Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 91 to 100 of 100
  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,321
    Quote Originally Posted by luke1978 View Post
    They are nothing more then big crocodiles :-)
    Hello Luke

    Also, I heard a few months ago a news item that was tacked on to the end of the news in the way that scientific research is usually announced unless it is is of major importance like the claim to have now discovered the Higgs partcle a few days ago. Usually, scientific announements on the news has the alterior motive behind it of getting funding to keep research going.

    The particular news item I heard was to say that scientist now think dinosaurs were not as large as originally thought. What the heck, does this mean that all those textbooks depiciting large dinosaurs could be wrong? Yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting. Believing scientists is like building a house on shifting sand. Surely scientists should not be changing their mind about the size of dinosaurs. Even some creationists believe dinosaurs existed at the same time as man and have reasons why the dinosaurs grew to the large sizes that evolutionists were claiming them to be and which if we are to believe the skeletons that have been found and reconstructed, show that some, if not all, dinosaurs were very large.

    All the best,

    David

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Brisbane - Australia
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Luke

    Also, I heard a few months ago a news item that was tacked on to the end of the news in the way that scientific research is usually announced unless it is is of major importance like the claim to have now discovered the Higgs partcle a few days ago. Usually, scientific announements on the news has the alterior motive behind it of getting funding to keep research going.

    The particular news item I heard was to say that scientist now think dinosaurs were not as large as originally thought. What the heck, does this mean that all those textbooks depiciting large dinosaurs could be wrong? Yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting. Believing scientists is like building a house on shifting sand. Surely scientists should not be changing their mind about the size of dinosaurs. Even some creationists believe dinosaurs existed at the same time as man and have reasons why the dinosaurs grew to the large sizes that evolutionists were claiming them to be and which if we are to believe the skeletons that have been found and reconstructed, show that some, if not all, dinosaurs were very large.

    All the best,

    David
    Hi David,

    The "God of the gaps" just gets bigger every year! - Oneday they may realise there actually is a God at the pace these gaps are growing.

    One guy made artificial DNA and re-programmed a cell. What was interesting is it showed that cell is definitely programmed and did not evolve. It is some guy who is trying to copyright the human genome. Change the DNA and the behaviour of the cell changes. Not much different to Richard making adjustments to this website. This website is less complex then even one cell.

    Even a fly is more complex then an Airbus A380. If evolution was true it would not bother me anyway as it would have to be a guided process with a programmer behind it anyway. I see the creation process in Genesis as spiritual as well as the flood so it would not conflict with my faith. However I just don't believe it. Neither did Einstein and I doubt Darwin would if he were alive today!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,321
    Hello Richard

    Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Show me that scientists really have a developed theory that says "matter cannot create information."
    I don't think you have to have a theory to prove something which is observable. Mathematics provides much of the backbone to science. Mathematics is a form of modelling by which we understand science. For example, we can observe a triangle and devise mathematical formulae by which to define that shape. We have Pythagoras's theorem for a right-angled triangle which states; "the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the opposite two sides". Pythagoras's theorem is not proof for a triangle per se to exist..

    It is observable that is it easier to destroy something than it is to create or make the same thing. We can spend hours, days, months building something to have it destroyed by fire in a few minutes. It is easier to attempt to disprove other people's understanding by saying; "prove it" than to make one's own proof for the way they understand things.

    Does man/science belive anything is impossible? Or is it that man thinks everything and anything is possible? Creationists might equally say; "all things are possible for God", but I cannot prove that and I doubt God does things which is are not expedient. I do not know what the limits of God are, and therefore I cannot say what is impossible for God to make or do. There are things that it is impossible for God to be; as defined by His nature. It is impossible for God to be man, when God is Spirit and man is made of flesh and blood.

    So scientists are saying Evolution from no life to all life is possible without intelligence and this is as much theory as what Evolutionists say about Creation.

    Let's take a simple example of what might be impossible and does not need a proof other than what is observable and now we can say this is science. Without cheating by any other means or alteration of the objects, try balancing one perfectly spherical object like a billiard ball or a steel ball-bearing on top of each other. Please Richard, try this and tell us how long it takes you to do get one steel ball standing on top of another steel ball.. This simple operation should be possible according to scientists. If you manage to balance one steel ball on top of another, try balancing another steel ball on top of those. You should now have three steel balls standing vertically. How long will it be before you and scientists say; "this is impossible"? Why should it be thought that creating a DNA molecule with a base-pair sequence in excess of 200 milion base pairs of which each base is a complex molecule, should be considered possible by evolution. Surely from observation we can say, like the balancing of three steel balls vertically, this is impossible.

    Why should scientist think evolution from non-living molecules to all living molecules is possible.. Scientists only think it is possible because it has already been done by God whom they do not recognize so there is no alternative but to come up with a theory. There is no experimental proof put forward for spontaneous life to have formed. This is exactly what God has revealed about man, in that man is acting as if he was God (not being able to do what God has done) and yet denies the power of God. Man has not proven by experiment that he is capable of producing the simplest of all the basic building blocks necessary for life. All it shows is blind faith in his own abilities and arroagance and lack of humility before the Creator.

