No death before sin, sin after Adam

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's truly stunning how much all atheism hates all science, ...

Be careful with using the word "all", they might start pointing to all the facts learned in the sciences (fields of knowledge) that they don't have issues in processing and dealing with. Then again, if you don't use "all" in that sentence they might just add it for you in their thinking. Their denial is quite selective. Only that which matters most (you can even get some to agree that DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms is a code, but then every logical follow-through that is connected to the meaning of words like "code", "information", "design" , "programs", "programmed", "encoded", etc. gets twisted to not have to deal with the logical correct conclusions a person can draw from the realization of the fact/reality that DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms is a code).

edit regarding my previous comment (and ignoring my spelling mistakes):

"You use logic" that every human baby is born with (before it gets interfered with and screwed up, IQ is neither permanent nor unimprovable, check out how the brain works, just like muscles, how you use it determins what it's good at, fill it with poison, see my sig, and it'll screw up your ability to apply logic correctly, which is what IQ-tests measure quite well, thinking about some of the comments I've read in the thread about someone talking about his 140 IQ-score). I dunno, maybe I should have said that in that thread, just bugs me all these people believing in the myth a person can't improve their ability at applying logic perpetuated by those who don't like some people doing that well. It's not even that hard to train, the real hard thing is, dealing with one's emotions regarding facts that are uncomfortable with unwelcome implications and then still being able to apply logic rationally and reasonably, without trying to twist your way of thinking into what you want to believe about the subject (usually something that is compatable with their friends and other social interactions or just society in general, the media is very good at making people who think a certain way popular to the point of other people wanting to be like these depicted characters rather than the other depicted characters, the bible thumping doomsayer that refuses a particular medical treatment based on religious superstition, refusing to submit to 'scientific authoritah'; but of course, being incredibly openminded towards all sorts of religious views and spirituality is great again according to what is promoted in movies, shows, music and sports. See the dangers of too much openmindedness in my sig).

A lot of people like to use the 144000 number and claim that it is the number of people saved in total...
This number is in reference to the lion of Judah those who are spared from the torments about to befall the earth... 12000 from each tribe...
What they do not like to include is the Lion later transformed into a lamb that had been slaughtered and the 144000 then appearing as an uncountable multitude from every nation! Jews and gentiles alike... Thanks to the sacrificial lamb also known as Jesus...
That's the number of the saved...
an uncountable multitude...
Bits and pieces do not give the answers...
Unless you are trying to paint a false picture...

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: whereislogic

And your version of logic is like this.

Does it match with the the official watchtower doctrine? If yes they must be speaking the truth. If no they must be lying. That's not logic that's insanity.

Science isn't about logic it's about data,facts and testable predictions.

You're projecting how you are treating so-called "peer reviewed scientific articles" and evolutionists onto me again. I'm the one listening to and quoting both here and explaining how to use logic (and a variety of detailed thinking techniques) to evaluate what everyone is saying. You're only interested in what those are saying that are tickling your ears and only when they are tickling your ears (seeing how you treat my quotations of evolutionists and elsewhere where I've seen you ignore the facts you don't like to deal with). And your comments consist of propagandistic attacks, twists, warping logic, pot calling the kettle black, distracting as much as you can with ad hominem arguments, straw men arguments, comments attempting to get under someone's skin and provoke an emotional reaction so it can help with you painting a picture you want others to see and on and on it goes.

But thanks for saying "science isn't about logic", that does sum up your view of what you like to do with the science/knowledge you currently possess or could acquire regarding these subjects.

And no, you don't get to lie about how I apply logic and search for knowledge either without me at least saying a bit more...
I do not try to match things with what you refer to as "the official watchtower doctrine" and determine what is true or false that way. I apply the same standard for logic, knowledge, truth, honesty, reliability to them as I apply to the many other (scientific) sources I have already quoted or shared information from on ATS in various threads, as well as those I have not quoted from.
You don't even evaluate what they're saying in any rational manner without that heavy hate and prejudice shining through with usages of the world "cult" and clearly not making any effort at all to evaluate what they're saying, not what others are saying about them (as I see you repeat the standard set of straw men people who don't have the slightest clue as to what Jehovah's witnesses believe because they've only listened to the haters who don't like being exposed regarding what they're doing to others in terms of deception and propaganda; and who continuously apply 'pot calling the kettle black'-behaviour to hide their own influence on how people think about the truths that matter). Just like you already put me into your dismissal box. So it doesn't matter anymore what I'm saying to you, you're just constantly luring me into feeling like having to defend myself and every word I'm saying. I guess that's the idea of distraction from the facts and important information I occasionally try to share, making this about me. Get me to defend myself, and then tell others, see...ego, know-it-all, watchtower slave,jdub,brainwashed, etc. All the standard thought patterns meant to distract from the things that matter, such as you brushing frauds under the carpet.
And all because I said:

Humans have been around for 6000-6050 years (unlike all the fraudulant stories presented by anthropologists regarding this point).
Animals have been around much longer.

To someone else. Look at how much people want to destroy my credibility for telling people the above truths which is telling regarding evolutionary philosophies, young earth creationism as well as theistic evolution as well as weird versions of 'old earth creationism'(?, not sure what kind of variations on Hugh Ross' philosophies there are being spread around and whether "old earth creationism" is an appropiate terminology for those who believe humans have been around much longer than 6000 years but don't believe in theistic evolution).

I remember my feelings when deciding whether to type that down very well again. A hornet's nest, do I wanna poke it, or not... same feeling I had when I quoted this definition in the thread about "The Primary Axiom...":

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

People love to pretend "evolution" doesn't adress the origin of life (then why does the word appear so much on the "Origins and Creationism" subforum, switch to "The Origin of Species"?), such a standard routine and hornet's nest. So now that I did it for you, you still wanna lend extra strength to that argument by quoting dictionary definitions like TerryDon79 while ignoring everything I might say about it and point towards as if the dictionary is Holy Scripture and will always have the final word no matter what historical dictionaries (etymology) say about the word "evolution"?

I don't feel like dealing with that hornet's nest now, just using it as an example what I mean with people being biased towards their choice of sources as much as everyone, only they can't back it up with logic and have to ignore inconvenient facts, usually historical (cause the more time passes, the more things get twisted, including in dictionaries by those making money with twisting a lot).

a reply to: Raggedyman
"entertainment industry"

That was the word I was looking for when I mentioned movies, shows, music and sports.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's called an exaggeration, hyperbole, it's the same thing that the atheists around here say, go retread their post again
I know it's tricky but I was using a stupid argument to explain the argument those who made the comment used

Thanks for the lecture but you seemed to have missed the obvious

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

I am left wondering how gap theory proponents and theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their beliefs.

I guess I thought you were referring to something else by gap theory, which is why I mentioned knowledge of science. I was trying to explain how a theistic evolution believer or gap theory creationist would reconcile it. They would dismiss the OT of the bible as anything more than a metaphor, as most people should. Focus on god, rather than a book.

Sorry, I was just guessing with your theological background

Doesn't matter

And no, it's not about knowledge of science, evolution is a faith belief, but you know that already, I told you
Wrong thread

Yes, and since you told me, it's the TRUTH. Forget the hundred thousand + research papers.

a reply to: Barcs

Come on man. Be more logical. Think. Can you do that?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

I am left wondering how gap theory proponents and theistic evolutionists reconcile this with their beliefs.

I guess I thought you were referring to something else by gap theory, which is why I mentioned knowledge of science. I was trying to explain how a theistic evolution believer or gap theory creationist would reconcile it. They would dismiss the OT of the bible as anything more than a metaphor, as most people should. Focus on god, rather than a book.

Sorry, I was just guessing with your theological background

Doesn't matter

And no, it's not about knowledge of science, evolution is a faith belief, but you know that already, I told you
Wrong thread

Yes, and since you told me, it's the TRUTH. Forget the hundred thousand + research papers.

Sorry I guess with your theological background... Ahh you don't have one

I didn't tell you anything
You are welcome to your beliefs

I was addressing Christians who have an alternative view to mine re sin, Adam and Eve

Can't help yourself?

If you are discussing evolution, until I am shown empirical evidence, don't bother, find a thread in the appropriate forum
I havnt forgotten any thread, nor the evidence shown

a reply to: whereislogic

I am not projecting anything. You are making it quite clear that you believe any science which proves man has been around for longer than 6,000 years is a lie.

Therefore according to you most scientists are all lying and part of a massive agenda. I on the other hand am not looking at science through the lends of a religious filter. I can accept that mistakes are made or new information is found.

Next you cite a source saying that because evolutions is not a bible teaching it's wrong. You really think that all the archaelogists and anthropologists and chemists are lying about how long human beings have been around. Keep it up. The only propaganda going on here is yours.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

That's the number of the saved...
an uncountable multitude...

So in other words a LOT of people will be saved, a number so great that it cannot be counted? What about Jesus saying that "few" will find the narrow path to life?

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm sure the number is smaller in comparison to those who do not...
However there are many who are raised from the dead which did not know Christ but are given 100 years after his return to get to know him...
The vision of the lamb that appeared to be slaughtered and the countless multitude happens after that...
So it seems that God has some fail safes implemented and he is unwilling to part with many...
In other words extraordinary measures will be taken to save all that he can...
Even when we fail God it looks as though he is most unwilling to fail us...

originally posted by: whereislogic


And all because I said:
"Humans have been around for 6000-6050 years (unlike all the fraudulant stories presented by anthropologists regarding this point).
Animals have been around much longer."
To someone else. Look at how much people want to destroy my credibility for telling people the above truths which is telling regarding evolutionary philosophies, young earth creationism as well as theistic evolution as well as weird versions of 'old earth creationism'(?, not sure what kind of variations on Hugh Ross' philosophies there are being spread around and whether "old earth creationism" is an appropiate terminology for those who believe humans have been around much longer than 6000 years but don't believe in theistic evolution).

What exactly is it that makes your assertion regarding the time humans have been on earth true? You keep claiming that this is truth but I've yet to see anything to support it. I'm certainly interested to see any evidence in favor of this hypothesis if you care to share what scientific data led you to this conclusion.

I remember my feelings when deciding whether to type that down very well again. A hornet's nest, do I wanna poke it, or not... same feeling I had when I quoted this definition in the thread about "The Primary Axiom...":

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

The problem here is that you're being intellectually dishonest by refusing to define evolution as it is defined in the biological sciences and instead go for the the Johovahs Witness redefinition off of Watchtower.org.

People love to pretend "evolution" doesn't adress the origin of life

Please link a citation from a scientific source that supports this.Show me where in the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis that it discusses the origins of life on Earth. When evolution is defined as change in allele frequencies over time, or more plainly, descent with modification, that has no part in how it all started. There are many people on ATS who have actual degrees in relevant fields and all agree on what MES entails. And none of those people have ever stated that MES deals with the origins of life.

then why does the word appear so much on the "Origins and Creationism" subforum, switch to "The Origin of Species"?)

Probably because the vast majority of proponents of YEC don't know enough science to know any better and constantly pose inquiries related to evolution.

such a standard routine and hornet's nest. So now that I did it for you, you still wanna lend extra strength to that argument by quoting dictionary definitions like TerryDon79 while ignoring everything I might say about it and point towards as if the dictionary is Holy Scripture and will always have the final word no matter what historical dictionaries (etymology) say about the word "evolution"?

The only person ignoring anything in this thread seems to be you, ignoring all pertinent science and dismissing it t of hand without a passing glance.

originally posted by: peter vlar

Any remains? No. Organic material yes with the exception of freshwater snails and mollusks living under very specific geological conditions fed by an aquifer filtered through carbonaceous limestone. Fossils contain no organic material and have been completely permineralized. Additionally, 14C dating is calibrated against other methods like dendrochromology and the margins of error are constantly checked and updated. It's also important to note that 14c is never the sole determining factor for an ascribed date. On top of all that, there is a newer method of dating 14c using mass spectrometry that is far more accurate as it counts the individual carbonated nitrogen atoms and can give a date up to 100ka as opposed to the 50-60 KA max under the older method used.

Since you completely eluded my question, I'll ask another. What is the oldest tree that dendrochronology, the only 100% reliable dating method, has found?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar

Any remains? No. Organic material yes with the exception of freshwater snails and mollusks living under very specific geological conditions fed by an aquifer filtered through carbonaceous limestone. Fossils contain no organic material and have been completely permineralized. Additionally, 14C dating is calibrated against other methods like dendrochromology and the margins of error are constantly checked and updated. It's also important to note that 14c is never the sole determining factor for an ascribed date. On top of all that, there is a newer method of dating 14c using mass spectrometry that is far more accurate as it counts the individual carbonated nitrogen atoms and can give a date up to 100ka as opposed to the 50-60 KA max under the older method used.

Since you completely eluded my question, I'll ask another.

How exactly did I elude your question? You asked if ANY remains tested would have 14c in them and I gave a detailed answer. There was no eluding at all on my part.

What is the oldest tree that dendrochronology, the only 100% reliable dating method, has found?

The oldest fully intact tree that is verified via dendrochronology and compared to 14c readings indicating that the 14c was also accurate is a little over 5000 years. There are other trees that are older but dendrochronology can't be used to fully date them due to rotting in the center.but I'm pretty sure you already know all of this.

Here is further information on calibration

www.radiocarbon.com...

c14.arch.ox.ac.uk...

www.rug.nl...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

journals.uair.arizona.edu...

originally posted by: QuinnP
a reply to: Barcs

Come on man. Be more logical. Think. Can you do that?

So following evidence is not logical and believing ancient fairy tales as absolute truth is critical thinking? Do you have something to say to me? Something to prove? Something against the evidence I've posted? Something to prove ID? Can you argue anything at all or are you just going to follow me around in these threads and take shots at me?

At least I know who has been starring every single creationist post in here, despite the complete void of logic. It's all good, I've always wanted a fanboy.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: QuinnP
a reply to: Barcs

Come on man. Be more logical. Think. Can you do that?

So following evidence is not logical and believing ancient fairy tales as absolute truth is critical thinking? Do you have something to say to me? Something to prove? Something against the evidence I've posted? Something to prove ID? Can you argue anything at all or are you just going to follow me around in these threads and take shots at me?

At least I know who has been starring every single creationist post in here, despite the complete void of logic. It's all good, I've always wanted a fanboy.

I will stalk you, I will be your huckleberry, I am waiting
Bring your best and I will burn it in front of your eyes

Ancient fairys, I call it evolution, I am waiting for your best evidence, have been for some time. You avoid me, why?

Now I don't claim creation is a science, you do, step it up, empirical evidence, cmon, you can do it

I will be your fan boy if, if you can show the evidence, empirical evidence, should I use capitalse

Now let me guess who stars every single evo...

Swoosh

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I will stalk you, I will be your huckleberry, I am waiting
Bring your best and I will burn it in front of your eyes

We already tried that game and you ignored the evidence I posted and dismissed it blindly after a single word you didn't like in the introductory paragraph before the evidence was even brought forth. No need to lie about it. I will post evidence, you will pretend it doesn't count and ignore it without even an explanation. You have NO argument. Burying your head in the sound doesn't count.

So I guess Quinn P is your alternate account? Isn't that against the rules? Funny how you answered my post in response to him as if it was to you. There really is no level of dishonesty that these guys won't stoop to, to keep this imaginary war on evolution going. So sad how desperate people are to promote a worldview.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Raggedyman
it's speaking of the death and sins of human beings.

Animals can't sin. And Satan sinned before humans chronologically.

Yeahhhh well

I was talking about death in the world, earth.
Satan is not human or dead
Animals? I dont understand your point or its validity to my question

Its not a trick question, just want to understand how others reconcile the issue

No issue to be reconciled any more than trying to understand how Thor being the god of thunder reconciles with sonic booms.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I will stalk you, I will be your huckleberry, I am waiting
Bring your best and I will burn it in front of your eyes

We already tried that game and you ignored the evidence I posted and dismissed it blindly after a single word you didn't like in the introductory paragraph before the evidence was even brought forth. No need to lie about it. I will post evidence, you will pretend it doesn't count and ignore it without even an explanation. You have NO argument. Burying your head in the sound doesn't count.

So I guess Quinn P is your alternate account? Isn't that against the rules? Funny how you answered my post in response to him as if it was to you. There really is no level of dishonesty that these guys won't stoop to, to keep this imaginary war on evolution going. So sad how desperate people are to promote a worldview.

My imaginary war, me a creationist in a creation inspired thread on christianity and you an atheist in a Christian inspires creation thread
I have no argument because ALL your evidence is circumstantial at best, it is invalid

Dismissed Barcs


So sad to see how desperate people are to promote their world view

a reply to: Raggedyman

Any chance any of the ones believing the title of this thread to be what the bible says or teaches when the Bible verse that was used in the OP to support this idea/philosophy clearly says "death spread to all men" (not men+every other living organism, cause the verse was only talking about the death and sin of men, animals can't even sin making it even more clear that it's deceptive to apply this verse to animals as well as other living organisms); to turn around and see the clarity of the Scriptures over human biased interpretations of it?

Cause this one is pretty obvious and clear, all you have to do is actually read the 2nd scripture again that Raggedyman quoted in the OP. Please don't be like certain other (while complaining about it to them while doing the same thing):

More information as to what bible verses that song relate to can be found in this comment in Raggedyman's other thread in this subforum.

Also note that it doesn't say "no death before sin". That would be the primary (most obvious) belief, philosophy/idea or interpretation I'm talking about at the start of this comment and when not desperately clinged on to, can be discarded without having to ask the question that Raggedyman asked at the end of his response to my 2nd comment which he claimed to understand (making the question rather peculiar cause it can't be genuine if he truly understands my 2nd comment, so either he doesn't understand or something else is going on that I'd rather not go into detail about but is described in the bible, try 1 Timothy chapter 6). And remember that the above is just rephrasing what I said in my first 2 comments in this thread.

Oh btw, understaning what I said above and in my first 2 comments in this thread should be as easy to understand as what's explained below, but something (someone actually, or as well) is interfering with those thinking processes that are required for that (in some people that have commented in this thread, ok, most don't even care). Oh, just for clarity, I do not see anyone here the same way as Blackadder views Baldrick, just sharing it for some comic relief to the discussion as well as to give a clue that there is something and someone interfering with the way people think about these subjects: