn't mind if all funding goes to creation for a while. For 40+ years, billions has been given to evolutionists and NONE to creationists even though we have more scientific in quite a number of areas.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
Your review of Wise shows you either don’t know what counts as evidence in science or don’t know anything about Wise or both. He has observations AND also EXPLAINS more of the data than rival concepts do and it is extremely well done. BOTH of these are pure science and considered real science by scientists the world over, both secular and Christian. It’s also better and more than almost any evolutionist presentation I’ve EVER seen.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 If Wise has somethjing, it is up to him to produce it. Remember though our earlier conversation regarding Occam's Razor. Charles Lyell and William Dawson in 1852, after visitiing the coal depsits and fossil trees of Joggins Cliffs in Nova Scotia, reported they discovered fossilized footprints in the coal seam. A decade earlier, Lyell found the fossilized remains of an amphibian that was examined by Owen. Just how do you get fossil footprints in a floating habitat?
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 FACT. Pasteur did rigorous experiments based on creation science claims of biogenesis. Borlaug did rigorous experiments using creation science levels of speciatin. There is not the slightest particle of truth in your claims about Wise. He DOES have data. He does have modern similar examples. He doesn’t ignore established work. In the very first video he reviews the evolution claims. The majority of published papers on evolution actually deal with creation levels of speciation.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 "Pasteur did rigorous experiments based on creation science claims of biogenesis." And his relates to evolution how? Please provide actual citations. Would you allow students taking your classes to pass off sloppy work?
Okay, if Wise is so wise, where is the published results? There is just one paper that I know of (ICC 2003) and it is poorly crafter paper at best. I am surprised that Gould did not better prepare him on the art of publication. I am all ears.
lawilson200 8 months ago
I’m going to boil this down to 1 question. Were Pasteur and Borlaug doing science and is biogenesis scientific? If so, by THAT ALONE creation science is BY DEFINITION scientific. PERIOD. Btw, it’s a fallacy to compare evolution with the act of creation. They don’t even deal with the same question. Abiogenesis and the act of creation deal with the origin of life. Creation wins because of biogenesis. Creationist speciation (species to family levels) beats UCD (family to kingdom levels).
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Are you telling me there has been no follow-up work since Pasteur and Bortaug? No one to double check on their claims (assuming they made any - I am still waiting on your citation of an actual source). Tell you what, give me a reference and I will look it up.
And where does abiogenesis come into this? You have been told this already, abiogenesis is not a part of evolution and those who are working on abiogenesis must develop their own model. Evolution is an observed process.
lawilson200 8 months ago
If you have been blinded so badly that you can’t admit that Pasteur's, Borlaug's work show that creation is scientific&that Wise has made many good predictions and found solid confirmation as well as his theory having great explanatory power (all of which are BY DEFINITION science), then you are willfully blind and we need to correct your understanding of basic science, philosophy & integrity before talking about the 1000s of other ways creation is fully scientific.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - I am not in a position to comment of Pasteur, you haven't given me a reference yet.
But, I can comment on Wise. His paper is a work of fiction that does not come close to actual natural observations. I suppose this is a problem when your ability to reason become blinded by fiedelity to a bad-theology. He should have started small and worked his way up. Instead, he tried to take on the entire enchilada in a single bite and chocked.
lawilson200 8 months ago
You seem to think that something can only be science if it lines up with your current views. That’s not science. That’s dogma AND an attack on real science that stultifies all progress. Something is scientific when it makes predictions and has confirmations, when it can explain more of the data than its rivals and uses falsifiability, the scientific method, etc. Evolutionists are using outright deceit (refusing to admit that creation has many scientific confirmations),
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Where do my personal views come into play? I think you are projecting from your own dificiencies again. Science is the study of natural processes. Evolution is one of those observed natural processes. Its been studied, tested and yes, used for predictions and confirmations. As theories goes, it is even on stronger ground that Newton's Gravity and Atomic Theory. Creationism does not even come close. As long as you must make appeals to a diety, it's not science.
lawilson200 8 months ago
they refuse to be objective and admit facts, they use intentional propaganda to silence opposition (violating the foundations of science & using govt. money to do it), free thought, cut off funding to creationists who are the ones who built modern science, pioneered its processes, started many of its fields and has many more confirmations and experiments in many areas than evolution does. Many evos are innocent because they are unaware of these facts tho.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Do you want some cheese with your whine?
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 Creation is fully authentic science and you would not even HAVE modern science without creationists. You need to learn history. Watch this seminar just given at the royal society:
tinyurlDOTcomSLASH68s462b
It shows how Creation science helped Christians avoid science stagnating & they laid the foundation for modern science and started most of its fields based on the idea that God was a rational being who created an intelligent and designed planet and universe
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - I am begining to see the problem. You are making the assumption that since there were "Christians" who were also scientists, they must have been promoting creation science. This is a false assumption. Fundamentalism and (in your case) the SDA are relatively modern doctrines with no corollaries to theological view points of the 19th Century. YECism is a modern doctrine as well. The terms creationism or creation science also did not exist. You assumption is a false one.
lawilson200 8 months ago
which could be understood and that using science to understand nature was a way to understand their Creator better and use their talents better for Him.
Pasteur as a hardcore creationist challenged spontaneous generation based on creationist principles. NUMEROUS evolution concepts have been complete falsified and many hoaxes exposed and the current versions are in the process of being falsified because they can't explain universal common descent.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
Norman Borlaug used creationist levels of speciation based on Mendel's work which is within Genesis limits of variation to develop many varieties of wheat, rice, etc. that saved the lives of 1 billion people. Creationist predictions on vestigial organs, junkDNA and others have been proven while evolutionist claims debunked. These are only VERY obvious ways that creation is fully scientific, BOTH DIRECT and INFERENTIAL. Ph.Ds. have MANY more detailed confirmations of creationist predictions.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 See comment above
lawilson200 8 months ago
See Dr. Wise for example and his floating forest theory (my playlist “Creation-evidence for the flood” videos 1-8). He has a Ph.D. in geology and his theory explains more of the evidence than any competing evolution theory.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Good old Wise. Talk about the impracticality. You do realize there is no modern corrollary to what Wise proposed. Wise idea is an example of bad science. He shows no experiments, no data, no modern example to support his claim of vast floating forests and finally, he ignores established work. There is no mystery of how insitu fossil forest developed. There was very good review published in the March 2011 edition the Journal of the Geological Society.
lawilson200 8 months ago
Anyone who says that creation is not science is either deplorably ignorant a flagrant deceiver or both (I hope for the 1st in all cases)
The conduct of evolutionists is what is embarrassing...advocating concepts that make God a liar, lying that creation isn't science when even in biogenesis alone, it has billions of confirmations, and using lies to avoid a fair playing field.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - So far, all you have done is provide a theological argument, based on a very bad theology (I include SDA thrology on this list). Moreover, you are earning my contempt. This current exchange is getting us nowhere. If you claim creationism is based on science, then present your evidence. The two examples you have given so far, represent the poor scholarly research that I have come to expect from a YEC/
lawilson200 8 months ago
If you don’t understand that funding gives you FAR more time and enables far more people to work on developing a scientific field, I am frankly dumbfounded. That position does not have a shreds of rationality to it, nor does it understand the history of how science has developed.
Sorry, but no I don’t have much free time handy. I have family plans and am working on 2 books, 1 showing how Christianity and creation easily beat atheism and evolution as rational concepts
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
using Dr. Thomas Kuhn’s concepts of science (and a video on this as well) and the other in linguistics. I’ve been reading atheist and evolution books for 2 decades already..just finished “Your Inner Fish” and have quite a number of refutations of their dogma I haven’t seen anyone use. I need to organize the vast info I have so it can be shared by many to prove that God is not a liar when he says He created the world at Eden. Maybe I’ll read your recommendations after that tho.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - So far, all you have done is past along mindless nonsense. Are you sure that you are qualied as a teacher?
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 Yes, it is good to leave out bad science from academia and education. That would mean getting rid of evolution and giving creation back it's rightful place...esp. since so many types of evolution have been conclusively falsified and the same pattern keeps repeating:
lamarckism, pangenesis, transmutationism, recapitulation, exogenesis, orthogenesis have all been falsified. The modern synthesis, punctuated equalibrium are also in big trouble...
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - For someone who holds a job teaching, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance of history. This does not mention the modern science itself. Tell you what. I am assuming you now have some free time handyl It is time to hit the books. Start with MJS Rudwick series on the history of geology. Micheal Ruse would also do you some good, But, now you are just wasting my time,
lawilson200 8 months ago
and evolution is EVOLVING yet again to self-reorganization, something almost 100% faith based. So basically we've wasted billions of dollars on fiction propagated by evolution..and much of the hard testable evidence that supports creation and or the fact that it points to creation that has only gotten stronger with time is being kept out.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Care to provide an example. This is really getting quite boring.
lawilson200 8 months ago
I am SURE that you can criticize, probably rightly, some of the articles of creationists, esp. when some are trying to cover numerous fields that they haven't had time to get Ph.Ds. in. They are stretched way way past the limit due to extreme deprivation of funding and the hatred and discrimination of academia against creation science. But, what they have done even so far is nearly miraculous considered the extreme discrimination. You should be helping God's cause, not harming it.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Wow! This is a serious charge. "Extreme discrimination." Yes, it is a good thing we discriminate bad science. A case in point. The people who claimed to have discovered cold fusion, were correctly given the boot and denied further funding from public and private resources. Are you saying this is discrimination? The secret to getting funding is to have a solid reputation and to present a proposal worthy of funding. It discrimination if YECs do not even present a good model.
lawilson200 8 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
Comment removed
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
You know less about ROK than creation science. Their students routinely beat the pants off US students, esp. in science, math, etc.They don't focus much on evolution and DO allow Christian concepts in school (as well as some buddhists). Korea has technology years ahead of America as well as science in some areas. They often win top prizes all around the world. Doctors I teach won the top prize in the world at an intl. ENT conference recently. Ridiculing people falsely is not Christian.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 This is true, My father fought in Korea in 1952, mostly lobbing artillary shells at the Chinease and North Korean forces. A very friend of mine was station in Korea during the 1980's, while serving in the Army and one of my first cars was a Hyundai. But this hardly makes me an export Meanwhile it is sad to see the decline of education standards, so we can give rich people tax breaks. Then again, who needs an education to work for Wal-Mart.
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 Because when the govt. gives BILLIONS to evolutionists, they have LOTS of TIME and 1000s of people to research, figure out answers to hard questions, high tech tools and machines, etc. Give that to creationists and we can find answers that are better than evolutionists and already are in MANY areas even without govt. funding. The playing field is completely lopsided in favor of evolution for solely political and ideological reasons that violate the foundations of science.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - That's not going to happen. Frankly I hate seeing government money wasted, especially when I end up paying for what is essentially a prayer session.
lawilson200 8 months ago
As to republicans, I supported Obama. Republicans promise many things to Christians and seldom deliver anything. At least the Democrats follow some of the human rights and economics ideas of the Bible. But, America was first in the world in science when creationists were in charge. It was creationists like Werhner Von Braun, father of Space Science and director of NASA who sent us to the moon. Evolutionists took over and in a generation look how we've plummeted (there are several reasons).
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 I am keeping in mind that you are employed as a teacher (at a ROK school), but considering this statement, perhaps it is a good thing you are in ROK.
lawilson200 8 months ago
All views have some hard questions, but evolution and esp. atheism have the hardest of all. Creation can explain what you talk about, such as the CRBG (and others too I'm sure). Google:
“Field studies in the Columbia River basalt, Northwest USA” and read some of the evidences there that point to creationist explanations. The basalts reveal rapid extrusion, rapid cooling, and rapid succession of lava flows and there are indications that the lavas were extruded under water.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 Good old Oard, Yes, I read this paper many years ago. He should have stuck with meteorology. His knoweldge on geology is nearly as accurate as his weather forecast. That is to say, sticking your head out of the window will give you better results.
lawilson200 8 months ago
@lawilson200 I'm sorry, but creationists can make predictions and find confirmations just as well as evolutionists can in MANY areas (not all). What SHOULD happen is that we have equal money and time for research and then people with Ph.Ds. in the same field present evidence.When that happens, creation USUALLY wins.
Sir, you are not acting Christian. It is 100% deceit to say that creation science is a prayer session. That is flagrant intentional deceit and you know who the father of lies is.
TruthIsLife7 8 months ago
@TruthIsLife7 - Speaking as a Christian, I am embarrassed by the conduct of creationists and the harm they cause to the Gospel message. Often times I have to end up correcting assumptions some have about people of faith, thanks to the bad conduct of creationists. So I am not going to ease my comments in anyway to satisify you.
As for your constant whine about the absence of funding, I am not interested. Creationism is not even a science, I don't care hjow many PhDs you claim to have.
lawilson200 8 months ago