RSS

Much To Talk About- 100

15 Feb

#1. Secularists Complain Againhttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/02/creationist-unicorns.html

Creationism is lousy theology that leaves its proponents looking ridiculous in ways that more intellectually flexible believers are spared. But it’s lousy theology masquerading as actual science — something it’s even worse at than theology.

Creation is not science nor can it fit into the secular scientific model simply because creation was not done the secular scientific way. it was a one time supernatural act never to be repeated and continuing to appeal to a field of research that has nothing to do with creation is more foolish than they accuse creationists of being. The insult aside as it applies to secularist and their scientific ideology more than it does creationists as the former fail to acknowledge that once you have the truth, you are no longer allowed to be flexible.

That person’s attempt to make science the final and ultimate authority over every facet of life is not the proper way to use science. Science has no ability to measure the supernatural thus any result it brings to the world about origins doesn’t matter because no Bible, no true christian and so on has ever claimed that creation was scientific. The secularists are creating their own version of origins, then declaring that version to be the ‘true’ method of origins while manipulating the evidence to support that claim.

It is foolish to make claims about one’s version while demanding that physical evidence be used, while sweeping under the rug the fact that the alternate versions have no physical evidence to confirm the claim.

When science asks a question, it seeks the answer — wherever that journey leads, whatever that answer is.

I really wish secularists would stop making this claim. Every time a creationist says that science doesn’t have the answer, they trot out the tired old defense that science is not about finding answers. Secularists are trying to have it both ways whenever it suits them and whenever it helps them defend their wrong position.  The last part of that quote is laughable as well as when you present the secularist the answer, and it leads to God, they beat it double time in the other direction.

The old western movie Indians have a couple of words for secular scientists which describe their behavior to a ‘T’– they speak with a forked tongue.’

When Creationism asks a question — “Unicorns in the Bible?” — it’s not looking for an answer… it offers one as absolute truth and grabs at whatever fact or rhetoric can be plugged in as needed, in order to cobble together the semblance of a supporting argument.”

This is simply an argument of convenience and not even close to true. If the secularist would take the time to find out what the word ‘unicorn’ really meant, especially at the time the KJV was made, then they would have no platform to mock the believer  (of course the believer needs to educate themselves better as well). The original meaning of the word ‘unicorn’ is as follows:

Origin of UNICORN

Middle English unicorne, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin unicornis, from Latin, having one horn, from uni- + cornu horn — more at horn

The Bible is not talking about a mythical creature, but an animal with only one horn, which as we know today there are many species of animals that only have one horn.  So to accuse believers of thinking it is a mythical creature is just malicious and moronic while having no merit. But then we cannot expect honesty and respect from those who appoint their field of research to a position greater than God.
Two Kinds Of Love? What Valentines Teaches On Nonviolence
Actually, Valentine’s day doesn’t teach one thing about non-violence. That is left to those who need to whine and complain about every special day in the world and who are upset because no one gives their pet ideologies the time of day.
You wonder when that guy will get off his soapbox and stop trying to push his personal views while abusing the Bible. Does he not realize that a believer can die for a friend that sits next to him in a foxhole?  His restricted view undermines his perspective.

his meme image from God of Evolution made me laugh. It is really funny, if you think about it. Ham is claiming to be able to replicate the ark which he believes was a real thing. He also apparently cannot afford to do it without an injection of cash from multiple sources as well as tax breaks. Is Ham actually trying to show that the Noah’s ark story is not a realistic one, or is he just doing it by accident?

He uses opposition to “millions of years” in an attempt to get millions of dollars…

