Lionz wrote:
There are several things that have been worshipped including angels and men and animals and statues and heavenly bodies and nature itself and more perhaps. But if there's one Creator of the heavens, is there not one regardless what's outside earth?
Christians mostly say "yes", but there really is no
logical reason why that must be so.
Lionz wrote:Also, who did not hold that there was a Great Spirit as far as native Americans are concerned? And is it fair to judge Yahushua (sp?) on what has been done by Roman Catholicism?
No. It is not fair to judge God based on how human beings have interpreted and used his words. God gave us free will. However, there were about 3 other threads on that. A couple I believe even labeled "free will versus determinism", etc.
Lionz wrote:Evolutionary theory has actually done much in terms of persecution due to race perhaps. See a slideshow here? You might want to look for arrows towards the bottom of slides and click forward.
No. Evolutionary theory is not responsible for racism. People try to use anything to forward their beliefs.
Lionz wrote:-What if you had to guess how many origins there have been regardless of if you wanted to or not?
Why would I ever have to do that?
Lionz wrote:-How about present to me fish evidence that's against there having been a 6 day creation if there is some?
I already told you. The fossil record. In regards to fish, that is a pretty long-standing and reasonably complete record. START there. As you go back down through the geologic column (layers of rock, etc.), you see modern species at the top and a descent towards earlier and earlier species. Laying it all out for you would take many volumes of books.
Lionz wrote:- yet people considered fossil experts have suggested they felt there was a lack of transitional forms in the fossil record, then what does that tell you?
It is an expected result. Of course there are fewer transition fossils than other types of fossils. However, plenty DO exist.
Lionz wrote:-Maybe you should think about this more if you already have and think it's not relevant in considering whether or not similarities among living creatures necessarily means they stem from a common ancestor.
I already told you several times that I believe there is a creator/designer. This is irrelevant to what the fossil record, etc show. You keep going around in circles. I answer, you ignore my answer and insist that I "did not understand" or that "you don't understand my answer".
Lionz wrote:-Do you have a source that claims most Biblical scholars and Hebrew scholars interpret an unearthly time frame?
Here is one:
http://www.answersincreation.org/word_study_yom.htm without any reference, it is impossible to asseses the methods used or its accuracy. I will say it is disputed by various Gallup poles. They show around 30-40% agree with creationism (depends a bit on how the question is worded), about 30% think that evolution has holes, but only about 10% believe in the young earth/6 earthly day creation.
Lionz wrote:-I brought up words of individuals having to do with the fossil record and an apparent lack of transitional forms and you go off in a direction about people trying to disprove Darwin maybe.
No. You are trying to say that because some historical figures said some things that might not agree with present ideas, it is supposed to indicate a problem. What people say and believe, even very brilliant people, is irrelevant. That is the realm of philosophy. Science relies on proof, when it comes to making statements of fact or evidence to support theories.
Lionz wrote:-Science looks at the evidence and then decides what the explanation is? How about we try to look at some and have it lead us to an explanation? What has been found? A vast amount of fossils in sedimentary rock? Well is sedimentary rock not straight up the result of wet sediment that hardened in the past? What buried vast amounts of creatures in wet sediment fast enough and deep enough for them to have avoided animal scavengers and also non-animal aeriobic and anaerobic decomposers if something did? Hmmm. And what has been found in terms of transitional forms if Gould and Patterson and Ridley all suggested that there was an apparent lack of transitional forms in the fossil record?
Trying to claim all fossils came from the flood? Sorry, but no. First, fossils were formed over very, very long periods of time. There are distinct groupings. Fossils from the Jurassic do not match fossils from the Devonian. There are some individual fossils that persist, that can be found throughout. However, the community as a whole is not. (Sort of like the US was once wholly Native American. Now we have many different groups, but while many Native American tribes have utterly dissapeared, we still have some Native American individuals. And... this is definitely NOT an example of "survival of the fittest" .. just like all survivors in evolution are not necessarily the "fittest" in any overall sense).
-There might be some linguistic issues we should deal with. Do you say evolution and refer to cosmic, chemical, stellar, planetary, organic, macro and micro evolution all balled into one?
Second, not all fossils are formed in water-based sedimentary rocks. The tar pits are one example. Desert preservation is another.
Thirdly, floods leave a definite and distinct pattern. Larger floods leave and even more distinct pattern. The fossil record is simply not explained by "they all"or even "mostly" "died in the flood".
Lionz wrote:-Do you have a personal theory on where ants came from? You might be able to find some generic stuff having to do with vespoid wasps online, but what in terms of fossil evidence suggests that ants evolved from vespoid wasps whether they did or not?
Here is how you do scientific research online or through the library. Reread that article. Note the citations (the lists of sources for the information given). Find those articles. Read them. Or,(online particularly) if you cannot find that exact publication, search for things written by that same author or things by other authors on that topic.
After a while, you will, eventually, find your answer.
Lionz wrote:-You mean to claim that Genesis specifically says that Adam and her were not immortal?
Yes. Read it. That is exactly what it says.
Lionz wrote:Maybe we should be way careful. What if the garden had hundreds of thousands of different trees and one was designed to be able to free individuals from a process brought about by trangression that naturally leads to mortal death?
"What if" has no place in the Bible. It is the inspired word of God. What is there is what is there. I do not add to it or pretend to know more than the text itself reveals, except when it comes to archeological details that fill in cultural understanding and such.
Lionz wrote:You might find stuff dealing with dendrochronology that you will find interesting here. Morris said stuff and TalkOrigins responded and this contains a response to a TalkOrigins response maybe.
http://creationwiki.org/Dendrochronolog ... lk.Origins)
NOTE: That contains a ) that's not showing up as a hyperlink and you will need to play around with it to get to there maybe.
There are even trees of the same species growing side by side that don't produce absolutely identical ring patterns perhaps. And who knows when seperate disturbances have been lined up in error and when rings have been wrongly inferred if inferring missing rings is common in BCP chronology?
Hint: Anything put forward by Dr Morris is incredibly poor science.
Sorry. Dr Morris likes to go through research he does not understand and then tries to pull out exceptions and anomalies. If you want an answer to that question, talk to a dendrologist, not a fish biologist. For my part, I know that the methods have been tested and tested and tested. There are limits to it, situations where there are problems. Just as an example, even "side-by-side" trees don't absolutely necessarily grow in the same soil. A tree on top of a rock will naturally be highly stunted, etc. Again, this idea that all you have to do is find a few anomalies or even outright errors (yes, they exist, of course!) is all you have to do to completely and utterly invalidate an entire field of study is ridiculous.
It is arguments like this that give young earth creationists NO credibility in any real scientific circle.
Lionz wrote:It has long been known that individual tree rings can be changed, during growth, from the climate-signal-dictated size to a different size as a result of some disturbance. This disturbance (for example, insect attack, earthquake, release of gas, etc.) can make the ring either smaller or larger. If these disturbances occurred at sufficient frequency, and reappeared in sequence in other trees at later times, the actually-contemporaneous trees would crossmatch in an age-staggered manner, thus creating an artificial chronology.
For illustrative purposes, imagine the simplified situation of only three trees, (A), (B), and (C), which started growing at exactly the same time, and each of which lived exactly 500 years. If nothing happened, the tree-ring series would normally crossmatch according to climatic signal, with the crossmatch point starting with the first ring each of Tree (A), Tree (B), and Tree (C). All the constituents of the 3-tree chronology would overlap completely, creating a chronology that spans exactly 500 years.
Now suppose that an external disturbance causes rings 2, 6, 9, 14, etc., in Tree (A) to grow much bigger or smaller than they otherwise would. At about this time, rings 1, 7, 10, 13, etc. are perturbed in Tree (B). 300 years after the disturbance of the growth of the rings in Tree (A), the sequence of disturbances repeats in Tree (B), affecting rings 302, 306, 309, 314, etc. (The repetition doesn’t have to be exact, because the discrepancy can be covered by inferred missing rings, which are common in the BCP chronology). 400 years after the disturbances in the early rings of Tree (B), similar disturbances occur in Tree (C), affecting rings 401, 407, 410, 413, etc. Identical reasoning can be applied to many more trees, and over a much longer period of time.
The net result is the fact that Trees (A), (B), and (C) will no longer crossmatch across their 500-year common growth history. They will now only crossmatch at their ring-perturbed ends. The result is an illusory chronology that is 1200 years long. Crossmatching experiments that I had performed show that it is only necessary to disturb 2–3 rings per decade, sustained across at least a few decades, in order to override the climatic signal, and to cause the tree-ring series to artificially crossmatch at the ring-perturbed ends.
[/quote]
Read my previous answer. I am not an expert in tree rings. I believe experts in tree rings.
but I have to say I find it rather suspicious that you show an inability to understand and ask questions that are pretty basic, but come to anything highly technical and suddenly you are quite fluent and lack no understanding at all.
As I have said before, this sounds like either a set up, a script, trolling or all of the above.
Lionz wrote:-I can refer to quite a bit of trees that are thousands of years old and yet not a single one that has been dated to be over 5,000 years old with tree ring dating maybe. If trees have truly been growing on earth for hundreds of millions of years, is there a limit for how long trees trunks can grow above ground that just happens to back up young earth creationism and there having been a global flood between 4 and 5 thousand years ago?
Let me rephrase this. You are trying to claim that because the oldest
living tree we know in existance is under 5000 years old, this is evidence that there was a flood 5000 years ago?
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can start with that as a question. That is you can say, "well, we know the oldest tree is less than 5000 years old, so maybe that is when the flood happened", BUT then you have to go our and find evidence to match that theory.
There is a limit to how big trees can get. There is a limit to how old a tree can be, how old a dog and every creature on earth can be. That is not proof of a flood.
Lionz wrote:-Does Genesis 1:21 refer to tanniynim?
That word is not mentioned in my english-language Bible, no. If you refer to Hebrew or another language, I am not qualified to answer. I read the English language version and believe it to be a true translation.
Lionz wrote:-See the word whales there with a hyperlinked 8577 next to it? Maybe you should click 8577 if so. Do you theorize that tanniynim actually means whales?
see above.
I will leave it to a dendrologist to fully criticize this article, but like virtually anything put out by the Creation Science institute, it makes a lot of assumptions, takes small bits of information and then spins it out into what is supposed to be full-blown "proof".
