Tree Devotionals (Contain Bible Verses, so enter at your own risk)

HigherGroundArborist said:
You replied to none of my questions because you have no answers. Allow me to illustrate where I’m coming from:

You are driving down the road and happen upon a trail that leads into the forest. You decide to walk that trail. The trail winds through the woods and every now and then opens to some amazing views of the surrounding mountains and vast open prairies. “What an incredible trail” you think to yourself. And you conclude that the trail was formed over millions of years and that the creatures of the forest somehow must have trampled it down and caused all the wood chips to lay so nicely and the nice shade trees along the way just happened to grow in just the right places to allow for comfortable breaks from the sun.

A week later I happen to bump into you walking that same trail. “Isn’t this great!” You say. It’s amazing how this trail formed here in the woods.” I look at you and say, “Oh, didn’t you know, Joe Somebody designed this trail. I have his blueprints right here. He specifically made it Wind the way it does for the beautiful views and planted specific trees along the way for a more pleasant experience. Isn’t it a great design!” You say, “I don’t believe Joe designed this. Prove to me that he did without showing me his blueprint.”

That’s basically what you’re telling me about how this world was made. It just formed on accident. Even though everything in this world screams for a designer. No one would ever believe something in our world just all of the sudden came into existence. Everything we have is designed and created. And yet, you believe there’s no one who designed and created our world.
Click to expand...
My daughter was formed by accident, because I didn’t wrap up. My son was made on purpose, because I didn’t wrap up. Who’s in control?
 
rico said:
So now you and your designer/creator get to pick and choose what he is, and is not responsible for? Your sure seem to make a lot of concessions for this god of yours.

And to be clear, a fella who believes in virgins giving birth or dead men rising from the grave is in no position to be asking for evidence of anything from anybody.
Click to expand...
Virgin birth is akin to sperm retention. Well documented in many species…. Perhaps an adaptation seed saving for a rainy day. But I can tell you the bees didn’t tickle her fancy first?
 
Jonny said:
A. mexicanus.
The Mexican tetra.
There’s one form that has functioning eyes and some pigmentation to its skin, and another form found in caves that does not have eyes and lacks skin pigmentation, and other forms in between with degenerate eyes, skin covering their eyes, and a little pigmentation. The blind ones have a better olfactory sense, are able to store 4x more body fat in order to deal with longer periods of time without food, and have sensitive taste buds all over it’s head.
These two fish in the pic are the exact same species.
Neat, huh?
View attachment 81450
Click to expand...
Rattle snakes on islands with no natural predators? Nahh why bother de-evolving something that isn’t needed? I think a better argument is how nature EVOLVES much quicker than is realized.. Devine? Or just survival? Or dumb luck?
I can tell anyone here the only reason I can type these words is from dumb luck, otherwise the Devine would have picked my number a long time ago
 
evo said:
Redwoods.. and probably many more trees. They are generically distinct enough top to bottom to be two different organisms..
define your words, what is an organism?
Click to expand...
A Redwood will always produce another Redwood. It may vary slightly and evolve in its makeup slightly, but it will ALWAYS produce another Redwood. It cannot produce an Oak, or an Elm, or a Spruce or some completely brand new kind of tree. It’s just not possible and there’s no evidence to prove it is possible.
 
Tom Dunlap said:
So...'imagining' is solid enough criteria to be used for critical thinking? Where does imagination come into play in proving anything?

There is sooo much that I'd like to believe or understand. But characters like Wyatt sure aren't the ones that will convince me of anything. All of his stuff is a pile of rubbish. Show me something that he's found that has stood up to investigation.
Click to expand...
I concur imagine was a not the appropriate word for what should've been used. But, it was not implied for general use as was inferred. Neither was it implied for proving anything. I accept there might have been/was similar misuse of evidence by the other side of the debate.

We as humans have more than just group hearsay, to understand things by. As you say we should employ critical thinking, were discernment comes into play, in gathering reasons, to investigate something further.
To dismiss Wyatt based on other's dislike of him or dislike on how others perceive him, doesn't seem fair.
 
Willber said:
To dismiss Wyatt based on other's dislike of him or dislike on how others perceive him, doesn't seem fair.
Click to expand...


LOL

Fair ain't in it, either is dislike.

Ii read a number of articles about him and by him. Some from the religious side and others non-religious.

His ideas sure don't stand up. They are easily dismissed..unless you really don't want to have ideas given a critical going over. At a certain age the Easter Bunny and Santa aren't believable. This isn't because of being fair or disliking the character. They just aren't believeable
 
Have you heard of the research of Tim Mahoney and his film Patterns of Evidence. I appreciate his pursuit of the evidence, and his interviews with critics of the evidence of the Exodus.
 
Capowell2 said:
Second off, whew. It looks like a lot has happened in the last few days.

As @Willber said a few weeks ago: I feel like I have been effectively been banned from this site (for the second time now). Hence the new account. I tried logging in from different devices. Other pages would load no problem. I could even look at treebuzz as long as I didn't log in. If I even could log in, things would not load, or were painfully slow, and I was unable to post.

If this was intentional on Treebuzz's part, I'm quite disappointed and don't think I said anything to warrant such treatment. Oh well, hopefully it doesn't happen again.
Click to expand...
Yes, only when I'm logged in, the forums are extremely sluggish, and will not, eventually load half the time.
More sluggish than dial-up from 25 years ago, though only when I'm logged in.
Though, when I log out, and browse the forums, it is fast like it any other site - like it used to be, about two months ago, when I was able to be logged in during browsing.
Yes, very puzzling, though, maybe not actually that puzzling.

Has use of the forums been very sluggish lately?
 
Last edited:
It was a thirty minute endeavor to reply to this. The only reason I wasted my time was because I'm sitting in a waiting room at the doctor's office. I can't log in to the backup account I made at all now- it was shut down as soon as I posted. I have also lost my "like" button on posts.

Like I said before, there is a lot of garbage floating around on the Buzz that has been allowed to continue unrestrained for years. I don't understand this treatment (I do), especially when I have spoken no words of hate or animosity.

Anyway, I implore the administrators to keep free speech alive on the Buzz. If you don't hear from me for a while, know it isn't by choice. Keep the good, honest, worthwhile discussions going. Continue to be a light to a dark world.
 
southsoundtree said:
How much MONEY is Ken Ham making off God?

He's a much, much, much better capitalist than scientist, it would seem.



Anyone?

Anyone?
Click to expand...
The morality of it depends on if he is using the money for person gain.
He may be capitalizing on it to have funds to further public understanding of what had happened.
I guess it's more about implying he’s not a good scientists.
Evolution seems to lack good science.

Though, it seems the only dinosaurs that survived the flood were the plesiosauruses.
 
Willber said:
Though, it seems the only dinosaurs that survived the flood were...
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Plesiosaur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


This continuous line of stupid non-science and no nreligious blathering is becoming embarrassing. The guidelines for what is hosted on Treebuzz are being reconsidered. Don't be surprised if this whole pile or bologna gets swept away,

Comments are made that are so easily debunked.

Legit questions are asked to show some sort of back up to what is said and the answer of 'faith' is given. Not good enough.

So....once again. what the dickens do you mean that the Plesiosaures survived a flood? @Willber
 
Tom Dunlap said:
en.wikipedia.org

Plesiosaur - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


This continuous line of stupid non-science and no nreligious blathering is becoming embarrassing. The guidelines for what is hosted on Treebuzz are being reconsidered. Don't be surprised if this whole pile or bologna gets swept away,

Comments are made that are so easily debunked.

Legit questions are asked to show some sort of back up to what is said and the answer of 'faith' is given. Not good enough.

So....once again. what the dickens do you mean that the Plesiosaures survived a flood? @Willber
Click to expand...
If you read the article there are a lot of holes in their explanations. There’s also a lot of “possibly” or “might have”, here’s one example:

“The Plesiosauria have their origins within the Sauropterygia, a group of perhaps archelosaurian reptiles that returned to the sea.”

In their explanation of their “evolution” not once have they ever found a fossil of an animal partially evolved, whether a Plesiosaur or any other animal. Odd how evolutionists can’t provide 1 example of a partially evolved species. They just continue to find fully formed animals…imagine that…

I’m quite certain that the article posted that “debunks” a creationist view is full of many holes. Can anyone even explain where the theory of “millions of years” came from?
 
Derek

You're tap dancing around the question again.

I asked you to show how the swimming dino could have been on the arc 10,000 years ago when they were extinct millions of years ago.

If you had an understanding of geology you'd understand the millions of years. This is old, old stuff that you should have learned since grade school. Very accepted science

If you took time to answer your own questions with a simple google/wiki query you'd be brought up to date.

Set the discussion of evolution aside...where are the pleisosaurs now if they were on the ark only ten thousand of your years ago. Or are your dino years as flexible in length as your 600 year old guys in the Old Testament?
 
Tom Dunlap said:
Derek

You're tap dancing around the question again.

I asked you to show how the swimming dino could have been on the arc 10,000 years ago when they were extinct millions of years ago.

If you had an understanding of geology you'd understand the millions of years. This is old, old stuff that you should have learned since grade school. Very accepted science

If you took time to answer your own questions with a simple google/wiki query you'd be brought up to date.

Set the discussion of evolution aside...where are the pleisosaurs now if they were on the ark only ten thousand of your years ago. Or are your dino years as flexible in length as your 600 year old guys in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
You continue to say I’m “tip toeing around the question.” I answered your question and you refuse to show any evidence for evolution and assume that you don’t have to because it’s “accepted science.” The truth is I know where millions of years comes from. It’s from radiometric dating of rocks. The problem with that is you have to use Observational Science as well as Historical Science to come up with millions of years. You have to assume that the rocks you’re measuring have not been disturbed or undergone any natural disasters for millions of years. That alone is highly unlikely. Historical science is where we are disagreeing and the problem is that you can’t prove Historical Science because it happened in the past. Well, I could prove my Historical Science using the Word of God but you’ve made it very clear that I’m not allowed to use that book as proof.

I’m also not sure why you feel a discussion of this nature is so “dangerous” that you have to remove it from TreeBuzz. There are no Creationists on this thread that are threatening anyone or trying to force our ideas on anyone. We’re simply sharing our beliefs.
 
HigherGroundArborist said:
They’re extinct.
Click to expand...
Is there a ship's manifest for the ark? Were they even aboard? Or, since it seems that most of them were sea creatures pease explain how they and the rest of the sea creatures were corralled on the ark.

Where is the record of them being alive 10k years ago? It seems the record is in place millions of years ago though.

Are we to take your word to the validity of their extinction? What do you base your expertise on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom