^^
The authorship of the Bible is earthly, men limited to knowledge of their time. The bible can't therefore be scientifically accurate.

OLAADEGBU:

I hope you find where information originated from.

What do you mean?

OLAADEGBU:
Your blind evolutionary faith has no foundation as it cannot say where the universe and life originated from so you have to depend on blind faith which is not scientific, reasonable, logical or rational in my opinion.

The theory of evolution isn't supposed to do that.

OLAADEGBU:
The Bible which is God breathed is true and real scientists should be able to test it. Through the application of science we can confirm that God's account of creation is accurate. God tells us in Genesis chapter 1 that plants and animals, birds, fish and every living organism were created after their own kind and this is exactly what we see even today, dog still produces dogs. We don't see organisms gaining information and evolving into another kind like your molecule to man evolution myth but we see them losing information as you can see in the diagram below.

So according to you, most of the notable scientists of our modern times aren't real scientists? The Bible also talks about there being plants before the sun existed. That makes no sense. Saying that dogs produce dogs isn't new. Even children can see that. Actually, we do see organisms gaining information. They gain information by various means like random mutations, genetic drift etc.

The cartoon makes no sense.

OLAADEGBU:

We all have the same scientific evidence the problem with you is how you interprete it based on your evolutionary spectacles. Your prepossition determines how see the evidence. If your starting point is that there is no God then the natural option will be the only line you will follow. Why would you believe the historical facts in the book of Genesis when you don't believe in the existence of God? Noah's story is only problematic to compromising Christians who have been brought up on a diet of evolutionary lies.

Well actually you misinterpret the scientific evidence available. Actually, the starting point of the theory of evolution wasn't that there was no God neither is that the starting point today. It just so happens that God isn't needed as an explanation. I don't believe them because they make no sense.

OLAADEGBU:
You will have to look here to find out the differences we have when we talk about natural selection. It doesn't necessarily mean what you call evolution.

I never said that natural selection meant evolution. How long ago did the ancestor of lions, tigers and cheetahs live? How do you know?

truthislight:


hahaha.
Interesting.

Now, am interested ^^^ in that part of your statement.

For the sake of your reputation, i wish that you please educate me on the so call "incosistencies" you have exterblished contain in the bible.

Please do.

Am waiting.

Here's one sticking with the creation theme. Please answer these questions. Which did God create first, animals or humans? Did God create Adam first or did he create both Adam and Eve together?

Based on your answer, I'll show you the contradiction.

Kay 17: ^^

The authorship of the Bible is earthly, men limited to knowledge of their time. The bible can't therefore be scientifically accurate.

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

Josh McDowell put it like this:

"The idea conveyed is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Bible. The end result was exactly what God intended."

So you can see that it was God using men as instruments to write His letter to humanity. It is His-Story. Proof that the Bible is supernatural can be seen with a quick study of its prophecies.

truthislight:

mixing up issues, stay on the topic, "Creation"

and it was the GENESIS account i was refering to when i did say vision/revelation as oppose to evolution, so i dont know were prayer came from into this thread.

That the bible account is more reliable than the billion opon billion of years that is the other option.

Honesty is a scarce resources to certain kind of people as i have come to realise.

I'm on topic. You were talking about honesty and the rejection of the supernatural. That is where prayer comes into it. Prayer according to you requires some supernatural intervention.

It looks as if you really wish to be dishonest. How is the Biblical account more reliable? You need to actually show this to be the case.

thehomer:

What do you mean?

The first and second law of information. The first law of information states that Information cannot originate in statistical processes i.e. Chance + time cannot create information no matter how much time is at your disposal. This makes us know that there is no known law of nature, process or sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

The second law of information states thatInformation can only originate from an intelligent sender.

My kweshun to you Is this:

Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

thehomer:

The theory of evolution isn't supposed to do that.

Can your theory answer the kweshun above?

thehomer:

So according to you, most of the notable scientists of our modern times aren't real scientists? The Bible also talks about there being plants before the sun existed. That makes no sense. Saying that dogs produce dogs isn't new. Even children can see that. Actually, we do see organisms gaining information. They gain information by various means like random mutations, genetic drift etc.

I have no objection to the observation science they practise it is just their inconsistencies when it comes to historical or origin science that is when they shoot themselves in the foot.

thehomer:

The cartoon makes no sense.

It explains the differences in what we mean by natural selection. While you are being taught that information is added to become another kind we teach and believe that information is lost as the dogs interbreed. Molecule to man evolution is not observed what is observed is how an animal like a wolf can lose information to an animal like a poodle.

OLAADEGBU:

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit prophecy" (2 Peter 1:21).

Josh McDowell put it like this:

"The idea conveyed is that just as the wind controls the sails of a boat, so also the breath of God controlled the writers of the Bible. The end result was exactly what God intended."

So you can see that it was God using men as instruments to write His letter to humanity. It is His-Story. Proof that the Bible is supernatural can be seen with a quick study of its prophecies.

That's still men pretending to speak for God, as the evidence leads to; men wrote the Bible.

OLAADEGBU:

The first and second law of information. The first law of information states that Information cannot originate in statistical processes i.e. Chance + time cannot create information no matter how much time is at your disposal. This makes us know that there is no known law of nature, process or sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter.

The second law of information states thatInformation can only originate from an intelligent sender.

You just made up those so called laws of information.

OLAADEGBU:
My kweshun to you Is this:

Is there any observed case where random chance events created complex molecules with enormous amounts of information like that found in DNA or RNA? If not, then why should we assume it happened in the past?

I don't know. I don't even know if what you've said above is relevant. I've not proposed what you're saying here.

Secondly, you're conflating two concepts of "information". One is in transmitting a message, the other is in making sense of natural phenomena. Which one of them do you wish to use? Make a choice and stick to it otherwise you're simply committing a fallacy of ambiguity.

OLAADEGBU:
Can your theory answer the kweshun above?

Your question is a poor one because it contains some hidden premises.

OLAADEGBU:
I have no objection to the observation science they practise it is just their inconsistencies when it comes to historical or origin science that is when they shoot themselves in the foot.

Your attempted distinction is not legitimate. To demonstrate this, why don't you answer this question. Is the study of radioactivity a "historical science" or an "origin science"?

OLAADEGBU:
It explains the differences in what we mean by natural selection. While you are being taught that information is added to become another kind we teach and believe that information is lost as the dogs interbreed. Molecule to man evolution is not observed what is observed is how an animal like a wolf can lose information to an animal like a poodle.

Are you seriously suggesting that a poodle has less information than a wolf? Where did you get this information from?

thehomer:

Here's one sticking with the creation theme. Please answer these questions. Which did God create first, animals or humans? Did God create Adam first or did he create both Adam and Eve together?

Based on your answer, I'll show you the contradiction.

do you honestly need me to arrived at a stance (contradiction) you already have?
^^^ dishonesty and deceit.
I hate dishonesty and dislike dishonest people.

Please, bring the "contradictions" or stick to your voodoo billion billion years science.

A man that did not live up to 100years giving you details of what happened billions of years ago and you called that "science"

that deception is for your kind that dont seems to love straight forward honesty and as such you get what you rightfully deserved.

"Like minds"

thehomer:

I'm on topic. You were talking about honesty and the rejection of the supernatural. That is where prayer comes into it. Prayer according to you requires some supernatural intervention.

It looks as if you really wish to be dishonest. How is the Biblical account more reliable? You need to actually show this to be the case.

i stated my view you stated yours.

I said i dont buy billion billion years that it is clearly blind but that of the bible is inspired by a God that you dont belief in, for whatever reason that only you knows.

You said that the bible is contradictory, i said show me?

I said that the bible account of creation is inspired you went talking about prayers, why?

What has prayers got to do with what we are talking except to derail the thread and cover up your ..............

Your dishonesty is very clearly seen in your effort, by asking me to help you to proof your own claim of contradiction a above.

]


[size=12pt:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit prophecy"[/size] (2 Peter 1:21).

this is what i refered to as revelation, ok?

thehomer:
It looks as if you really wish to be dishonest. How is the Biblical account more reliable? You need to actually show this to be the case.

I dont owe you any proof.

Your brain is four your Guide and mind is for my guide.

I cant know if you are a honest person or not, so proofing to you may not be necessary to people that are dishonest, so as such your brain should serve you well.

My effort can only served as a witnessed.

If your brain takes you in front of a moving train and you are crush, it is what you get for how you had trained your brain.

Peace

truthislight:

do you honestly need me to arrived at a stance (contradiction) you already have?
^^^ dishonesty and deceit.
I hate dishonesty and dislike dishonest people.

Please, bring the "contradictions" or stick to your voodoo billion billion years science.

A man that did not live up to 100years giving you details of what happened billions of years ago and you called that "science"

that deception is for your kind that dont seems to love straight forward honesty and as such you get what you rightfully deserved.

"Like minds"

I need you to answer the question. I need you to commit to a point of view so that when you're shown the contradiction, you won't start hemming and hawwing. My point is to prevent you from being dishonest with your responses later in this discussion.

One doesn't have to be present at every event to deduce what happened. If you think they do, then I think you're more poorly informed than young children.

truthislight:

i stated my view you stated yours.

I said i dont buy billion billion years that it is clearly blind but that of the bible is inspired by a God that you dont belief in, for whatever reason that only you knows.

You said that the bible is contradictory, i said show me?

I'm showing it to you. Why don't you participate in the discussion?

truthislight:
I said that the bible account of creation is inspired you went talking about prayers, why?

What has prayers got to do with what we are talking except to derail the thread and cover up your ..............

Your dishonesty is very clearly seen in your effort, by asking me to help you to proof your own claim of contradiction a above.

You were talking about supernatural events weren't you? Your attempts at labeling me fail because you don't even understand what you're supposed to do.

truthislight:
this is what i refered to as revelation, ok?

Did I ask you for a revelation or are you simply posting your usual irrelevant garbage?

truthislight:
I dont owe you any proof.

Actually, you do if you want to have a serious conversation.

truthislight:
Your brain is four your Guide and mind is for my guide.

I cant know if you are a honest person or not, so proofing to you may not be necessary to people that are dishonest, so as such your brain should serve you well.

My effort can only served as a witnessed.

If your brain takes you in front of a moving train and you are crush, it is what you get for how you had trained your brain.

Peace

You've committed so many fallacies that simply listing them is pointless. But why do you find it difficult to carry on a straight forward discussion? If I simply kept on claiming that you're lying and dishonest, will that help the conversation? Please stop with irrelevant examples and stories and respond appropriately.

thehomer:


One doesn't have to be present at every event to deduce what happened. If you think they do, then I think you're more poorly informed than young children.

When i did say you are a dishonest person i was really undere estimating the level you have been eaten by deceit and and hypocrisy.
If you can make the above statement when that was exactly the pit you had dug for Oladegbu when you were questioning how he came to know the kind of animal that was made at the start in GENESIS account, but now you are saying the opposite when it comes to your own defence for your stup.id(sorry) billion billion years evolution you are saying that one does not need to be their to know, but Ola needed to be there to know.

Is it now you are having the wisdom of believing what you're not an eye witness to, but belief in it base on "rational faith"?

Compare this two statement of yours below to understand the reason for the tag "stup.id."

thehomer:


One doesn't have to be present at every event to deduce what happened. If you think they do, then I think you're more poorly informed than young children.

With this

thehomer:
@Oladegbu

How do you know what the original organisms were or how many they were? They're all dead. How do you know that it wasn't maybe only three organisms that were created that diversified into what is currently available? What was the last kind created by God and when did he do this?

yes, how does Ola know about a claim that is merely thousands of years ago in GENESIS?
You ask?

But yours is worst because it is not just thousand of years Claim that you belief in, but billion of billion of years claim and we dont need to be there to know, but you had expected Oladegbu to be there to know. Hypocrite!

thehomer:

I need you to answer the question. I need you to commit to a point of view so that when you're shown the contradiction, you won't start hemming and hawwing. My point is to prevent you from being dishonest with your responses later in this discussion.

i dont need to do such thing since the bible stance is my stance.

I dont shift ground and goal post like you in a bid to lie.

Go ahead and show the bible contradictions you had claimed. It is your call.
Atheism! *sigh*

hope they are all not the same!

Am getting sick with this deceit of heart.

*Edited*

thehomer:

I'm showing it to you. Why don't you participate in the discussion?



You were talking about supernatural events weren't you? Your attempts at labeling me fail because you don't even understand what you're supposed to do.



Did I ask you for a revelation or are you simply posting your usual irrelevant garbage?



Actually, you do if you want to have a serious conversation.



You've committed so many fallacies that simply listing them is pointless. But why do you find it difficult to carry on a straight forward discussion? If I simply kept on claiming that you're lying and dishonest, will that help the conversation? Please stop with irrelevant examples and stories and respond appropriately.

^^^
i had simply made a simple request.

Show me the contradictions you know/have in the bible and you are Eje-cu-la-ting, lol.

All that just to show me a simple contradiction that he claim to have!

*sigh*
West of time.

The only proof for the divine origin of the Bible is an individual revelation from God to you.

truthislight:
When i did say say you are a dishonest person i was really undere stimating the level you have been eaten by deceit and and hypocrisy.

You must be suffering from some memory loss. Weren't you the one who said this?

truthislight:
Your dishonesty is very clearly seen in your effort, by asking me to help you to proof your own claim of contradiction a above.

truthislight:
If you can make the above statement when that was exactly the pit you had dug for Oladegbu when you were questioning how he came to know the kind of animal that was made at the start in GENESIS account, but now you are saying the opposite when it comes to your own defence for your stup.id(sorry) billion billion years evolution you are saying that one does not need to be their to know, but Ola needed to be there.

Is it now you are having the wisdom of believing what you're not an eye witness but belief in it base on "rational faith"?

Compare this two statement of yours below to understand the reason for the tag "stup.id."


With this


yes, how does Ola know about a claim that is merely thousands of years ago in GENESIS?
You ask?

But yours is worst because it is not just thousand of years Claim that you belief in, but billion of billion of years claim and we dont need to be there to know, but you had expected Oladegbu to be there to know. Hypocrite!

Have you ever heard about radiometric dating? I have and I use that as evidence. Your friend OLAADEGBU disagrees with it so how can he tell? You see it turns out that you're the one who hasn't actually thought these things through.

truthislight:
i dont need to do such thing since the bible stance is my stance.

I dont shift ground and goal post like you in a bid to lie.

Go ahead and show the bible contradictions you had claimed. It is your call.
Atheism! *sigh*

hope they are all not the same!

Am getting sick with this deceit of heart.

I know the Bible is your source. My question is why should it be a valid source when with your contribution, I can show you that it isn't a valid source? Seriously are you pretending to think the way you do?

truthislight:

^^^
i had simply made a simple request.

Show me the contradictions you know/have in the bible and you are Eje-cu-la-ing, lol.

All that just to show me a simple contradiction that he claim to have!

*sigh*
West of time.

I'm showing you the contradictions. Why don't you respond to the question I asked? Here it is again. By the way, what does "Eje-cu-la-ing" mean?

thehomer:
Which did God create first, animals or humans? Did God create Adam first or did he create both Adam and Eve together?

When I'm asked questions I answer why don't you answer these? Especially when it'll show you the contradictions you're looking for?

Kay 17: The only proof for the divine origin of the Bible is an individual revelation from God to you.

nope, not an individual revelation but 40men revelation.

the only proof of evolution is the postulation of darwin about billion billion yrs.

Infact, your statment applies to your belief system. = darwin

Kay 17: The only proof for the divine origin of the Bible is an individual revelation from God to you.

@truth

You can't vouch for the actual writers of the Bible, without your own revelation. You have no idea of who they are neither do you know their motives.

Darwin's Natural Selection is just another scientific theory, it has to do with Science. Its not a religion. Don't give a dog a bad name to hang it.

thehomer:

Well actually you misinterpret the scientific evidence available. Actually, the starting point of the theory of evolution wasn't that there was no God neither is that the starting point today. It just so happens that God isn't needed as an explanation. I don't believe them because they make no sense.

That's where the difference lies, our interpretation. I interprete the evidence based on the light of the Scriptures while you only interprete it based on your evolutionary fairytales that says natural processess alone can explain what we see today.

thehomer:

I never said that natural selection meant evolution. How long ago did the ancestor of lions, tigers and cheetahs live? How do you know?

But you have been indoctrinated that natural selection is the reason why you have molecule to man which I call the theory of goo to you via the zoo. The Bible which is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper tells us that the original kinds were created 6,000 ago and that they began to diversify 4,500 years ago after Noah's global Flood and science confirms this truth today.

thehomer:

You just made up those so called laws of information.

You asked for what information and I gave you the two laws of information and defined them for you, if I had made them up them I am a genius.

thehomer:

I don't know. I don't even know if what you've said above is relevant. I've not proposed what you're saying here.

Secondly, you're conflating two concepts of "information". One is in transmitting a message, the other is in making sense of natural phenomena. Which one of them do you wish to use? Make a choice and stick to it otherwise you're simply committing a fallacy of ambiguity.

The fact that you don't know suffices me.

thehomer:

Your question is a poor one because it contains some hidden premises.

You have admitted that you don't know so don't complicate matters.

thehomer:

Your attempted distinction is not legitimate. To demonstrate this, why don't you answer this question. Is the study of radioactivity a "historical science" or an "origin science"?

Radioactivity is observational science but can you see it with your physical eyes? Yet you believe it exists.

Radiometric dating is using the ratios of isotopes produced in radioactive decay to calculate an "age" of the specimen based on assumed rates of decay and other assumptions. You can only calculate an age based on your assumptions which are mostly faulty and they don't even agree with other types of dating to say the least.

thehomer:

Are you seriously suggesting that a poodle has less information than a wolf? Where did you get this information from?

Yes. With a starting point of the Holy Bible we can do proper science as opposed to starting on faulty and sifting sands. We believe in what natural selection can and cannot do.

Natural selection can; decrease genetic information, allow organisms to survive better in a given environment, act as a "selector" and show that diversity has occurred within the original created kinds over thousands of years.

On the other hand, natural selection cannot:

Increase new genetic information, allow organisms to evolve from molecule to man, act as an "originator" and cannot support the so called evolutionary "tree" of life.

Kay 17:

That's still men pretending to speak for God, as the evidence leads to; men wrote the Bible.

When you write a letter, is it you that writes it or is it the pen? Is it right for me to say that it was your pen that wrote the letter and not you?

OLAADEGBU:

That's where the difference lies, our interpretation. I interprete the evidence based on the light of the Scriptures while you only interprete it based on your evolutionary fairytales that says natural processess alone can explain what we see today.

Well the scriptures are wrong according to what modern science shows us. I interpret this science using reason and evidence.

OLAADEGBU:
But you have been indoctrinated that natural selection is the reason why you have molecule to man which I call the theory of goo to you via the zoo. The Bible which is fresher than tomorrow's newspaper tells us that the original kinds were created 6,000 ago and that they began to diversify 4,500 years ago after Noah's global Flood and science confirms this truth today.

What molecule to man is this that you keep on referring to? What did the Bible say about North and South America, Antarctica and Australia? What you need to realize is that the ignorant people who wrote the Bible were wrong. Science shows that what you're saying is wrong.

OLAADEGBU:

You asked for what information and I gave you the two laws of information and defined them for you, if I had made them up them I am a genius.

I asked for what you meant by "where information originated from". Making stuff up doesn't make you a genius.

OLAADEGBU:
The fact that you don't know suffices me.

The fact that I don't know something doesn't mean what you said was right. That would be a fallacy. I also said that I didn't even know if what you said was relevant.

OLAADEGBU:
You have admitted that you don't know so don't complicate matters.

I don't have to know the answer to the poorly phrased question to tell that it contains hidden premises.

OLAADEGBU:
Radioactivity is observational science but can you see it with your physical eyes? Yet you believe it exists.

"Observational science" is a false category. We actually can detect radioactivity.

OLAADEGBU:
Radiometric dating is using the ratios of isotopes produced in radioactive decay to calculate an "age" of the specimen based on assumed rates of decay and other assumptions. You can only calculate an age based on your assumptions which are mostly faulty and they don't even agree with other types of dating to say the least.

The rates of decay are not assumed, they're measured. The rest of your statement is simply false.

OLAADEGBU:
Yes. With a starting point of the Holy Bible we can do proper science as opposed to starting on faulty and sifting sands. We believe in what natural selection can and cannot do.

Changing one's mind with new information is what reasonable people do.

OLAADEGBU:
Natural selection can; decrease genetic information, allow organisms to survive better in a given environment, act as a "selector" and show that diversity has occurred within the original created kinds over thousands of years.

On the other hand, natural selection cannot:

Increase new genetic information, allow organisms to evolve from molecule to man, act as an "originator" and cannot support the so called evolutionary "tree" of life.

What evidence do you have to show that poodles have less "information" than some other dog? How do you even determine that one organism has less information than other organisms? Then when it comes to humans, which race has "more information"? Africans, Arabs, Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans or some other race? According to your idea of natural selection, where did man originate?

thehomer:

Well the scriptures are wrong according to what modern science shows us. I interpret this science using reason and evidence.



What molecule to man is this that you keep on referring to? What did the Bible say about North and South America, Antarctica and Australia? What you need to realize is that the ignorant people who wrote the Bible were wrong. Science shows that what you're saying is wrong.

if only you will accept that you have been told what the purpose of the bible is,
that it is a book meant to reconciled man to God, then you will not have made this statement.

thehomer:
What did the Bible say about North and South America, Antarctica and Australia?

lack of knowledge or of honesty thereof of the purpose of the bible.

The bible is not a science text book,but a book that God used in introducing himself to man.

DP

thehomer:

By the way, what does "Eje-cu-la-ting" mean?

hahahahahahahaha. Lol.

About ^^^ that ?
I borrowed it from one "hell of a woman" called calloti.

Maybe you can ask her, she will explain better.

laughing in 10 languages including chinese.

Peace.

thehomer:

I asked for what you meant by "where information originated from". Making stuff up doesn't make you a genius.

Information is an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. Now can you answer the kweshun?

thehomer:

The fact that I don't know something doesn't mean what you said was right. That would be a fallacy. I also said that I didn't even know if what you said was relevant.

I have given you the definition of information, answer the kweshun.

thehomer:

I don't have to know the answer to the poorly phrased question to tell that it contains hidden premises.

Let me rephrase the kweshun. Since information is nonmaterial and all observed cases always requires an intelligent sender, how did all the information contained in DNA originate?

thehomer:

"Observational science" is a false category. We actually can detect radioactivity.

Another word for observational science is operational science. It is a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. While historical or origin science is the interpreting of evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. All these definitions can be gleaned from creationist literature such as AiG, ICR, Creation worldview etc. I actually asked whether you can see radioactivity with your naked eyes since you don't believe in what you cannnot see.

thehomer:

The rates of decay are not assumed, they're measured. The rest of your statement is simply false.

Wrong. The assumptions related to radiometric dating in answering these questions: What was the initial amounts? Was there any parent amount added? Was any daughter amount added? Was any parent amount removed? Was there any daughter amount removed? and has the rate of decay changed?

If the assumptions to the questions above are really accurate then the uniformitarian dates should agree with radiometric dating across board for the same event which do often do not.

thehomer:

Changing one's mind with new information is what reasonable people do.

You will have to keep changing your minds because you started on false premises or presuppositions.

thehomer:

What evidence do you have to show that poodles have less "information" than some other dog? How do you even determine that one organism has less information than other organisms? Then when it comes to humans, which race has "more information"? Africans, Arabs, Asians, Caucasians, Native Americans or some other race? According to your idea of natural selection, where did man originate?

I gave you the possibilities and limitations of natural selection earlier. The diagram below will show you some genetics of varying fur length of dogs. As for human beings we are one race, the Adamic race who was created in the image of God. Some may have more or less melanin than others but we are still one race, the difference is only skin deep.

Considering the limitations of natural selection that gave earlier, you will see that genetic information in this diagram was lost. That the long fur dogs survive better in a cold environment; that a particular characteristics in the dog population was selected for and that dogs are still dogs since the variation is within the boundaries of "kind."

This shows the evidence of God's grace in supplying for His creation in the altered environments of a post-Fall, post-Flood world.

thehomer:

Well the scriptures are wrong according to what modern science shows us. I interpret this science using reason and evidence.

Evolution theory is not modern science it's an attractive religion because you believe its given you a reason to convince yourself that there need not be God to be accountable to.

thehomer:

What molecule to man is this that you keep on referring to? What did the Bible say about North and South America, Antarctica and Australia? What you need to realize is that the ignorant people who wrote the Bible were wrong. Science shows that what you're saying is wrong.

Have you forgotten your Darwinian theory that asserts that you evolved from primordial soup? You need more faith to believe the evolution fairytale than you will need to believe in the creation event. Evolution theory is not science it is a religion.

truthislight:
if only you will accept that you have been told what the purpose of the bible is,
that it is a book meant to reconciled man to God, then you will not have made this statement.

Why the sudden hop to some other topic? Why don't you answer the question I've already asked you?

truthislight:
lack of knowledge or of honesty thereof of the purpose of the bible.

The bible is not a science text book,but a book that God used in introducing himself to man.

If it isn't a science textbook, then why refer to it for scientific information? That italicized part of your sentence makes no sense.

OLAADEGBU:

Information is an encoded, symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose. Now can you answer the kweshun?

So information is a message.

OLAADEGBU:
I have given you the definition of information, answer the kweshun.

I cannot answer it because as far as I can tell, it is meaningless. DNA isn't a message unless of course you can tell me who this "message" is being transmitted to.

OLAADEGBU:
Let me rephrase the kweshun. Since information is nonmaterial and all observed cases always requires an intelligent sender, how did all the information contained in DNA originate?

Your assumption that DNA is a message is actually wrong so your question is based on a faulty premise.

OLAADEGBU:
Another word for observational science is operational science. It is a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves. While historical or origin science is the interpreting of evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view. All these definitions can be gleaned from creationist literature such as AiG, ICR, Creation worldview etc. I actually asked whether you can see radioactivity with your naked eyes since you don't believe in what you cannnot see.

Those "definitions" are simply false distinctions based on a faulty notion. Read my response to your question on radioactivity. Now is nuclear physics "observational science" or "historical science"?

OLAADEGBU:
Wrong. The assumptions related to radiometric dating in answering these questions: What was the initial amounts? Was there any parent amount added? Was any daughter amount added? Was any parent amount removed? Was there any daughter amount removed? and has the rate of decay changed?

If the assumptions to the questions above are really accurate then the uniformitarian dates should agree with radiometric dating across board for the same event which do often do not.

Are the rates of decay assumed or measured?

OLAADEGBU:
You will have to keep changing your minds because you started on false premises or presuppositions.

But you'll keep believing something that is wrong because of religious faith and blindness to the actual world around you.

OLAADEGBU:
I gave you the possibilities and limitations of natural selection earlier. The diagram below will show you some genetics of varying fur length of dogs. As for human beings we are one race, the Adamic race who was created in the image of God. Some may have more or less melanin than others but we are still one race, the difference is only skin deep.

Well which race is closest to how Adam supposedly looked? Any other race would be considered to have lost information relative to Adam wouldn't it? Based on what you're saying, if Adam's skin had a higher melanin, then those who don't have a high melanin content have lost information.

OLAADEGBU:
Considering the limitations of natural selection that gave earlier, you will see that genetic information in this diagram was lost. That the long fur dogs survive better in a cold environment; that a particular characteristics in the dog population was selected for and that dogs are still dogs since the variation is within the boundaries of "kind."

This shows the evidence of God's grace in supplying for His creation in the altered environments of a post-Fall, post-Flood world.

Actually the genetic information is not "lost", it is simply different and this difference is the result of various factors. Long fur can still be obtained in future offspring depending on the circumstances they face then.