Evolutionism vs the Gospel

[Charles Meadows]

A_Christian,

Now,now. Temper temper...

I have never stated that one shouldn't be able to take God's word at face value. There's nothing at all wrong with simply believing the bible for what it says.

Here's the problem with the arguments by Bob Ryan and Gup20:

The majority of scientific research does not support a young earth. It simply doesn't. No amount of wanting it to will change that.

I have a doctoral degree and have extensively studied and TAUGHT biology, including evolution. I know what the theories say and the facts behind them. And the statements by Bob Ryan and others are just not true!! As a Christian I would love it if all of our research pointed to creation about 6000 years ago but it just doesn't!!

That doesn't mean we cannot believe in God. And as I said I have no problem with one who simply believes the bible over anything else.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN OUR FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!

But...

DO NOT twist science and facts to make them say what we want - that accomplishes nothing. I cannot even tell you how many kids I've met who grew up "in church" and were taught these theories about how evolution is really junk science. When they got to college and encountered professors who actually KNEW THE FACTS they lost their faith - because they had been taught to put their faith in this kind of stuff!!!!!

 

[A_Christian]

How old was Adam when GOD CREATED him? If I had a time machine and took a medical doctor back to day seven and asked the doctor------"Doctor, how old is this man," just what would be his response?

Perhaps he'd say, "Well, he's a sight older than that apple tree over there; however, that mountian has been taking shape for millions of years..."

And he would have been WRONG!

I have Faith in GOD. I have not seen Him yet...
I will not twist GOD's Word to fit what man cannot be certain of. We need to simply collect the data
and consider ALL THE POSSIBILITIES. I believe Creationists are far more honest then their counterparts in this regard.

[ July 30, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: A_Christian ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Did the mountain over there show signs of weathering - i.e. gullies? Rounded contours?

Did it contain fossils?

Did the sky contain the great galaxy of Andromeda, distance 3 million light years away?

Did the moon in the sky contain extensive craters, indicating a history of earth/moon-shattering meteors?

Was there one continent or many?

Had diamonds formed yet?

Were the cliffs of England white yet?

How many islands of the Hawiian island chain had been formed?

How deep was the ice at antarctica and greenland?

 

[UTEOTW]

Perhaps he'd say, "Well, he's a sight older than that apple tree over there; however, that mountian has been taking shape for millions of years..."

Did the mountain show layers sorted by their ratios of radioactive isotopes?

Did the mountain contain sedimentary layers with fossilized remains of organisms in there?

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by Gup20:
Like the Serpent, you can contiue to contradict scripture. But repitition will not give your lies any more truth.

Well, Lenin once said A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

 

[UTEOTW]

"To address your statement, however - you have set up a hypothetical world that does not exist. In fact, modern science is a direct result of Christian men seeking to understand the world as the Bible proclaimed it to be."

Again, two points.

One, you still have not answered the question posed to you. Neither has Bob. You both have wasted bandwidth on responses when all we want is a direct answer. You claim that the evidence points to a young earth. Yet you cannot point us to a single person who has come to that conclusion outside of a prejudice to that means based on their interpreation of scripture or another "holy" book. So give us some examples or admit that no one come to a young earth conclusion without other biases. I am living proof that people with young earth biases can come to an old earth conclusion. So is the fact that these sciences developed at all. Remember there used to be a time before evolution was the accepted paradigm.

The second point is that at the time Hutton and Lyell were developing modern geology, it was from a young earth basis. The evidence itself led them away from a young earth.

But, as you say, we can continue that line of reasoning on the other thread.

"For example, Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist, and a christian. His discoveries were directly influenced by his faith."

Is this the same as the Boyle claim you made earlie and I responded to here? http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/36/311/14.html#000200

The answer is still the same. Do you really think that pointing out that someone did not accept modern biology and geology before the advent of modern biology and geology makes a point? The theories were not available for them to evaluate and you wish to make a claim on how they might have evaluated it. Anything to claim a point.

"The sun is not needed for evening and morning... only light is needed. "

Since you are fond of quoting the dictionary. Merriam-Webster. "morning 1. a. dawn [to begin to grow light as the sun rises] b : the time from sunrise to noon"

You continue to insist things be literal except when you do not want them to be literal and you cannot explain to us the logic for your picking and choosing.

"In actual fact, the early Hebrews did not believe this... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/flatearth.asp "

Yes you posted this earlier. It does not address the Jews at all. I thought I pointed that out the first time. ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/36/311/18.html#000265 ) This has do do with the Greeks and other beliefs in the first and second millenium. It does not address the issue at all.

Besides, that is not even what I said in my last post. You are regurgitating your canned responses again instead of addressing what I said. I said that a plain reading, you yourself doing the reading without any influence of any outside knowledge, would lead you to believe in a flat geocentric earth with windows in a fixed dome that allows the waters above to fall.

"NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE CAN CONVINCE ME THAT THE BIBLE IS WRONG. How do I know? I believe this by faith becasue that is what the Bible says."

Once again, it is not the Bible I am saying is wrong but you.

Having said that... If anyone wants to claim that they believe the Bible indicates that a young earth is the only possible answer and they accept that... Well fine. I appreciate your faith. There are plenty of things where believers disagree. You would think Baptists would be somewhat uniform but take a look across this board. We have disagrements over Calvinism and KJVO and premilleniumism and all sorts of other topics. Yet we are still brothers and sisters. If you think your interpretation only allows a young earth and I think mine allows an old earth, well I can learn to disagree with oyu on that. I do not spend much time with people who have that attitude because I do not see anything wrong with it. But when you want to claim that the evidence really does indicate an old earth, I will attack that because that notion is built squarely on nothing but junk science. And if you want to attack me using the fallacy of the slippery slope by claiming that recognizing the Creation as non-literal means that I will take the whole Bible as non-literal (or a "fairy tale" to use your slanderous [should that be libelous since this is written?] term) then I will step in and speak out.

"Unfortunately, your humanism still doesn't impress me. Whenever I make point, I quote scripture as the basis of my opnion and belief... whenever you make a point you quote men and men's ideas."

This was regarding my quoting of St. Augustine. Now, I new you would dismiss it with some slanted comment along the lines of what you made.

But you are merely a human and you are expecting me to take your word for it. Don't you see that this is the same thing that you criticize others for doing? Don't you see that the things St. Augustine was warning about are the very things we see happening here. He said that God chose not to tell us about such things because they are not important to salvation and that we should not read such things into the Bible when it goes against the realities of the world. Yet you ignore both of these. Sure, I am appealing to a humans words. But it is someone that most would agree had the knowledge to speak on such matters. But yet you see know harm in calling for me to accept the words of you, a fallible human because you are convinced that you are right.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by john6:63:
Well, Lenin once said A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Hmmm. That seems to be the point I am proving on the "junk" science thread about YEC.

 

[A_Christian]

Originally posted by john6:63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gup20:
Like the Serpent, you can contiue to contradict scripture. But repitition will not give your lies any more truth.

Well, Lenin once said A lie told often enough becomes the truth. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh, what does a Atheistic Communist know? Besides, he's dead------Too little, too late is the correct answer.

 

[john6:63]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
Well, Lenin once said A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Hmmm. That seems to be the point I am proving on the "junk" science thread about YEC. </font>[/QUOTE]Which is the fact that this thread is proving, a lie that contradicts the Word of God told often enough would become truth to the deceived.

Jesus is correct when he said that when he returned how little faith there was going to be.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Genesis 1 give us the answer. It says that God created Kinds. You are forgetting that Noah didn't need to take 75 varieties of dog, and 50 varieties of cats on the Ark. He needed only to take the master (or less speciated) kind of dog or cat on the ark with him. All that we see today specialized from the information in those animal kinds. "

I think this is the type of junk science that need to be taken up on the other thread. You can present no evidence of a "master kind." YOu cannot even tell us what the original "kinds" were. You cannot show us the genetic evidence that shows that today's species are the result of loss of "information" from a richer original genetic code. (Actually, genetic evidence shows that the differences in traits are because of variations within the same genes.) You also have the laughable position of advocating an incredible rate of evolution from the original "kinds" that would make any biologist blush, even those that support the most rapids forms of evolution, while no one bothered to notice and record all these new animals popping up every month.

"The oceans would have been heated."

Yes, as shown from the very model you advocate, the oceans would have been heated enough to boil them away 3 times.

"If you look at the Egyptian pyramids, for example. The oldest is the largest and most complex and impressive. They get less impressive the newer they get."

Yes? You find King Zoser's Step Pyramid greater and grander than those at Giza? You find those at Abusir and Dahshur too to be greater than those at Gaza? Interesting.

"YEC do not modify scripture, we uphold it AS IT IS WRITTEN! "

Except where inconvenient, as shown.

 

[john6:63]

I have yet to meet one person who has came to Christ through the teachings of evolution, but I do know a few Evolutionists who has turned their backs on the false religion of evolution and accepted Christ as their Savior.

Edited by moderator per this rule: 3. Show grace to the other posters. When someone disagrees with you, discuss it; but be slow to offend, and eager to get into the Word and find the answers. Remember, when discussing passionate issues, it is easy to go too far and offend.

[ July 30, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Gina L ]

 

[UTEOTW]

"So you know how many animals were on the ark? Please specify, and give your reasoning. "

So you know how many animals were on the ark? Please specify, and give your reasoning.

"Contrary to popular belief every modern "species" was not necessary."

And why not? If you are appealing to kinds, see my comments to Gup above.

"I would like to see the hard numbers on the details that you have done to prove this..."

I don't think it would be too hard. Why don't we see how many animals are at the local zoos and how many people they must hire to take care of them.

"Sooo, because WE DON'T KNOW how to build one that big, it means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for one to be built?"

Well, yes. There are limits to the strengths of a material and they impose certain restrictions. Even when we have tried building wooden ships with steel reinforment, they can get no where near this size.

"Actually the ratio of dimensions given in the Bible are IDEAL for the size of the ship given."

So you know how that these are ideal dimensions? Please specify, and give your reasoning. Of course, if you do, you open yourself to the logic that allows us to show that one that size could not be built.

 

[Gup20]

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Moreover, the Bible says that God himself sealed up the Ark. So even if Noah did build a leaky boat, God is the one who sealed it.

He would have also had to reinforce it, since the seals would be pointless if the timber sprung. But more non-scriptural miracles need to be called in than that. Let's continue.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah yes... for forgot you believe that all things are impossible for God.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Also, remember that God told Noah to cover the Ark with Pitch outside and inside. The oceans would have been heated.

Another nonscriptural doctrine added... </font>[/QUOTE]The Bible does say that pitch was added to the inside and out of the Ark.

Gen 6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

So your objection must be to the statement that the oceans were heated. It is a logical conclusion considering that most of the time when water gushes forth from beneath the earth it is heated. The Bible says 'the fountains of hte great deep opened and water came out'. I guess it doesn't directly say it was heated, but it doesn't say that it wasn't... so we are free to speculate. Clearly, if the fountains of the deep opened (Genesis 7:11, 8:2) and enough water came on the earth to conver the whole earth, and cause tectonic shifts that formed the first mountains (Gen 1:9, Gen 8:5, psalm 104:6-7). This, however, is no where near absolutely clear (for example, the fact that the whole earth was covered by the flood and that all land animals and people not on the ark in the whole world died is VERY clear and we know that for a fact).

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We see many ancient works of archatecture that baffle today's engineers.

I don't know of any. </font>[/QUOTE]For example, see This AiG article. We see such works as Noah's Ark, metal work, art, etc before the flood.

I refer to works such as Stonehenge, Egyptian pyramids, and places like the ancient cities of Sacsahuamán and Tiahuanaco. A Reader’s Digest author commented, ‘… the best engineers of today still ask themselves whether they could cut and move huge masses of rock such as those used to build the city. The giant blocks look almost as though a die were used to cut them—a task achieved with none of the resources of modern technology’7 and ‘… the architects who designed and built them were men of genius.’

In the ancient city of Sacsahuamán, near the city of Cuzco, Peru, there is a magnificent wall built by the Incas, deliberately using irregularly shaped blocks of stone. Some of the blocks weigh as much as 100 tonnes and are so accurately fitted together that still today it is not possible to insert a piece of paper in the joints between the blocks. Even more incredible, however, is a larger stone block in the area. The size of a five-storey house and weighing an estimated 20,000 tonnes, the builders of Sacsahuamán could, and somehow did, move this block! The feat of moving such a staggering weight has never been attempted, let alone duplicated, with modern machinery. Even the largest crane in the world today is capable of lifting only about 3,000 tonnes.

They aren't all that precise. Even when the pyramids were covered with fine stone facing, and you could actually measure them, they were off by more than modern surveying could do.

The truly astonishing feats of the ancient world, requiring a high degree of intelligence, knowledge and skill, were not only in architecture and civil engineering. The ancient Mayans were meticulous time keepers. Without computers or sophisticated measuring equipment they knew the length of the solar year to be 365.2420 days long. Only recently have astronomers calculated it to be 365.2422 days long.

The Mayans worked out that 405 full moons occurred in a period of 11,960 days; modern research shows it to be 11,959.888 days. They calculated the synodic period of Venus at 584 days; current science shows it to be 583.92 days [the synodic period is the phase cycle as observed on Earth—the time between successive appearances of a given phase, e.g., crescent. The Mayans of course were not familiar with Galileo’s explanation that the phases of Venus could be explained by its orbit around the Sun (224.7 Earth days)—called the siderial period, i.e. relative to the stellar background]. These minute margins of error, confirmed only with the use of modern technology, reveal an amazing degree of accuracy on the part of these ancient cultures.

Interestingly, considering the Mayans’ obsession with accurate timekeeping, the Mayan calendar apparently began from a creation date about 3114 BC. The Mayans also excelled at mathematics, using a positional system, similar to today’s, that was less clumsy than that used by the Romans in Europe.

Clearly, ancient peoples were highly intelligent, and 'old earth' was not the predominating theory of ancient man. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to creation, the more common it is to find young earth belief systems. It is not until very recent centuries that old earth beliefs have become the norm.

Nope. As you learned, a literal interpretation of Genesis produces logical contradictions like mornings and evenings with no sun.

I would rather 'learn' from the scripture and from those who believe the scripture then from a professed evolutionist who proclaims disbelief in scripture. You have taught us nothing - appearantly you have also learned nothing as you continue to even deny the very clear statements of scriputre. We show you Genesis 1 which says six literal days... you do not believe it was six days. We show you the 10 commandments which again says SIX DAYS... still you do not believe us. We show you Jesus quoting Genesis as literal... you do not believe it is. We show Paul quoting Genesis as literal... still you do not believe us. The ONLY arguments you listen to are those made by evolution scientists. You will not believe the Bible. Furthermore you deny the words written in the Bible are even there!!

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You seem to forget that Young Earth WAS the dominant scientific theory until Darwin changed that.

No, that's wrong. Most creationists at the time were OE creationists. YE creationism as we know it today was invented by the Seventh-day Adventists in the last century. Even in the early 1900s, most creationists were OE creationists, for the reasons I pointed out earlier.

Lyell, who prededed Darwin, collected a great deal of data, and when he published, it became clear to everyone that a young Earth was not possible.</font>[/QUOTE]In fact, you are incorrect. Most SCIENTISTS ... not 'creationists'... were Young Earth believers. As we saw even from the Myan civilization, even ancient man believed in young earth. Lyell started to build work towards an old earth theory, however it was the not DOMINANT until Darwin popularized it with his racist book "origin of the species and preservation of favored races".

Take a look, for example, at the history that AiG has compiled of Young Earth scientists leading up to Darwin's day, you see no old earth believers in the list. After Darwin, you see plenty of Old Earth Compromisers.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp

 

[UTEOTW]

"So your objection must be to the statement that the oceans were heated. It is a logical conclusion considering that most of the time when water gushes forth from beneath the earth it is heated."

Yes, and the very model that you have advocated states a specific amount of heat given off. This amount is sufficient to boil the oceans three times over. And that is without getting rid of the extra heat in the mantle to make it a viscous as he claims.

"Take a look, for example, at the history that AiG has compiled of Young Earth scientists leading up to Darwin's day, you see no old earth believers in the list. After Darwin, you see plenty of Old Earth Compromisers. "

And as pointed out to you, just how were they to believe in an old earth and evolution before the theories were developed? The key part is the second part of your statement where you discuss the increasing numbers of scientists who accept evolution and an old earth once the theories were developed.

I am going to go take a poll of four year olds to see if Santa is real.

 

[A_Christian]

We know that most of the breeds of dogs we presently have were breed in the last hundreds of years and not thousands. This is fact and is scientific.
Dogs are Dog is BIBLICAL and this is FACT.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Charles Meadows:
Bob,

If you assert that all science suuporting an old earth is "junk science" then you either don't understand science well or you haven't encountered any CORRECT (non AiG) explanations of the topics you've discussed.

Please refer to the Junk Science thread for the specific cases where I have shown evolutionism to appeal to junk science to make its case.

My point here is simply that the Bible is correct and appeals to Junk Science does not "A form of exegesis" make.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by john6:63:
Well, Lenin once said A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Hmmm. That seems to be the point I am proving on the "junk" science thread about YEC. </font>[/QUOTE]It is the "method" employed by the priests of evolutionism - but not Scripture.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Here is a point on a Bible centered thread that our evolutionist friends are eager to ignore.

==================================

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"So now, according to your faith, be it unto you. Clearly, I have shown you guys where your non-literal claims will take you... to the very rejection of Christ, and the undermining of all of God's Word. "

This can be determined false by the simple fact that we are here. We have not rejected Christ. Obviously or we would ne be proclaiming our Christianity and posting here in fellowship with other believers. There could not be an easier to see demonstration that your claims are false.

Then perhaps you would be willing to address the point of the thread.

You yourself admitted that the Bible uses a creationist model instead of spouting evolutionism "BECAUSE" the people of Bible times were too ignorant to be given anything else.

Hard to miss the implications of such a teaching.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
We know that most of the breeds of dogs we presently have were breed in the last hundreds of years and not thousands. This is fact and is scientific.
Dogs are Dog is BIBLICAL and this is FACT.

Yes and if all dogs and wolves and whatever else you put in the "dog" "kind" came from the one pair of "master" "dogs" getting off the ark, where did the genetic variation for all these breeds and species come from? There is no evidence to support the "rich" original genome assertion. So where did all those alles come from that breeders could select to get the desired traits?

 

[Gup20]

Genesis, as you have learned, contradicts YE creationism. It is, however, compatible with evolution.

Yet I support a literal Genesis with Scripture, and you support this claim with NO SCRIPTURE at all... only your word and that of humanistic science.

I have shown you the Bible verses describing literal days, and how they contradict evolution. I have shown you the Bible verses describing distinct animals created within days of each other and how that contradicts evotuion. I have shown you bible verses that show that plants in up to the complexity of trees and grass were around before our Sun and how that contradicts evolution. I have shown you bible verse describing a Global Flood and how that contradicts evolution.

You have shown zero scripture supporting your claim that YEC is not biblical.. you have shown zero scripture showing that the Bible supports evolution.

Quite frankly the Biblical evidence is insurmountably stacked against you and against evolution.

Without Humanism, there would have been no reformation. You keep confusing "secular humanism" with Humanism.

I have given you the present and modern definition of humanism. It is appropriate and correct for me to use Humanism to describ e the attitude that man decides truth rather than God since i am arguing in the modern present... and in this period of time, that is what the word 'humanism' means.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No these ideas came from men such as Robert Boyle who was a dedicated Christian and Young Earth Creationist.

Really? I'd be pleased to see the evidence for that.</font>[/QUOTE]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v12n1_boyle.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/358.asp

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What you fail to relize is that creation IS scripture...

Creation, but not YE creationism, which denies creation.</font>[/QUOTE]In fact, i have shown you how Young Earth was the dominating theory throughout time until the age of Darwin. Moreover, you have given me no Bibical evidence to suggest otherwise. Furthermore you have given no Biblical evidence to show how scripture denies Young Earth. I have, in contrast, given you quite a bit of scriptural evidence showing how a young earth is precisely what the Bible describes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Let me ask you - if evolution didn't exist... and the physical evidence irrefutably supported a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth, would you be able to believe this is in scripture?

There would still be a problem, wouldn't there? There's scripture itself, which refutes that idea.</font>[/QUOTE]You can contiue to make that claim, but it will continue to be empy and without substance as you STILL do not support this position with scripture. Again, I have repeatedly shown you scripture that supports the Young Earth position and shown how the scripture contradicts the ideas of evolution. You have yet to show me anything in scripture supporting evolution or contradicting a young earth.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Dismissing Jesus as a non-literal character is just as silly as dismissing Genesis as a non-literal account. However, it requires the exact same logic.

I have never heard a person, claiming to be a Christian, say anything like that, before.</font>[/QUOTE]Indeed. This is the attitude of the non-believer deciding whether or not to become a christian. Moreover it is the attitude of believers who have capitulated their thinking of the Word to see it as non-literal.

For example:

http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/morph0411.html
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/29/story_2942_1.html

This looks like that is "your Crowd", Galatian. Those who eventually wind up dismissing Christ himself as non-literal in the name of academia, science, knowledge - or shall we call it what it is... Humanism (secular humanism if Galatian can't handle a dictionary).

So you can continue rolling your marbles out on the Creationist table proclaiming Genesis to be non-literal... but keep in mind where it leads... to rejection of Christ as non-literal.

You believe that there is no evidence for Christ? I'd say you were dead wrong.

The scripture on Jesus is just as literal as the scripture on creation. If you can dismiss one, then you can dismiss the other. To be clear... I think both are abslutely real and absolutely literal. I would say it is you who is 'dead wrong' in your belief that Genesis or Jesus is non-literal.

I would be very pleased if someone could name me even one scientist who objects to evolution for other than a religious reason.

Who had time to do this? Adam was the first 'scientist' (he was a zoologist and helped to develop the original taxonomic classification for animals) and even he and Eve did not reject evolution without 'religious' reasons. When Eve took of the tree of knowlege of good an evil she knew what God's Word said, but choose to see a humanistic view of the apple (evolution is a humanistic view of the world) instead of seeing it the light of God's word. So when you say "show me one scientist who objects to evolution for other than religious reasons" you are setting up a straw man argument... a very invalid one at that. The point is that evolution is not the truth because God's Word says it's not. If God's Word didn't give us an entirely different view, then we would have no hinderance to believe evolution.

You are only showing that you do not believe God's word BECAUSE of evolution. You choose to see the world through the lens of humanism instead of through the lens of God's Word.

Bob,

If you assert that all science suuporting an old earth is "junk science" then you either don't understand science well or you haven't encountered any CORRECT (non AiG) explanations of the topics you've discussed

By the same logic I can say that you, Charles Meadows, either dont' understand the Scripture or haven't encountered any correct explainations of scripture (non-talkorigins.org) on the topics we've discussed.

Keep in mind that STILL we do not see any Biblical evidence or support of evolution. Still we see that the story in the Bible contradicts the very possibility of evolution at nearly every point. We see how humanistic evolution leads to contradiction and dismissal of Genesis which leads directly to contradiction and dismissal of christ.

I have never stated that one shouldn't be able to take God's word at face value. There's nothing at all wrong with simply believing the bible for what it says. Here's the problem with the arguments by Bob Ryan and Gup20:
The majority of scientific research does not support a young earth. It simply doesn't. No amount of wanting it to will change that.

It's very important that you consider what you are telling us very carefully. What you are saying is that it is OK to believe the Word of Man above the Word of God. You simply think it's ok when it's done here on Genesis... but what happens when they use the same reasoning to dismiss Jesus and his resurrection? DO you THEN jump up and say NO SO!? Or do you attack the decietful message at the foundation... at the source of the infection?

Undermining Genesis will always lead to undermining Jesus, as those links to the Jesus seminar marble voters demonstrates.

I have a doctoral degree and have extensively studied and TAUGHT biology, including evolution. I know what the theories say and the facts behind them. And the statements by Bob Ryan and others are just not true!! As a Christian I would love it if all of our research pointed to creation about 6000 years ago but it just doesn't!!

I commend you on your accomplishments. However, let me ask you a question. Do YEC and Evolutionists have the same fossils to study? Do they have the same rocks to study? Do we have the same theories on how they got there?

The facts are the same. However our interpretation of the facts differs. We interpret the facts according to the Word. Science is arriving at a solution by ruling out possibilities until only one remains... this, then, is the most likely. Well the Bible is ultimate truth. It is right regardless of ANYTHING ELSE! Do you believe that?

So then, if the Bible tells us something, it basically rules out other possibilities. Let me give you an example -

When YEC see the grand canyon, we think... what a marvelous testament to the Flood. When evolutionists see it they say "what marvelous evidence for millions of years". But we, as christians, can look to the Bible and see that from the time of creation (according to scripture) till Christ is ~ 4000 years. History tells us from christ to now is ~ 2000 years. Right there we know that the possibility of the Grand Canyon taking millions of years to form is not a valid possibility ... so it is ruled out. Millions of years are eliminated as a possibility according to scripture. So then, we proceed to interpreting the rest of our observations within that light. Eventually we come to conclusions tha tmake sense. If each area is approched this way... then all the data make sense.

Evolution has taken the opposite approach. They start with the pre-supposition that the earth is billions of years old and that man evolved from single cell organisms. The possibility of the Grand Canyon forming must conform to that world view - so forming within the last 6000 years is thrown out as a possibility.

What you are doing when you agree with evolution is you are saying "I choose to start from Man's word rather than Gods". You put on your humanistic glasses and begin to examine the evidence.

What YEC do is we say "God's word is the ultimate authority and it is right". We begin examining hte evidence from the beginning with the understanding that our conclusions must agree with scripture ... otherwise we would contradict ultimate and absolute truth... meaning our conclusions would be wrong.

That doesn't mean we cannot believe in God. And as I said I have no problem with one who simply believes the bible over anything else.

WE DO NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN OUR FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quite right... you do not have to believe in Young earth to be saved... however, not believing in young earth undermines the Word. While you may make it to heaven, you are promoting disbelief in teh Bible.

Also... we are told to be prepared to give a reason for our faith... so it is not that we are required to have BLIND faith... but that we have faith in Jesus.

1Pe 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Let look at more of that chapter:

1Pe 3:17 For [it is] better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit

Basically, it is better that you believe God and his word and teach that and be mocked by the world than if you teach the ideas of the world in opposition to God's Word.

DO NOT twist science and facts to make them say what we want - that accomplishes nothing.

I don't have a problem with your science. Your science is impecable. The only problem is that it falls short. It assumes the Bible is not true. Science ... by definition ... is the study of the Natural. What is the answer if EVERYTHING was completely naturalistic - evolution. It's spot on if you assume the Bible doesn't exist or isn't true. However, if you factor in the Word of God as ultimate truth... you have quite a few changes to make... namely that there is massive supernatural influences that Science and evoltuion don't take into account.

As I have stated before on this board... you cannot use a strictly Natural means of observation to judge a supernatural event. That is to say that Science and evolution are a wholisticly natural study of our world. We know from the Word that our world is composed of the natural and the supernatural co-existing and interacting with one another... each of them placing demands on the other... each of them reacting to the other (if you did not believe so then you do not believe in Prayer, for example). Therefore, we know that science alone is not adequate to arrive at truth.