    Before Evolution is proved, man must be able to demonstrate without any doubt that life can form spontaneously from non-life compounds. Merely finding similarities through a line of descendancy which is no more than similarities in the DNA molecules is not proof at all. Inherited DNA is not proof for spontaneous creation of DNA. And while DNA is a very good tool for showing relationships and descendancy, this is not proof for the spontaneous genesis of life or common descendancy back to animals. It is not surprising that the RNA found in a bacteria cell has similarities of the RNA in a human cell. These similarities are not evidence of commonm descendany by evolution, it only shows that God used common building blocks from which to produce more complex molecules.

    Please do not let my comments here stop us from pursuing the evidence we are seeking in the thread 'The Simplest Cell' to prove that it is possible to produce the simplest component found in a bacteria cell and proving one stage in the process of evolution.

    All the best,

    David
    Last edited by David M; 07-07-2012 at 06:01 AM.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,893
    Quote Originally Posted by luke1978 View Post
    Evolution cannot be proved and neither can the age of the dinosaurs...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UISt...eature=related

    and this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm0o5cBWGRE

    and last of all:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F05Cn...feature=fvwrel

    They are nothing more then big crocodiles :-)
    The proper response to a refutation of a false argument is not to present more false arguments!

    You need to deal with the evidence that creationism if fundamentally false and anti-scientific.

    As for the "soft tissue" argument - the scientist who made that discovery totally disagrees with the creationists who have "hijacked" her legitimate research and perverted it for their own nefarious ends. Note that she describes herself a "complete and total Christian". Note also that she says the dinosaur she found with "soft tissue" is about 68 million years old. Here's the article:

    Quote Originally Posted by Smithsonian
    After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

    It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

    Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

    Read the rest of the article if you want to understand the science. If you rely on creationists sources, you will be deceived and misinformed.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,893
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Hello Luke

    Also, I heard a few months ago a news item that was tacked on to the end of the news in the way that scientific research is usually announced unless it is is of major importance like the claim to have now discovered the Higgs partcle a few days ago. Usually, scientific announements on the news has the alterior motive behind it of getting funding to keep research going.

    The particular news item I heard was to say that scientist now think dinosaurs were not as large as originally thought. What the heck, does this mean that all those textbooks depiciting large dinosaurs could be wrong? Yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting. Believing scientists is like building a house on shifting sand. Surely scientists should not be changing their mind about the size of dinosaurs. Even some creationists believe dinosaurs existed at the same time as man and have reasons why the dinosaurs grew to the large sizes that evolutionists were claiming them to be and which if we are to believe the skeletons that have been found and reconstructed, show that some, if not all, dinosaurs were very large.

    All the best,

    David
    Good morning David,

    I applaud your skeptical view of science! I just wish that you were consistent in your skepticism since it is the only path to reality. We must test all assertions in light of evidence. Without evidence we have only opinion. If you applied the same skeptical view to the Bible you would quickly find that many of your beliefs have no foundation in fact.

    I found the article about the "size" of the dinosaurs. The idea was not that they were smaller in stature, but simply more slender. The error arose from a statistical model they used to estimate the body mass of very large animals based on their bone structure (which is all the scientists had to work with). When they tested their equation on living animals, they found it worked very well for smaller animals but began to diverge for larger animals. Here's a snippet of the article from Science Daily:

    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceDaily
    ScienceDaily (June 21, 2009) — The largest animals ever to have walked the face of the earth may not have been as big as previously thought, reveals a paper published June 21 in the Zoological Society of London’s Journal of Zoology.

    Scientists have discovered that the original statistical model used to calculate dinosaur mass is flawed, suggesting dinosaurs have been oversized.

    Widely cited estimates for the mass of Apatosaurus louisae, one of the largest of the dinosaurs, may be double that of its actual mass (38 tonnes vs. 18 tonnes).

    "Paleontologists have for 25 years used a published statistical model to estimate body weight of giant dinosaurs and other extraordinarily large animals in extinct lineages. By re-examining data in the original reference sample, we show that the statistical model is seriously flawed and that the giant dinosaurs probably were only about half as heavy as is generally believed" says Gary Packard from Colorado State University.

    "The original equation used by scientists produces fairly accurate results when determining the mass of smaller animals, but when used on larger animals our research shows that many errors have occurred," says Geoffrey Birchard, associate professor of environmental science and policy at George Mason University who was involved with the research. "The new equation shows that dinosaurs are much smaller than we thought, but there is no mistaking that they were indeed huge animals."
    Your assertion that this error, which the scientists themselves have corrected, is an example of "Yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting" is a totally unfounded, unjust, and just plain wrong. And worse, you made that accusation without even checking the facts. This shows a strong bias that is distorting your thinking.

    Your assertion that "scientists should not be changing their mind about the size of dinosaurs" indicates a total failure to understand how science works. We all begin in ignorance. There was a time when no one even knew dinosaurs existed, and you expect them to get everything right before the even have the evidence?

    Scientists do their best to find theories to explain facts. And scientists constantly test and challenge the results of other scientists to ensure accuracy. Their theories are tested in light of the facts, and when they find an error they correct it. Are you saying they should not correct their errors? Or are you saying they should never make an error? What kind of thinking is that? Don't you know anything about the history of science? We started out with essentially no scientific knowledge at all. The history of science is the history of correcting false ideas about the world.

    This is the fundamental error of the creationists appeal to science. They pick and choose bits and pieces that they think support their dogmas, and then ignore or reject the entire edifice of science upon which those results stand! It is fundamentally inconsistent, illogical, and almost always leads to false results that are used to support false religious dogmas. That's why creationism is truly an intellectual and scientific travesty.

    But I'm very glad we can discuss these things and I hope the conversation continues since it gives me the opportunity to present the facts to correct the creationist errors.

    And this brings me back to your criticism of the scientific habit of correcting errors. Creationists make many more errors than real scientists, but they rarely if ever correct themselves. Is that why you don't criticize them? You think it is a virtue to continue in error and never correct yourself?

    All the best my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,160
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post

    Why should scientist think evolution from non-living molecules to all living molecules is possible.. Scientists only think it is possible because it has already been done by God whom they do not recognize so there is no alternative but to come up with a theory. There is no experimental proof put forward for spontaneous life to have formed. This is exactly what God has revealed about man, in that man is acting as if he was God (not being able to do what God has done) and yet denies the power of God. Man has not proven by experiment that he is capable of producing the simplest of all the basic building blocks necessary for life. All it shows is blind faith in his own abilities and arroagance and lack of humility before the Creator.


    All the best,

    David
    Good morning David,

    Science is the process of discovery! If you truly believe that God created everything, then what is wrong with man discovering how he did it if that is possible? Whether or not God exists, should make no difference in the laws of the universe and how organisms evolved or were created. The motive of the scientist is not to disprove God, but rather to understand the world we live in.

    Facts are facts, theories that don't hold up "fail" simple as that! It is not the scientist that has blind faith, or is arrogant, but rather the dogmatic believer who refuses to see truth, claiming that the world must be created the way the Bible says, no matter what evidence shows to the contrary. Discover-ability seems to be an aspect of the universe, so all the scientist is doing is observing how things work by experimentation. If a "God" is the master-mind behind everything there is no way that puny little man is going to prove otherwise, so let's just sit back and enjoy the ride...

    Take care,
    Rose
    Never trust anything you are afraid to question ~

    To know oneself is to know the universe...


    Live Fully...Love Extravagantly...For the sake of Goodness

    Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. Matt.10:16

    Come let us reason together...Isa.1:18
    ********************************
    My new Blog site: God and Butterfly

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,893
    Quote Originally Posted by luke1978 View Post
    Neither did Einstein and I doubt Darwin would if he were alive today!
    Hey there Luke,

    Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is the bedrock of the scientific conclusion that the universe is 13.75 billion years old.

    So are you saying he was wrong about cosmology but right about evolution? That wouldn't make any sense. He wasn't even a biologist, and if his cosmology is wrong then maybe he wasn't so smart after all.

    You are exemplifying the problem with creationism. It is absurd to quote Einstein as if his opinion on evolution meant anything.

    Oh wait ... you didn't even bother quoting him! Oops. You just made a baseless assertion. What makes you think Einstein didn't agree with the theory of evolution? Do you have any proof at all? And why would it matter if he didn't?

    Here are some quotes about what Einstein thought of your religion and your god (source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein).
    The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. … For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them. ~ Gutkind Letter (3 January 1954)
    And here is a refutation to the oft repeated lie that Einstein believed in a personal God:
    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Letter to an atheist (1954) as quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side (1981) edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman
    Your appeal to Einstein not only fails, but fails in the most ridiculous way since he directly contradicts your most cherished beliefs.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,321
    Hello Richard

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Good morning David,
    I found the article about the "size" of the dinosaurs. The idea was not that they were smaller in stature, but simply more slender. The error arose from a statistical model they used to estimate the body mass of very large animals based on their bone structure (which is all the scientists had to work with). When they tested their equation on living animals, they found it worked very well for smaller animals but began to diverge for larger animals. Here's a snippet of the article from Science Daily:
    Well done for finding an article giving more detail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your assertion that this error, which the scientists themselves have corrected, is an example of "Yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting" is a totally unfounded, unjust, and just plain wrong. And worse, you made that accusation without even checking the facts. This shows a strong bias that is distorting your thinking. Your assertion that "scientists should not be changing their mind about the size of dinosaurs" indicates a total failure to understand how science works. We all begin in ignorance. There was a time when no one even knew dinosaurs existed, and you expect them to get everything right before the even have the evidence?
    All you are doing is confirming that scientists have changed the formula they used to calculate the mass of the large dinosaurs. Facts that were once presented as rock solid evidence by science in the texts books has changed. It is good of science to change the results which have been shown to be in error, but when you are so adamant about the timescales etc in Evolution, I have a reason to be slightly skeptical when science proves the results are not always as true as they make out in the first place. Someone will have have to tell Stephen Spielberg that the dinosaurs he has created on screen are too wide. Do you think he will do a remake of his movies to correct the facts or will the wrong images of dinosaurs continue to be accepted by yound impressionable minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Scientists do their best to find theories to explain facts. And scientists constantly test and challenge the results of other scientists to ensure accuracy. Their theories are tested in light of the facts, and when they find an error they correct it. Are you saying they should not correct their errors? Or are you saying they should never make an error? What kind of thinking is that? Don't you know anything about the history of science? We started out with essentially no scientific knowledge at all. The history of science is the history of correcting false ideas about the world.
    This goes to show that while science is still finding things out and is likely to change its conclusion, I think we should be wary of accepting everything that science cannot be certain of.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is the fundamental error of the creationists appeal to science. They pick and choose bits and pieces that they think support their dogmas, and then ignore or reject the entire edifice of science upon which those results stand! It is fundamentally inconsistent, illogical, and almost always leads to false results that are used to support false religious dogmas. That's why creationism is truly an intellectual and scientific travesty.
    We need to find the truth that allows for intelligent design, as you agree the first cell could have be created. You need to find a way of acccepting a form of the Creation story that fits in with science which is what I have attempted to do. Creationists do not have to be scientists to accept the simple story of Creation presented in the Bible. Some Creationists are unable to see it any other way and I would not criticize then as much as you do, when I see you taking verses at face value to suit your interpretation and you state your case without questioning that you might be wrong. We get back on the old subject of "angels that sinned" to give you an example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    But I'm very glad we can discuss these things and I hope the conversation continues since it gives me the opportunity to present the facts to correct the creationist errors.
    We can forget referring to what Creationists in general believe and try and find our own solution which satisfies a a long timescale and creation. I have already given you my speculative thoughts in the thread; 'The Simple Cell'

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And this brings me back to your criticism of the scientific habit of correcting errors. Creationists make many more errors than real scientists, but they rarely if ever correct themselves. Is that why you don't criticize them? You think it is a virtue to continue in error and never correct yourself?
    I accept some Creationists could be in error for saying some things. I am not setting out deliberately to find Creationists to disagree with, but if you had asked me to comment a what a Creationist said, I would give you my opinion. I accept correction where due, and I am never claiming infallibility. I am explaining that I have a different interpretation on passages in the Bible and because the interpretation I and others hold best fits in with the whole of scripture, this is my reason for saying that other interpretations are wrong. Of course I can be wrong and that is why I am prepared to reason these things out. I have a technical and scientific mind and I am applying the same standards to interpreting God's word as I would any other subject. You are not only dealing with a Creationist, but an Electrical/electronic engineer with a science education. Let's forget about bashing Evolutionists and Creationists and just consider the evidence and the reliability of the evidence before coming to any conclusion.

    All the best

    David

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    13,893
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    All you are doing is confirming that scientists have changed the formula they used to calculate the mass of the large dinosaurs. Facts that were once presented as rock solid evidence by science in the texts books has changed. It is good of science to change the results which have been shown to be in error, but when you are so adamant about the timescales etc in Evolution, I have a reason to be slightly skeptical when science proves the results are not always as true as they make out in the first place. Someone will have have to tell Stephen Spielberg that the dinosaurs he has created on screen are too wide. Do you think he will do a remake of his movies to correct the facts or will the wrong images of dinosaurs continue to be accepted by yound impressionable minds.
    Hey there David,

    I'm really glad that you feel free to express your opinions so openly. It really helps expose the errors in your thinking when you are not trying to be careful to cover up what you really think. This makes it much easier for me to answer.

    1) "Facts that were once presented as rock solid evidence by science in the texts books has changed."
    Your assertion is based on a false assumption. Scientists have never presented their dinosaur weight estimates as "rock solid evidence" of anything. On the contrary, scientists have always presented their estimates of the dinosaur weight as exactly that - as estimates. This is how all their results are presented to the public. The article I quoted was perfectly clear on this point:
    Widely cited estimates for the mass of Apatosaurus louisae, one of the largest of the dinosaurs, may be double that of its actual mass (38 tonnes vs. 18 tonnes).

    "Paleontologists have for 25 years used a published statistical model to estimate body weight of giant dinosaurs and other extraordinarily large animals in extinct lineages. By re-examining data in the original reference sample, we show that the statistical model is seriously flawed and that the giant dinosaurs probably were only about half as heavy as is generally believed" says Gary Packard from Colorado State University.
    Developed in 1985, the results of the original equation have been used by scientists to estimate or evaluate a variety of parameters, including brain size and egg size. The problem occurs as a result of transforming the data, which changes the properties of the original data, and creates biases that can affect the predictive results obtained from the equation.

    Birchard and his colleagues realized there was an error when they used the equation to determine the weight of living animals such as a hippopotamus and an elephant and discovered that the equation greatly overestimated the weight of these animals.
    Again, it is entirely inaccurate to say that the scientists were using their weight estimates as "evidence" of anything. On the contrary, they used the evidence of the bone structure (the only evidence they had) to estimate the weight using complex statistical algorithms. They improved their algorithm by calibrating it using large animals like hypos and elephants and found that their previous estimates were too high. This is standard science. It would be helpful if you would acknowledge your error on this point.

    2) I have a reason to be slightly skeptical when science proves the results are not always as true as they make out in the first place.
    Your reason for "skepticism" does not follow from the improvement of the algorithm used to estimate weights. The weight estimates were not presented as "evidence" of anything. You got it backwards - they were estimates of weight based on the skeletal evidence. The fact that they improved their estimates should encourage you to have greater confidence in science, not less. The estimates were not foundational for any other facts. The "foundation of science" did not rock in the slightest by these changes. It is therefore entirely illogical to take the change in weight estimates as a reason to doubt the evidence for the 3.8 billion year timeline of life. That timeline is based on an extremely large body of literally "rock solid" evidence from many fields of science. There is a strong consilience of the estimates from many different fields - geology, astronomy, biology, evolution, physics. And like the estimates of the dinosaur weights, the estimates of the timeline have constantly improved. There have been no foundational "shakeups" that I know of. It would be major headline news if the estimates were changed enough to make any difference at all in the creation/evolution debate.

    Your attitude towards science strikes me as irrational and extremely biased. When you first found out that scientists had improved their original estimates about the dinosaur weight you said this was an example of "yet another set of lies in the textbooks that every Evolutionist is quoting." That kind of comment is entirely unjustified. It seems like you think science should be unchanging like a dogmatic religion. That doesn't make any sense at all.

    3) "it is good of science to change the results which have been shown to be in error"
    Your comment fails to note that it was the scientists themselves who found and corrected the error. That is because the aim of science is truth, whereas the aim of dogmatic religion is for people to believe what they've been told or what they've read in a book. The difference is as stark as night and day. Religion was born when man was in dark ignorance. Science is leading us into the light of day so we can actually see where we are going. Your dismissive attitude towards science seems fundamentally irrational to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    This goes to show that while science is still finding things out and is likely to change its conclusion, I think we should be wary of accepting everything that science cannot be certain of.
    If only you showed such skepticism for the Bible! It would revolutionize your life.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We need to find the truth that allows for intelligent design, as you agree the first cell could have be created. You need to find a way of acccepting a form of the Creation story that fits in with science which is what I have attempted to do. Creationists do not have to be scientists to accept the simple story of Creation presented in the Bible. Some Creationists are unable to see it any other way and I would not criticize then as much as you do, when I see you taking verses at face value to suit your interpretation and you state your case without questioning that you might be wrong. We get back on the old subject of "angels that sinned" to give you an example.
    If Intelligent Design is true, then the scientific method is the only way we will ever know. And if it is true, it is inevitable that it will be discovered by science. So I don't need to "find a way" to make the Creation story "fit" with science. I first would need a reason to assume that the Creation story is true at all (in a scientific sense)? It was written by a pre-scientific culture and contains many elements that make no sense from a scientific point of view. Why should anyone believe it?

    Prophecy is the only evidence you have given so far for accepting the Bible as the "Word of God." But there are many problems with that. Even if prophecy is true it doesn't help determine if the creation story is true because prophecy can't validate the Bible as a whole. We know that books have been inserted into the Bible - e.g. the apocrypha, which many Christians reject and many accept. So how do we know that the creation story is supposed to be in there? It could be that the creation story of Genesis 2-3 was inserted at a late date. There seems to be good evidence for that since it is not mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament. Why would the entire Old Testament ignore the creation story of Genesis 2-3?

    Your assertion that I "state my case without questioning that I might be wrong" is not really true. Sure, I am confident that I've reviewed the data and come to the best conclusion, but I always allow for the possibility of error. And besides, you speak just as confidently as I do when it comes to Biblical interpretations. This is because we both believe we have solid Biblical evidence on our side.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    We can forget referring to what Creationists in general believe and try and find our own solution which satisfies a a long timescale and creation. I have already given you my speculative thoughts in the thread; 'The Simple Cell'
    I'll review your speculations. But seriously, if you reject the 3.8 billion year timeline for something on the order of tens of thousands of years, you will be placing yourself entirely outside established science. And you will be doing that as an act of faith without any science supporting your beliefs.

    As for the label "creationist" - do you want to distinguish between Young Earth Creationists vs. Old Earth? Other than that, I am not aware of any significant distinctions between creationists. Do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    I accept some Creationists could be in error for saying some things. I am not setting out deliberately to find Creationists to disagree with, but if you had asked me to comment a what a Creationist said, I would give you my opinion. I accept correction where due, and I am never claiming infallibility. I am explaining that I have a different interpretation on passages in the Bible and because the interpretation I and others hold best fits in with the whole of scripture, this is my reason for saying that other interpretations are wrong. Of course I can be wrong and that is why I am prepared to reason these things out. I have a technical and scientific mind and I am applying the same standards to interpreting God's word as I would any other subject. You are not only dealing with a Creationist, but an Electrical/electronic engineer with a science education. Let's forget about bashing Evolutionists and Creationists and just consider the evidence and the reliability of the evidence before coming to any conclusion.
    "The interpretation I and others hold best fits in with the whole of scripture, this is my reason for saying that other interpretations are wrong."

    That's exactly what I believe about my interpretations!

    And I agree completely that we should "just consider the evidence and the reliability of the evidence before coming to any conclusion." Let's do that!



    Great chatting my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #100
    This thread began with the claim that there are no gods. As noted in some of the posts, Scripture says: The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god... Psalms 14: 1. It has been awhile since I participated in these forums as some of my entries were met with antagonism. I have used a most unusual method of gematria in which I compose sentences consistent with Scripture using only Hebrew root words, and then show words of equivalent numerical value to those sentences which confirm the truth of Scripture. This has been viewed with much skepticism, and with the assumption that the numerical associations are merely coincidence, manipulation of words, or both.

    Some time back I used the above mentioned method of gematria to investigate the words of Psalms 14: 1, and other associated verses. I will let the reader come to his own conclusions as to the significance of the findings.

    . In the gematria evidence to follow, words from Scripture will be used in which the Hebrew root word for each will be indicated according to Strong’s Concordance, then the sentence will be written in Hebrew (from right to left), followed by the gematria values for the words and the calculated total numerical value for the sentence. Then I will show the words of equivalent value which confirm what is written in the Bible.

    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14: 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Everyone of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalms 53: 1-3.

    . The unbelieving use “reason” to reject God, and thereby corrupt the truth which is apparent.

    The fool (H5036) hath said (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God. (H430) There is none (H369) that doeth (H6213) good. (H2896)
    נבל אמר לב אִין אלהִים אִין עשֹה טוב
    17 + 375 + 61 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 82 = 955

    BELIEVE NOT/UNBELIEVING (G544) = απειθων = 955
    THINK/SUPPOSE/REASON (G3049) = λογιζομενους = 955
    DESTROY/CORRUPT (G1311) = διαφθειρεται = 955

    The fool (H5036) hath said (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God. (H430) They are corrupt, (H7843) and there is none (H369) that doeth (H6213) good. (H2896)
    נבל אמר לב אִין אלהִים שׁחת אִין עשֹה טוב
    17 + 375 + 61 + 708 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 82 = 1663

    LIAR/ONE WHO BREAKS FAITH/A FALSE AND FAITHLESS MAN (G5583) = ψευστην = 1663
    If (H518) you say (H559) in your heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God, (H430) you are corrupt. (H7843)
    אם אמר לב אִין אלהִים שׁחת
    708 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 41 = 1169

    There is only one Hebrew word of this value, which is an alternative spelling of the word used in the sentence:

    DESTROY/CORRUPT (H7843) = הנשׁחתות = 1169

    There is also a Greek word of this value which means “corrupt.”

    CORRUPT (G2585) = καπηλευοντες = 1169

    The word used in Psalms 53: 1, for “iniquity” has a gematria value of 106. The Hebrew root word which is more commonly used throughout the OT for “iniquity” has the gematria value of 126. In the following, this is the only change which has been made in the root words used for the verse.

    The fool (H5036) hath said (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God. (H430) Corrupt (H7843) are they, and have done abominable (H8581) iniquity: (H5771) there is none (H369) that doeth (H6213) good. (H2896)
    נבל אמר לב אִין אלהִים שׁחת תּעב עון אִין עשֹה טוב
    17 + 375 + 61 + 126 + 472 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 82 = 2261

    There is only one word with this gematria value:

    BELIEVE NOT/TO HAVE NO BELIEF/ DISBELIEVE (G569) = απιστουντων = 2261

    Truly amazing are the next two gematria examples related to this scriptural truth. The first one I found as the initial attempt to discover hidden truth related to this concept. The two sentences have total numerical values of two different Greek root words of similar meaning.

    The fool (H5036) hath said (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God. (H430) They are corrupt. (H7843)
    נבל אמר לב אִין אלהִים שׁחת
    708 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 82 = 1210

    FOOLISH/FOOL (G3474) = μωρος = 1210

    He that says (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God, (H430) has done abominable (H8581) iniquity, (H5766) and there is none (H369) that doeth (H6213) good. (H2896)
    אמר לב אִין אלהִים תּעב עול אִין עשֹה טוב
    17 + 375 + 61 + 106 + 472 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 = 1451

    FOOL/FOOLISH (G878) = αφρων = 1451

    It is written in Psalms 53 that God looked down from heaven to see if there was any man with understanding. The fool who says, “There is no God,” is without understanding and he does an abominable thing.

    The fool (H5036) hath said (H559) in his heart, (H3820) There is no (H369) God: (H430) he is without (H3808) understanding. (H7919)
    נבל אמר לב אִין אלהִים לא שֹכל
    350 + 31 + 86 + 61 + 32 + 241 + 82 = 883

    ABOMINATION/ABOMINABLE (H8441) = התועבת = 883

    It is written that there is no excuse for men to not know that God exists, and those who deny His existence, professing to be wise, are fools: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1: 16-22. Another word with the value of 883 as calculated for the last gematria example confirms that denial of God’s existence is inexcusable.

    WITHOUT EXCUSE/INEXCUSABLE (G379) = αναπολογητος = 883

    Those who rely upon the knowledge and wisdom of man, and profess to be wise, become fools. They have no understanding of spiritual things.
    The fool (H5036) hath said, (H559) There is no (H369) God: (H430) he is without (H3808) understanding. (H7919)
    נבל אמר אִין אלהִים לא שֹכל
    350 + 31 + 86 + 61 + 241 + 82 = 851

    FOOL/FOOLISH (G781) = ασοπφοι = 851

    Professing (H5046) themselves to be wise, (H7919) they became (H1961) fools. (H5036)
    נגד שֹכל הִיה נבל
    82 + 20 + 350 + 57 = 509

    FOOLISH/FOOL (G453) = ανοητοι = 509

    Their foolish (H5036) heart (H3820) was darkened. (H2821) Professing (H5046) themselves to be wise, (H7919) they became (H1961) fools. (H5036)
    נבל לב חשׁך נגד שֹכל הִיה נבל
    82 + 20 + 350 + 57 + 328 + 32 + 82 = 951

    FOOLISH/FOOLISHNESS (G3474) = μωραι = 951

    FOOLISHNESS (G3472) = μωρια = 951

    Their foolish (H5036) heart (H3820) was darkened. (H2821) Professing (H5046) themselves to be wise, (H7919) they became (H1961) fools, (H5036) saying, (H559) there is no (H369) God. (H430)
    נבל לב חשׁך נגד שֹכל הִיה נבל אמר אִין אלהִים
    86 + 61 + 241 + 82 + 20 + 350 + 57 + 328 + 32 + 82 = 1339

    FOOLISHLY/FOOLISHNESS (G877) = αφροσυνηι = 1339

    The following gematria example is a sentence of scriptural truth without ambiguity, and the truth is confirmed by the numerical value.
    If (H518) any man (H120) proclaim (H7121) to be (H1961) wise, (H2450) and say, (H559) There is no (H369) God, (H430) he is a fool. (H5036)
    אם אדם קרא הִיה חכם אמר אִין אלהִים נבל
    82 + 86 + 61 + 241 + 68 + 20 + 301 + 45 + 41 = 945

    SAY (G3004) = ειπων = 945

    FOOLISH/FOOL/FOOLISHNESS (G3474) = μωρε = 945

    In the Old Testament book of Jeremiah there are three verses which speak of foolish people who do not know God. One of those verses says: Therefore I said, Surely these are poor; they are foolish: for they know not the way of the Lord, nor the judgment of their God. Jeremiah 5: 4. The exact root words as seen in this verse are used, and no word for “nor” is used, just as in the verse.

    They are foolish: (H2973) for (H3588) they know (H3045) not (H3808) the way (H1870) of the Lord, (H3068) nor the judgment (H4921) of their God. (H430)
    יאל כִּי ידע לא דּרך יהוה משׁפּט אלהִים
    86 + 429 + 26 + 224 + 31 + 84 + 30 + 41 = 951

    FOOLISH/FOOL/FOOLISHNESS (G3474) = μωραι = 951

    FOOLISHNESS (G3472) = μωρια = 951

    JUDGMENT (G1106) = γνωμην = 951

    It is also written in Jeremiah: For my people is foolish, they have not known me: they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. Jeremiah 4: 22. The same root words as found in this verse are used in the following sentence. The word “sottish” means: silly or foolish.

    For (H3588) my people (H5971) is foolish, (H191) they have not (H3808) known (H3045) me: they (H1992) are sottish (H5530) children. (H1121)
    כִּי עם אוִיל לא ידע הם סכל בּן
    52 + 110 + 45 + 84 + 31 + 47 + 110 + 30 = 509

    FOOL/FOOLISH/UNWISE/NOT UNDERSTANDING (G453) = ανοητοι = 509

    EVIL/WICKED (G4190) = πονηρας = 509

    When another root word for “foolish” is used in place of the one in this verse, we have:

    For (H3588) my people (H5971) is foolish, (H5036) they have not (H3808) known (H3045) me: they (H1992) are sottish, (H5530) they (H1992) have none (H3808) understanding: (H995) they (H1992) do evil, (H7489) but to do good (H3190) they have no (H3808) knowledge. (H3045)
    כִּי עם נבל לא ידע הם סכל הם לא בִּין הם רעע יטב לא ידע
    84 + 31 + 21 + 340 + 45 + 62 + 31 + 45 + 110 + 45 + 84 + 31 + 82 + 110 + 30 = 1151

    FOOLISHNESS (G3472) = μωραις = 1151

    When a different root word is used for “understanding” along with the word for “foolish” used in the last sentence, we have:
    For (H3588) my people (H5971) is foolish, (H5036) they have not (H3808) known (H3045) me: they (H1992) are sottish, (H5530) they (H1992) have none (H3808) understanding: (H998) they (H1992) do evil. (H7489)
    כִּי עם נבל לא ידע הם סכל הם לא בִּיןה הם רעע
    340 + 45 + 67 + 31 + 45 + 110 + 45 + 84 + 31 + 82 + 110 + 30 = 1020

    FOOLISH/FOOL/FOOLISHNESS (G3474) = μωροι = 1020

    The third verse found in Jeremiah which speaks of foolish people without understanding, says that they have eyes and ears, but cannot see or hear: Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not. Jeremiah 5: 21. Once again, gematria gives confirmation of the inerrant truth found in Scripture.

    Foolish people without understanding of spiritual things cannot see or hear.

    O foolish (H5036) people (H5971) which have eyes, (H5869) and see (H7200) not; (H3808) which have ears, (H241) and hear (H8085) not; (H3808) for (H3588) they are without (H3808) understanding. (H995)
    נבל עם עִין ראה לא אזן שׁמע לא כִּי לא בִּין
    62 + 31 + 30 + 410 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 130 + 110 + 82 = 1181

    SEE (G3708) = ορωσαι = 1181

    HEAR (G191) = ακουοντος = 1181

    The unbelieving, who have eyes, but do not see, and ears, but do not hear, are foolish.

