All Atheist's End up In Hell

[studentofthemarkets]

And the angel said to the women,
“Do not be afraid;
for I know that you are looking for Jesus
who has been crucified.
He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.
Come, see the place where He was lying.
And go quickly and tell His disciples
that He has risen from the dead.
Matthew 28:5-7 NASB​

 

[Illini Trader]

I would rather believe scientists who claim the earth is millions of years old than christians with no experience claiming the earth is thousands of years old.

There are Biblical scholars that believe there is gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 which may put the earth as old as some scientist's think. It has to do with the wording that the earth was void and elsewhere there are indications that the earth was not created void. The idea is that satan fell during that time period creating this situation. In any regard how long is human history? --- about 6,000 years. So you could very well have an old earth and recent man.

 

[Illini Trader]

It tends to corroborate some things i've been saying here.

That is good I guess because I don't think any of the rest of us have a clue as to what you have been saying here.

 

[themickey]

how long is human history? --- about 6,000 years.

......While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago. Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old, and industrialization started in the earnest only in the 1800s......
[My edit: 11,500 years ago]
https://www.universetoday.com/38125/how-long-have-humans-been-on-earth

Göbekli Tepe (Turkish: [gœbecˈli teˈpe], "Potbelly Hill"; known as Girê Mirazan or Xirabreşkê in Kurdish) is a Neolithic archaeological site in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Dated to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, between c. 9500 and 8000 BCE, the site comprises a number of large circular structures supported by massive stone pillars – the world's oldest known megaliths. Many of these pillars are richly decorated with abstract anthropomorphic details, clothing, and reliefs of wild animals, providing archaeologists rare insights into prehistoric religion and the particular iconography of the period. The 15 m (50 ft)-high, 8 ha (20-acre) tell also includes many smaller rectangular buildings, quarries, and stone-cut cisterns from the Neolithic, as well as some traces of activity from later periods.

Göbekli Tepe

Founded c. 9500 BCE
Abandoned c. 8000 BCE
The site was first used at the dawn of the Neolithic period, which in Southwest Asia marks the appearance of the oldest permanent human settlements anywhere in the world. Prehistorians link this Neolithic Revolution to the advent of agriculture.......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

 

[themickey]

And the angel said to the women,
“Do not be afraid;
for I know that you are looking for Jesus
who has been crucified.
He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said.
Come, see the place where He was lying.
And go quickly and tell His disciples
that He has risen from the dead.
Matthew 28:5-7 NASB​

You can keep quoting the bible ad infinitum, doesn't make that gospel, excuse the pun.

 

[themickey]

The bible, the only one leg (stool) you have to stand on.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

So Dr Morris wrote that Dr Brett wrote that evolution is not continuous but instead happens in short spurts (3 - 7 million years according to the paper I referenced). This essentially is like Dr Morris saying, "the part of the paper about stasis is true because it's consistent with my theory, but the part about evolution over 3 - 7 million years is false because it's not part of my theory."

That won't convince anyone who is not already a believer.​

The way I understand it is that some scientists, such as Dr. Brett, are willing to have an open mind to how to interpret the evidence they see, even if it means going against common thought. The quote Dr. Morris used was Dr. Brett's honest evaluation of the record, although he still has an evolutionary bias. Remember, creationists use the same record to support OUR bias. Creationists aren't anti-science or against scientific evidence, we just interpret the evidence differently than evolutionists.


This quote I got from the paper by Dr. Brett that you referenced earlier and touches on the discussion (I added emphasis):

6.5.1. Macroevolutionary implications
Coordinated stasis appears to be a common
phenomenon that characterizes fossil faunas in
widely different paleoecological settings. A number
of constraints on the modes of large scale evolution
would seem to be imposed by the pervasiveness of
this pattern. We contend that coordinated stasis
runs counter to expectations of many traditional
evolutionary models, including those of the
Modern Synthesis (Dobzhansky, 1937). The
pattern indicates that stability is the norm through-
out life's history and that evolutionary change is
rare and discontinuous. Moreover, and echoing
the claim of Boucot (1990b), the pattern indicates
that both significant morphological change within
organisms and major ecological restructuring
occur in a very small proportion of earth's history,
perhaps less than one percent of geologic time.
Many long-standing ideas about the mechanisms
of large scale evolutionary change must be recon-
sidered in light of this widespread pattern of stasis.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018296000855?via=ihub
​

Now, for the creationists interpretation of the fossil records, below is a link to an article dealing with punctuated equilibrium....which has to do with how one interprets the lack of transitional fossils. The whole article is worth reading, but here is just an excerpt:

Let’s unscramble this jargon. First of all, we have a new term, punctuated anagenesis (or “progressive evolution”) instead of punctuated equilibrium. This is a distinction without a difference. Both terms refer to stasis (which Landis and Schraiber acknowledge is common in the fossil record) and sudden evolutionary change. The only difference is that the new version includes more little jumps more often.​

More importantly, the components of “Lévy processes” are both random! Brownian motion, like the jiggling of particles under a microscope, is random. So too are the “jumps” they add to their model. Think of popcorn kernels on a hot plate jiggling in an earthquake. If some pop and land a little farther away than the unpopped kernels, they’re still not going anywhere. Yet from this kind of “model,” these evolutionists expect to account for all the complexity of the human body from bacteria, given enough time.
​

And a little later on:

The math in this paper is impressive, but meaningless if the premise is wrong. Landis and Schraiber are trying to account for rapid adaptive evolution by chance, using two unguided processes: Brownian motion and random jumps. Even a kid without calculus knows that chance plus chance equals chance. You’re not going to get rabbits out of hats, or out of assumed pre-rabbit ancestors (like reptiles), by unguided processes.

Here’s what’s going on. These two evolutionists know that the fossil record shows stasis and abrupt appearance, just like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould knew when they proposed punctuated equilibria back in 1972. Remember when Gould called the absence of transitional forms the “trade secret of paleontology”? Whether in 1972 or in 2017, evolutionists dare not employ teleology in any of their theorizing. Having ruled out design by fiat, all they have are chance and natural law.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/11/punctuated-equilibria-is-back-but-still-magical/
​

So much for my new determination to keep posts short and to the point!

 

[piezoe]

Why do I post this stuff? Because some people think that Genesis is a myth and they have faith that evolution is truthful in it's explanation of how we got here, even though there are serious problems with the theory of evolution, such as contradicting scientific laws (as previously shown).

What is a myth?

View attachment 287081

So, evidence and facts aren't going to support a myth. Good thing there is physical evidence for a Global Flood....it can't be categorized as a myth!!

I've found a simpler way to both express and summarize my point, which is a point of logic: An Hypothesis concerning evolution does not have to be true for the biblical account in Genesis of the Old Testament to be false. Ergo it is a complete waste of time for you to dwell on defects in current evolution hypotheses if your goal is prove the account in Genesis is true.

Further dialog between us is unlikely to be interesting to either of us, Nevertheless I would point out that you yourself would make for an interesting study on the nature of our species. It's unfortunate that your distortions of truth you persist in promulgating have the potential of doing harm among the naive. Certainly these distortions and false claims are, at minimum, a contribution to your religion falling evermore into disrepute.

 

[themickey]

I've mentioned previously, everyone has different interests in life.
Some humans have an interest in religion while others don't.

Where these different interests fail in humans imo, is those who have an interest in God believe they are right (because God is perfect and right in their mind).
Because God is right their followers believe they are right, therefore everyone should do and think as they do, ie others are not allowed to be disinterested.

Those not interested, are forced into interest via using the fear tool.

Once you join religion, you are milked, exploited, herded.

 

[Good1]

That is good I guess because I don't think any of the rest of us have a clue as to what you have been saying here.

Generally it is saying that what we see with our eyeballs is not reality. It suggests there are abstract layers that conceal reality, and it wonders when or where, at what level, these abstract layers wandered away, or drifted away from reality. It suggest that the search for reality is challenging, and that so far, the abstract layers are like "turtles all the way down", meaning, it's difficult to establish the actual foundation of these layers of abstraction away from reality. For example, first it was Newtonian math, then Einsteinian math, but now there is a new paradigm that is dooming the space-time theories of Einstein.

They do not say that reality and Christ are the same thing, but i do.

If this is true, then it is also true what i have said that if you can see what faith has produced (these abstract layers which conceal reality), then you can't see Christ, and visa versa, if you can see Christ (reality), you cannot see these abstract layers that conceal reality (Christ). It also means that the body (flesh) is not an aspect of Christ, and serves rather to conceal Christ, the body being an abstract layer of what i call the faith-flesh complex, which opposes what i'm calling the knowledge-spirit complex.

This is the basic, ancient, primordial "enmity" alluded to in the bible. You are simply not able to admit that you are squarely in the faith-flesh camp, still trying, after millions of years of time, to validate the apparent existence of it's product (the material worlds), and prove that it has been blessed ("...it is good") by reality (Christ). It has not been blessed, and won't be, because it is not Christ's will. The faith-flesh complex is a wish that, by it's nature, goes against the spirit of Christ. Biblical evidence that the body is not an aspect of Christ, is the saying, "There is neither man nor woman in Christ".

They do not say that the abstract layers are products of faith, but i do, and as i've pointed out, the bible also admits that the material world is faith-based (see anonymous letter to "Hebrews").