|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When Will The End-Times Be And How Will We Know? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
This is why I stated that after 100,000 years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14 is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing to do with this. It is ludicrous to believe that significantamounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000 year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the presence of iron in the soil. SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question! Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you? Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating. Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating? In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge! If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change. Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do? Edited by dwise1, : added subtitle for visibility
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
candle writes: Bicycles have as much of a chance of reproducingas a human mother has of giving birth to a crow. And yet again you have complete agreement from science. I wonder what you think evolution is?
In any event, couldn't a bicycle evolve into a Harley if we allowed it tens of millions of years to do so? It actually took about 100 years.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
unlight candle writes:
It actually took about 100 years. In any event, couldn't a bicycle evolve into aHarley if we allowed it tens of millions of years to do so? It isn't nice to poke a brain-dead body with a stick. He has no clue what the word "evolution" means. In fact, not only have creationists created a bizarre delusional conspiracy-theory boogeyman which they call "evolution" to scare themselves with, but they keep using the confusion they generate by conflating definitions in order to deceive both others and, far more importantly, themselves . So let's engage in this evolution (as we use it properly in the US Navy -- the US Navy could not possibly function without evolutions, even though that has nothing to do with biological evolution). The word "evolution" first appeared around 1620 (give or take a couple decades; I'm doing this from memory). It means "turning out" as refers to such things as the unfolding of a flower. IOW, the evolution of something is tracking and examining its development over time. Thus we speak of the evolution of a river valley, stellar evolution (ie, how a star forms and goes through the changes of its lifespan), evolution of a particular city, evolution of economic systems, evolution of political systems, evolution of trade routes, evolution of military doctrine, evolution of languages, evolution of Christianity, evolution of bicycle design, etc. Including but not restricted to biological evolution which is how life develops over time. Note that it was more than two centuries before Darwin used the term modified as "biological evolution", thus marking his ideas as something special and different from all the other kinds of evolution (same as we have specially modified words like "paper towel", "tomato catsup", "motor coach", "needle gun", "gauss rifle", "military intelligence"). In contrast, creationists (especially Kent Hovind and his wanna-be followers) use a tired old obfuscating argument of (reconstructing from memory):
quote: As far as we can determine, creationists misunderstand/misrepresent evolution as being some kind of all-inclusive monolithic philosophy that includes all of those and that the whole thing is anti-God! Why they would think something so incredibly stupid, nobody can say. It would help if they would talk with us about what they think and why they think that, but they refuse to even try. Frankly, I think that even they don't know what they think nor why they think that. In short, there's no thought involved in what they're doing. So, we can indeed discuss the evolution of bicycle design and even examine the processes involved. But unlike the benighted unlit candle2, at least we are fully aware that the evolution of bikes has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Darwinian evolution. But as long as these brain-dead creationists refuse to learn what evolution actually is, they will continue to blather nonsense. BTW, a Navy evolution is where the crew or part of the crew turns out to work together on a particular task (eg, sallying the ship). In the reserves, we applied the term mainly to training evolutions. Like I said, the US Navy could not possibly function without evolutions. Edited by dwise1, : added creationist's conclusion in the quote sectionEdited by dwise1, : change in second paragraph adding " which they call "evolution" "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Could I again request that the evolution discussion be taken to other more appropriate threads? Some possible alternatives are:
These are just suggestions, there are likely other more appropriate evolution threads. Please reply in a topic-appropriate thread, then post a note here that you've done so. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Phat, you simply refuse to listen. It is a willful behavior that has been an obvious trait for almost two decades. The Evil was in creating. There is no way around it Phat. You simply worships a true shit piece of a god. Stop and think. You have asserted before that GOD is complete.(Both good and evil) I would counter that by saying He allowed for the possibility of evil and that Lucifer actualized it. (to fit the dogmatic storyline) So the question is this:If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose the possibility of evil (go along with my made-up hypothesis) is God evil for allowing Lucifer to personify evil? Edited by Phat, : No reason given."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat, you can masturbate as much as you like but as always you simply refuse to even address what others write.
You are simply without probity. The God you worship is evil because he does evil. If a god has foreknowledge and creates some who will be damned then that god is vile, evil, despicable and utterly without worth or merit. You simply try to excuse the excrement you call God.My Website: My Website
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose the possibility of evil (go along with my made-up hypothesis) is God evil for allowing Lucifer to personify evil? Is GOD evil IF He allowed for the possibility of evil?Does it really matter if He foreknew the outcome? If so, WHY? Since your chosen god is a ghost with only imaginary powers these questions are moot. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You broke my irony meter.
Stop and think. Phat writes:
God didn't just "allow for the possibility" of evil. He didn't just "allow for the possibility" that somebody would come along and do evil. God created Lucifer. Is GOD evil IF He allowed for the possibility of evil? He didn't just "allow for the possibility" that somebody would dig a tiger trap on his front lawn and that some little kid would fall in when trying to retrieve his soccer ball. God dug the frigging tiger trap. So the answer to your question is, "Yes." Yes, God is evil because He creating "the possibility of evil" is exactly the same as creating the evil directly.
Phat writes:
Of course it matters. It's been explained to you many times. If you point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, yes, yes, yes it does matter if you know full well whether the gun is loaded or not. YOU stop and think. Does it really matter if He foreknew the outcome? If so, WHY?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Say you create a legion of robots that are capable of committing evil. When one of your robots commits murder, who's responsible, you or the robot?
Phat writes: If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose the possibility of evil (go along with my made-up hypothesis) is God evil for allowing Lucifer to personify evil? Did God have a choice in creating Lucifer? Did He have a choice in allowing Lucifer to embrace evil? If he had a choice, and presumably he did since he's the all-powerful God who can do anything, then what does choosing to allow evil say about God? You keep asking what are in essence the same questions over and over again as if they haven't been answered already and as if this ground isn't already well trod. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I cant believe how dense you are concerning this hypothesis.
If GOD created Angels initially and in some way there was the knowing possibility that these Angels could choose whether or not to do His bidding, is He evil at the point that He knowing created the possibility for Angelic rebellion? Keep in mind that I'm being hypothetical yet am following a dogma that has pervaded the church at large. I am asking you a simple question. Not expecting a lecture about how I refuse to read or understand...these are all tactics that YOU use to frame your issues and dismiss mine.
The God you worship is evil because he does evil. Oh? So who wrote the book? After all, the evolving Bible was (according to you) authored, edited and redacted by man. So to begin with, you argue that humans created God.(And define GOD and god). So from the jump, your argument assumes these things. I am simply asking you to consider a hypothetical. Which is:1) GOD is the Creator of all seen and unseen. He(She,It) is unlike any God described throughout human literature by people thus far. All I am doing is ascribing to Him/Her/It some basic characteristics so as to form my hypothetical. 2) I am NOT trying to market nor describe the implausible GOD that you have alluded to...namely One who is inclusive, a product of human descriptions, and Whom expects humans to answer their own charge which they were given the grace and ability to do since day 1.
jar writes: OK let's go with this a minute. "If a god" creates none who will be damned what then do we do with evil? How is explained? If a god has foreknowledge and creates some who will be damned then that god is vile, evil, despicable, and utterly without worth or merit."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: He’s not being dense, he’s just following the common Christian view that God has perfect foreknowledge.
quote: With perfect foreknowledge it’s not just a possibility - it’s an inevitability. A deliberately chosen inevitability. Now deal with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
With perfect foreknowledge it’s not just a possibility - it’s an inevitability. A deliberately chosen inevitability. The apologetic canned answers still seem to work. Now deal with that.Choosing Jesus is the option that negates the power of evil. The fact that God allowed evil to exist as an "attractive nuisance" seems to be a separate issue. It describes a God that humans are expected to correct and discipline. Deal with that. Edited by Phat, : No reason given."A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.” “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Apparently not, since all you are doing at best is avoiding the point. Maybe that counts as “working” for you.
quote: Not in any relevant sense. Indeed it seems you really mean that choosing to worship apologists negates the power of truth. Except that it doesn’t really.
quote: If God has perfect foreknowledge that is merely a deceptive phrasing meant to cover up a massive problem in your beliefs.
quote: That is not something that anyone else is suggesting, nor is it a rational inference from anything anyone else is suggesting.
quote: OK. It’s a stupid fabrication you invented because you can’t handle the basic reasoning involved. You have two options if you want to be honest. First you can insist that God has limits which absolve him of responsibility. Alternatively you can accept that the position you are arguing against is correct. Presenting inevitability as a mere possibility is not honest, and obviously so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
"If a god" creates none who will be damned what then do we do with evil? How is explained? Same as good. Evolution. The arms race over the struggle to survive and the altruism that develops in populations for protection against the evil of being hunted and eaten. Ok, I'll see myself to the door.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat:
Yes/No only answers will be accepted. Is God the creator of all that is seen and unseen? Does God have foreknowledge? Is anyone sent to hell?My Website: My Website
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024