Can we really Believe the Creator's Word?

[just-want-peace]

Alcott sez:

I guess Jesus' body only looked like it was really dead.-----
... nor is there any need for salvation from nonexistent sin by another man who did what scientific investigation say is impossible.

BINGO!!!

Trotter sez:

If Genesis is to be taken as anything but literal, then death and the Fall mean nothing because God was powerless in it.

Another BINGO!!!!

Paul of Eugene sez:

--one individual was chosen from the candidate species and "ensouled", placed in the special garden, named Adam, and Eve was taken from his side.

Why do you believe(?) God would have "chosen" a candidate from the "pool" and then "created woman" from this candidate? Logically, God should have just chosen a female candidate from this same "pool", right?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Trotter:
The entire Bible stands or falls on Genesis.

If Genesis is to be taken as anything but literal, then death and the Fall mean nothing because God was powerless in it.

Actually, God's power is perfectly safe from my musings and your musings.

We merely seek to deduce from His world as we find and His Bible as we find it what happened in the past. The evidence from creation itself comes to us directly. The Bible is mediated to us through men. It is a matter of interpreting words.

But if the evolutionists' theories are correct, where was God during all of it? Was He, as yet, unformed? Maybe the Jewish people hadn't made Him up yet? Matbe the Bible's God isn't really God, but a rip-off of one of the ancient pagan religions?

Tsk tsk. If we accept the truth our doctrines are in jeapordy? That is not really a reason for not accepting the truth. And you exaggerate the danger for our doctrines.

No. God gave His record. He said that He created everything in six days (not ages).

That is your choice to interpret these verses as being necessarily literal. It is not the only choice available. We can also choose to believe that God allowed the creation narative to be expressed in terms the people who received it could understand, rather than a literal truth they could never accept.

If God has the power to create the entire universe, surely He had the brains to make a world that would be complete, as in ecosystems fully functioning, weather patterns that worked, tides that came and went, rollling mountains, full-grown trees, adult animals and not babies, etc...

The God of the Bible has that power, and He has that knowledge.

So why does the world show long dead animals from times so ancient that, in this view, they never really existed? Why do the Hawiian Islands not only stand there but also a series of undersea mounts that suggest a pattern of creation of island after island over millions of years?

He created everthing in six days, just like He said, because He cannot lie.

This argument was tried before and found wanting when Martin Luthor said Copernicus was wrong to insist the earth rotates and that explains the apparant movement of the sun across the sky.

We are not fooled. You go ahead and accept modern science's view today that the earth rotates in spite of the excellent exegesis of Martin Luthor and others in his days because - you yourself have decided to accept the ideas of men over the ideas of scripture concerning the rotation of the earth.

The very thing you say is calling God a liar when we do it regarding the age of the universe!

Why do you keep insisting these cases are different? There is no difference in these cases. The Bible says one thing, science says another; and in the one case, we all know science was right, in the other case, not everybody has caught on yet that science is right, that's all.

 

[D28guy]

Paul of Eugene,

"Alcott, you raise a good point. Insisting that modern science is invalid can, indeed, cause people to give up on our religion."

Actually, what does happen is kids go off to college as strong bible believing christians and are then indoctrinated by the myths, fables, lies, and concoctions of not only the evolution myth, but also the lies and falsehoods of many other forms of secular humanistic nonsense.

They come home and tell their parents they are now considering paganism, with a mix of new age gobbledegoop...except for those weekends at the buddhist retreat with Karmahansa Yogiberrahanda.

God bless,

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

D28guy

The reason you give is precisely one reason why I think YECism is a mistake. You teach your children all these things. But when they are finally exposed to the truth of an old earth, what happens? Once they have been shown that one thing they were taught was false and built on a house of cards, it is only natural for them to doubt the rest of it. If you are taught the evolution is incompatible with your religion and then find out that evolution is true, what happens. If you find out you have been misled on this, why not the Resurrection? The virgin birth? The existance of God?

