Tales From The Apocrypha

@pb1022 said
You’re so desperate to change the subject from the theory of evolution to creationism. Why is that?

But I understand. If I were an evolutionist, I wouldn’t want to try to defend the theory either.

So your alternative theory is creationism?! Are you a YECist? Do you also deny all of the various dating techniques used in archaeology and palaeontology? Or do you think god made all the fossils to seem as old as they do to fool atheists? Do you believe in the Turin shroud as well?

@avalanchethecat said
So your alternative theory is creationism?! Are you a YECist? Do you also deny all of the various dating techniques used in archaeology and palaeontology? Or do you think god made all the fossils to seem as old as they do to fool atheists? Do you believe in the Turin shroud as well?

I’m not a YEC, but I haven’t looked into it because, to me, the age of the earth isn’t important. And God exists outside of time, which is something we can’t comprehend, so that further complicates the question.

I’m undecided on the Shroud of Turin. I know the carbon dating test that determined it dated from centuries after Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection had been done on a part of the Shroud that was rewoven after the Shroud was damaged in a fire. A member of the Shroud research team confirmed that in a YouTube video.

And, as far as I know, scientists still cannot explain how the image appeared on the Shroud.

@pb1022 said
I’m not a YEC, but I haven’t looked into it because, to me, the age of the earth isn’t important. And God exists outside of time, which is something we can’t comprehend, so that further complicates the question.

I’m undecided on the Shroud of Turin. I know the carbon dating test that determined it dated from centuries after Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection had be ...[text shortened]... deo.

And, as far as I know, scientists still cannot explain how the image appeared on the Shroud.

Oh you should definitely investigate YEC, it's a perfect fit for you.

edit: Sorry, 'look into' it.

@avalanchethecat said
Oh you should definitely investigate YEC, it's a perfect fit for you.

edit: Sorry, 'look into' it.

You don’t see a complication with determining the age of the earth when the God who created it exists outside of time and created time?

And the original false comparison by you was between “studied” (not investigated) and “looked into.”

@pb1022 said
You don’t see a complication with determining the age of the earth when the God who created it exists outside of time and created time?

And the original false comparison by you was between “studied” (not investigated) and “looked into.”

No I don't.

I'm aware of how the conversation went. In retrospect I now realise that your repeated demand for a list of 'transitional fossils' should have clued me into your level of undestanding of evolution and avoided discussing it with you.

@avalanchethecat said
No I don't.

I'm aware of how the conversation went. In retrospect I now realise that your repeated demand for a list of 'transitional fossils' should have clued me into your level of undestanding of evolution and avoided discussing it with you.

<<No I don't.>>

Because you don’t believe God exists and created the earth?

<<I'm aware of how the conversation went. In retrospect I now realise that your repeated demand for a list of 'transitional fossils' should have clued me into your level of undestanding of evolution and avoided discussing it with you.>>

It’s a reasonable question. Evolutionists claim transitional fossils exist so clearly they have a criteria for establishing what constitutes a transitional fossil. Why can no one quantify them?

And Darwin himself suggested they could be quantified when he said for his theory to be true, the number of intermediate varieties (transitional fossils) in the fossil record must be “truly enormous.”

We both know it isn’t, which makes Darwin a disbeliever in his own theory.

@pb1022 said
<<No I don't.>>

Because you don’t believe God exists and created the earth?

<<I'm aware of how the conversation went. In retrospect I now realise that your repeated demand for a list of 'transitional fossils' should have clued me into your level of undestanding of evolution and avoided discussing it with you.>>

It’s a reasonable question. Evolutionists claim transitio ...[text shortened]... t be “truly enormous.”

We both know it isn’t, which makes Darwin a disbeliever in his own theory.

I think that if god did exist and created the Earth, he'd do so with internally consistent logic.

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is scant and woefully out of date. If I thought you had any interest in the subject I'd give you a reading list, but you're not, of course.

I'm not going to justify your nonsensical claims about 'evolutionists' by wasting any time composing a reasoned reply. What's your source for this information you keep repeating about 'transitional' fossils and Darwin's suggestions in their regard?

@avalanchethecat said
I think that if god did exist and created the Earth, he'd do so with internally consistent logic.

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is scant and woefully out of date. If I thought you had any interest in the subject I'd give you a reading list, but you're not, of course.

I'm not going to justify your nonsensical claims about 'evolutionists' by wasting a ...[text shortened]... nformation you keep repeating about 'transitional' fossils and Darwin's suggestions in their regard?

Google what Darwin said about intermediate varieties. It’s interesting you’re not aware of that quote from him.

@pb1022 said
Google what Darwin said about intermediate varieties. It’s interesting you’re not aware of that quote from him.

I asked what your source was. I suspected you wouldn't be willing to answer because you've already denied reading creationist websites. I'll give you 5/5 for predictability.

@avalanchethecat said
I asked what your source was. I suspected you wouldn't be willing to answer because you've already denied reading creationist websites. I'll give you 5/5 for predictability.

I’m simply not willing to waste my time doing research for you, especially when the quote is not hard to find and you’re so obnoxious on this subject.

I couldn’t care less if you don’t believe me.

You didn’t believe scientists had attempted speciation through experiments with fruit flies and bacteria because I wouldn’t waste my time providing you with a link.

I don’t work for you and don’t take orders from you. If you had an open mind, you’d look for the information yourself.

@avalanchethecat said
So your alternative theory is creationism?! Are you a YECist? Do you also deny all of the various dating techniques used in archaeology and palaeontology? Or do you think god made all the fossils to seem as old as they do to fool atheists? Do you believe in the Turin shroud as well?

I believe in a young earth creation, cannot prove it, any more than I can old earth creationism or old earth it was always here, or it started because something in nothing changed, or whatever other belief is out there.

@pb1022 said
I’m simply not willing to waste my time doing research for you, especially when the quote is not hard to find and you’re so obnoxious on this subject.

I couldn’t care less if you don’t believe me.

You didn’t believe scientists had attempted speciation through experiments with fruit flies and bacteria because I wouldn’t waste my time providing you with a link.

I don’t ...[text shortened]... ou and don’t take orders from you. If you had an open mind, you’d look for the information yourself.

Lol, I'm quite familiar with Darwin thanks, although I get my information from reputable sources. I suspect the drosophila experiment to which you keep referring is the work of Diane Dodd on allopatric speciation, the results of which were actually considered to be positive from an evolutionary perspective.

@kellyjay said
I believe in a young earth creation, cannot prove it, any more than I can old earth creationism or old earth it was always here, or it started because something in nothing changed, or whatever other belief is out there.

I hope you won't consider it offensive if I say that I find the YEC position to be utterly ridiculous.

@avalanchethecat said
I hope you won't consider it offensive if I say that I find the YEC position to be utterly ridiculous.

Not at all; if God is real, then during creation, things happened in such a way that the laws we now believe are in place were not followed, but even if you accept the big bang, that was true in there too. At some point, for some reason, the unexplainable took explainable natural causes to a place, we cannot explain. If we think that means it could only occur billions of years ago or thousands, that is us putting our spin on the unexplainable by trying to explain it in terms we like, nothing more. I'm comfortable in my skin and can take it if my views are not the excepted norm.

@kellyjay said
Not at all; if God is real, then during creation, things happened in such a way that the laws we now believe are in place were not followed, but even if you accept the big bang, that was true in there too. At some point, for some reason, the unexplainable took explainable natural causes to a place, we cannot explain. If we think that means it could only occur billions of yea ...[text shortened]... ike, nothing more. I'm comfortable in my skin and can take it if my views are not the excepted norm.

I don't really get why this god of yours would bother to create the impression that the world and the universe were billions of years old though. Because it has done that, and very consistently.