Jesus didn't believe Evolution - neither should we

Why not accept an old earth on the basis of the reptile to mammal transitional I have posted above?

Bob, I reject your assertions regarding chiral proteins. You disagree with my answer. I think we have both posted the same things enough times for anyone to make up their own mind. There does not seem to be anything new to post. And I do not think either of us are going to change the others mind.

I did not expect you to take my challenge of diving into a new subject. You think you have a winner here and you plan to hammer away as long as possible. Well, I have answered your question, though not to your satisfaction. There is nothing more to be gained from each of us posting the same thing 20 or 30 more times.

Why do you not accept my challenge to move into some of the other topics that I have introduced?

Or you can sit around in your demagoguery and continue avoiding all the other topics out there. But the implication of your avoidance is that you know you cannot win on the facts so you will continue to hammer away on a point for which you have no proof.

 

"Because when we LOOK at what He made we SEE that it is all composed of left-handed amino acids."

I could not resist...

http://www.bmb.leeds.ac.uk/mbiology/ug/ugteach/icu8/introduction/bacteria.html

 

I can't tell if you wanting to claim that data In the lab is "now evidence" or if you want to stick with blue-sky speculation as the "only" valid evidence.

Note in your reference - the bacterial cell wall OUTSIDE the cell membrane is the only structure to contain D-Amino acids. Only bacteria and ONLY that part that is OUTSIDE the cell membrane.

Apparently even the bacteria forgot to embrace D-amino acids inside the cell membrane.

However IF bacteria had their cell structures composed of the random chiral distributions (as in the amino acid chains produced in the lab) you might actually have "data" to hang your hat on.

Now admit it - wouldn't that be GREAT?!!! Wouldn't you rather HAVE data - than NOT have it??

"YES"??

Then why do you keep calling the fact that I HAVE the data - "no data" and the fact that all you have is blue-sky speculation as "all the evidence in your favor"??

Any clues?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh Bob.

You say that no life can use a right handed amino acid, so I show you that bacteria make their cell walls with a mixture of right and left handed amino acids. I mean, we are talking about most of the life on earth. Ah, but you can so easily dismiss that.

And yes, you have no proof that life has always used lefthended amino acids. None. So I stick with claiming that you have no evidence for your position.

You know, so far I have never bothered to look anything up. I gave you a viable scenario based on one thing I happened to know. You could not tell me any problems with that scenario so I was content to let you twist on that for while. You keep asking for evidence from the lab. Well, OK, I have hit Google and will start in on some information for you to reject.

Did you know that under certain conditions, chemical reactions that yield amino acids and other organic compounds no longer produce racemic yields?

First example. Organic molecules from space tend to have an abundance of left handed isomers. Why? Well it has been found that circularly polarized light will tend to push reactions to favor the left handed variety of the organic isomer. The products need not be racemic.

But there is a far more important effect to be seen. Catalyst. There are a number of possible pathways. Let's examine a few, shall we.

Please take a look at the following paper.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/109082709/HTMLSTART

If you read it, you will find that amino acids themselves can catalyze the formation of more lefthanded amino acids. An amino acid acts as a catalyst to produce a enantiomeric excess of an isomer. As this happens, the reaction is in effect making more of the catalyst. It leads to an autoinductive process which becomes autocatalytic.

You might want to look up the following papers

Pizzarello, Sandra, Arthur L. Weber. 2004 Prebiotic Amino Acids as Asymmetric Catalysts Science Vol 303, Issue 5661, 1151, 20 February 2004

This one shows how the lefthanded amino acids autocatalyze the formation of the right handed sugars found
in DNA and RNA.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

THis paper shows how borate will catalyze the formation of right handed sugars, also.

Which leads into my other cataylst. Minerals.

As shown by the above paper, minerals that have catalytic properties can also lead to an enantiomeric excess of a particular isomer.

You should now see that racemic mixtures need not be hypothesized. Circularly polarized light, organic catalysts and inorganic catalysts can all lead to reactions that favor one isomer. So your claims that lab experiments always lead to a racemic mixture are false. Even better,the organic catalyst make more of themselves giving higher and higher yields.

Now that I have shown your claims to be false on this, would you like to move on to one of the other topics I have presented to you above? Come on, should you not accept the evidence of the fossil record and accept an old earth? It is what all the evidence points towards.

 

#1. There are no cells in all of biology tha use right handed amino acids INSIDE the cell membrane. The fact that such amino acids can exist outside the cell itself - has never been disputed.

#2. You have "been" claiming that you had ALL the evidence - because nothing in the lab supported you and it ALL supports my view - and now you claim what??

But you ARE right about one thing - I have asked that you embrace science rather than blue-sky speculation ALONE. At least in this one thing (the forming of an extra-cellular wall for bacteria) you have actual science. So if you want to speculate that "bacterial cell walls formed all by themselves" you at least have a half leg to stand on. I applaud this great leap forward in your argument.

#3. The challenge of abiogenesis is to show that an actual living cell can "come together" in a bootstrap fashion "from the ground up" from amino acids that just FORM chains and just FORM proteins usable in living cells. You remain blocked on that point - in terms of any science at all supporting you. But your attempts to misdirect on this point continue to be entertaining and imaginative.

#4. YOU speculate that ALL cell structures INSIDE the cell membrane (not merely an "outer skin" layer) are formed of racemized chiral distributions if "conditions are right" or "conditions are primordial". And yet - no lab experiment shows that such is the case no matter how closely that lab reproduces what evolutionists speculate for primordial conditions.

#5. And your "no proof that we never had an Easter Bunny a long long time ago argument" that goes like this
UTEOTw And yes, you have no proof that life has always used lefthended amino acids.

Is the one that says - that we should not trust what science SHOWS us in the lab - just as you argue that we should not trust what God's Word says in Gen 1-2:3.

Not surprising that evolutionism needs to flee from the facts of both the Word of God and of science and emperical methods.

One thing that may help you in your search. Cell death results in racemized chiral distributions that are increasingly normalized as time goes on. This means that the longer a cell has been dead - the closer it comes to the conditions that you need in abiogenesis.

Think about that as you seek to find ways to marry science to evolutionism's myths in the same way that you found to marry the Gospel to them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting article. The text SHOWS that the authors have abandoned your Easter-Bunny speculation that entirely new laws of biochemistry existed such that all cells were composed of random chiral districutions.

RATHER the article is still working on a solution for HOW the first cells could have been formed -- working as SCIENCE shows us that cells work. (you know -- the facts of what science says is actually WORKABLE inside the cell???).

It is a testament to your lack of critical thinking that you offer BOTH the EASTER BUNNY model AND the one in the quote above that totally contradicts your easter-bunny-myth model. Notice that in the article THEY are not looking for a cell to EVOLVE from using mythical racemized distributions to the monochiral form we see today. RATHER they are looking for a purely biotic process to form amino acid chirality needed WITHOUT starting with your mythical cell and "evolving it" to use the monochiral form of today. In other words - they reject your speculation about entirely new laws of biology and biochemistry resulting in living cells composed entirely of racemized chiral distributions and then EVOLVING to what real science shows us actually happening in the cell today.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You refuse to debate the facts in play when I attempt to choose the subject and now you you refuse to debate the facts in play on a subject off YOUR choosing. This is pointing more and more to your interest in demagoguery over real debate.

I have already given you the answer to both your posts above previously. I took one fact I knew, the enzyme that all life posesses to make left handed amino acids, and extrapolated a plausible scenario. Did you miss the part above where I said that? You never made a reasonable objection to it so I was content to let it be. When you continued to press the issue I then decided to go find the real answer. So I gave you information about ways in which catalyst could yield other than a racemic mixture. Very instructive that you choose not to address the new information.

Also very interesting that you can say that "when we LOOK at what He made we SEE that it is all composed of left-handed amino acids" and then freely dismiss the information where I showed you that bacteria, the most common life on earth, uses right handed amino acids in its cell wall. As if that is not part of the cell.

Why don't you at least address the new facts in question.

For that matter, why don't you accept the evidence for an old earth based on the twin nested heirarchy?

 

I have more to add. I previously gave you a reference to the following.

Ricardo, A., Carrigan, M. A., Olcott, A. N., Benner, S. A.. 2004 “Borate Minerals Stabilize Ribose” Science January 9; 303: 196

Now the paper tells us that borate will both catalyze the formation of the correct right handed ribose sugars and will stabilize the sugars, protecting them from degredation. The same chemicals that react to form the ribose will also react to form adenine, cytosine, guanine and uracil, the four nucleobases.

If you add a little phosphate to the mix, the ribose sugars and the nucleobases will combine to form nucleotides. Now, as it turns out, in the presence of clay (specifically montmorillonite) these nucleotides will begin to polymerize and make RNA.

But there is another important aspect of the clay. Fatty acids are delived to earth from space and are also made on earth, hydrothermal vents being an example location. This same clay that will catalyze the formation of RNA will also lead to a spontaneous process in which small vesicles are formed with the fatty acid making a wall and trapping water and the RNA molecules inside.

So we see that two ubiquitous substances such as borate and clay can catalyze the reactions and processes that lead towards something resembling a cell. But there is one more key peice to this puzzle.

In the 1980s it was discovered that RNA could act as something more than a messenger. RNA can perform biological functions similar to proteins. (The first such discovery came when Tetrahymena, a single celled organism, was found to use some RNA as enzymes.) RNA can both replicate itself and perform protein-like functions such as acting like an enzyme. In these forms, they are known as ribozymes. The RNA can store genetic information, copy that information, and carryout protein-like cellular functions. So once we have the RNA inside the fatty acid walls, it is possible that they could perform life functions without the need for DNA and proteins. In this scenario, they would evolve later.

So you see that there is a solution, with lab support and evidence in extant life, that shows your racemized amino acids "problem" to not be a problem. So why don't you accept the evidence.

For that matter, why don't you accept the evidence for an old earth based on biogeography?

 

As I said - evolutionism resigns itself to the absurd and at best to speculation on the obscure.

#1. ONLY plants and bacteria have "cell walls" eternal to the cell membrane.

#2. ONLY bacteria have ANYTHING that includes D-Amino Acids. And as was SHOWN - they only provide for D-amin acids OUTSIDE the cell membrane - in the cell wall.

#3. D-SUGARS ARE the mono-chiral norm for ALL life today as well as L-Amino Acids. So finding any cell that uses D-Sugars is nothing new. More specifically you are stuck with your racemized results for amino acids -- and NO cell (not even a bacteria) comprised of such a racemized mixture.

IT also happens to be true that Biology only uses D-sugars. But you need BOTH the sugar AND the Amino-acid chiral mix to be "correct" to make viable "Building blocks" for a living cell.

THEN you have the task of assembling that viable set. So far you fail to get the viable set of starting objects.

Read - "failure again for UTEOTW"

#4. We have NO case of ANY cell being "formed" in the lab and NO case of any RNA OR DNA -Based cell using racemized chiral mixes for its cell structures.

#5. RNA is a molecule - not a cell. Get it??

This is all basic science - but as has already been shown - and as this particular subject magnifies in triplicate - evolutionism makes its living by "fleeing good sound, observable science".

So far you offer nothing to counter these points UTEOTW. Why?

If you must live in the easter-bunny speculations of the hopeful past - or the obscure speculations on the present -- when will you ever get to addressing - actual science??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why not accept an old earth on the basis of the genetic data available?

Bob, I wonder if you read my last two posts that closely.

"#1. ONLY plants and bacteria have "cell walls" eternal to the cell membrane.

#2. ONLY bacteria have ANYTHING that includes D-Amino Acids. And as was SHOWN - they only provide for D-amin acids OUTSIDE the cell membrane - in the cell wall."

You said that no life uses right handed amino acids. You did not qualify that. You simply said that life cannot use a right handed amino acid. So I pointed out that bacteria, the most common and successful life on earth, uses right handed amino acids. What more is there to say?

"#3. D-SUGARS ARE the mono-chiral norm for ALL life today as well as L-Amino Acids. So finding any cell that uses D-Sugars is nothing new. More specifically you are stuck with your racemized results for amino acids -- and NO cell (not even a bacteria) comprised of such a racemized mixture.

IT also happens to be true that Biology only uses D-sugars. But you need BOTH the sugar AND the Amino-acid chiral mix to be "correct" to make viable "Building blocks" for a living cell.

THEN you have the task of assembling that viable set. So far you fail to get the viable set of starting objects."

I think you missed an important part. The part about ribozymes. In the RNA hypothesis* you do not need amino acids. The RNA acts as the genetic information carrying molecule AND carries out cellular functions, such as being an enzyme, ITSELF!

"We have NO case of ... any RNA OR DNA -Based cell using racemized chiral mixes for its cell structures."

There was a whole discussion above about catalyst. There is no need to suppose a racemized mixture. Common minerals can act as a catalyst to prefer one isomer over another. I gave you a reference to a paper explaining how borate minerals can do just this. I also gave you a link to another paper in which an amino acid can itself catalyze the formation of left handed amino acids. This one is very interesting because as the catalyst works, one of the products is ... more of the catalyst itself. So the reaction is autocatalytic.

