Jump to content


Photo

Where Is Your Evidence?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
13 replies to this topic

#1 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:33 AM

Posted Image
and the magic word is "think" more false propaganda

#2 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:41 AM

Posted Image
and the magic word is "think" more false propaganda


Here's the only evidence that materialistic evolutionists "Actually" have...

Attached Files



#3 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 24 May 2012 - 09:48 AM

The evidence I rely on is the testimony of God that is found in Holy Bible as scripture, the written word of God to man.
The scripture bases all of its historical narrative on testimony an most importantly on the genealogy of man that is associated with it.
The Holy Bible is a legal document consisting of two full and complete testaments, one old, and the other new.
That is the legal evidence I rely on as the basis of all history of man.

The thing I note about the pictures is that they exemplify opinions of men that can offer no testimony of history whatsoever, in regards to the depicted narratives.

The Holy Bible is, as is well known, far above such shallow speech as conveyed by cartoons.

So, the cartoon level of debate must be left to the imaginative artists hired by patrons of modern mythologies born of the modern day false science cult.

I expect it to be recognizable bay all serious thinkers, that the use of cartoons as stories about supposed lands before time, is a direct admission of the falsity of the science requiring it, since, cartoons are merely simplistic subliminal messaging methods designed to influence children.

If the cartoons presented were thought to acutely depict a true historical narrative then the genetic genealogical evidences would naturally agree, but, no such agreement has been found.

The only defenses left today allowing a smidgen of hope for natualism is stories designed to hide the truth. Which stories have predictably been rapidly forced to change and dna evidence invalidates all previous nonsense storylines of the fake sciences born of naturalism.

The history that all genealogical study of genetic data points to is that all creatures came from the same area of the world the ark of Noah came to rest in as according to the Genesis accounting of historical events.

So, the well known "out of africa" spin is merely an attempt to hide the fact that man entered africa after the dispersion from Babel, was bottlenecked and some left there again. And the so called neaderthals etc etc, are simply man according to all objective dna data.
What has happened is that the evolutionists put their feet fully into their mouths, so to speak, before the new era of dna sciences arose to dispute all the many fanciful fairytale interpretations casually told by cult members looking few artifacts, which belayed any danger of authentic scientific critique (actual peer review, as opposed to the common "I like that story/I don't like it level of review by men pretensing to be actual scientists).

Now we know that the many made up depictions of ape like, primitive men based on some bones and what not, are actually genetically man, no different than today.

Now the cover up by the boneheads of modern mythmaking must be intensified, but it is futile.
There are way to many absurdities in all the stories, that mere common sense exposes.
So I await any serious discussion about any of the crazy stories that God predicted would arise at the time of the end of the world when men start drinking the global koolaid designed for the wilful ingorance required of unbelief toward God and his Holy Bible.

#4 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 24 May 2012 - 12:35 PM

Posted Image

Quote: Here's the only evidence that materialistic evolutionists "Actually" have...

Ha, ha, ha, ha,ha. That tickled me. How very, very true.

'Let God be true and every man a liar'. Romans 3:4

#5 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 24 May 2012 - 06:22 PM

Too bad the missing link is still missing.

#6 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 May 2012 - 09:08 PM

Too bad the missing link is still missing.


They're grinding a new set of bones as we speak.

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 27 May 2012 - 07:03 AM

The evidence I rely on is the testimony of God that is found in Holy Bible as scripture, the written word of God to man.
The scripture bases all of its historical narrative on testimony an most importantly on the genealogy of man that is associated with it.
The Holy Bible is a legal document consisting of two full and complete testaments, one old, and the other new.
That is the legal evidence I rely on as the basis of all history of man.

The thing I note about the pictures is that they exemplify opinions of men that can offer no testimony of history whatsoever, in regards to the depicted narratives.

The Holy Bible is, as is well known, far above such shallow speech as conveyed by cartoons.

So, the cartoon level of debate must be left to the imaginative artists hired by patrons of modern mythologies born of the modern day false science cult.

I expect it to be recognizable bay all serious thinkers, that the use of cartoons as stories about supposed lands before time, is a direct admission of the falsity of the science requiring it, since, cartoons are merely simplistic subliminal messaging methods designed to influence children.

If the cartoons presented were thought to acutely depict a true historical narrative then the genetic genealogical evidences would naturally agree, but, no such agreement has been found.

The only defenses left today allowing a smidgen of hope for natualism is stories designed to hide the truth. Which stories have predictably been rapidly forced to change and dna evidence invalidates all previous nonsense storylines of the fake sciences born of naturalism.

The history that all genealogical study of genetic data points to is that all creatures came from the same area of the world the ark of Noah came to rest in as according to the Genesis accounting of historical events.

So, the well known "out of africa" spin is merely an attempt to hide the fact that man entered africa after the dispersion from Babel, was bottlenecked and some left there again. And the so called neaderthals etc etc, are simply man according to all objective dna data.
What has happened is that the evolutionists put their feet fully into their mouths, so to speak, before the new era of dna sciences arose to dispute all the many fanciful fairytale interpretations casually told by cult members looking few artifacts, which belayed any danger of authentic scientific critique (actual peer review, as opposed to the common "I like that story/I don't like it level of review by men pretensing to be actual scientists).

Now we know that the many made up depictions of ape like, primitive men based on some bones and what not, are actually genetically man, no different than today.

Now the cover up by the boneheads of modern mythmaking must be intensified, but it is futile.
There are way to many absurdities in all the stories, that mere common sense exposes.
So I await any serious discussion about any of the crazy stories that God predicted would arise at the time of the end of the world when men start drinking the global koolaid designed for the wilful ingorance required of unbelief toward God and his Holy Bible.



I'm sorry to be rude but its testimonials such as this, "the Bible is all the evidence I need" that many evolutionists make fun of.

Consider that if something is to be true in this physical world then there would be physical evidence of it, perhaps consider evidence that confirms the Bible.


As the scientists of pre-evolution times were interested in science to see how God made the world work, perhaps the same can be said of the evidence of God.


es quaerens intellectum “faith in search of understanding”

#8 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 27 May 2012 - 08:05 AM

I'm sorry to be rude but its testimonials such as this, "the Bible is all the evidence I need" that many evolutionists make fun of.

Consider that if something is to be true in this physical world then there would be physical evidence of it, perhaps consider evidence that confirms the Bible.


As the scientists of pre-evolution times were interested in science to see how God made the world work, perhaps the same can be said of the evidence of God.


es quaerens intellectum “faith in search of understanding”


Not so much evolutionists, but atheists. The main problem is their inability to provide any confirming evidence for their assertion that there is no God. Also, they reject the Bible in direct defiance of the evidence surrounding it, such as secular historical accounts. Some of these historians are even hostile to Christianity, but still confirm important details, so it cannot be claimed that there is a conspiracy surrounding the historical writings of Jesus. The only real reason to reject the Bible is to reject the authority of God, not because of evidence.

I agree with the assertion that we should seek further understanding through scientific exploration and experimentation, but we should also incorporate historical data into our reconstruction of earth and human history. Uinkaret flows at the Grand Canyon were measured by 6 K-Ar which suggested 10,000 to 17 million years of age, 5 Rb-Sr suggested 1.27-1.39 billion years of age, 1 Pb-Pb isochron dating suggested 2.6 billion years of age, 1 Rb-Sr isochron dating suggested 1.34 billion years old. Native American pottery found in the lava indicated that it was only 800-1000 years old. Really, what are we going to trust here?
My point is that extrapolated data can be helpful, but we should not rest our case on that data.

#9 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:10 PM

Speaking of the Grand Canyon, here's a good video which compares the rapidly laid down sediments from the Mt. Saint Helen's eruption to the supposed millions of years of sediment of the Grand Canyon. It's evidence for a young Grand Canyon:



#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:52 PM

Not so much evolutionists, but atheists. The main problem is their inability to provide any confirming evidence for their assertion that there is no God. Also, they reject the Bible in direct defiance of the evidence surrounding it, such as secular historical accounts. Some of these historians are even hostile to Christianity, but still confirm important details, so it cannot be claimed that there is a conspiracy surrounding the historical writings of Jesus. The only real reason to reject the Bible is to reject the authority of God, not because of evidence.

I agree with the assertion that we should seek further understanding through scientific exploration and experimentation, but we should also incorporate historical data into our reconstruction of earth and human history. Uinkaret flows at the Grand Canyon were measured by 6 K-Ar which suggested 10,000 to 17 million years of age, 5 Rb-Sr suggested 1.27-1.39 billion years of age, 1 Pb-Pb isochron dating suggested 2.6 billion years of age, 1 Rb-Sr isochron dating suggested 1.34 billion years old. Native American pottery found in the lava indicated that it was only 800-1000 years old. Really, what are we going to trust here?
My point is that extrapolated data can be helpful, but we should not rest our case on that data.


Yes of course, physical evidence in this case also incorporates historical evidence :)
  • Remnant of The Abyss likes this

#11 Portillo

Portillo

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sydney

Posted 27 May 2012 - 06:36 PM



Steve Austin is the best.

#12 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 29 May 2012 - 12:55 PM

I'm sorry to be rude but its testimonials such as this, "the Bible is all the evidence I need" that many evolutionists make fun of.

I'm not offended by any unsupported opinion.

What I did is offer the basis of my understanding of science as per the op post.

I consider threats of being laughed at by supposedly higher intellects as merely an avoidance tactic based on fear.



Consider that if something is to be true in this physical world then there would be physical evidence of it, perhaps consider evidence that confirms the Bible.

I have. I know of no scientific evidence invalidating scripture. And I don't fear being taught by enlighted people.



Lets take a simple example.



Lets compare the "singularity" notion (another word for MIRACLE: a one time event exceeding the limits of science) with the Genesis account.



The testimony of scripture is that God created earth and then sometime later, concerning our universe, it records that God said, "Let there be light."



The modern myth wrapped in fake science jargon purports that at a moment when no physics as we know it existed, all things expanded into existence from out of no knowable place, to become all that we see now as chance would have it.



The Hubble Telescope has revealed that the universe is too large to allow any rational explaination as to why all of its visible objects show no measure of great ages based on any assumption of timeline from a center to its farthest visble extent.



But, the phrase, "Let there be light" does.



The thing about scripture is that, in that it is the word of God, it contains more meaning in a few words, that any grand consensus of intelluctual produce in volumes. That is, man can argue endlessly about what they suppose they really mean by the singularity event the invented with merely imagination minus any corresponding scientific data.



So, is expressed by the phrase, "Let there be light"?



1) That at the beginning all matter was energized.

2) That at the beginning there was no restriction to the speed of light since, "let" forbids it.

3) That therefore, the required warmth, a designer would want if aiming at life as a goal of work was provided.

4) That communication of existence by all matter was made possible to farthest end of the universe and to its greatest depth.

5) That a metaphor of truth was produced.

6) That the priority of truth as opposed to the ignorance natural to all darkness was established.

7) That the first word of the true God parenthesises all creation by being his last word, as well. (that is, that by saying, let there be light, God is forbiding the work of any enemy of full disclosure of truths.)



That is, if one were to look to the furthest extent of the known universe they will find that light is there, has been there, and remains there until God closes up shop, as it were. And that is what we find.



Whereas, with the mythology of modern fake science we find no corresponding evidences of the fable of singularity, enormous spans of time etc.



As the scientists of pre-evolution times were interested in science to see how God made the world work, perhaps the same can be said of the evidence of God.

It is profoundly evident. However, the minds of men have been blinded by philosophy in disregard of any true physics of science.


es quaerens intellectum “faith in search of understanding”

Thanks for translating. Using latin makes it seem so much more profound than it really is, don't you think?