…if the ark experience is worth the mocking as there is no biblical command to build one, and by extension, then sell tickets to so people can see it.  I do not like the AIG’s ark project but I also do not like the mocking hurled their way.  But it is expected as AIG is wasting millions of dollars on this structure while people go hungry. I just can’t justify the expense especially when we do not need such a structure for evangelism or to make the Bible or God real. We have our lives to do that and we should be living that type of life because how the unbeliever views us, is how they view God.
Contrary to Snelling’s claim, the actual age of geologic formations—millions to billions of years—is very important to modeling whether or not they could have produced usable oil and gas, for the same reason that you set a timer on the oven.To understand how geologists use the conventional timescale to find oil and gas, you need only know how to cook! And I don’t mean a top chef, just someone that can turn raw food into cooked food.
I criticize his words. Well here I go again as he has made the grave error not Dr. Snelling. His opposition to Dr. Snelling’s words come from distorting an example to fit his theory.  You will notice that he uses only one method of cooking to make his argument against Dr. Snelling’s comment. The owner of Ageofrocks forgets that there is more than one way to cook. Some times it can be slow, like a slow cooker or it can be fast, like a microwave oven.
But what is funny about his example of cooking is, he doesn’t use a cooking example but one from baking which is a very different style of producing food than cooking. If someone is going to use an example to mock someone else they should know the correct terminology and how that terminology applies. They also need to be consistent with the correct terminology as well
Not exactly, so let’s run a couple of experiments to figure out why. In the first case, simply pour your batter into a pan and bake it for 30 minutes in an oven that is preheated to 150°F (66 °C). Next, try the same cooking time at 350°F (177 °C) and again at 500°F (260 °C). What are the results?
But what can you expect from evolutionists? They will lie, manipulate, deceive just to have an opportunity to claim that the person telling the truth is wrong. Making a cake is not the same as how God created oil and since God did not give us the recipe for his version of creating oil, the evolutionist is merely guessing at the process. There can be more than one method. We have many methods to turn lights on so why not have a variety of ways of making oil?
In other words, the Earth’s subsurface works like a giant oven—in fact, this terminology is frequently used by petroleum geologists. As with cooking in our homes, the end result depends on three factors: the original recipe, time, and temperature. When geologists search for oil/gas, they try to constrain those variables as best they can.
His example and point fails here as well because unlike a cake, which you take out of the oven after it is done, large deposits of oil still sit in the oven waiting for its turn to be brought to the surface. Obviously the evolutionist doesn’t know the original recipe because nothing happens to the oil, again unlike a cake, by letting it sit in the ‘oven’ far longer than it should.
The oil brought out of the ground 100 years ago seems to be the same stuff brought out of the ground today thus the analogy fails as does the evolutionary argument that you need an evolutionary format to make and find oil. But as usual, the evolutionist will say anything just to convince themselves that they are right and God is wrong.

You do not need evolution to find oil and you do not need millions of years to make it either. But I let Dr. Snelling  carry that ball.

Advertisements
 

6 responses to “Much To Talk About- 100

  1. ageofrocks

    February 15, 2015 at 6:32 am

    Really, David? You’re trying to distinguish between cooking and baking to defend Snelling? 😉 The analogy is for illustrative purposes only; attacking the analogy says nothing for the argument (that oil generation takes more time than the YEC allows). Besides, there is no difference between cooking and baking with respect to how I drew the analogy. I think anyone who understands the basic physics/chemistry behind the transformation of organic matter under heat will get this.

    What do you think it matters if we bring microwaves into the picture? If you had read carefully, you might of noticed that I said we can make oil in a laboratory in a matter of hours (call that the equivalent to a microwave in my analogy), given a high enough temperatures. Of course you can cook food super fast, but not at low temperatures, and the Earth’s subsurface does not provide high enough temperatures to accomplish the feat in <6,000 years. So either posit that it was done miraculously or accept the ancient timeline. In either case, it proves my point.

    So…what error did I make, and how is Snelling right? You'll need to demonstrate that oil exploration does not assume the standard geological timeline to prove that he is not in error. Can you do that?

     
    • theologyarchaeology

      February 15, 2015 at 9:00 am

      “Really, David? You’re trying to distinguish between cooking and baking to defend Snelling?”

      yes. If you can’t get your analogy correct how can you be trusted with the rest of what you say?

      “The analogy is for illustrative purposes only; attacking the analogy says nothing for the argument (that oil generation takes more time than the YEC allows). Besides, there is no difference between cooking and baking with respect to how I drew the analog”

      But you illustrated incorrectly and yes there is a big difference between the two. Since you do not have the original recipe, did not watch God make the stuff, you cannot claim you are right. Your methodology is pure guesswork.

      “What do you think it matters if we bring microwaves into the picture? If you had read carefully, you might of noticed that I said we can make oil in a laboratory in a matter of hours”

      Back in the 70s a guy turned a ton of garbage into a barrel of oil in 20 minutes. My point is that you are championing one method only and i say there are multiple ways. but you are making synthetic oil not the real stuff. if you could make the real stuff in the lab, gas prices would drop significantly.

      ” Of course you can cook food super fast, but not at low temperatures, and the Earth’s subsurface does not provide high enough temperatures to accomplish the feat in <6,000 years."

      but you are forgetting the lava or magma under the ground which can contribute to the process, you are forgetting pressure that plays a role, again, you are guessing at how the oil reserves were made and assuming it took millions of years.

      "So either posit that it was done miraculously or accept the ancient timeline. In either case, it proves my point."

      The flood was a miracle so I guess oil could be as well. We do not know when God put oil into the ground. he could have done it at creation like he did different minerals like gold, diamonds, silver and so on. He may have only given us so much and then after that there just is no more.

      the bible doesn't tell us what God did with the minerals and oil. Sometimes you just have to trust God and not seek an explanation.

      “So…what error did I make, and how is Snelling right? You’ll need to demonstrate that oil exploration does not assume the standard geological timeline to prove that he is not in error. Can you do that?”

      I do not care about what oil explorers use because those questions really do not illustrate how they look for oil. When we look for a village, we look for houses, we do not ask stupid questions like how long have the houses been there, do they have enough water and so on.

      If you look for the correct rocks which house oil then you have a pretty good chance of finding oil. people like you over-complicate things, probably to make yourselves feel more important.

       
      • ageofrocks

        February 16, 2015 at 5:05 am

        There’s nothing wrong with the analogy, and it illustrates my point correctly. Notice how you dodged the real question: how the difference between baking/cooking makes any difference with respect to my analogy and how I applied it. So again, what difference do you think exists that makes my analogy erroneous?

        “Your methodology is pure guesswork.”

        Yup, that’s why oil companies are among the largest in the world: pure guesswork. 😉 Think about it…

        “My point is that you are championing one method only and i say there are multiple ways. but you are making synthetic oil not the real stuff. if you could make the real stuff in the lab, gas prices would drop significantly.”

        What on Earth are you talking about? How is it relevant what somebody made with their garbage back in the 70’s? I really don’t understand how you can understand so little yet try to engage the arguments with confidence. Why do you do this?

        Of course we can make oil in the laboratory (the ‘real’ stuff). Why do you think oil prices would plummet? You can’t make money off of artificial oil, because it takes more energy to make it than you could potentially get out of it! We benefit from oil/gas, because we’re using the energy absorbed by the sun when those plants/algae were alive. We didn’t have to pay a dime for the energy input.

        “but you are forgetting the lava or magma under the ground which can contribute to the process, you are forgetting pressure that plays a role, again, you are guessing at how the oil reserves were made and assuming it took millions of years.”

        No, I’m not ignoring this at all, and nothing is assumed. Find just one reservoir that was cooked with magma/lava, if you can. Goodness, David, these factors are rigorously explored, not just conjectured whenever it seems fun and appropriate.

        “I do not care about what oil explorers use because those questions really do not illustrate how they look for oil.”

        Okay? I’ll take that as an admission that I’m correct. 😉

        “If you look for the correct rocks which house oil then you have a pretty good chance of finding oil.”

        That was true 100 years ago, when it was more plentiful. Not so much today.

        “people like you over-complicate things, probably to make yourselves feel more important.”

        Or to avoid wasting millions of dollars by drilling holes everywhere that don’t produce oil. That’s the real reason, believe it or not.

         
        • theologyarchaeology

          February 16, 2015 at 5:27 am

          “Okay? I’ll take that as an admission that I’m correct”

          That would be a mistake.

          oh, I am not admitting anything by not responding to you. I just feel that you cherry pick too much and ignore too many points to have a real discussion with you.

           
          • ageofrocks

            February 16, 2015 at 6:00 am

            I’ll take that as a supporting admission that was I said is valid. 🙂

             
  2. theologyarchaeology

    February 16, 2015 at 8:00 am

    “I’ll take that as a supporting admission that was I said is valid. ”

    Again you would be mistaken.

    I have looked at 3 sites now and not one of them mention using millions of years as part of their data nor do they mention the questions you cited. From what I read, you do not need evolutionary thinking to find oil and Snelling is correct.

    I think you misrepresent what really goes on in oil exploration.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: