re: Will Howard and Jack Sawyer giving all the glory Jesus Christ

quote:

---

With all due respect, science has never supported the world view of evolution. Science requires observation in order to understand the context of whatever it is you're studying. And since no one was around to witness millions and billions of years of history, the only way to interpret millions of years into any dating method is to assume that something is that old. You cannot prove it.

---

1. Nothing can be proven in science if claims can be countered with limitless miracles that defy the natural world as we know it. If assertions similar to those of creationists were acceptable across all sciences, then there would be no science.

Can we prove that the god of an ancient religion did not appear and physically tear the continents apart in a fit of rage. Where do we draw the line?

2. I said nothing about proving anything. I said, "Conventional science would say that this is quite wrong," and it does. There's plenty of evidence supporting an ancient Earth and that life has changed considerably over time.

If "proof" requires eliminating any supernatural counters, then there is no such thing as proof.

big shots at the catholic church if true

quote:

---

Oh yeah yall just pray to Mary.

---

0-2.

Let everyone keep seeing your ignorance.

Go read John Chapter 6 then we can talk.

quote:

---

1. Nothing can be proven in science if claims can be countered with limitless miracles that defy the natural world as we know it. If assertions similar to those of creationists were acceptable across all sciences, then there would be no science.

---

It's interesting that you have a problem with miracles, when evolution requires people to believe in things that are scientifically impossible. There has never been proof provided for evolution. And there is certainly no way that science can explain life forming from nothing. Everything must have a beginning. How does nothing turn into something, and then create a vast universe, living creatures with mind blowing complexity at the most microscopic levels? Have you ever witnessed this? No, you have not, and neither has anyone else. It would seem that we both agree that something miraculous happened, since science can't actually support your theory. Science, once again, requires observation. You conveniently ignore that, and go straight for the "you can't just explain everything with miracles" argument. Science can be used to confirm things that we already know, or to learn about things in the present. If you want to know about the past, you have to have a starting point by which science could help you verify it.

quote:

---

Can we prove that the god of an ancient religion did not appear and physically tear the continents apart in a fit of rage. Where do we draw the line?

---

You don't have to prove that. There is only one God, and the Bible tells us what God did. I'm not asking you to prove God to me. I see the proof of God in my very own existence. I don't point to creation and assign credit to random chance. But you do, it would seem. So where is your proof?

quote:

---

2. I said nothing about proving anything. I said, "Conventional science would say that this is quite wrong," and it does. There's plenty of evidence supporting an ancient Earth and that life has changed considerably over time.

---

Ah, you said nothing about proving anything. So you're telling me on one hand that science tells me I'm wrong, but then you're saying you aren't talking about proving anything. Either science has the proof, or it does not. I already went over just a tiny fraction of the problems with what you call science, and how it is used. See, I believe in science, too. There is something called the "scientific method". And as I have already explained, the scientific method requires, among other things, that you be able to observe processes in order to study them. You cannot look at something that you say has been dead for millions of years and simply apply your own opinion of its history. That's a theory, but it scientifically unfalsifiable.

What does science tell us? Well, we know that fossils are created through things dying and being rapidly buried in order to preserve them from decaying to dust. We have observed that in real time. That is consistent with a world wide flood, and the fact that we find fossils very high up on mountains, as well as down low. Evolutionists need time... lots of time to explain everything. They tell us these rock layers, with fossils in every one of them, were formed over millions of years. Well there's an obvious problem with that: How did the dead things become fossilized if they were buried slowly over a very long period of time? And why do we see evidence of certain creatures who supposedly evolved into something else, being found in multiple layers with the same creatures they supposedly evolved into?

quote:

---

If "proof" requires eliminating any supernatural counters, then there is no such thing as proof.

---

Did I ask you to eliminate the supernatural? You already know that I believe in God, and you know how that shapes my perspective, just as I know what you believe and how it shapes yours. So I'm not asking you to do anything but tell me how science proves, or even supports, what you say it does. And if you don't think it's proof that you need to provide, then why did you tell me that science tells me I'm wrong?

Scientists say lots of things that are wrong, because they have an agenda. We've seen it time and again with "climate change", the "pandemic" and so on. So I'm not really interested in whatever you call "conventional" science. I'm interested in the real scientific method. The kind that doesn't need to lie in order to fill in the blanks.

quote:

---

It's interesting that you have a problem with miracles, when evolution requires people to believe in things that are scientifically impossible. There has never been proof provided for evolution. turn into something, and then create a vast universe, living creatures with mind blowing complexity at the most microscopic levels? Have you ever witnessed this?

---

You’re going further than necessary in response to my original point.

You said, “ But God didn't bring sin and death into the world... we did.”

“And since Genesis very clearly states that there was no death in the world, until Adam and Eve sinned, it is not consistent to say that first came death, and then the fall, followed by death. How can death follow the fall if it already existed?””

It isn’t necessary to debate the entire scope of evolution to counter your point. In fact, many (perhaps most) creationists disagree with your position that there was no death in this world until humans committed what you call sin.

Considering that over 99% of all species known to exist are currently extinct and that many such species were well equipped to kill it seems quite silly that T-Rex, Polar Bears, Megalodons, Lions, etc., just kind of hung out together with lambs, seals, cows, etc. until a couple of humans sinned and the predators were suddenly endowed with hunger and instincts. It must have been quite a sight to see every apex predator in the history of life on Earth suddenly square off in the same ecosystems - and I guess within the last 10,000 years or so. And that mammals apparently somehow got the upper hand on dinosaurs and drove them to extinction before the pyramids were even built.

I can understand people criticizing evolution, abiogenesis, etc. But nothing on this planet died until humans sinned? That’s a whole different level with many absurd aspects that have nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

Furthermore, it isn't at all true to say that most creationists disagree with my position that there was no death before sin. There are those who call themselves Christians who subscribe to evolutionary theory, yes.

---

You keep going on and on about evolution. Evolution isn’t the issue here. It is your belief that there was no death before humans were around to commit sin. A progressive form of creationism (which many theists subscribe to) would conflict with your beliefs as well.

quote:

---

Firstly, many, if not all, of what people call "species" are just variations of the same kind. There are lots of different dogs and cats, but they are all still dogs and cats. There are lots of birds, but they are still birds. And on it goes. So the "99%" is rather misleading to start with.

---

What species today resemble T-Rex and Brachiosaurus? What caused their demise? The world was created 10,000 years ago (I guess that’s what you believe) and these incredible animals died off in no time?

quote:

---

But what makes you think animals wouldn't have been hungry if they weren't eating each other? I don't think it takes a shelf full of degrees to see that a world without death would have meant that all living things were herbivores.

---

So T-Rex, with its knife-like teeth, was created by God as a herbivore. Great White Sharks were herbivores too? What about parasitic species like ticks and mosquitos?

quote:

---

When sin entered the world, the curse of death came upon all living things, and included in that death were the changing diets, where meat was now consumed. You forget that God gave animals their instincts. Arguing the biblical account by using secular assumptions is not a good faith representation of my view. You have the free will to believe what you will, but in order to understand the biblical view, you can't do so by assuming that animal instincts are the same now as they were before the fall. That isn't what the Bible teaches.

---

It would take more than a sudden change in instinct, as if that weren’t ridiculous enough. The animals would require major physiological changes, as well habitat changes.

But what I want to know is, what happened to T-Rex? He’s thriving as a “herbivore” in a pre-fall world with a body that’s built to kill. Adam and Eve mess things up - and now it’s his time to shine and put those razor teeth to proper use. (Why was he even “designed” with them in the first place?) And then, bam, he pretty much dies right out of the gate. Once the battle royale started, some of the most formidable animals in history died off in no time.

What happened to them? There’s not a species on Earth today that can challenge an African Bush Elephant, much less a Brachiosaurus. Was he poorly equipped for a post-fall world? Why? Could Noah simply not get him on the Ark and he drowned?

What happened to all of these animals?

quote:

---

The flood killed all land animals except for those spared on the ark, and it is quite possible that environmental changes following that period

---

Really? Environmental changes following a global flood. Yeah, I can believe that.

… if it had happened.

quote:

---

I already explained that evolution isn't consistent with biblical creation. That was the point. That was the point. It wasn't offered as a scientific argument, but a theological one.

---

I agree with you theologically.

In my opinion, Christianity fails in one of two points: You either support a literal fall that is theologically sound but scientifically absurd - or you support a position that is at least more scientifically valid but makes no sense theologically.

quote:

---

I've addressed the science that supports a designer, and how science does not support evolution,

---

You’re free to believe this and all the supernatural miracles you want to explain whatever you want. I can’t counter a sack full of miracles with reality-based logic and evidence - not in this discussion or any other. That is futile.

But as long as beliefs like yours stay in churches where they belong, I am good.

Peace.

I believe I've addressed every single one of these points in this post, as you're simply repeating questions, with different phrasing. Being "formidable" is not even something that most evolutionists would argue has anything to do with their ability to survive. I went over that. Why was the T-Rex designed with those sharp teeth? Already answered that. Just because something has sharp teeth, does not mean that those teeth are for eating meat, alone. Or do you deny that there are currently sharp teeth animals who are herbivores?

You keep saying "in no time" as if thousands of years is a short time. I guess when you've been taught to believe in billions of years, it's easy to lose perspective on how much time a few thousand years is. But, again, the physical strength and grandeur of any living thing does not make it impervious to catastrophic circumstances.

You asked me what happened to them, and were they poorly equipped for a post-fall world. I said in a previous post, and now in this one, that it was the post-flood environment, most likely. Given that I've already spoken of this before this post, I'm not certain as to why you're asking me what happened to them, and if any drowned.

And since we know that they are dead, regardless, why is it difficult to believe that they could die? Is it just the amount of time that you are confused about? As I've asked earlier, how much time is enough time? A world-wide flood is a catastrophic event that would bring massive changes, including an ice age (yes, we believe in an ice age, just not multiple ice ages). Such an occurrence would not require a great deal of time to cause mass death and, indeed, eventual extinction.

quote:

---

Really? Environmental changes following a global flood. Yeah, I can believe that.

… if it had happened.

---

There is a tremendous amount of geological evidence supporting such an event, to such an extent that even some evolutionists have conceded that a catastrophic flood must have happened (as opposed to the very slow processes that they have long hypothesized); though they attempt to explain away a global flood by suggesting it was a series of catastrophic but local floods. And the local floods hypothesis is not credible, as it would require water to defy gravity in order to leave the kind of evidence we see all over the world. It would be like filling a fish tank with no sides, and yet the water somehow rises without spilling over. You might have more questions about that, and if so, I'd be happy to leave you a link to a video that presents this evidence in great detail. It's too much for me to cover here in this already lengthy reply.

quote:

---

I agree with you theologically.

In my opinion, Christianity fails in one of two points: You either support a literal fall that is theologically sound but scientifically absurd - or you support a position that is at least more scientifically valid but makes no sense theologically.

---

How does one make sense of science, itself, if he does not know where he comes from? Without God, science has no meaning. Science helps us understand what we see around us. It doesn't have to point to the face of God and paint a portrait of our Creator. What science does, is it continuously shows us that where there is order, there is design, and where there is no design, there is disorder. It has not, and cannot demonstrate order from chaos, no matter how many years you give it. It is scientifically absurd to claim order from random chaos, and to claim to understand billions of years of unobserved processes. There is nothing scientific about guessing. And I know you will say that there is "lots of evidence". But where is it? I see endless hypotheses, none of which ever stand up. I see fake "missing links" bringing shame to mainstream "science". I see the age old trick of circular reasoning, where we are presented with a fossil that is "millions of years old" because it was found in a rock that is "millions of years old", which they know to be millions of years old, because it contained a fossil that is millions of years old.

Have you heard of the time a man tested a rock that had just been formed, I believe, about ten years earlier by the eruption of Mount St Helens, using typical radiometric dating methods? This was a rock with a known date of formation, something we could actually observe to see how reliable these dating methods are. It came back with dates from a few hundred thousand, to as much as 2 million years old. How did evolutionists respond to this? Naturally, they suggested that the sample may have been contaminated. Well isn't that interesting? A contaminated sample? I wonder if rocks that are "millions" or "billions" of years old, which no one was there to see how and when they formed, are contaminated? Here's a rock that actually has a known history, and they question whether it is possible to accurately date it, yet they are confident that they can trust the dates of their unobserved billions of years old rock? No contamination? Unless the reading doesn't fit with their predetermined acceptable age, right? Maybe all samples are contaminated, or maybe, just maybe, it wasn't contaminated and the dating methods are wholly unreliable. No one seems to care, either way, unless their conclusions aren't validated. If they didn't know that rock was 10 years old, would they have said anything?

Does that sound like science? Does that sound like honesty? They debunked themselves when they questioned the results of that test. But, happily along they go, continuing to push their agenda, with the same faulty methods. Another claim you'll hear about that incident is that "well, radiometric dating isn't meant to measure young ages, they're designed to measure decay in really old rocks". Isn't that convenient? The samples you can observe aren't testable, but the one's that are supposedly really old, can give "accurate" readings? I sense a pattern. Do you? How do they know that the readings for the old rocks are more accurate, if they didn't see when they were formed, and have to guess the approximate age? The scientific method requires that you be able to test for accuracy, which also requires that you have a known starting point for multiple items of which you are testing, in order to have any sort of confirmation that your methods are accurate. Without that, you're just slapping on whatever age is convenient to you.

There is no contradiction between science and the Bible. There is a contradiction between naturalism and the Bible. Which is why I part from the subset of Christianity that has accepted the baseless terms of naturalism, and attempted to marry it with Biblical creation.

quote:

---

You’re free to believe this and all the supernatural miracles you want to explain whatever you want. I can’t counter a sack full of miracles with reality-based logic and evidence - not in this discussion or any other. That is futile.

---

Well, my friend, if you had a sack full of evidence, I just might be inclined to believe you. But since your responses have consisted almost entirely of questions, and a few claims, but no evidence, and, with all due respect, a lack of logic, I find this comment to be a bit hypocritical. You're asking me to take seriously that which you are unable to support, while I have made considerable effort to show you the science and logic behind creationism, while making no attempt to hide my faith. I have engaged you with physical evidence, and demonstrated some of the numerous fallacies with the theory you hold to, from a scientific as well as theological perspective.

In closing, I believe that God, Himself, is the basis of logic, and that when we attempt to explain away this universe without Him, our logic falls apart.

Peace to you, as well. And God bless you.

I guess that is supposed to be a contradiction?

If you had evidence to make a case, that was logical, it would contradict my position, and cause me to reconsider what I believe. My statement that logic falls apart when we exclude God is one that is continually validated by the complete lack of coherence provided by opposing viewpoints.