Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[SgtSpiderMan]

Let's take those one at a time...

Let's assume PERFECT genetics... Adam would have had them if God created him as first man, yes? Over time, like everything else, the DNA code gets mixed, more corrupted, and those things that slowly kill us become more common. But perfect genetics... People will like a long time. Add to that a perfect climate. The Bible describes a canopy of water (likely ice) suspended over the earth in a climate that had no rain and water coming up from the ground to hydrate (we still have pressurized springs in super-healthy natural spas today). What has just been described would create a planet-wide hydroponic chamber. Plants would have grown quicker and larger, the harmful effects of UV rays would be filtered out, and even injuries, with the super-enriched oxygen, would heal quicker. We know all this because we use hydroponic technology today from plants to people. How long would people live in this perfect environment? A lot longer than we do. The Biblical ages start making sense.

If that theory is correct, after Noah's flood we would see life spans greatly reduced, as the landscape, the climate, and the exposure to UV damage changed drastically. And that's exactly what we see in the Bible. There is a very reasonable scientific understanding as to how all this would have worked. Like evolution (that says a rock can become an living organism can become a fish can become a monkey can become a man), there is a theory and a faith element (https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science), but the expectations of the theory I am relating here do in fact match what we would expect to see if it were true.

I am not saying sloths could swim 500 miles. I am saying that the Bible describes a planet before the flood that would be unrecognizable afterwards. The earth as a major land mass, the ocean much smaller and in one place, the bulk of the Earth's water under the crust, pressurized and the source of life giving water through springs and misting. Again, a perfect planet. What we see now is a wrecked planet that is a result of a worldwide catastrophic flood. Again, we know what to expect if that theory were true, because we saw that happened to form Crater Lake.

The flood is described as having the water above the earth (said canopy) coming crashing down, and the waters below the earth coming smashing up. This would have also caused thousands of volcanic eruptions worldwide, fractured tectonic plates, destroyed the ocean basin, and created a whole new topography. Geography and fossil layers we can observe today paint exactly this picture.

One other fun fact. It is impossible for continental shift to have occurred for one fundamental reason. Under the ocean, connecting the continents, is more land. So water would have eventually filled in the space between the continents after the flood. And the Bible actually uses language that describes this as well. Kinda cool.

The fact that the Bible describes the earth as a globe, not flat, in a world where, when it was written, people believed in a flat earth, that's actually one of the great proofs of the Bible's scientific accuracy. The Scripture describes the earth as "the circle of the earth". The Hebrew word for circle there is the word for ball or globe. The Bible nowhere describes the earth as flat.

And as for the age of the earth, we would say closer to 6,000-10,000 years old, but, yes essentially young, not millions of years. Again both are theories, but the evidence points to the young earth the Bible describes. For example:

The rate of salt buildup in the sea is measurable. Even if you exponentially decrease the rate going back in time, the sea would be so thick with salt you could almost walk on it , and no life could survive in it if it were millions of years old.

We know the earth is slowly moving away from the sun. If we take the rate of speed back, millions of years would have the earth so close to the sun that life would have no chance to begin.

We get oil gushers. That pressure slowly decreases over time (think of a bottle of soda after you shake it up). If we were dealing with millions of years, there would not be the pressure to create the oil gushers.

We find soft tissue in dino bones. Soft tissue could not physically exist in those bones ever with millions of years old bones.

There are other examples, but you get the point. So, yes, the science mentioned in the Bible has either matched what we can observe to be true or matches what we would expect to be true if the claim being made is true.

Ok, you bring up some points I had t considered.

We know for a fact that the great flood in the Bible never occurred. We know the Earth wasn’t THAT different because it takes millions of years for continents to move, we know the Earth is billions of years old and we know know sloths and kangaroos can’t swim thousands of miles.

So why do you say the Koran is untrustworthy but bend reality to explain the made up stuff in the Bible.

 

[JaySecrets]

lol, you're a fucking idiot. I'm sure you make a great cult member for your church.

I literally just gave you the actual hard stats of Reaganomics and you can't even respond with facts? Just "idiot" and "cult member"? The rules that you just cited specifically say you are not to disrespect others on here. You and your bunch have regularly disrespected me and others for simply stating our positions and backing them. And you have disrespected to a vulgar degree. So tell me, if I reported you, would you start calling me a triggered snowflake? Because when you can't deal with a position being challenged and simply report a person in hopes of getting them cancelled, that is actually triggered, snowflake behavior.

 

[JaySecrets]

Ok, you bring up some points I had t considered.

We know for a fact that the great flood in the Bible never occurred. We know the Earth wasn’t THAT different because it takes millions of years for continents to move, we know the Earth is billions of years old and we know know sloths and kangaroos can’t swim thousands of miles.

So why do you say the Koran is untrustworthy but bend reality to explain the made up stuff in the Bible.

I gave you links and sources that refute everything you just said. Take them or leave them. This particular topic gets into lengthy discussions beyond what happen already on here. Either you have the intellectual integrity to have your position challenged or you don't.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I gave you links and sources that refute everything you just said. Take them or leave them. This particular topic gets into lengthy discussions beyond what happen already on here. Either you have the intellectual integrity to have your position challenged or you don't.

You have no links or sources like that. It’s a shame that you have to lie when confronted with facts and a reality that you can’t deal with.
You believe you’ll burn in Hell forever for lying.

 

[ll74]

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood​

In order to even entertain the possibility of a worldwide flood, one has to bypass all laws of physics, exit the realm of science, and enter into the realm of the miraculous, which many believers are willing to do.

 

[RoryN]

https://www.literotica.com/faq/forum/forum-rules

Reported. you've been warned enough times.

Good work - I did too. That should help.

Enough spam, rule-breaking, and lies from the desperate Deplorable. Lit should be a place where all viewpoints can be considered without radical fanatics trying to make their voices the only ones heard.

 

[JaySecrets]

You have no links or sources like that. It’s a shame that you have to lie when confronted with facts and a reality that you can’t deal with.
You believe you’ll burn in Hell forever for lying.

I gave you two links to very good Creation science sites that answer specifically what you ask and then some. I gave you a video that brings the conversation about evolution to leading evolutionists. You refuse to watch the videos and have clearly not gone into the links. Then you call me a liar. You are back to your, "But you didn't answer me," after having gotten extensive answers trick. We are done.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I gave you two links to very good Creation science sites that answer specifically what you ask and then some. I gave you a video that brings the conversation about evolution to leading evolutionists. You refuse to watch the videos and have clearly not gone into the links. Then you call me a liar. You are back to your, "But you didn't answer me," after having gotten extensive answers trick. We are done.

You have me zero links and zero videos.
You lied, you need to own it.

 

[JaySecrets]

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood​

So you cite an article from an incredibly liberal, atheistic university, one that has fired brilliant scientists when they have dared even suggest there are suggestions of design or questioned how millions of years jibes with physical evidence. But that is more reliable than organizations filled with brilliant scientists who show their work? hmm...

 

[JaySecrets]

You have me zero links and zero videos.
You lied, you need to own it.

This look familiar?

For a lot of these challenges, I will point you to some resources that answer the question better than I can. And since the questions will keep coming, I will point out that you can search the sites on most of these topics

https://www.icr.org
https://answersingenesis.org

See the above links.

See above links.

Oddly enough, the Bible describes a heliocentric universe where the sun itself has its own circuit it runs. We didn't even KNOW about the sun's rotation until recently. The Catholic Church, because it was rooted in paganism, not Christianity, was the power that ignored what the Bible said about it. Thus the persecution of those who said otherwise. People changed, the Bible didn't.

No. We have actually found soft tissue in bone marrow.

Again, I direct you to actual scientists, instead of just my citing them, in the links above.

 

[ll74]

So you cite an article from an incredibly liberal, atheistic university, one that has fired brilliant scientists when they have dared even suggest there are suggestions of design or questioned how millions of years jibes with physical evidence. But that is more reliable than organizations filled with brilliant scientists who show their work? hmm...

I provided a paper with arguments against there being a flood.

You have done the same with opposing views from religious perspectives.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[JaySecrets]

I provided a paper with arguments against there being a flood.

You have done the same with opposing views from religious perspectives.

Your mileage may vary.

Funny that you say, "from a religious perspective", and ignore the fact that these are reputable, very accomplished scientists who happen to be Christian and who are presenting a SCIENTIFIC argument for their stance.

 

[ll74]

Funny that you say, "from a religious perspective", and ignore the fact that these are reputable, very accomplished scientists who happen to be Christian and who are presenting a SCIENTIFIC argument for their stance.

All of your sources are religious based. I never mentioned anything about reputation.

I am certain that you find those sources more credible because of your superiority complex regarding your religion. That seems to be your MO.

 

[JaySecrets]

All of your sources are religious based. I never mentioned anything about reputation.

I am certain that you find those sources more credible because of your superiority complex regarding your religion. That seems to be your MO.

I find them more credible because I actually challenged everything and found them to be dealing with the evidence as it is, not ignoring the things that challenge the position.

 

[ll74]

'The Rocks Don't Lie': Debunking Noah's flood​

An article about a book that sounds very interesting on the topic of the "great flood". Most scientists agree that there were many floods regionally but not one large one.

"It's really hard to believe something you've been taught is not true," Montgomery said. "[It's] just as hard for scientists as it is for people with religious conviction." However, "the beautiful thing about science . . . is that even if one scientist has trouble giving up a preconceived notion, [his] colleagues will do it for [him.]"

 

[ll74]

I find them more credible because I actually challenged everything and found them to be dealing with the evidence as it is, not ignoring the things that challenge the position.

Of course That's what you're doing

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

This look familiar?

Does it? You didn’t address any of that to me.

 

[JaySecrets]

Of course That's what you're doing

And, by the way, the video actually interviews leading UCLA science professors, the same place that produced your paper. Those "experts" could not provide one single observable example of evolution between kinds, the kind of evolution (as opposed to adaptation within a kind) the Darwinism or the evolution you and they accept requires. In other words, They couldn't prove their science using science. That makes the position theory and faith, a blind faith at that.

 

[JaySecrets]

Does it? You didn’t address any of that to me.

Would you like me to repost it to each challenge? Read related comments and responses in the thread.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Would you like me to repost it to each challenge? Read related comments and responses in the thread.

If you wanted me to see it because it had something to do with something I asked you then you would address it to me.

 

[ll74]

And, by the way, the video actually interviews leading UCLA science professors, the same place that produced your paper. Those "experts" could not provide one single observable example of evolution between kinds, the kind of evolution (as opposed to adaptation within a kind) the Darwinism or the evolution you and they accept requires. In other words, They couldn't prove their science using science. That makes the position theory and faith, a blind faith at that.

I have not dismissed your sources.

Evolution is accepted by a majority of scientists. Creationism is not. Ignoring that reality is not an objective position

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Creationism_vs_Evolution

Additionally, geological record concludes that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a million as suggested from creationism.

https://www.britannica.com/science/geologic-history-of-Earth

I already know that you will deny these arguments as being lies because you don't accept anything beyond your worldview. The sources I provided earlier take creationist arguments seriously and walk through objective analysis. Another instance of you dismissing anything you don't find within your religious worldview while I explore all perspectives objectively including yours
(Using actual definitions rather than only ones which favor my position)

 

[Fuzzy1975]

https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2022/3739-soft-tissues-in-fossil-bone#:~:text=Cells and soft tissues that,of collagen in bone matrix.

So I read through this, and the footnotes and sources. Took a while.

First problem that shows up is in the background information this article uses as the foundation (besides the issue that there are no Dino bones in existence).

I didn't check the backgrounds on each and every footnote, because I'd still be checking. I did check enough to note that each and every article or author is member or proponent of Creationism.

Just one example of dozens...

" Armitage never allowed anyone else to examine the find, didn’t get a plaster cast for posterity, and as far as I’m aware only took one picture before cutting it into dozens of pieces for testing, and while he claims to have properly identified the find, how come the horn curves not like a triceratops horn, but instead identically to a ice age longhorn bison?(And it size would make it the biggest triceratops horn ever found, but also the right size of a normal bison) . Oh yeah and it was also found in a secondary deposit and not deep rock"

Let let that bold sink in. It wasn't from rock.

Fossils are not bones, they are basically rock. ground water dissolves the buried bone or shell, leaving behind a bone- or shell-shaped hole or imprint in the sediment.

In this whole article you shared, everything relates as if these fossils are bone. They are not, there are rock. Can imprints be preserved in the bone of the interior, yes. Are the skin, or blood or DNA, no.

Sorry but I can give credence to this article, not with all the glaring issues denying reality about multi-million plus year old Fossils.

But hey it looks scientific, unless you have a scientific background.

 

[jaF0]

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

 

[JaySecrets]

I have not dismissed your sources.

Evolution is accepted by a majority of scientists. Creationism is not. Ignoring that reality is not an objective position

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Creationism_vs_Evolution

Additionally, geological record concludes that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a million as suggested from creationism.

https://www.britannica.com/science/geologic-history-of-Earth

I already know that you will deny these arguments as being lies because you don't accept anything beyond your worldview. The sources I provided earlier take creationist arguments seriously and walk through objective analysis. Another instance of you dismissing anything you don't find within your religious worldview while I explore all perspectives objectively including yours
(Using actual definitions rather than only ones which favor my position)

Again, your own sources can't provide ONE observable evidence of changes from one kind to another, the foundation of the kind of evolution you are saying os "objective" and "scientific". Yet the scientific method requires observation, measure, and repeated observations and measurements. Evolution meets none of that. It is theory, and one that your own scientists have admitted is more of a faith than a science. And, yes, I did link to those quotes as well.

 

[JaySecrets]

What does any of this have to do with the thread topic?

I don't know. I was asked and I answered. Ask Spidey what it has to do with the thread.