By cutting this off at the roots, you eliminate a major avenue for the other things you mention getting started. The earth is ancient. You are not going to change that. The question is how do you handle it. And I think that the current course of the YECers is a dangerous one indeed.

What did you think of the transitionals I listed for you? I especially like the mammals from reptiles at http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/261.html? . The new fossils from China on birds are also really great. Do you still think that evidence for transitionals does not exist? Why?

Alcott

You completely missed the point. The earth is old. I gave you a very small set of things that show this to be true with the implied question of explaining why everything was so carefully made to fit a billions of years history if that history does not exist. You ignored the evidence and instead implied that those of us who accept an old earth must deny all the things you listed. This simply is not true. Do you really think any of us would be here on a Baptist Board proclaiming to be Christians if we doubted the Resurrection? God is perfectly capable of performing miracles. We all believe that as part of our faith. God is completely capable of forming the earth in a few days to look as it does now. The ignored question is why does the earth and the universe have such a carefully tuned set of indications that show an ancient history that includes billions of years of history for the earth and the universe and common descent of the life on earth if that is not really the truth? Trying to disparage our beliefs does not make that go away.

 

[Living4Him]

The contextual approach of Gensis would lead us to study the when, where, why, and by whom the book was written and so arrive at the conclusion that Genesis 1 teaches religious truths, not precise scientific data.

 

[Johnv]

Amen, Living4Him!!! You hit the nail on the head.

 

[UTEOTW]

 

[just-want-peace]

Living4Him sez:

---Genesis 1 teaches religious truths, not precise scientific data.

So, to take the approach of the evolutionists, "Why would God deliberately mislead us?"

To them, God is misleading IF creation really took only 6 days, but today's science says ole' Terra Firma is, in fact, billions of years old.

I would personally come closer to believing that God had misled us if this planet were truly billions of years old, but He told me that it was created in 6 days.

Seems to me the real problem is not the age of the earth, but where do you put your trust; in science that continually has to "up-grade" with new data emerging, or with God who CREATED SCIENCE!

 

[tamborine lady]

Just want peace. Big thumbs up. God created science!!

EXACTLY!!!

Working for Jesus,

Tam

 

[Brett]

So, to take the approach of the evolutionists, "Why would God deliberately mislead us?"

The same question could be asked of Creationists: Seeing as how God made the Earth and science, why would he deliberately deceive us by making the Earth look 4.5 billion years old and making it look like we have a common ancestor?

 

[UTEOTW]

"I would personally come closer to believing that God had misled us if this planet were truly billions of years old,"

But God is the Creator of the Creation. The Creation itself gives overwhelming evidence of billions of years of history for the universe and the earth and of the common descent of all life on earth. I do not think that God has misled us. But you say that if it is, God has misled us. Could the problem be you are putting God in a box with the faulty interpretation of a mere human? The God I believe in is big enough to have created either way. His Creation tells me he did it over billions of years. I shall not question God's decision to tell us of the Creation in a non-literal fashion even if that is a problem for you.

 

[New In Christ]

For those who believe in an old earth, and/or some form of theistic evolution as being the mechanism for creation, at what point does the Book of Genesis transition from figurative to literal? At what point are you confident that the stories in Genesis are literal...the expulsion from Eden? the account of Cain and Abel? Noah? Abraham?

 

[Living4Him]

God is not misleading us.

The universe must come either from God who put it into being or it must come from nothing.

Genesis teaches the religious truths that we are not accidents but God's children and that he created us.

Now remember when people thought that the world was flat instead of round and they probably didn't realize that the earth was a globe spinning in space? It didn't matter that people were wrong about the Earth. The shape of the Earth wasn't necessary for our salvation.

However, the teaching that the world comes from God rather than nothing is needed for our salvation. Creation is used to point us to the Creator. The account of Gensis 1 could be seen as "setting the stage" for proclaiming the religious truth that God created us.

The Bible account of creation and scientific data is not in conflict with one another, when one realizes that Genesis points out that it was God who was responsible for creating the world.

 

[UTEOTW]

New In Christ

I will try and give you an honest answer. I don't know.

The question may not even be able to be answered in its present form. I don't know that there is a line where everything before is allegorical and everything after is literal. There are non-literal parts throughout the Bible even up to the last few pages. And some of the things that are taken in a non-literal way may have some basis in actual events. Take the Creation itself as an example. I personally believe that this is not meant to be literal but at the same time I also believe the God did create this universe of ours and caused all the creative things to happen that led to us being here today. The distinction is blurry.

Let me further admit one thing. This is one of the more difficult aspects of accepting an old earth. It is not real comfortable taking things that are presented as narrative in the Bible and interpreting them in a non-literal manner. I think caution is definately required. But I also think that God's Creation is quite clear on its age. So I feel very certain about it.

Beyond the creation, I don't know. I think you get back into the idea of a blurring between actual events and giving us truths on which the rest of the Bible is based. For example, there is not any evidence for a worldwide flood and major problems with one. (Boy, I am opening a can of worms here.) But there is ample evidence for a great regional flood in the Middle East. Does it make it a non-literal interpreation to say that the world that God destroyed was the "world" they knew and not the entire globe?

IMHO, I would venture that by the time you get to Abraham that the blurry lines have become rather clear. Do I have any way to back this up? No, not really. And I expect that someone will take me through the ringer for saying that. I know that some of the other old earthers here take a different view. I also did not venture down any specific roads either, so there are a number of things left unsaid in the issue of space.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
[QB] Bob

You are right to not to take seriously any such silly arguments as you mention above. But if it is all an appearance of age, tell us why it is so carefully arranged to show a very old earth. Look at this:

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html

Let's say for the sake of argument that the evolutionists "Actually knew what they were talking about".

Let's "pretend" they were going about creating planets from scratch and coming up with living systems from abiotic processes in the lab "every day" or "even one day last year".

THEN they could "SHOW" us how daughter products are "not needed" for the starting condition.

They could "SHOW US" how starting off humanity as "Zygote Adam" and "Zygote Eve" then launching them into a barren earth was "a good thing".

THEN they "could challenge any OTHER way of doing it".

But as is the case with all evolutionist arguments in the belief system of evolutionism - they "assume their salient points" rather than proving them - and THEN ask the questions.

Much as you have done above.

In the case of "Continental drift" and "Tectonic plate movement" - notice that those who accept God's Word about the flood are NOT "Uniformatarians" in belief.

Hence - the result of "assuming the Word of God is not true" and then "extrapolating backwards" as you do -- merely places you in evolutionism's "black box".

UTEOTW --

I suppose it was necessary for some reason to give us billions of years of history played out in the stars above us that never actually happened.

Another red herring brought to you by the makers of evolutionism.

#1. The Bible says that God stretches out the heavens as a Curtain. Science has only just recently discovered that this is true.

The red herring you propose is of two flavors.

#1. Uniformitarianism EVEN though Evolutionists THEMSELVES must now posit massive and sudden "expansion"

#2. Evolutionism is false EVEN if the stars are older than the earth. ALL that is needed for evolutions myths to be disproven is the FAct that the Creator stated "For in SIX days the LORD MADE...". Life on earth is ALL that is needed to disprove the beliefs of evolutionism.

UTEOTW
I guess it was necessary to put DNA in our bodies and fossils in the ground that make it appear as if we evolved from apes when you say we really did not.

Another fallacious argument brought to us by evolutionists.

#1. "I suppose it was necesary to fool us into believing that we all came from a single crustacian since all life is carbon based". Grasping at "any straw" the evolutionist paints it as "deception".

But in fact DNA SHOWS us through repeated experiments (with canine species for example) that there are firm LIMITS. Ignoring the "Data" evolutionists "pretend" that the EXISTENCE of DNA means they must be evolutionists.

Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) Concluded the OPPOSITE. HE concluded that DNA PROVES it NEVER could have happened in all of time on earth - rather it must have been PLANTED HERE.

UTEOTW
I guess all those varves and ice layers really are not from regular deposits.

Is that your way of saying "I guess the flood story is right and uniformitarian speculations of evolutionists are not as infallible as the Creator's Word"???

If so... I agree. Of course - I am a Bible Believing Christian so taking that position does not alter my view of the Bible.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Bob

I am not even sure what you were trying to say, but I'll have a go at it any way.

I gave you a reference to a chart showing the ages of the various islands plotted against the distance from the currently erupting volcanoes. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html You then went of fon some strange tirade about "Zygote Adam" and "Zygote Eve." I think your point may have been the old circular logic routine. We interpret old earth because we assume an old earth. So let's ignore the rhetoric and look at the data. You failed to do that in your wrangling.

What do we see? First, we have an island, Hawaii (the big island), tah is currently being built up by volcanic forces. It has two large volcanoes that occasionally show some activity. To the east is a smaller volcano that is continuously erupting and building the island bigger. The whole island shows evidence of being built by the volcanoes. The islands geography is hard and sharp with very little evidence of erosion. To the east, there is a very active undersea volcano building a new seamount. It has yet to break the surface, but it is building.

Now we look to the west. The next island over is Maui. Its eastern half contains another large volcano similar in size to the two large ones on the island of Hawaii. It is currently dormant but has erupted in the last few hundred years. The western end of Maui contains another volcano. This volcano is dead. Its caldera has collapsed and the land shows signs of erosion.

As you continue moving west, you find a pattern. There are over 100 volcanoes, all dead. As you move west, the volcanoes show increasing signs of erosion. The furtherest west have been completely eroded back into the sea. The volcanoes that maintain their island status grow increasingly soft and lush as you wove to the west.

Now you date each of the volcanoes. You find that there is a linear relationship between the distance from the active volcanoes a volcano is and how old it is dated to be. The nearest are young. The most distant are the oldest.

Now, without any assumptions, how do you interpret this? What do you think is shown? How do you support your conclusions? Is your conclusion different than the conclusion of the geologists? Then explain how you can interpret the data better.

"The Bible says that God stretches out the heavens as a Curtain. Science has only just recently discovered that this is true."

The catch is in the details. The details match the predictions of science as to what is expected. Do you care to get into a discussion of the CMB? I think you will find the evidence supports inflation. But, you would deny that.

"Uniformitarianism EVEN though Evolutionists THEMSELVES must now posit massive and sudden "expansion""

So, you now are taking the concept of geologic uniformitarianism and applying it to astronomy. I have never heard of this before. New concept of yours?

"Evolutionism is false EVEN if the stars are older than the earth."

Giving up your literal interpretation so quickly. "The stars are young. BUt even if they are not young evolution still did not happen!" Come on Bob, you know that if you give up the stars being old then you have given up your whole premise. Everything in six days a few thousand years ago is your premise. You give up the stars, you give up everything.

"Life on earth is ALL that is needed to disprove the beliefs of evolutionism."

Life on earth shows us that common descent binds all of the life on earth together.

"[/i]I suppose it was necesary to fool us into believing that we all came from a single crustacian since all life is carbon based[/i]"

Bob, you know good and well that you are arguing against a strawman. It is not that life is carbon based and we did not all come from a crustacian. Once again it is the details. Take the similarities between human DNA and the DNA from the other apes and primates. This is where you usually scream common designer so I take that option away from you. Look at the vitamin C evidence I have explained to you a hundred times. Why is a perfectly good machine for making vitamin C in all animals broken in both humans and apes in the exact same way, the same mutation at the same spot of the same enzyme (of four in the machine)? Common descen handles this perfectly. How do you explain ALL of the primate "kinds" including humans having this exact same mutation but no other animals? Look at long term repeats of endogenous retroviral DNA. Why do humans and the other apes share the same repeats in the same places? Common design predicts that they should. You would have to assume that in all the different primate "kinds" that each of the several virii infected a germ line cell and inserted the exact same sequence into the exact same spot and that all of these insertions were passed to all members of all the "kinds." For that matter, with the large percentage of our DNA that is made up of LTR of viral DNA, you would expect to see large variation within humans of which repeats were in which individual if all these insertions happened in recent history. That all of the LTRs are shared shows how ancient life is. You have no answer for this nor any of the other dat presented to you. You can only deny.