But beyond that. With ribozymes, you do not need the amino acids at all. The RNA itself serves that function. And we have examples in extant life where RNA still serves that function. DNA and proteins would have been later innovations. It avoids, along with the catalysts, any problem with racemized mixtures.

Clays will catalyze the formation of RNA strands and will also insert these strands of RNA into vesicles with fatty acid walls.

"We have NO case of ANY cell being "formed" in the lab."

So, you would take a cell being formed in the lab as proof? I doubt it. You have not accepted any other evidence presented to you. Well here is a biologist at Harvard who is working towards just that.

http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

"RNA is a molecule - not a cell. Get it??"

Got it. Now, what inside a cell is not just a "molecule?" Get it?

Now, we have already seen lab experiments in which RNA can do some interesting things. You polymerize nucleotides into RNA and give it a task to do. With time, the strands that were able to do the task evolve until they do the task very well. Some kind bind themselves to molecules useful for life. Some can make DNA. SOme can cleave DNA. Some can catalyze reactions. Some can change the structure of other molecules. Some can take another string of RNA and make a copy.

I think you just might get your wish for an cell to be made in the lab one day. It is looking like, if you follow the link I gave you above, that some may be close with RNA.

"This is all basic science - but as has already been shown - and as this particular subject magnifies in triplicate - evolutionism makes its living by "fleeing good sound, observable science". So far you offer nothing to counter these points UTEOTW. Why?"

I think I have answered your questions and more than three times for many of them. I think you are willfully ignoring the answers.

But, more important, I have spent much time answering your questions. But yet you spend ZERO time answering the questions I have put before you. You make no attempt to even answer the issues I put before you. Why? Why? I can only think that it is because you know that the facts go against you and you would like to, as much as possible, limit the areas in which the shortcomings of the data for your position are exposed. Well, not addressing the issues does a mighty fine job in exposing the shortcomings of your position. Very instructive BTW.

So, where did those chalk deposits come from?

* I know you'll hammer me for admitting this, but it is important. First, we are still discussing abiogenesis and NOT evolution. So this is a bit of a sidetrack. Second, it is important to realize that the RNA world, and other abiogenesis ideas floating around out there, are at this point best to still be called hypothesis. As I have pointed out, we have no possible way of having hard data from the time of the origin of life. These fragile organic compounds just do not survive billions of years. So the best that can be done is to make educated guesses. You might could come up with some good ideas, but you could never have hard proof to support them. Which makes this whole subject a bit on the strange side. God may have used a pathway we would never think of to bring the first life to this planet. And we will never know for sure. This is quite a contrast to true evolution where the evidence is overwhelming that it actually happened and we have a pretty good idea of how.

 

"UTE, you have yet to answer the real question. Where is the evidence for evolution in the Bible?"

When you answer me why you justify not being a flat earth geocentrist. You still have not justified why you can make that leap based on outside knowledge but you criticize me for it.

I do not think that it is addressed. It is that simple. Interesting that you continue to not respond to any questions posed to you. And there are a lot of them.

 

Because, a) the bible does not say the earth is flat and, b) because the bible does not say that the earth is at the center of the universe.

You post this challenge often but never seem to post scripture to back up your assertion...

 

"a) the bible does not say the earth is flat "

Isaiah 40:22

The word used for "circle" is "chuwg." From Strong's the definition given is "to encircle, encompass, describe a circle, draw round, make a circle." The word used here is one used to describe a flat disk. The writer thought the earth was round. If he had meant round he would have used the word "duwr" which means ball. There was an obvious word choice to use the one that meant a flat disk. This also agrees with external references about what the people of the time and region believed about the world.

Matthew 4:8

The writer thinks that from a high enough mountain, the whole world can be seen. Only possible in a flat earth.

Daniel 4:10-11

Again, something can only be so tall as to be seen in all the earth if the writer believes the world to be flat.

"b) because the bible does not say that the earth is at the center of the universe."

I am only speaking of the sun. I'll limit this to one since I have other things. We have one or two resident geocentrists on this board, you can ask them for the full list if you wish.

Psalm 19:4-6

The key thing is this. You could not convince anyone of either a spherical earth nor that the earth orbits the sun from a purely Biblical perspective. On the other hand, you could (and historically people have, see all of Galileo's and Copernicus's problems) make the case for either from Bible quoting. You are perfectly willing to let outside knowledge influence your interpretation of these scriptures. To you the spherocity of the earth is so beyond doubt that you re-interpret these passages without giving it a second thought. IMHO, the ancient age of the earth and universe and the common descent of all life on earth is just as well established.

Take care to not read more into my words than I say. I am not advocating that these are Biblical errors. I think they were writing what they believed at the time and that their worldview on such things was a little off did not matter. I do not think that God considered taking the time to bother giving us the true shape of the world important just I do not think that He found it important enough to give revelations about evolution that the people receiving it could not understand.

------------

Now, I have answered your questions, why do you not answer some of mine? You posted "Bad news for Big Bangers," whatever a Big Banger is. I gave you a criticism of that and you never responded. Later you posted that dating methods were flawed for various reasons. I examined each reason and showed why the problems you asserted were not problems. You never defended yourself. I have also posted in this thread a very long list of evidences for an old earth and problems with a young earth. These too remain completely unaddressed by either you or Gup20 or Bob. Why? I think it is because you know the evidence is against you. God's own Creation tells us that it is much older than you are willing to allow. Yet you dismiss this evidence without being able to articulate why you feel it should be dismissed.

 

Gup20

"I will break my policy of answering a fool "

Using slander again I see. Hmph.

You are using an English defintion for a Hebrew word. That does not work. I would suspect that you are again using the fallacy of equivocation. But thank you for defining "circuit" as "[/i]The act of moving or revolving around, or as in a circle or orbit; a revolution; as, the periodical circuit of the earth round the sun.[/i]" since one of the verses talks about the circuit of the sun.

I have made my case. You used English defintions to object. And ignored the defintions that go against your case and selectively pull out those that you think support your case.

"Satan brought Jesus up on a mountain and showed him all the power and influence he could have over the earth."

You are ignoring the plain reading. The plain reading says that He was taken up high where He could see all the kingdoms.

But the plain reading that you insist upon is also where you trip up. If you would take the Bible as a whole, and construct a geology from what it says, you would learn something. Now, is this not the very thing tht you say should be done? But yet you are not doing it.

If you were to take the plain reading of scripture as a whole, and construct the Biblical view of the world, you would see that it matches the ancient Jewish version of the world. As right it should since they wrote it. This view was shared with the other groups of the region, also. It basically said that the earth was a flat disk, surrounded by a great water, the "deep." There was a dome above the earth, the firmament. This dome contained the stars of the sky. The dome also seperated the waters above from the earth and was the source of rain when its windows were opened. The sun and the moon traveled in circuits between the earth and the dome. If you look at scripture as a whole, you will see that it is consistent with this. From the first of Genesis through the New Testament, this view is consistently shown.

But you are perfectly willing to ignore this plain reading. You suppose that the writers were saying things that they did not say and knew things that they did not know. You greatly twist the meanings and sayings to fit your preconceived notions. And then you act like I am the devil incarnate for accepting an old earth. I should not be surprised that a young earther would be so willing to twist the Word of God to fit his own views as willing as they are to distort the relevation from God's own Creation to fit their own views.

Even before the theory of evolution and of an old earth, many theologians accepted the creation account as theological rather than scientific. In another's words, "Basil of Caesarea and Augustine of Hippo (4th
and 5th centuries), in their commentaries on Genesis, understood that the pattern of the "six days" was to be understood as a topical pattern for setting forth of the elements of creation, not as six literal days of creation. In fact both held that God created everything in an instant, time included, and that everything that has gone on since has been an unfolding of the creation." http://www.burgy.50megs.com/robert.htm

Where does the Bible say evolution happened? I cannot say that it does, explicitly, anywhere. But I cannot say that I think that there is anything that precludes it either. The overwhelming evidence, that which you seek to ignore, is that the world is ancient and that all life on this planet is related through common descent. You must twist the plain reading of scripture and its clear intent to try and make a case for it being a book of science. Well it is not. The twisting that you required on the geography of the earth is clear enough proof of that. You ignored the clear understanding of the Jews of their world as recorded in the Bible and used defintion that are inapplicable to the words used to build a false case. Why not accept the Bible for what it is? It is not a book of science. That God never tried to change their minds on their false geography is proof enough of that. That you then twist what they said to try and fit it into a modern understanding of geography shows the great lengths you will go through to try and twist the Bible into a book of sciemce. You are missing the forest for the trees. The important thing is not how old the earth is. It is the revelation of God contained in scrpture that is important.

The final thing is this. When you go outside of the body of believers, you will not have any success convincing people of the correctness of your position through the Bible. For them, it will be a completely circular reference. It will carry no weight. And if you insist upon a young earth, and you cannot demonstrate why this is so, then all you are doing is convincing them that there is no way you can have the truth. For them, if your book is that at odds with reality, then how can it contain "truth" for their lives. That is how they will see it. And, so far, you have shown no willingness nor ability to make a case for a young earth.

Listen, I am on your side. I would actually like for the conclusion to be a young earth, then we do not have this discussion any more. But, if you cannot make a convincing argument to me, someone on your side, then your chances of making one to a non-believer is slim. But so far you have asserted that the evidence indicates a young earth. But you have yet to show me, in any way, how you can better interpret the data in a young earth paradigm. And that is important. ou make these assertions. But yet you cannot back them up by showing why the old earth interpretation is wrong and how you can better interpret the data in a young earth manner. I have given you plenty of topics to choose from. Yet you ignore them.

 

"In your previous post, you tried to tell us that the plain reading was that he could see the whole world from that high place, therefore the writer thought the world was flat. Clearly, seeing 'kingdoms' is different from seeing physical land - especially when the word for kingdom is the same word used when talking about the 'kingdom of God'."

From Strong's

So it can mean territory. So just what was shown? The plain reading indicates the territory. Even if we use your definition of "power" then the context indicates that it was the sources of power for the earthly kingdoms. God's kingdom is not the devil's to offer. So what could be seen? Rome? No. Athens? No. Egypt? No. China? No. The Indus Valley? No. Any of the western hemisphere powers? No.

"That is exactly what Young Earth Creationists have done, in fact."

Uh...no. Go look up what the ancient Jews believed about their world. Go ahead. See what the surrounding people thought, too, while your at it. You will see that what I told you was right. Then you will see that the writing of the Bible reflects those beliefs. The plain text reading is just as I said, a flat earth, surrounded by a great water and covered in a dome. It is all there. And reading the various texts in this light allows for a direct reading. When you attempt to put you modern notions into it, you twist it away from its plain meaning.

"Again, you so quick to take man's humanistic word over God's ultimate authoritative word."

You missed the point. The point was that even before old earth notions came about that some Bible scholars and church leaders were already recognizing that what was given to us was not a literal account.

"Let me ask you this. Would you tell a Hindu that his religion and view of creation was ok with the Bible?? They believe that you come back as progressively different animals when you die depending on your quality of life. In fact, this religion is the basic foundation from whence the philosophers of Greece first started formulating their evolutionistic philosophies. Later, Darwin popularized it. So let me ask again - would you say that the hindu religion agrees with the Bible?"

Strike. Evolution has nothing to do with Hinduism. We went over this right after you first posted here. The "great Chain of Being" is much different than evolution.

And no, the Hindu view is not compatible with the Bible nor reality.

"The overwhelming physical evidence supports it too... however, the vast majority of this evidence has been mis-interpreted"

You continually assert this but you are patently unwilling to so demonstrate.

"you have demonstrated you believe the 'writers of the Bible' to have written in errancy, and that you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God."

Oh please quit that. Just because I think you have the wrong interpretation does not mean that I think that there are errors or that God lied or that the Bible is wrong or any of the other things you accuse me of.

"You have admitted that Evolution is no where to be found in the Bible"

And neither is the kinetic theory of gasses. Am I still allowed to use that when I go to work tomorrow?

Look, it boils down to this. I disagree with your interpretation. You say God's revelation from Creation supports you. I say it does not. And you have done nothing to change my mind on either count.

 

Look, let me put it this way. If your faith and your interpretation of Creation says that Genesis is literal. Great. We are brothers in Christ and we can disagree on this and still have many things in common. I have no problem with those whose faith says the earth is young.

But where I have a problem is if you add that the evidence supports a young earth. I find that to be a false and unsupportable assertion. Wit htis we strongly disagree. I have invited you to look at it with me and you choose not to do so. That's fine.

I guess that in that case we agree to disagree. I have not changed your mind and I see nothing that leads me to change my mind. If you ever want to pick this up again, let me know and we can try and have a civilized discussion. If not, that's fine too.

Obviously you have a strong faith. All should. You are starting to involve yourself in other discussions here, so maybe it would be best to fellowship with the other believers here in that manner. It might lead to you deciding to hang around here. We have a great bunch of folks.

We seem to be going no where. These discussions can be very time consuming. I know that when I get into a thread such as this that I quit visiting all the other forums as much as I like. Might give me a chance to catch up a bit.

Welcome to the board and may God bless you.

Ute