Can anyone find understanding without faith? Or, more precisely, will anyone even be motivated without faith?

Man was in the dark ages of superstition until the Holy Bible was published for the common man, and that is not a coincidence, given the great extent of the ages of ignorance that enthralled the ancients, the Greeks, the Romans, the Babylonians etc.



It is only the Bible that has caused men to note that God who is rational has created a universe that is rationally understood.

And now, as the evolutionists, the uniformitarians, the naturalism philosophers gain political and worldly consensus of majority, in unity of rejecting the Holy Bible, what do we find now? That God prophesied rightly that in these last days men would become wilfully ignorant of obvious truths, and go about inventing fables.

Is there anything more blind than seeing great depths and heights of flood sediments and not comprehending the flood that produced them?

Is there anything more silly than the notion that chance events produce semblances of designed things?

Much less the irrational and simplistic notions that, a) all things came forth from nowhere, and B) all things were ordained and produced by no one.



Compare that to the common sense comprehension that, Someone did something comprehensible, on purpose.


  • JayShel likes this

#13 Remnant of The Abyss

Remnant of The Abyss

    Bible Inerrantist

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Raised Catholic and became born again in college. Now I'm non denominational.
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southern USA

Posted 29 May 2012 - 03:38 PM

Steve Austin is the best.


The entire Institute for Creation Research is the best! Cheers!

B)

#14 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 29 May 2012 - 06:04 PM

The only real reason to reject the Bible is to reject the authority of God, not because of evidence.

I agree with this assessment. But, to clarify my point. Not only is the historical accuracy of scripture trustworthy, its scientific accuracy is as well. Few people I have conversed with appreciate (probably only because they never looked closely enough) the significant scientific statements provided in scripture. I gave one about "Let there be light" in which I pointed out how profoundly it advances an idea that does indeed correspond to modern information about the cosmos beyond mans view in former times. Let me give another example. The Genesis notion of "replenish". This seemingly simple notion doesn't mean that,, as some have theorized, that there was a previous era when the earth was destroyed after which Adam was being instructed to refill the vacated world on earth. Instead the word "replenish" refers to the notion of the ongoing constant need for things to be restored, or replaced as they are used up and must be recycled with ingenuity and effort on man's part. Thus, in the word 'replenish' is comprehended the modern notion of "entropy." Again, a very advanced notion is present in the early chapters of Genesis where God, who is purported to have created man, and placed him purposely into a system, accurately details the work that will be necessary. "Multiply", and "subdue" are words pointing to things that 'replenish' doesn't since, God is only remarkably redundant when providing emphasis by means of repetition of a phrase. So, a man must replenish his food store, his dietary needs, his fire, other resources etc...all because all nature is subject to entropy lest man think the physical cosmos is or was ever eternal. Thus, the sun will one day fade out if not replenished like man replenishing the fuel of his campfire. Is it not curious that, the seemingly simple narrative of Genesis is chockedful of advanced knowledge. What is curious more so, to me, is how God writes in such a way as to allow the supposedly intellectuals overlook even obvious clues that a greater mind than they think they have today, narrated the history in Genesis. I suspect that was done because God demands faith towards him by man, whether high or low minded, and true faith begets humility.

I agree with the assertion that we should seek further understanding through scientific exploration and experimentation, but we should also incorporate historical data into our reconstruction of earth and human history.

True. But, my main point was that there are two realms of proof that are valid, one is true science which rests upon, valid and repeatable scientific experiment, and the other is legal testimony. Thus, ordinary physical law manifests the ordination of God upon matter in some way and provides a consistent and constant testimony of physical data from experiment. But, the past can only be confirmed by eye witnesses as any detective well knows. For, many stories can rest upon interpretations of the very same data set, and all of them be proved wrong. But, eye witnesses provide legal proof of past events. Which is why God simply asks a reasonable man, "Where were you when I created the earth?" And is not legal proof greater than scientific? For, legal matters are matters of life not inanimate processes with no freedom of action.
  • JayShel likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users