Jump to content


Photo

Effects Of Continued Belief Of "evolution" On The Brain

INSANITY FAIRY TALE ABIODARWINISM MENTAL ILLNESS FANTASY DELUSION

  • Please log in to reply
178 replies to this topic

#161 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:03 PM

Direct, observational, empirical evidence the universe is billions, not thousands, of years old.  We'll start with supernova Sn1987a at a mere 167,000+ year light travel time established by direct trigonometry and verification of the speed of light at the time and place of the supernova event.

OH WELL.. :cry: . LETS TRY THIS AGAIN SHALL WE?   GOD SAID HE "STRETCHED OR STRECHES OUT THE HEAVENS" 14 TIMES!!!!!

...........

Do scientists really know what the impact would be of having the universe expanded at what was most likely millions or even billions of times faster than the speed of light?  How would such a rapid expansion affect the visible red and blue shift we see today in space?  How would that affect time, especially at the outer edges of the universe?  Could the red shift that evolutionists believe indicates an expanding universe actually be the result of this rapid stretching of the universe that started and ended about 6,000 years ago?

The heavens have been stretched, and we can measure it.

 

Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  For example, get a wide rubber band and make a zig-zag pattern on it.  Stretch the rubber band and the zig-zags also stretch.  The phenomena is well known and understood.  We put it to use in our daily lives.  There is no reason the rate of expansion will make any difference in the stretching of the light other than it will take place faster and be more pronounced.

 

BTW, stopping the expansion will not restore the waves in transit to their original length so long as the space they are transiting remains "stretched."

 

Since the light waves are being stretched along with the space they occupy, the expansion will cause a red shift.  The faster the expansion, the greater the shift.

 

The observed and measured red shift is not nearly enough to account for a 6000 year old universe.  For example, in my paper on supernova Sn1987a it is shown that the distance to Sn1987a is measured by direct trigonometry to be over 167,000 light years and that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what is measured on Earth today.  To cover that distance in only 6,000 years, the space would need to stretched by a factor of 27.8.  The light waves in that space would be 27.8x longer than if the space had not been stretched.  There is no evidence of any significant red shift in the light from Sn1987a.

 

Going out to galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye, at 2.4 million light years (measured by "standard candles").  The light from that object to reach Earth in 6000 years would need to be stretched by a factor of 400.  Instead of the light from Andromeda being stretched, we find it is compressed.

 

And these two are, in astronomical terms, our next door neighbors.

 

The only "solution" I've been able to find for the discrepancy would be for God to "insert" light waves.   The problem is that light carries with it a LOT of information.  In the case of Sn1987a, the information was that there was a blue giant star observed and documented as Sanduleak 69-202.  In February, 1987, that star was observed to erupt in a supernova explosion.  The first images were within minutes of the first light from the event reaching Earth.  In order to make the light appear at the proper wavelengths after stretching the light, it would be necessary for God to put in place the light signature of a star; a supernova explosion; a remnant with a circumstellar ring; and a host of other light signatures right down to isotopes of elements.

 

In other words, the observed, documented, and catalogued star Sanduleak 69-202 never really existed and the supernova event observed in February, 1987, never actually took place.

 

 

 Dr. Russell Humphreys suggests in his book Starlight and Time that it may have given the universe an older look the farther you move away from Earth into the outermost reaches of the universe.  From Earth's perspective, the universe would be about 6,000 - 10,000 years old.  However, in the outermost reaches of the universe, this rapid expansion may have given those galaxies the appearance of being billions of years old, even though they aged that much in what is most likely less than 24 hours.

Humphreys has admitted his Starlight and Time proposal didn't work for nearby astronomical objects such as Andromeda, Sn1987a, and even the center of our own Milky Way.  He has developed a new hypothesis that has its own problems.



#162 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:16 PM

The heavens have been stretched, and we can measure it.

 

Stretching the heavens will also stretch the light in them.  For example, get a wide rubber band and make a zig-zag pattern on it.  Stretch the rubber band and the zig-zags also stretch.  The phenomena is well known and understood.  We put it to use in our daily lives.  There is no reason the rate of expansion will make any difference in the stretching of the light other than it will take place faster and be more pronounced.

 

BTW, stopping the expansion will not restore the waves in transit to their original length so long as the space they are transiting remains "stretched."

 

Since the light waves are being stretched along with the space they occupy, the expansion will cause a red shift.  The faster the expansion, the greater the shift.

 

The observed and measured red shift is not nearly enough to account for a 6000 year old universe.  For example, in my paper on supernova Sn1987a it is shown that the distance to Sn1987a is measured by direct trigonometry to be over 167,000 light years and that the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what is measured on Earth today.  To cover that distance in only 6,000 years, the space would need to stretched by a factor of 27.8.  The light waves in that space would be 27.8x longer than if the space had not been stretched.  There is no evidence of any significant red shift in the light from Sn1987a.

 

Going out to galaxy Andromeda, the most distant object visible to the unaided eye, at 2.4 million light years (measured by "standard candles").  The light from that object to reach Earth in 6000 years would need to be stretched by a factor of 400.  Instead of the light from Andromeda being stretched, we find it is compressed.

 

And these two are, in astronomical terms, our next door neighbors.

 

The only "solution" I've been able to find for the discrepancy would be for God to "insert" light waves.   The problem is that light carries with it a LOT of information.  In the case of Sn1987a, the information was that there was a blue giant star observed and documented as Sanduleak 69-202.  In February, 1987, that star was observed to erupt in a supernova explosion.  The first images were within minutes of the first light from the event reaching Earth.  In order to make the light appear at the proper wavelengths after stretching the light, it would be necessary for God to put in place the light signature of a star; a supernova explosion; a remnant with a circumstellar ring; and a host of other light signatures right down to isotopes of elements.

 

In other words, the observed, documented, and catalogued star Sanduleak 69-202 never really existed and the supernova event observed in February, 1987, never actually took place.

 

 

Humphreys has admitted his Starlight and Time proposal didn't work for nearby astronomical objects such as Andromeda, Sn1987a, and even the center of our own Milky Way.  He has developed a new hypothesis that has its own problems.

 

"The only "solution" I've been able to find for the discrepancy would be for God to "insert" light waves.   The problem is that light carries with it a LOT of information."

 

Yes, And there is also a Lot of Information encoded into every creature's DNA Molecules... Lots and Lots of Information in the Universe.. which God Created in the beginning..

I believe that God, who lives Outside of the Time Space and Matter that HE Created, had no problem "Inserting" light waves, Or Making some Planets and Moons spin Backwards ( Big Bang Religious Devotees just LOVE to try explain that away LOL) or anything else for that matter.. God Could have Even used "Evolution" if he wanted to... But I am not very interested in how God COULD HAVE done things, I am more interested in how HE SAID HE DID THEM....



#163 nandoschicken

nandoschicken

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cambridge, UK

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:54 PM

A few weeks back, Gilbo suggested that I feel free to open a new thread on this topic..

I am pretty new here, so I am not sure if I am doing this the correct way, but here goes..

 

Does forcing one's brain to perform all of the mental contortions required to believe in

"Evolution" or More Accurately, The Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of abiogenesis

followed by Darwinian common ancestor for every living thing have any relation to  

secondary side affects such as Psychosis, Neurosis or other pathogenic Mental /

Psychological disorders due to the creation of unhealthy neural pathways in the brain?

Are there detrimental side effects from forcing oneself to believe that which they know

full well in their subconscious to be Impossible? 

 

For example (One of Thousands that could be presented) Creationists know full well

that a frog CANT turn into a Prince..  They know it to be IMPOSSIBLE so it is rejected

out of hand..  It does not matter how much time is proposed, 800 Octillion Years, the

Frog WILL NEVER TURN INTO A PRINCE..

 

BUT, AbioDarwinists, (If they are being honest that is) MUST FORCE THEIR BRAIN

to believe that Not only is it  possible, But That IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!

(Or something VERY Similar)

 

I am curious if anyone qualified to do so has done any studies on the subject..

(Obviously Politically Incorrect to suggest it as well)

 

Kind Regards Blitzking

 

I don't know about "belief in evolution" but studies on religiosity show interesting patterns between IQ and religious fervour. In general there is a weak positive relationship between IQ and the % of atheists in a population. The united states in an anomaly in that people have high IQs but a higher than expected religiosity.  

 

(IQ and % atheist from different countries below)

 

800px-LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.svg.pn



#164 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 July 2016 - 12:24 PM

We all belief the same thing, nice :)


Simplistically yes. In reality no.

At least Christians have a causal agent for the creation of life.

Atheists believe it all just "happened naturally", despite being unable to demonstrate a viable natural process nor demonstrate how the natural laws and prerogatives (chirality, thermodynamics) which contradict abiogenesis are overcome.

Which is worse than magic since at least with magic you have a causal agent, the magician; you'd have us believe something happened naturally despite it defying nature and having no natural process....

Therefore the Christian position is much more logical and tenable than the atheist one...

#165 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 06 July 2016 - 12:53 AM

Simplistically yes. In reality no.

At least Christians have a causal agent for the creation of life.

Atheists believe it all just "happened naturally", despite being unable to demonstrate a viable natural process nor demonstrate how the natural laws and prerogatives (chirality, thermodynamics) which contradict abiogenesis are overcome.

Which is worse than magic since at least with magic you have a causal agent, the magician; you'd have us believe something happened naturally despite it defying nature and having no natural process....

Therefore the Christian position is much more logical and tenable than the atheist one...

Magic is a valid solution to solving every unknown, I have to agree with that...

 

:D

 

God did it ftw!



#166 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 July 2016 - 09:15 AM

The only "solution" I've been able to find for the discrepancy would be for God to "insert" light waves.   The problem is that light carries with it a LOT of information.  In the case of Sn1987a, the information was that there was a blue giant star observed and documented as Sanduleak 69-202.  In February, 1987, that star was observed to erupt in a supernova explosion.  The first images were within minutes of the first light from the event reaching Earth.  In order to make the light appear at the proper wavelengths after stretching the light, it would be necessary for God to put in place the light signature of a star; a supernova explosion; a remnant with a circumstellar ring; and a host of other light signatures right down to isotopes of elements.

 

In other words, the observed, documented, and catalogued star Sanduleak 69-202 never really existed and the supernova event observed in February, 1987, never actually took place.

Lots and Lots of Information in the Universe.. which God Created in the beginning..

Agreed.

 

I believe that God, who lives Outside of the Time Space and Matter that HE Created, had no problem "Inserting" light waves, Or Making some Planets and Moons spin Backwards ( Big Bang Religious Devotees just LOVE to try explain that away LOL) or anything else for that matter.. God Could have Even used "Evolution" if he wanted to...

We agree, God could have "inserted" the light waves.  We also agree He could even have used evolution, if He wanted to. Both are fully within the capability of God, who is omnipotent.  The way I put it is that God could have created the universe in six days as Genesis describes.  He could have done it in 13.8 billion years as science claims.  If He chose, He could have done it last Tuesday and created us with a lifetime of memories and education "pre-installed."  All are within His ability.

 

But I am not very interested in how God COULD HAVE done things, I am more interested in how HE SAID HE DID THEM....

OOPS.  Now we have a problem.

 

Had you been my religious mentor at the time of crisis I described, that last sentence would have driven me to atheism.  It is the kind of answer that caused  those atheists I mentioned earlier to abandon YEC in favor of atheism.

 

Hopefully, you see the theological problems with the last possibility.... creating us last Tuesday with memories already in place.  That would make your entire life experience non-existent.... a deception.  In that situation all, of creation (except what happened since last Tuesday) is a lie.

 

The situation is exactly the same should God choose to insert light waves.  As I pointed out, Sanduleak 69-202 never existed and the supernova event observed on Earth in 1987 never took place.  It is a deception.  The same is true of everything beyond 6,000 light years.  Virtually all of creation is a lie.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.  They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalm 19:1-4) 

 

God's creation is not a lie and neither is His word.  Truth cannot contradict truth.  God's written word carries most, if not all, of its moral lessons in various forms of symbolic language.  The use of symbolism to teach is not a lie.



#167 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 July 2016 - 10:20 PM

I don't know about "belief in evolution" but studies on religiosity show interesting patterns between IQ and religious fervour. In general there is a weak positive relationship between IQ and the % of atheists in a population. The united states in an anomaly in that people have high IQs but a higher than expected religiosity.  

 

(IQ and % atheist from different countries below)

 

800px-LynnHarveyNyborg-Atheism-IQ.svg.pn

 

You have a point, Jesus didn't care much for "religiosity either..  And he gave the "Religious Elite" of his day a piece of his mind many times..

You see, Jesus had the authority and proved it, and that is why he said "I am the way the TRUTH and the life, No One comes to the father but

by me".. He also said "Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS will NEVER pass away.. He also said, Before Abraham was born,

I AM... You see, Darwin is Gone, You and Dawkins will soon be gone, But Jesus's TRUTH will still be here standing the test of time..BTW It

So do yourself a BIG favor and Forget about Religious beliefs like the one that you believe in, (Metaphysical Naturalism) and seek the Truth...

I am going to give you a hint... the Hypothetical Hypothesis of The Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth (Abiodarwinism) Is as Far from the Truth

As ONE CAN GET....

 

Of course, it would be very easy for you to prove me wrong.... All you would have to do is provide some Empirical Scientific Evidence for your

religion, But No one ever does, and no one ever has.... and THAT should be a red flag to you.... Now Remember,,, Wishful Speculation and

Hopeful Assumptions based on Circular Reasoning, Unverified Hypothesis, Myth, Fraud, and Lies...ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS CLASSROOM!!

 

Galatians 6:

Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.



#168 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 July 2016 - 10:37 PM

Agreed.

 

We agree, God could have "inserted" the light waves.  We also agree He could even have used evolution, if He wanted to. Both are fully within the capability of God, who is omnipotent.  The way I put it is that God could have created the universe in six days as Genesis describes.  He could have done it in 13.8 billion years as science claims.  If He chose, He could have done it last Tuesday and created us with a lifetime of memories and education "pre-installed."  All are within His ability.

 

OOPS.  Now we have a problem.

 

Had you been my religious mentor at the time of crisis I described, that last sentence would have driven me to atheism.  It is the kind of answer that caused  those atheists I mentioned earlier to abandon YEC in favor of atheism.

 

Hopefully, you see the theological problems with the last possibility.... creating us last Tuesday with memories already in place.  That would make your entire life experience non-existent.... a deception.  In that situation all, of creation (except what happened since last Tuesday) is a lie.

 

The situation is exactly the same should God choose to insert light waves.  As I pointed out, Sanduleak 69-202 never existed and the supernova event observed on Earth in 1987 never took place.  It is a deception.  The same is true of everything beyond 6,000 light years.  Virtually all of creation is a lie.

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.  Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.  They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voicegoes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." (Psalm 19:1-4) 

 

God's creation is not a lie and neither is His word.  Truth cannot contradict truth.  God's written word carries most, if not all, of its moral lessons in various forms of symbolic language.  The use of symbolism to teach is not a lie.

OOPS.  Now we have a problem.

Had you been my religious mentor at the time of crisis I described, that last sentence would have driven me to atheism. 

 

Why? It sounds like the "Religious Mentors" that you ended up with did a pretty good job of that without me if THIS sentence

of mine here makes you react like that..

 

(But I am not very interested in how God COULD HAVE done things, I am more interested in how HE SAID HE DID THEM..)

 

You see, 14 times is a LOT of times for God to mention that he "Stretched out the heavens" It seems very clear what that means..

Listen, If you want to believe the words of man (Who WASNT there) over the Words of God (Who WAS There) Concerning HIS

creation, You have the free will to do so... But for me, I am not Arrogant enough to believe that God was wrong or lying when he said

the following..   And ANYONE who thinks that they can believe BOTH Genesis AND AbioDarwinism is simply letting Satan delude

them..   They are 180 degrees polar OPPOSITES... and THAT is why Abiodarwinism was invented.. It Never had anything to to

with "Science"  Don't Be Fooled..

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



#169 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 July 2016 - 12:54 AM

Magic is a valid solution to solving every unknown, I have to agree with that...

 

:D

 

God did it ftw!

 

We creationists have nothing on you Abiodarwinists when it comes to invoking "Magic" to explain away facts that don't agree with your Hypothetical Hypothesis of mindless MYO mud to man..  For example, The Universe creating itself Ex Nilo seems kind of magical to me... Or how about Self Replicating DNA loaded with billions of lines of encoded specified complexity being able to create itself out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water when Man with all of his resources, technology, and intelligence CANT BEGIN TO EVEN IMAGINE trying to create it.... Sounds kind of "Magical" LOL Or how about 100 MYO Dinosaur Soft Tissue and Red blood cells... Oh, that's right, you have "Iron Rich Blood" to save the day .. LOL No magic there... How about polystrate trees somehow growing through millions of years of strata in the "Geologic Column" LOL or how about all of the symbiotic Relationships of 2 separate creatures that depend on each other for their very Existence having to EVOLVE TOGETHER... No Magic required huh?  LOL  Or how about the hummingbird, that flaps its wings up to 100 times per second so it can hover and eat SOMEHOW Evolving Slowly over 20 million years from a Tree swift.. A COMMON GLIDER... How does THAT happen slowly??

no magic required huh?   Or how about the Woodpecker, with its tongue THAT IT NEEDS TO HAVE IN ORDER TO EAT.. Somehow being able to survive all of those millions WHILE ITS TONGUE WAS "EVOLVING BEHIND ITS HEAD OVER THE TOP AND THROUGH ITS RIGHT BEAK NOSTRIL....   No Magic there huh??  Or how About the .... I could go on ALL NIGHT but I'm tired...  

 

You see.... you religious fanatics of Abiodarwinism Have 1000 FOLD the Faith that Creationists have to believe in YOUR Religion of Metaphysical Naturalism, but you are just TOO BLIND to realize it because you have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing that Abiodarwinism is Scientific... It is NOT..

 

Good night.. Blitz...


  • Mike Summers likes this

#170 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 09 July 2016 - 03:37 AM

Well said. Bravo!



#171 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 10 July 2016 - 02:38 AM

Had you been my religious mentor at the time of crisis I described, that last sentence would have driven me to atheism.  It is the kind of answer that caused  those atheists I mentioned earlier to abandon YEC in favor of atheism.

Why? It sounds like the "Religious Mentors" that you ended up with did a pretty good job of that without me if THIS sentence

of mine here makes you react like that..

 

(But I am not very interested in how God COULD HAVE done things, I am more interested in how HE SAID HE DID THEM..).

Well, maybe that sentence alone wouldn't have done it at age 19 or 20 (about).... it's been a while.  But I know what will follow from that sentence would have.  It boils down to: "If you can't believe the creation account as literally written in Genesis, then you can not be a Christian."  In your case, based on your comments and the title you have given this topic, we can take that to the extreme of "and are a brain damaged atheist deluded by and/or in league with Satan."

 

I've already described how inserting the light signatures in those objects makes virtually all of creation a deception.  It is no more than a lie .... a fraud.  Things I can go out in my back yard, such as Andromeda and most of the Milky Way don't exist.  Now, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem to you. But, to me, it has major theological and philosophical issues.  

 

Since so many here don't seem to "get it,"  I'll state the problem as explicitly and directly as possible....  If God's creation is a deception, how can I possibly believe His word?  Maybe you can see how that would lead to a crisis of faith for a 19-20 year old.  Can you see how (paraphrasing): "A literal Genesis or don't let the door hit you in the ash on the way out." isn't going to work?  Hint:  It won't work now either.

 

You see, 14 times is a LOT of times for God to mention that he "Stretched out the heavens" It seems very clear what that means..

Yes.  And I have already pointed out that we can actually measure the stretching of the heavens.  Isn't it great we can find it in the Bible and science confirms it?  Whoodathunkit?

 

The problem is that the stretching we can observe and measure is not sufficient to account for a universe only thousands of years old.  We have understood what happens to waves when the space they must cover is stretched since the work of a fella named "Doppler" in 1842.  It's now part of 9th grade science classes.

 

Listen, If you want to believe the words of man (Who WASNT there) over the Words of God (Who WAS There) Concerning HIS

creation, You have the free will to do so... But for me, I am not Arrogant enough to believe that God was wrong or lying when he said

the following..   And ANYONE who thinks that they can believe BOTH Genesis AND AbioDarwinism is simply letting Satan delude

them..   They are 180 degrees polar OPPOSITES... and THAT is why Abiodarwinism was invented.. It Never had anything to to

with "Science"  Don't Be Fooled..

Can I believe what I can see with my own eyes?  Can I trust the results of lab experiments I have performed?  :How about decades of experience working with electromagnetic waves in various ways... does that count for anything?  Remember what St. Augustine said about things we know to be certain from reason and experience.

 

Again, metaphor and symbolism in teaching is neither wrong nor lying.

 

Further, it seems you need to be reminded....  my rejection of YEC/Genesis literalism has nothing to do with Darwin and much to do with Newton.  If you want to complain to me about "-isms" then it should probably be "Newtonism."

 

You have said you are familiar with the TE arguments and there are already several threads about TE.  That being the case, and considering this is really off topic, I'll refrain from further comments about TE in this discussion. 

 

My apologies for the distraction .... I will allow you to return to "AbioDarwinism."



#172 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 July 2016 - 09:26 PM

I am curious about what your "Religious Mentors" taught you about the flood of Noah. What did they have to say about it?

 

"My rejection of YEC/Genesis literalism has nothing to do with Darwin and much to do with Newton.  If you want to complain to me about "-isms" then it should probably be "Newtonism."

 

Are you implying that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of is like Gravity?????  Or denying the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve has nothing to do with AbioDarwinism??

 

"I've already described how inserting the light signatures in those objects makes virtually all of creation a deception."

 

Again, What do you think God meant when he said that he "Stretched out the Heavens" 14 TIMES!

Am I to believe that you have a problem with God, Who created the Entire Universe and all of the matter contained in it, being capable of adding electromagnetic radiation while in the process of "Stretching out the Heavens"? Indeed I would like to know how it would be possible to "Stretch out the heavens" WITHOUT adding photons!!!

 

"My apologies for the distraction ...."

 

No apologies necessary, I believe you have made my case for the OP even stronger!



#173 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 22 July 2016 - 03:39 AM

I am curious about what your "Religious Mentors" taught you about the flood of Noah. What did they have to say about it?

My doubts were based on astronomy.  Noah's flood wasn't part of the discussion.  Serious questions about the flood didn't come until much later.

 

Further, it seems you need to be reminded....  my rejection of YEC/Genesis literalism has nothing to do with Darwin and much to do with Newton.  If you want to complain to me about "-isms" then it should probably be "Newtonism."

Are you implying that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth of is like Gravity?????  Or denying the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve has nothing to do with AbioDarwinism??

I'm stating, as clearly as possible that I reject YEC based on Newtonian physics and astronomy.  It has nothing to do with "mud to man" or Darwin.  Darwin (and the "Big Bang") can be absolutely, totally 100% wrong and it does nothing to the evidence that causes me to conclude God's creative act was billions, not thousands, of years ago.

 

I've already described how inserting the light signatures in those objects makes virtually all of creation a deception.  It is no more than a lie .... a fraud.  Things I can go out in my back yard, such as Andromeda and most of the Milky Way don't exist.  Now, that doesn't seem to be much of a problem to you. But, to me, it has major theological and philosophical issues.  

Again, What do you think God meant when he said that he "Stretched out the Heavens" 14 TIMES!

Your question about what "God meant he <sic> said that he <sic> 'Stretched out the Heavens' 14 TIMES!" has already been answered repeatedly. 

 

Here is the most recent explanation again:

... I have already pointed out that we can actually measure the stretching of the heavens.  Isn't it great we can find it in the Bible and science confirms it?  Whoodathunkit?

 

The problem is that the stretching we can observe and measure is not sufficient to account for a universe only thousands of years old.  We have understood what happens to waves when the space they must cover is stretched since the work of a fella named "Doppler" in 1842.  It's now part of 9th grade science classes.

Will I have to repeat that answer 14 TIMES before you get it?

 

Am I to believe that you have a problem with God, Who created the Entire Universe and all of the matter contained in it, being capable of adding electromagnetic radiation while in the process of "Stretching out the Heavens"?

Depends on what you mean by "capable of."  As an omnipotent being, insertion of those added waves wouldn't be a problem.  On the other hand, as a truthful God, doing so would be a violation of His very nature.

 

It's kind of like the question: "Can God create a mountain He cannot move?"  The answer is that He is able to create the mountain.  However, it would create a contradiction to his (omnipotent) nature, so He would not.

 

Indeed I would like to know how it would be possible to "Stretch out the heavens" WITHOUT adding photons!!!

Here's a simple demonstration that requires little more than a rubber band and a pen.  Take a rubber band and mark it every quarter inch or so.  Now, stretch the rubber band.  What happens to the distance between the marks?

 

That distance gets stretched along with the rubber band, doesn't it?  It's the same with stretching space.... as space stretches, so does the light.  No added photons needed.



#174 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 23 July 2016 - 01:06 AM

"My doubts were based on astronomy.  Noah's flood wasn't part of the discussion.  Serious questions about the flood didn't come until much later."

So you dodged my question, nice. OK. (As if you have NO idea what your "Religious Mentors" thought about the Flood of Noah"  Right...

 

But at least you were able to admit what I ALREAD knew all along, This goes far more than just Calling God a liar or Ignorant when he detailed how, and how long it took him to create the universe as described in Genesis (Our ONLY source) Now you have to Call his SON a liar and or Ignorant as well!!

 

Keep in mind that this is the SAME JESUS that you claimed that you believe Raised Himself from the Dead Just as he predicted he would....

So, According to YOU that same Jesus who was able to Prove he was God incarnate with all of his miraculous signs and wonders, DIDNT know

as much as YOU do concerning the Flood of Noah???

 

Lets see here.... YOU SAID...

 

"Serious questions about the flood didn't come until much later"

 

JESUS SAID...

 

38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man.…

 

 

Hmmmm,,,, Who should I believe? Jesus? Or You... Tough choice huh?

 

 

Here lets take another look

 

YOU SAY

 

"God used Darwinian Evolution to Create man over millions of Years"

 

JESUS SAID

 

Matthew 19:4
Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'?

 

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. 3When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.…

 

 

Do you realize NOW why my OP is Spot On?  Look at what continued belief in the Lie of AbioDarwinism has done to YOU!! And you don't even realize it...



#175 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 23 July 2016 - 02:14 AM

Do you realize NOW why my OP is Spot On?  Look at what continued belief in the Lie of AbioDarwinism has done to YOU!! And you don't even realize it...

Of course, he doesn't believe in AbioDarwinism. Most of the sane people understood that.

If you really need to invent a new word, use "TheoDarwinism". LOL

 

And if genesis 1 uses day to signify a period of time, can't Jesus use of "created" also signify something else besides "instant pop"?

It doesn't have to be like a magician who can make a bunny appear in its hat.



#176 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 July 2016 - 01:35 PM

Of course, he doesn't believe in AbioDarwinism. Most of the sane people understood that.

If you really need to invent a new word, use "TheoDarwinism". LOL

 

And if genesis 1 uses day to signify a period of time, can't Jesus use of "created" also signify something else besides "instant pop"?

It doesn't have to be like a magician who can make a bunny appear in its hat.

 

"Of course, he doesn't believe in AbioDarwinism. Most of the sane people understood that."

 

AbioDarwinism is a more accurate term for the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

It makes certain to avoid the puropely vague and ambivalent term "Evolution" which can mean simple adaptation and variation and extrapolate it to mean MUCH MORE THAN IT DOES..

I like to DEFINE exactly what we are talking about! Fair Enough?

 

"If you really need to invent a new word, use "TheoDarwinism". LOL"

 

Actually, I Like your word very much and plan on using it in the future if you don't mind,,

I will interchange it with another phrase that I coined "Oval-Earther" it describes people

who believe (Delusionally) that they can somehow morph Abiodarwinism AND Genesis of the Bible

In other words, trying to convince themselves that the Earth can be FLAT yet ROUND at the same time..

They want to believe in the Judeo Christian God of the Bible (Like Piasan for example) But have been

brainwashed and indoctrinated to the extent that they have an Emotional Attachment to Abiodarwinism

and decide to just Marry the two...  Defies all common sense and logic..

 

"And if genesis 1 uses day to signify a period of time, can't Jesus use of "created" also signify something else besides "instant pop"?"

 

NO!, not at all, Jesus was describing the Creation account of Genesis Word for word.. It is clear that it means what it says it means and

the only reason it has been perverted is because of trying to shove the Square peg of AbioDarwinism into the round hole of Genesis

THEY ARE POLAR OPPOSITES!!!



#177 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 July 2016 - 06:09 PM

I am curious about what your "Religious Mentors" taught you about the flood of Noah. What did they have to say about it?

My doubts were based on astronomy.  Noah's flood wasn't part of the discussion.  Serious questions about the flood didn't come until much later.

So you dodged my question, nice. OK. (As if you have NO idea what your "Religious Mentors" thought about the Flood of Noah"  Right...

Hmmmm...... I thought I answered the question precisely.  Looking back, maybe I misunderstood the question.  The response I gave you was with regard to the discussions surrounding my crisis of faith... not what was being taught in class. 

 

With the understanding this was some 50 (or so) years ago, my best recollection is that there was no classroom teaching (or private conversation) that cast doubt on the flood of Noah.  Nor was it a topic of discussion with those mentors as I was attempting to resolve the light travel problem and a truthful God.

 

Keep in mind,  Noah's flood had nothing to do with the doubts I was having about a 6,000 year old creation.  Efforts to answer my issues with the light travel time problem of YEC by questions of your own about the flood are (and would have been) considered irrelevant to the issues I had raised.  If anything, they demonstrate a total inability to address the problem and would have been harmful, rather than helpful, to continued belief in a 6000 year old universe.

 

But at least you were able to admit what I ALREAD knew all along, This goes far more than just Calling God a liar or Ignorant when he detailed how, and how long it took him to create the universe as described in Genesis (Our ONLY source) Now you have to Call his SON a liar and or Ignorant as well!!

Since when is teaching with the use of symbolism a lie?  I do it all the time in my classes.

 

Further, Genesis is NOT "Our ONLY source" of knowledge about God and His creation.



#178 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:15 PM

Hmmmm...... I thought I answered the question precisely.  Looking back, maybe I misunderstood the question.  The response I gave you was with regard to the discussions surrounding my crisis of faith... not what was being taught in class. 

 

With the understanding this was some 50 (or so) years ago, my best recollection is that there was no classroom teaching (or private conversation) that cast doubt on the flood of Noah.  Nor was it a topic of discussion with those mentors as I was attempting to resolve the light travel problem and a truthful God.

 

Keep in mind,  Noah's flood had nothing to do with the doubts I was having about a 6,000 year old creation.  Efforts to answer my issues with the light travel time problem of YEC by questions of your own about the flood are (and would have been) considered irrelevant to the issues I had raised.  If anything, they demonstrate a total inability to address the problem and would have been harmful, rather than helpful, to continued belief in a 6000 year old universe.

 

Since when is teaching with the use of symbolism a lie?  I do it all the time in my classes.

 

Further, Genesis is NOT "Our ONLY source" of knowledge about God and His creation.

 

 

"Since when is teaching with the use of symbolism a lie?  I do it all the time in my classes."

 

JESUS SAID...

 

38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away. So will be the coming of the Son of Man.…

 

DOES THIS SOUND LIKE "SYMBOLISM TO YOU???

 

....

 

JESUS SAID

 

Matthew 19:4
Jesus answered, "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female'?

 

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. 3When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.…

 

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE "SYMBOLISM" TO YOU?

 

There are exact names and dates involved!!

 

You can try to pretend you are a Christian and think that your "Religious Mentors" or "Scientists" or

St. Agustine are smarter, more knowledgeable, and know the truth better than Jesus does..

But you aren't fooling God by publically calling him and his son a Liar or ignorant about THEIR creation.

My OP stands on its very obvious merits..



#179 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 70
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 July 2016 - 10:32 PM

Do you realize NOW why my OP is Spot On?  Look at what continued belief in the Lie of AbioDarwinism has done to YOU!! And you don't even realize it...

No.  Your OP wasn't even close. 

 

Of course, he doesn't believe in AbioDarwinism. Most of the sane people understood that.

If you really need to invent a new word, use "TheoDarwinism". LOL

Or maybe "abiotheism."

 

AbioDarwinism is a more accurate term for the Hypothetical Hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

It makes certain to avoid the puropely vague and ambivalent term "Evolution" which can mean simple adaptation and variation and extrapolate it to mean MUCH MORE THAN IT DOES..

I like to DEFINE exactly what we are talking about! Fair Enough?

Fair enough. 

 

Speaking EXACTLY, I am not an "abioDarwinist."  It is my position that, from a scientific perspective, all proposals regarding the origin of life are speculative.  Darwin provides a framework that explains the diversity of life, not its origin.

 

 

.....

They want to believe in the Judeo Christian God of the Bible (Like Piasan for example) But have been

brainwashed and indoctrinated to the extent that they have an Emotional Attachment to Abiodarwinism

and decide to just Marry the two...  Defies all common sense and logic..

 

You continue to claim that I have been "brainwashed and indoctrinated" yet you have not answered my questions:

Can I believe what I can see with my own eyes?  Can I trust the results of lab experiments I have performed?  :How about decades of experience working with electromagnetic waves in various ways... does that count for anything?  Remember what St. Augustine said about things we know to be certain from reason and experience.

and most importantly:

....  If God's creation is a deception, how can I possibly believe His word? 

Your attitude is clearly:

1)  You cannot believe what you see with your own eyes if it is in conflict with a literal Genesis.

2)  You cannot believe the lab experiments you have performed if the results are in conflict with a literal Genesis.

3)  You cannot rely on what you have learned from decades of experience working with electromagnetism if it is in conflict with a literal Genesis.

4)  It doesn't matter if virtually all of creation is nothing more than a deception, believe a literal Genesis anyway.

 

Oh yeah... and:

5)  If you believe what you see with your own eyes; the results of lab experiments you have performed; and what you have learned from decades of experience, then you are clearly deluded, brainwashed, and indoctrinated.

 

Ignoring an entire lifetime of experience is what would defy common sense and logic.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: INSANITY, FAIRY TALE, ABIODARWINISM, MENTAL ILLNESS, FANTASY, DELUSION

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users