"with canine species for example"

Bob, your continued insistance that evolution is false because you could not breed a wolf from a poodle is another strawman. No where does evolution suggest this should be possible. It is of your own creation and has no support.

"Is that your way of saying "I guess the flood story is right and uniformitarian speculations of evolutionists are not as infallible as the Creator's Word"???"

Just how does what I said support you? That would be some stretch. You explain those varves to me with their daily and seasonal variations. You explain those yearly ice layers. Show how a better explanation of the data rules out the conventional view.

"Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) Concluded the OPPOSITE. HE concluded that DNA PROVES it NEVER could have happened in all of time on earth - rather it must have been PLANTED HERE."

Are you now joining the ranks of those who believe life originated in another solar system and was transported here? No? Then why do you bring it up? This is like all branches of YECism. If it might go against the modern views of science then you consider it friendly. Crick thinks life originated on another planet and was transported here. Well that goes against modern science so you willingly use it. Never mind the implications that it is even more at odds with your beliefs. Intelligent design sounds like a good game so you'll consider them friends even though Behe and others accept common descent. There can never be division within the ranks. The RATE group and all thse others go out and tell blatant lies about science, but they cannot be censored or rebuked. How dare one YECers tell another he is wrong. Look at the scientists, you use every scrap of disagreement to tar the whole establishment so you cannot let their be any strife in your camp.

You called an number of my arguments "fallacious." Tell what fallacy I am guilty of and show where I made my mistakes.

You rail against "Uniformitarianism." Tell us what is wrong with it. Now no strawmen about how they do not allow for catastrophe, you know full well that modern geology understands and makes use of catastrophic events in their explanation of geology. You know full well the Uniformitarianism means that cause and effect relationships are the same today as they were in the past. If you disagree, show us that erosion by a river, or a flood of a river valley, or wind erosion ,or a landslide, or wave action, or an earthquake, or a volcano have different effects today than they did in the past. You argue against a strawman of Uniformitarianism, why don't you knock over the real thing?

 

[just-want-peace]

Brett sez:

Seeing as how God made the Earth and science, why would he (1)deliberately deceive us by (2)making the Earth look 4.5 billion years old and (3)making it look like we have a common ancestor?

Bold/numbers Mine

1 Who said God DID deceive us?
2 Who decided that God made the earth LOOK 4.5 billion years old? That comes from man's efforts; nothing God did or said!
3 We DO have a common ancestor, four in fact, unless you discount the flood also!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
.... You then went of fon some strange tirade about "Zygote Adam" and "Zygote Eve." I think your point may have been the old circular logic routine. We interpret old earth because we assume an old earth.

Pretending not to "get the point" does not serve to make your case for evolutionism.

"Obviously" the point of Adam and Eve being created as "adults" shows "age" that is "needed" for the starting conditions to be successful.

Pretending not to notice that "obvious" point - does not serve as a kind of proof for your beliefs in evolutionism.

But of course, you knew that.

UTEOTW
...

As you continue moving west, you find a pattern. There are over 100 volcanoes, all dead. As you move west, the volcanoes show increasing signs of erosion. The furtherest west have been completely eroded back into the sea. The volcanoes that maintain their island status grow increasingly soft and lush as you wove to the west.

An interesting story to be sure. However the Creator's "Account" does not state that "No time has passed since creation" as you seem to assume. Rather - by the Creator's account time has passed and it has been at a somewhat uniform rate - aside from the flood. So going back 4500 years to the flood you would "expect" to see signs of steady state erosion.

There is no question that the older volcanoes will be at the trailing edge.

What is "not apparent" is how you hope to "predict" or "account for" the rapid geologic changes that occur at the flood and shortly following it.

Oh yes I forgot - "you don't" account for them - you simply assume that the Creator is "wrong"

UTEOTW -
Now, without any assumptions, how do you interpret this?

WEll lets assume there is no God. Lets assume the Creator's Genesis "account" can be ignored. Let's assume that we have a steady-state uniform progression extending back at the same rate that we see geologic processes occuring today.... lets "assume evolution is true" and then ... hmmm .what do we find??? I have it!! we "find" that evolution is true.

UTEOTW
What do you think is shown? How do you support your conclusions?

Simple -

#1. There is no God
#2. Sooo The Creator's account can be ignored
#3. Nothing has changed in the past from what we see today - so it can all be extrapolated backwards.

You know - the EXACT same way that our atheist evolutionist friend - Richard Dawkings would draw his conclusion!

Is your conclusion different that the conclusion of the Atheist Richard Dawkings as he "peers into the past"??

No?

How surprising!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said --
"The Bible says that God stretches out the heavens as a Curtain. Science has only just recently discovered that this is true."

UTEOTW -

The catch is in the details. The details match the predictions of science as to what is expected. Do you care to get into a discussion of the CMB? I think you will find the evidence supports inflation. But, you would deny that.

The "details" are that science today is forced to admit NON-uniformity in the expansion of the universe from the zero point.

The "details" are that science is forced to admit that space ITSELF is spreading out like a curtain unfolding NOT having the energy dissipation wave form inversely proportional to the square of the distance as predicted in a classic explosion wave form from a "big bang"!

The "details" are that science is forced to admit that INSTEAD of the predicted decline in momentum over time - it is seeing "acceleration" as the Curtain unfolds!

How "evolution-disconfirming"! How "surprising"!

Bob said --
"Uniformitarianism EVEN though Evolutionists THEMSELVES must now posit massive and sudden "expansion""

UTEOTWN
So, you now are taking the concept of geologic uniformitarianism and applying it to astronomy. I have never heard of this before. New concept of yours?

Is that your backhanded way of admitting you are wrong or admitting to an inconsistency in your own argument?

If so - it is not working as a kind of "disguise".

The point remains.

Bob said --

"Evolutionism is false EVEN if the stars are older than the earth."

UTEOTW --

Giving up your literal interpretation so quickly. "The stars are young. BUt even if they are not young evolution still did not happen!"

You are simply "pretending" not to understand the point again. And "again" it does not serve to support your beliefs.

In the Creator's account (had you paid attention to the details of the text AS IF they were trustworthy)He states that He made TWO GREAT LIGHTS on day 4.

That means that having OTHER lights - like the stars that are "older" than earth - is in keeping with the literal acceptance of the Creator's "Account" of Gen 1-2:4.

The Creator - wins again.

UTEOTW --
Come on Bob, you know that if you give up the stars being old then you have given up your whole premise. Everything in six days a few thousand years ago is your premise. You give up the stars, you give up everything.

What a straw man you have invented.

I need "TWO GREAT LIGHTS" created on the 4th day to have a LITERAL acceptance of the Creator's Account. (This is the DETAILS of the problem that you seem to enjoy ignoring).

I have never argued that the stars are the same age as the earth.

You "claim" that the Creator's account is a lie IF there is a STAR in the sky older than the earth. Yet you make no case for such an absurd "Test condition".

I on the other hand - argue the devastating point that ALL that is needed for evolution to be proven false - is for LIFE on this planet to be "CREATED in SIX DAYS" as in the case of "FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord created the heavens and the earth and the seas and ALL that is in them" where the heavens are the "first heavens" AND not what Paul calls "the Third Heaven".

Bob said --
"Life on earth is ALL that is needed to disprove the beliefs of evolutionism."

In responding to your speculation that "SINCE God used DNA as the code for living organisms - THEN complex life forms evolved from simple ones" - I point out that such flawed speculative assertion is equivalent to...

"[/i]I suppose it was necesary to fool us into believing that we all came from a single crustacian since all life is carbon based[/i]"

UTEOTW Why is a perfectly good machine for making vitamin C in all animals broken in both humans and apes in the exact same way, the same mutation at the same spot of the same enzyme (of four in the machine)? Common descen handles this perfectly.

A more "Speculative" position could hardly be imagined. Asked why the thumb is on the same side of the hand between Apes and humans "WHY because we all came from apes of course"??

And yet the Creator's CLEAR statement that God FORMED man in His own image (a much more DIRECT accounting for human anatomy and physiology) is "to be ignored" as faithfully as Richard Dawkings would have it!

UTEOTWN
Bob, your continued insistance that evolution is false because you could not breed a wolf from a poodle is another strawman. No where does evolution suggest this should be possible.

Hello!! You have conveniently "Forgotten" the "modification with descent" argument that claims to "aggregate new genetic data into the DNA sequence" such that organism GAIN genetic information over time. The poodle has LOST the genetic information to make a wolf. Evolution PREDICTS that with enough time the poodle will GAIN genetic information not only to give birth to wolves but to MOVE BEYOND wolves.

How soon they pretend to "forget".

Bob said of UTEOTWs speculation about DNA --

"Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) Concluded the OPPOSITE. HE concluded that DNA PROVES it NEVER could have happened in all of time on earth - rather it must have been PLANTED HERE."

UTEOTW said

Are you now joining the ranks of those who believe life originated in another solar system and was transported here? No? Then why do you bring it up?

Hello!!

I believe in the Creator's ACCOUNT Gen 1-2:4. That means "YES"!! I believe DNA was "brought here" and that it did not EVOLVE here and that an OUTSIDE source accounts for its existence.

But UNLIKE Francis Crick who is bound by the same chains that hold Richard Dawkings (the NO-God Chains) - I can simply TRUST the Creator's account. Crick did not have that option.

INSTEAD Crick was confronted by the PROBLEM that the DNA "could not possibly have evolved" -- no time - it was TOO complex to have simply "popped up".

Instead of ADMITTING to the enormity of this problem as the ATHEIST Francis Crick was forced to do - you (a Christian) pretend not to SEE what HE SAW.

Yet this was far more devasting to Crick since Crick HAD NOT GOD to fall back on as "a source" and needed to "invent one".

UTEOTW --
You called an number of my arguments "fallacious." Tell what fallacy I am guilty of and show where I made my mistakes.

Are you reading this?

Are you paying attention to the points?

Do you not see that even Francis Crick is coming to a more "honest" conclusion - by observing the data and concluding that DNA COULD NOT simply have "occurred" naturally?

I can't beleive that your faith in evolutionism forces you to deny what even your atheist evolutionist mentors can not escape from admitting.

And that is including the fact that Richard Dawkings and Darwin both reject God in favor of eovlutionism AND see the hopeless contradiction in trying to "marry the two".

UTEOTWN

You rail against "Uniformitarianism." Tell us what is wrong with it. Now no strawmen about how they do not allow for catastrophe, you know full well that modern geology understands and makes use of catastrophic events in their explanation of geology.

Test case - go back to your Hawaiian island example and SHOW how rapid one-time geologic changes are "shown" by the story you tried to tell?

Was it "missing" from your story?

Hmmm.

How surprising.

In Christ,

Bob

UTEOTW

You know full well the Uniformitarianism means that cause and effect relationships are the same today as they were in the past. If you disagree, show us that erosion by a river, or a flood of a river valley, or wind erosion ,or a landslide, or wave action, or an earthquake, or a volcano have different effects today than they did in the past.

River delta sedimentation rates CHANGE as the river ages. NEW river formation would involve high impact turbidity currents massively impacting sedimentation rates of the delta AND YET all major river deltas of the earth - show a "start" point less than 6000 years old EVEN if we do NOT account for rapid deposition during start up as would be "expected".

I argue against uniformatarianism because it "needs to deny" the Creator's account of a World Wide Flood.

Do you find that surprising? I don't think Richard Dawkings would be "surprised" that I would take that view as a Bible believing Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
The "details" are that science is forced to admit that space ITSELF is spreading out like a curtain unfolding NOT having the energy dissipation wave form inversely proportional to the square of the distance as predicted in a classic explosion wave form from a "big bang"!

BR - Just because there are mysteries left for science to solve as to why the universe expands and exactly how it expands does not mean you can therefore catagorically deny the things science does know.

In the Creator's account (had you paid attention to the details of the text AS IF they were trustworthy)He states that He made TWO GREAT LIGHTS on day 4. That means that having OTHER lights - like the stars that are "older" than earth - is in keeping with the literal acceptance of the Creator's "Account" of Gen 1-2:4.

The literal narrative of the days of creation places the creation of the stars on day four:

Gen 1:14-16: Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (NASU)

The Creator - wins again.

The Creator is not posting in this forum. Men such as you and I are expressing opinions.

I have never argued that the stars are the same age as the earth.

You have argued for accepting the Genesis narrative as literally true, and as we see above, it states the stars were created on the fourth day of the creation week.

I on the other hand - argue the devastating point that ALL that is needed for evolution to be proven false - is for LIFE on this planet to be "CREATED in SIX DAYS" as in the case of "FOR IN SIX DAYS the Lord created the heavens and the earth and the seas and ALL that is in them" where the heavens are the "first heavens" AND not what Paul calls "the Third Heaven".

??? Is it your goal to merely disprove evolution and never mind supporting what the Bible literally says? I thought all along you merely disbelieved evolution because you believed the Bible instead. But if you believe stars were older than the earth, then you disbelieve the Bible AND evolution both!

A more "Speculative" position could hardly be imagined. Asked why the thumb is on the same side of the hand between Apes and humans "WHY because we all came from apes of course"??

Well, now at last you're starting to talk sense! -Oh, wait, that was irony, wasn't it. Oh well. . .

And yet the Creator's CLEAR statement that God FORMED man in His own image (a much more DIRECT accounting for human anatomy and physiology) is "to be ignored" as faithfully as Richard Dawkings would have it!

(sigh) God is not a being with eyes and thumbs and hairy legs; God is spirit. It is in our spirits that we reflect the image of God, not our bodies. That is elementary theology; how long have you labored under the delusion that God is of the flesh, fleshly?

It is true that once we sinned and became in need of a savior God in the second Person of the Trinity took on the form of our flesh. But that was not His state when He formed us in His image.

Hello!! You have conveniently "Forgotten" the "modification with descent" argument that claims to "aggregate new genetic data into the DNA sequence" such that organism GAIN genetic information over time. The poodle has LOST the genetic information to make a wolf. Evolution PREDICTS that with enough time the poodle will GAIN genetic information not only to give birth to wolves but to MOVE BEYOND wolves.

IF poodles were placed in an environment where a predator could get along real well AND there were no effective predators around THEN poodles would undoubtedly take up predator ways and become over a few hundred thousand years (a far longer time than all written history of mankind) an effective predator.

But I sincerely doubt it would be a wolf, any more than a hyena or a tasmanian devil is a wolf.

Do you not see that even Francis Crick is coming to a more "honest" conclusion - by observing the data and concluding that DNA COULD NOT simply have "occurred" naturally?

Today nobody knows how life got STARTED from a scientific point of view; only that once it got here it evolved. Neither UT nor anyone else in the debate has said anything else around here to my knowledge. I certainly don't reject the idea that God could have created life as a special miracle on our planet; nor do I reject the idea that God might have instead designed the possibility of life into the very laws of the universe. That's something we just don't know yet.