Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

2 Tenets of Atheism


Gail

Recommended Posts

There are many reasons why it is impossible to believe what you say here. Many of the "fossils" so found are only the size of a dime so that alone kind of casts a shadow of lies over your theory. I am not saying you are a liar, just that this kind of fossil mantra is a lie.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 400
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • cardw

    115

  • John317

    49

  • doug yowell

    42

  • Twilight

    38

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

quote=Overaged]There are many reasons why it is impossible to believe what you say here. Many of the "fossils" so found are only the size of a dime so that alone kind of casts a shadow of lies over your theory. I am not saying you are a liar, just that this kind of fossil mantra is a lie. /quote]

I gave you the article. I wish you would check your facts before answering. The animals there are quite a bit larger than a dime.

Oh; and I am sure some astute evolutionist/atheist counted all "800 billion" too so that we can all be sure of the actual numbers involved.

I actually did read the article and thought it quite laughable that it was on a web site called "religious tolerance" . org when all they do is to work against christianity and the Bible, and other religions that they don't like.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the article is wrong. There are many fossils that are very small. I used to collect them when I was a kid, and I can prove that; but lets get real. Finding an article that says something like this is not proof of anything except that the author is anti-christian. The doctrine of evolution demands a fossil record that supports it's theory of species changes...But no matter what strata you choose to sift through, such a record cannot be found. What has been found is a fossil record that is easily recognized and classified within their own separate families; just as God said in the Bible, "after it's own kind."

Link to post
Share on other sites

cardw,

I came up with the info on Hubble for you. I also came up with a lot of other very interesting info. I'd seen it before, but had forgotten about it. One shows unrefuted scientific evidence for instantaneous formation of granite worldwide that is decades old. No evolutionist has ever been able to scientifically prove it wrong.

There are two videos that, between the two of them, show the evidence about Hubble and the instantaneous formation of granite, although all the videos listed are worth watching if you're interested in science.

http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#cou

The first video is titled California Creation Seminar and contains the evidence left in granite that confirms the account of creation in the Bible.

The second video, Center of the Universe, has the quotes from Hubble's book and is very interesting also. This second video is displayed at a very small size by default. However, you can make it go full screen by right clicking the video itself and choosing full screen. There is some pixelation at full screen size, but it's not so bad that it makes the video unwatchable.

Also, on the home page of the site there is a link to a page that documents suppression of scientific evidence for creation within the scientific community. An unbiased person cannot read all the communication reproduced there and come to any other conclusion. The evidence is overwhelming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravus; you say in your sig that it is "customary" for you to support with evidence. Are you calling this link you supplied to your site "evidence?" I wish I knew what it has to do with the subject at hand. A bunch of personal philosophy is not evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravus; you say in your sig that it is "customary" for you to support with evidence. Are you calling this link you supplied to your site "evidence?" I wish I knew what it has to do with the subject at hand. A bunch of personal philosophy is not evidence.

The point you made about the supposed absence of transitional forms in the fossil record has been refuted probably tens of thousands of times over the past 100 years. That you make it is an argument from ignorance, which was the topic of that blog post.

I'm delighted to provide evidence below. I trust you will read and inwardly digest it, and modify your argument on the basis of the evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I came up with the info on Hubble for you. I also came up with a lot of other very interesting info. I'd seen it before, but had forgotten about it. One shows unrefuted scientific evidence for instantaneous formation of granite worldwide that is decades old. No evolutionist has ever been able to scientifically prove it wrong.

There are two videos that, between the two of them, show the evidence about Hubble and the instantaneous formation of granite, although all the videos listed are worth watching if you're interested in science.

http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#cou

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Gary K
I came up with the info on Hubble for you. I also came up with a lot of other very interesting info. I'd seen it before, but had forgotten about it. One shows unrefuted scientific evidence for instantaneous formation of granite worldwide that is decades old. No evolutionist has ever been able to scientifically prove it wrong.

There are two videos that, between the two of them, show the evidence about Hubble and the instantaneous formation of granite, although all the videos listed are worth watching if you're interested in science.

http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm#cou

This presentation is of the variety that says because science can be wrong, creationism is right. Just because granite cannot be reproduced in the lab doesn't mean that god created it. That is why this is not credible science.

Originally Posted By: Gary K
Also, on the home page of the site there is a link to a page that documents suppression of scientific evidence for creation within the scientific community. An unbiased person cannot read all the communication reproduced there and come to any other conclusion. The evidence is overwhelming.

The evidence is not overwhelming. What I read is that the science is not there. There is no suppression. It's simply not science. And from watching the lectures it is quite apparent that the science is not there.

When I look at the two links I posted and the multiple evidences for evolution and compare them to the meager points of contention presented from the videos you posted I find the arguments for creationism to be severely lacking.

There are only two current theories about the formation of life and the universe. One is creation, the other is evolution. The evidence of the palonium halos found in naturally occurring granite completely undermines uniformitarianism because palonium halos cannot exist in molten granite, nor in slowly cooled granite formation, on which all of evolution hangs its hat to account for time periods so long they are impossible to verify or falsify. Palonium halos, on the other hand, strongly support the Biblical creation account for they prove instantaneous creation of naturally occurring granite.

The other video clearly demonstrates the lengths scientists will go to keep from acknowledging where the evidence leads them. They create untenable theories to try to work around the evidence. Hubble refused to go where the evidence led because the conclusion would be "intolerable". But, then he's no different than you in that respect, cardw. You don't like where the evidence leads so you deny its validity and where it leads you.

Now, because you like specifics so well, tell me exactly what it is that you say is weak about the evidence of palonium halos, as nobody has claimed palonium halos exist in their laboratory produced granite, that isn't really granite. Even if the 7 day creation of granite in the laboratory is possible, where was the refutation by showing palonium halos in it? Don't be shy, give me some specific logic that falsifies what was presented, not vague recriminations about how you personally think it was poor evidence. If you think it was bad evidence show why the evidence is bad.

Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are only two current theories about the formation of life and the universe. One is creation, the other is evolution. The evidence of the palonium halos found in naturally occurring granite completely undermines uniformitarianism because palonium halos cannot exist in molten granite, nor in slowly cooled granite formation, on which all of evolution hangs its hat to account for time periods so long they are impossible to verify or falsify. Palonium halos, on the other hand, strongly support the Biblical creation account for they prove instantaneous creation of naturally occurring granite.

The other video clearly demonstrates the lengths scientists will go to keep from acknowledging where the evidence leads them. They create untenable theories to try to work around the evidence. Hubble refused to go where the evidence led because the conclusion would be "intolerable". But, then he's no different than you in that respect, cardw. You don't like where the evidence leads so you deny its validity and where it leads you.

Now, because you like specifics so well, tell me exactly what it is that you say is weak about the evidence of palonium halos, as nobody has claimed palonium halos exist in their laboratory produced granite, that isn't really granite. Even if the 7 day creation of granite in the laboratory is possible, where was the refutation by showing palonium halos in it? Don't be shy, give me some specific logic that falsifies what was presented, not vague recriminations about how you personally think it was poor evidence. If you think it was bad evidence show why the evidence is bad.

Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

Gary K, isn't this something that Gentry has been working on? I know him and his son have been working with Halo's of some kind. He has a book called "Creations Tiny Miracles", I believe that's the name of the book. He also has some video's out about the same Halo's. Some really interesting stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Bravus
1. *cough*polonium*cough*

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

LOL. No evidence anywhere, just the claims that they have refuted Gentry's work. Real convincing.

Actually this is quite convincing. It is FAR more thorough and expands its questioning to look at the full spectrum of evidence.

Particularly damning is the fact that some of the samples used by Robert Gentry had fossils below them in the geological column.

Where is Robert Gentry's rebuttal to these questions? Real science works on the principle of answering all the problems. Many of these problems are deal breakers.

And I would note that you don't address the article in any scientific way, but choose to simply discount it because it may be too hard to refute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Bravus
1. *cough*polonium*cough*

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

LOL. No evidence anywhere, just the claims that they have refuted Gentry's work. Real convincing.

Did you actually follow the links on that page and read the articles? (given the size of the articles and the time between our posts my guess is 'No') Or is your conclusion based solely on the one-paragraph précis of each article on that page? Pretty hard to accept your 'no evidence' claim in the face of the actual articles.

You raised the issue of polonium halos and specifically asked for refutations. But when they're offered you reject them out of hand rather than address the issues. That does not constitute an evidence-based discussion...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

Since DVDs or video tapes are possible, some just won't believe in the I AM until they see them. I'm not sure how God will handle this kind of unbelief, but here's how He handled one man's unbelief.

"So the other disciples kept telling him, We have seen the Lord! But he said to them, Unless I see in His hands the marks made by the nails and put my finger into the nail prints, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe [it]."John 20:25 AMP

"Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”"John 20:29 NKJV

Only God can read the heart. If one will believe if just the right evidence is provided, God will meet the need, if that is a facet of Truth available, as He has a deeper love for the individual who refuses to believe than we can possibly fathom.

OTOH, if one is denying the Truth as a means to avoid submission for the sake of keeping their own sovereignty, God knows how to deal with that also.

"To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD Himself is God; there is none other besides Him."Deuteronomy 4:35 NKJV

"Tell and bring forth your case;Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me."Isaiah 45:21 NKJV

The fact that an enemy has made it difficult to see God as a result of the tares sown in our own heart, gives God great latitude to bring an honest skeptic to the foot of the cross.

"So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’

He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him,

‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’

But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”"Matthew 13:27-31 NKJV

Seems best to me to make sure one is measured with the wheat before the harvest, for if that proves not to be the case, at the time of the harvest it will be too late to change sides.

God blesses! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be some truth in it... but for most of my atheist friends it's a bit more nuanced than that. They really believe there's no God, but they hate the effect that other people believing in God has in the world. So they hate 'God', the concept, not God the real being.

Thanks for explaining that, Bravus. Are you explaining that from personal experience or as many do, just telling what you've surmised?

And BTW, how many atheist people would be safer if everyone would take seriously God's advice, Thou shall not murder? The hatred of God goes far deeper than meets the eye.

God blesses! peace

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and what I specifically said there was overwhelming evidence for was the suppression of ideas that refute evolution and make the argument for creation stronger. I love how you create straw man arguments by twisting what I say completely out of context.

I really did expect better of you.

I WAS saying there isn't overwhelming evidence for suppression. What he is calling suppression is nonsense. His position is presented so incompletely that it is a waste of time to even consider it further. Until he has further evidence there is no point.

The link that Bravus gave so completely negates his position that any further discussion is not necessary. That is not suppression. It's lack of evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And BTW, how many atheist people would be safer if everyone would take seriously God's advice, Thou shall not murder? The hatred of God goes far deeper than meets the eye.

God blesses! peace

This is why atheists hate the concept of god because Christians make statements like this.

It basically states that an atheist can't figure out that murder is bad without believing in god. Or that people need a Bible to tell them that murder is a bad idea.

When our leaders use this type of thinking to make foreign policy or declare that global warming isn't going to happen because god put a bow in the clouds or rationalize the continued pollution of the planet because god is going to destroy it anyways, religion becomes a blight to society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When our leaders use this type of thinking to make foreign policy or declare that global warming isn't going to happen because god put a bow in the clouds or rationalize the continued pollution of the planet because god is going to destroy it anyways, religion becomes a blight to society.

Atheism is a religion. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist
Link to post
Share on other sites

The link that Bravus gave so completely negates his position that any further discussion is not necessary. That is not suppression. It's lack of evidence.

Those links Bravus supplied actually do not contain over-whelming evidence; they contain mostly claims that are staunchly insisted upon - but far from evidence based.
Link to post
Share on other sites

quote=Gary K]quote=Bravus]1. *cough*polonium*cough*

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/ /quote]

LOL. No evidence anywhere, just the claims that they have refuted Gentry's work. Real convincing. /quote]

Did you actually follow the links on that page and read the articles? (given the size of the articles and the time between our posts my guess is 'No') Or is your conclusion based solely on the one-paragraph précis of each article on that page? Pretty hard to accept your 'no evidence' claim in the face of the actual articles.

You raised the issue of polonium halos and specifically asked for refutations. But when they're offered you reject them out of hand rather than address the issues. That does not constitute an evidence-based discussion...

Well; save that "cough" for later, because you will need it. There are dozens of links on this site, and I would be suprised if you have read all them yourself. But even if you say you did, responding in an "evidence based discussion" with a bunch of links that would take weeks to read, is not an evidence-based approach.

Oh; and excuse me please!

I forgot, this guy is my Father, somewhere down the road...How could I have missed that!!

post-4001-140967446392_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final comment I'm not even going to dignify with a response.

The page I linked contains 4 links, 5 if you count the one to the Royal Chemical Society's description of polonium. One of those links is to Gentry's own page, and you seemed to be claiming to already be familiar with his work. One was to an academic paper on Gentry's work, and two were to articles addressing that work.

You have made a lot of noise about it, but haven't looked in detail at even one of the numerous scientific problems with Gentry's work outlined in those articles.

Do you want to talk evidence? Then by all means please go ahead and do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...