    They have eyes, (H5869) but (H3588) see (H7200) not, (H3808) and ears (H241) but (H3588) hear (H8085) not. (H3808)
    עִין כִּי ראה לא אזן כִּי שׁמע לא
    31 + 410 + 30 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 30 + 130 = 926

    FOOL/FOOLISH/UNWISE (G878) = αφρονες = 926

    BELIEVE NOT/UNBELIEVING (G544) = απειθουντα = 926

    They do not see or hear because they do not understand.

    They have eyes, (H5869) and see (H7200) not, (H3808) and ears (H241) and hear (H8085) not; (H3808) they are without (H3808) understanding. (H995)
    עִין ראה לא אזן שׁמע לא לא בִּין
    62 + 31 + 31 + 410 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 130 = 959

    BE IGNORANT/UNDERSTAND NOT (G50) = αγνοουμενος = 959

    It is foolishness to not see or hear God, because, as noted previously: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Romans 1: 20.

    My people (H5971) have eyes, (H5869) and see (H7200) not; (H3808) have ears, (H241) and hear (H8085) not; (H3808) for (H3588) they are without (H3808) understanding. (H995)
    עם עִין ראה לא אזן שׁמע לא כִּי לא בִּין
    62 + 31 + 30 + 31 + 410 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 130 + 110 = 1099

    FOOLISH/FOOL/UNWISE (G453) = ανοητους = 1099

    My people (H5971) which have eyes, (H5869) but (H3588) see (H7200) not; (H3808) which have ears, (H241) but (H3588) hear (H8085) not; (H3808) know (H3045) me not (H3808).
    עם עִין כִּי ראה לא אזן כִּי שׁמע לא ידע לא
    31 + 84 + 31 + 410 + 30 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 30 + 130 + 110 = 1151

    O foolish (H5036) people (H5971) which have eyes, (H5869) and see (H7200) not; (H3808) which have ears, (H241) and hear (H8085) not; (H3808) they are without (H3808) understanding. (H995)
    נבל עם עִין ראה לא אזן שׁמע לא לא בִּין
    62 + 31 + 31 + 410 + 58 + 31 + 206 + 130 + 110 + 82 = 1151

    FOOLISHNESS (G3472) = μωριας = 1151

    The fool denies the existence of God. The believer accepts God’s existence by faith. However, is the God who exists associated with any particular religion? The one true God is Yahweh, Jehovah, the God of the Hebrew people, and He is Jesus Christ, God who came to earth in the flesh. The Old Testament of the Bible foretold of a coming Messiah, Jesus Christ is the Messiah as confirmed in the New Testament. The reason Christ came was to be the one sacrifice for the sins of the world, that all might be saved by believing upon Him. This belief is foolishness to those who reject God: For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 1Corinthians 1: 18. There is no Hebrew word used in the Old Testament for “cross.” However, the cross of Christ is often referred to as a “tree”: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Acts 5: 30. …God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power… And we are the witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree. Him God raised up the third day… Acts 10: 38-40. When this passage of Scripture is written with Hebrew root words while using the word for “tree” in place of “cross” the truth is revealed.

    For (H3588) the preaching (H7150) of the cross (tree) (H6086) is to them that perish (H6) foolishness; (H5036) but (H3588) unto (H413) us which are saved (H3467) it is the power (H3581) of God. (H430)
    כִּי קרִיאה עץ אבד נבל כִּי אל ישׁע כּח אלהִים
    86 + 28 + 380 + 31 + 30 + 82 + 7 + 160 + 316 + 30 = 1150

    PREACH (G2784) = εκηρυχθη = 1150

    The preaching (H7150) of the cross (tree) (H6086) is to them that perish (H6) foolishness; (H5036) but (H3588) unto (H413) us which are saved (H3467) it is the power (H3581) of God. (H430)
    כִּי קרִיאה עץ אבד נבל כִּי אל ישׁע כּח אלהִים
    86 + 28 + 380 + 31 + 30 + 82 + 7 + 160 + 316 + 30 = 1120

    BELIEVE/BELIEVER (G4100) = πιστευον = 1120

    For (H3588) the preaching (H7150) of the cross (tree) (H6086) is to them that perish (H6) foolishness; (H200) but (H3588) unto (H413) those (H428) which are saved (H3467) it is the power (H3581) of God. (H430)
    כִּי קרִיאה עץ אבד אוּלת כִּי אל אלּה ישׁע כּח אלהִים
    86 + 28 + 380 + 36 + 31 + 30 + 437 + 7 + 160 + 316 + 30 = 1541

    CHRISTIAN (G5546) = Χριστιανο̍ς = 1541

    Gematria confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that those who say, “There is no God,” are fools, who are without understanding of the spiritual reality of an Almighty God who loves His creation so much that He came to earth in the flesh to die for the sins of all men that we might be saved.

    It would be quite a remarkable coincidence to have arrived at the above gematria associations by mere chance or even manipulation. This is especially so, since the findings came to me is just a few days.


    76of86

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •