A literal 6 24-hr days?

You mean like the stereotyping of YEC's as ignorant, deceived, stupid, etc.???

 

It would be wrong to characterize creationists as stupid or othewise mentally deficient. I think Kurt Wise summed it up well, when he said that the evidence was less important for him than his understanding of God's Word.

I think most creationists are like that. I would certainly not be dumb enough to call you stupid, Helen.

 

Exactly like that, which is why I don't stereotype them as such. In my mind people are individuals and their beliefs do not necessarily speak to their intelligence. Are you trying to imply something Helen?

 

Satan has his ways of pulling people away from GOD. He uses whatever is handy.

Interesting fact. DNA if PROTECTED from HEAT,
AIR, WATER, and BACTERIA (according to a 1991
Nature Magazine article) must break down
entirely within 10,000 years. Obviously, DNA
that is subjected to any adverse conditions WILL
breakdown MUCH sooner------even in less than a
year.

The truth is that they have found DNA in amber
from insects that are suppose to be 10 million to
30 million years old. Why does the DNA have
to be that old?------because the amber has been
judged by evolutionists to be that old. This
must mean that someone IS WRONG. Perhaps it
isn't the creationists. But I know someone will
dream up something to put down creationism and
exult evolution. Seems odd that there would be
"Christians" bent on supporting that which is
making GOD a liar-----even when there is data
that would make even an atheist wonder.

 

Where is this 'article' located? Also, it's not evolutionists you would be disagreeing with, I believe they would be paleontologists (sp?). Your appeal to emotion doesn't hold sway with me because I do not take Genesis to be literal. So please don't try to sway people with that sort of faulty argument.

 

Meatros:

My appeal to "emotion", seems to hold enough
sway to get you to ask about the article---doesn't it bucky...

Well not to leave you hanging

"The Past Comes Alive", by Bryan Sykes "NATURE"
Volume 353 August 1st, 1991, Page 381, column 2.

Might also check out "Creation Ex Nihilo",
Volume 14 Number 3 "DNA DATING:FASCINATING
EVIDENCE THAT THE FOSSILS ARE YOUNG" by
Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S., Page 43

 

My guess is that you were confused by Syke's conclusion that mitochondrial DNA has one mutation about every 10,000 years.

 

Actually, agnostics, atheists, hindus, christians, budhists, moslems, even Baptists have all contributed to all areas of science, including evolutionary theory. Good science can be done regardless of one's religous beliefs. So all this rhetoric about atheists and unbelievers is wasted effort. Truth is never God's enemy!

The last I heard, Barry was still working on how to relate gravity to his theory, which means his theory is incomplete. Why do you seek to use an incomplete theory as if it were settled and factual? Astronomical evidence proves light wasn't faster in the past anyway, not in the last 10 billion years. Its all in the thread below labeled "Setterfield and the Variable Speed of Light model". Neither you or Barry have a cogent reply to the objections I and others raised there.

By the way, stars could shine for a million years with no nuclear reactions at all. The gravitational energy release from the collapsing cloud of interstellar gas would suffice for that brief an interval. Kind of makes one wonder why God even bothered to invent nuclear energy, if the universe is only 8000 years old and due to be destroyed any year now.

So why aren't these salts present in the Greenland ice cores?

It is not possible for the earth's coal to have formed that way. There is simply way to much coal! That much coal had to accumulate over vast eons of time.

Your words are strangely disconnected from what is possible. We are talking about forming whole islands from volcanic eruptions and then wearing them down through erosion over and over and over again, each one in its turn, many of them now represented by coral reefs that grew upwards as the land subsided.

Has anyone ever gone over the layers and said here, here is evidence of transition from seasonal cylcles to storm cycles? What did they say was the evidence for that? Did it make any sense? Evidence is the coin of science, not rhetoric. The data was tested for being annual and passed all the tests.

But you've regularly presented, as now, ideas that are strangely disconnected from what is scientifically feasible or supported by the evidence.

This from someone who asserts that some stars were created before day four of Genesis, who finds evidence for world shattering meteor storms just because fire from heaven destroyed somebody's house in the book of Job, who finds evidence for continent wide disruptions because the Bible happens to mention people divided the earth among themselves in the days of Peleg. Do you really believe the biblical writer would describe the tearing apart of all the continents with just one short sentence? Just how arbitrary an interpreter are you willing to be?

Mainstream science is not my "particular" interpretation. God's word is true when properly interpreted, and the evidence from science is your interpretation is wrong. This has happened before in the history of science and religion. I am not alone in this, many christians agree with the findings of science. This is going to be how Christianity survives, should our Lord tarry.

It is a profound truth that all animal life is dependent either directly on plant life or indirectly on other animal life that is dependent on plant life. I remember this being pointed out as an awesome truth in grade school. I don't see any problem for me with Genesis 1:29-30.

They have not; instead they are more precisely measured or reinterpreted. C in particular is measured as being constant for the past 10 billion years by astronomical observation.

Which, by the way, has been documented to occur.

Leaving the arrival of new genes for other mechanisms, such as mutation.

And these are culled from the herd by natural selection. Funny, you insist on metioning mutation ONLY when it comes to mentioning the arrival of problem genes and mentioning natural selection ONLY when it comes to discussing the need for new genes. In this way you are not just saying the theory doesn't work, you are fundamentally misrepresenting the theory. Its as if you said I can't type because my feet don't coordinate on the keyboard and I can't walk because my fingers are ill suited to sustain my body weight. You do have rhetorical skills!

Let's try to be more precise about the words we bandy about. I don't put faith in science, even though I believe a lot of science. Remember the distinction made by James about how the devils even believe things about God without having faith in God. In that sense, my faith is in God.

Given the strained interpretations you have already proved you can and do adopt, it is reasonable to say this verse applies:

Luke 11:46 But He said, "woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.."

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However - the question has to be asked in connection with the subject title of this thread HOW WOULD that atheist - evolutionist - EXPECT to find "proof" of a literal 7 day week at creation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong again Meatros. Speculation and fabrication on your part do not form "a kind of proof" against God's Word.

The events that took place during the world wide flood "have no video". Your "claim" to have found certain meteors OR to have "proven" that a 7 day creation could not happen - is just another example where "proof-by-speculation" when accepted as "science" becomes it own "mythology" and in your case - you allow your mythology to eclips God's Word.

Not a problem for an atheist - but one wonders how an actual Christian gets into such a compromised state.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we go to the atheist to find our story of "origins" instead of God's infallible word - SHOULD we be surprised that they rely simply on "guesswork"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In some cases it is quite easy and obvious. But as you note, pure fabrication and speculation on their part - can not always be "disproven". When you place the burden of "proof" on the one speculating - you are getting closer to "Science". But placing the burden of "proof" on the one "listening" to the myths is like saying "PROVE that I did not see an alien from outer space yesterday". It can't be "proven" that you "did not see one".

However that is not a position that the scientific method would take. RATHER it would try to see if the "CLAIM" could be PROVEN. The fact that "it can not be falsified" merely shows it NOT to be science at all - but just a claim. As indeed the mythology of evolution is - just a "claim" in the wind.

I challenge those few Bible believing Christians that accept evolution to SHOW that it is consistent with God's Word - and its teaching on the Gospel.

The fact that they can't do it - does not make "me" the bad guy for simply pointing it out.

Wrong again.

I point out that only atheists have a "consistent" basis from which to argue the point of the myths of evolutionisms dogmas.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we be suprised that instead of FALLING DOWN - the atheist sees us RISING UP from beastly blood thirsty carnivorous savage animals?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just stating the obvious - but for the seriously challenged - even admitting to the obvious is a "problem" as we see below

your statement is not even credible. Evolution is "defined" as a building process whereby more complex forms appear out of less evolved - less complex living systems. Your "deny all things at all costs" approach - does not serve your argument at all.

Admitting to the "obvious" will only help your case. It will not hurt you. Try it.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we be surprised that EVEN when their "myths" are seen to have flaws and no "Explanation" can cover - they respond with "WELL we are HERE so we KNOW it HAD to happen something like this story says".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You pick your gods - atheists all pick evolutionism - and it is obvious as to why they do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darwins fall into an anti-God belief system is well documented. However - my claim was "not" that only atheists subscribe to the mythologies of evolutionism - my claim is that it is "obvious" why Huxley and atheist with his same "goal" see an ideal tool in the myths of evolutionism. Both Atheists and Bible believing Christians admit the obvious - that evolutionism is the antithesis of the Gospel and so therefore of Christianity itself.

Bob

 

And so the point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" to show test that the world was in fact Created in a literal week as God said?

Our atheist evolutionist friends have no incentive at all to seek to discover in nature - that which the God of nature declares in His Word.

But you would think that Christians would be better informed than their atheist opposition in that regard.

What evidence are the evolutionist Christians seeking regarding "Creation Week" the "literal 24 hr days"? Or do the "start" with the assumption that "evolutionism is fact" and God's Word is "myth" and STILL call themselves Bible believing Christians? What do they do?


Bob

 

Per usual, you demonstrate that saying it is a lot easier then proving it.

Actually I think you are blinding by your predjudice against anyone who doesn't believe the same as you do.

Totally dodging and ignoring is easy. Instead of your empty rhetoric, how about you provide some evidence. I think it's completely funny how you didn't even address the issue. Your rhetoric is offensive and it doesn't add a thing to the discussion.

Still attacking the credibility instead of the argument. It's a lot easier to use inflammatory rhetoric then it is to prove your case.

Prove it.

It is to laugh at your inflammatory rhetoric and hate speak. Prove your assertions, otherwise you are breaking a commandment-which you have proven before that you don't take seriously. You are blinded by your hate and you can't defend your position and I'm seriously tired of hearing your long winded attempts to judge others. You are not God and your attempts to play God are pathetic.

 

Rhetoric only, no substance. I bet you couldn't even define what evolution is.

Again showing your ignorance. I'm not an atheist and I don't think anyone here is. You are bearing false witness and you have the nerve to criticize other Christians??

I'd explain it to you, but I'd have to use big words and I don't think you'd understand.

 

Meatros - I raised several points in my post.

Did you actually say 'anything' in your response?

It appears you did not address a single point.

What's up? Are you really "tired" of answering the points raised against your bias?

The unnanswered post remains --

Bob

 

Oh please Bob, you don't even know what the theory of evolution is.

 

Once again - the subject title (so faithful avoided by our evolutionist bretheren) is yet to be addressed.

The question remains - what evidence do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" for the literal 7 "evenings and mornings" of creation week? And failing to find that evidence - they THEN turn to mythologies that contradict God's Word. What did they FIRST seek? Anything at all???

Failing to "show" abiogenesis EVEN in the controlled lab environment ... failing to "Show" any evolutionary principle BEYOND the Creationist concepts of minor mutation within a "kind" - what "Evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren claim they "Sought" in harmony with the Word of God regarding the 7 literal evenings and mornings?

Even our Atheist friends do not claim that "7 evenings and mornings" consisted of billions of years at one time according to physics. Why would our evolutionist bretheren make such a claim?

Bob

 

First off, abiogenesis isn't evolution, so we can throw that one into the garbage. Second prove that a Creationist came up with the specific concept of microevolution.
Third, please by all means describe what a "kind" is.

 

Abiogenesis is the ONLY proposition of evolutionism for the origin of life (outside of aliens from outer space that is).

So we can "throw all attempts to dodge that point into the garbage" as you note - and of course many of us do.

There are in fact no evolutionists as the founders of any of our sciences including that of Biology. The very instantiation of families and Phylum - of course presented to us by a "creationist".

Bob

 

Abiogenesis is, as you seem to understand, not part of evolutionary science. And we don't yet have compelling evidence for it. However, in Genesis, God tells us that's how He created life.

And for the time being, that's good enough. It should be good enough for you, too.

Hmm... Molecular biology. (Watson and Crick, Pauling) Thermodynamics (Boltzmann) Evolutionary science. (Darwin, Wallace, et al) Solid-state physics (Shockley) Astrophysics (Penzias and Wilson,Hawking) ...

You say I'm cheating here? I'm counting only the sciences that have been founded after Darwin discovered natural selection? Right. But that's how it works. You won't find many people who accept solid state electronics before it was discovered, either.

Linneaus, to be exact. He is on record as believing he should have placed humans and apes in the same genus, but was afraid of what the religious people would do.

What Linneaus didn't know what why living things sorted so neatly into hierarchial groups like a family tree. But now we do.

Creationists sorted out the geological column, too. But they didn't realize the implications of that either, until Darwin.

 

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abiogenesis is the ONLY proposition of evolutionism for the origin of life (outside of aliens from outer space that is).

So we can "throw all attempts to dodge that point into the garbage" as you note - and of course many of us do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again ignoring the obvious. Evolution's ONLY solution to "HOW life got here" is to posit "life from non-life" life from non-living material.

Our atheist evolutionist friends (and Creationists) all admit with integrity that this is the only avenue open to the evolutionist.

And all agree - as you note - we have no evidence of such a thing being "possible" EVEN if we try to "contrive" it in the lab. Can't be done.

Gensis says "God FORMED MAN out of the dust of the ground" on DAY 6 - EVENING and MORNING (once cycle of EVENING and MORNING) was Day 6. Impossible to miss.

God "SPOKE and IT WAS".

This is a form of "abiogenesis" that our atheist evolutionist friends DO NOT posit. And Creationists are also quick to admit with integrity that the atheists DO NOT posit that kind of abiogenesis. Atheist evolutionists can NOT harmonize "God SPOKE" and "God FORMED man of the dust of the earth" on DAY 6 - with their views of evolution. BOTH Creationists and Atheist evolutionists quickly admit that point with integrity.

Wonderful that both the Atheist and the Creationist are free to "Admit the obvious" in that regard - and yet - obfuscation of even that simply point is required by our evolutionist bretheren inside the church.

Obfuscation of that point should be "good for me too"?? why?? Because you "need" to misdirect and obfuscate instead of just admitting the obvious on that point?

Come on - why would that be a compelling argument at all?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are in fact no evolutionists as the founders of any of our (major) sciences including that of Biology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#1. Evolutionary mythology is not actually a "science".

#1. Biology was not a "science founded by Darwin".

#2. Astrophysics was not a "science founded by Hawking".

My point is that Physics (Newton) was not founded by an eovlutionist, Biological sciences (Aristotle, Da Vinci) were not "founded by Evolutionists. EVEN the system of Taxonomy was given to us by a "Creationist" in his efforts to DETAIL the "Creation of God".

IN fact no major branch of science was given to us by "Evolution" NOR are any of them BASED on the mythologies of Evolution.

Nor will you find that those hard science "are based on Evolution".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very instantiation of families and Phylum - of course presented to us by a "creationist".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation "Linneaus, to be exact. "

Truth!

Indeed - a little honesty goes a long way toward establishing the credibility of the evolutionist's argument.

Bob