six day literal creation?

WHOA! The scientists have been driven into hiding?

Bookmarking the Top Secret Eyes Only Science forum. . .

 

I lean toward gap theory, though I have to admit it isn't a subject I've really studied in depth.

 

Six days.

You may not realize it, but you have opened a can of worms!

 

6 days is the only scientific view that is believable.

 

I think the can of worms has been opened on the theistic evolution thread.

 

6 days.

But I will admit I thought I was going nuts with the science forum. I thought maybe I could only get it when I'd slid into an alternate universe

 

About the hidden science forum. I was the moderator of the science forum for several years here on the main board. We got slammed by some rather nasty folks who pretended to be Christians and got not only insulting but threatening in one case. Since Barry and I were getting ready to sell our home in California and move to Oregon, I got much too busy to moderate that zoo any longer, so for all of those reasons it was shut down.

As time went by, several people wanted a place where they could discuss biblical creation quietly, so the webmaster opened up a quiet, private place for those who wanted to discuss. It does not have a moderator to the best of my knowledge. I have been there a couple of times, but the fact is nothing either side says will be accepted by the other side and so it is rather futile and, for us, a waste of time to be there.

Personally, I would love a very quiet place where such things could be very quietly discussed among those who truly love God.

 

In response to the OP...

I, personally, find theistic evolution to be the only acceptable answer. Others, as you see, will disagree. For me, the extrordinary number of separate and distinct lines of evidence that can only lead to common descent and an old earth are clear and undeniable evidence of its truth. Since the Bible, properly interpreted, will never contradict truth, TE is the only acceptable choice for me.

Moving on to the thread...

"Put your hands in a tub full of water. Put your open hads, palms together, in the middle and then pull them apart very quickly. You will see whirlpools form VERY quickly.

Put some jello in some cold water and stir for a couple of seconds and then watch it. You will see 'spiral galaxies' form.

Very quickly.

Things slow down later, Paul. They started rather speedily."

But this ignores how they measure the speed of rotation to which Paul alludes.

The basis of the claim lies in the ideas of a decaying speed of light. Now, we can measure the velocity at which galaxies rotate by examining the the change in wavelength of any particular absorbtion or emission line from the side of the galaxy rotating towards us versus the side rotating away from us. If seen edge on.

The formula is simple.

(velocity of object)/(speed light) = (change in wavelength) / (wavelength)

Now if the the speed of light were higher in the past, then the difference that you would see in the wavelegth because of the rotation at a given speed would be reduced directly proportionally to how much the speed of light changed.

Take M31. It is about 2 million light years away so light would have been necessary to have been traveling at least a few thousand time faster when it left than now to get here in 6000 years. This means that the measured speeds of rotation are off by at least three orders of magnitude. This means that M31 must be rotating at around the speed of light based on measurements. And M31 is the nearest large galaxy. The measurements for more distant galaxies would mean that they must rotate much faster than the speed of light.

"And, AGAIN, the layers in the ice sheets are layers we interpret as annual. However the waves of storms which would have followed the division of the continents in Peleg's time were more than enough to account for those layerings in just a hundred or so years."

Here is a thread with reasons why that cannot be the correct explanation are discussed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/10.html#000000

Too many different pieces of data from diverse locations match up for all of these to have been simply storm deposited layers. Layers from around the world would not match up so precisely in so many different areas.

"I have been there a couple of times, but the fact is nothing either side says will be accepted by the other side and so it is rather futile and, for us, a waste of time to be there.

Personally, I would love a very quiet place where such things could be very quietly discussed among those who truly love God."

These two statement leave me a bit confused.

It is a given that those who are interested enough to engage in debate on this issue are unlikely to have their views changed. But I find it to be far from a waste of time. For one thing, there are generally lurkers who have no opinion or only weak opinions who can be greatly swayed. I should know, I was once a lurker on this board many years ago following such threads. Another reason is that such debate, against a well informed opponent, can force you to examine new ideas and learn about new topics. This should be considered very beneficial to all of us and in many subjects beyone this narrow debate.

But the second part seems to imply that those of us who reject YE are not considered to "truly love God." If so, it is an unneeded blow. But not nearly as bad as

"Oxymoron? Yes, with heavy emphasis on the last two syllables."

from the other active thread. ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136.html#000009 ) This is a Christian board and yet we will call other believers who disagree with us "morons"! Unbelievable.

 

Six Days and a young universe!

 

Helen wrote,

This statement is absolutely false and every Ph.D. biologist living today knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that this statement is false. There is no scientific evidence of any kind whatsoever for a young earth, and every reputable scientist knows that. Some of them, however, who have no respect for either science or human decency, deliberate twist, distort, manipulate, and misrepresent evidence for an old earth to make it appear to be evidence for a young earth. I have personally been a witness to this pernicious hocus-pocus for more than 25 years, and I have in the past posted examples of it, as others on this board have done.

This man’s work has been proven to be defective, and his conclusions have been proven to be absolute nonsense both on this message board and in the scientific community. There are hundreds of Ph.D. astronomers around the world whose work demonstrates that the universe is billions of years old, and there is not even one Ph.D. astronomer alive today who supports the absolutely ridiculous notion that the earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Christian fundamentalist extremists have the right to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense and falsehoods they want to, but they have the responsibility to tell the truth when communicating with others.

Did God create the earth in six literal 24-hour days 4 or 5 billion years ago? I don’t know, but there are no scientific reasons to believe that God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days either 4 or 5 billion years ago or 10,000 years ago—and there are no solid biblical reasons to believe that either. There are, however, VERY solid biblical reasons to believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is a collection of epic narratives rather than an historic account. I have posted on this subject extensively in other threads and I have found that most Baptists prefer to believe what tickles their ears rather than the facts, so I am not going to waste my time again in this thread.

 

Craig, just to prove you don't know what you are talking about, here are a few Ph.D. biologists who disagree with evolution and are even young-earth advocates:

John Kramer, biochemistry
Henry Zuill, biology
Ariel Roth, biology
Timothy Standish, biology
James Allen, genetics
Bob Hosken, biochemistry
George Javor, biochemistry
Dwain Ford, organic chemistry
John Marcus, biochemistry
Nancy Darrall, botany
Authur Jones, biology
D B Gower, biochemistry
Walter Veith, zoology
Wayne Frair, biology

That is a very short list, but I do have short bios on each of them if you need to know more.

There is a great deal of scientific evidence for a young earth, unless you think all these Ph.D.'s and numerous others are blithering idiots. Many of them started out as evolutionists and changed when confronted with the data.

There are also Ph.D. astronomers who support a young universe. Danny Faulkner is one example.
And he still is living today...

As far as Barry's work is concerned, I'm afraid you are wrong about it, too. Not only does the data prove him right, but his work is beginning, finally, to get the recognition it deserves and respect it has earned.

 

I do not see any "Steve"s on the list.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp

Perhaps there was light exaggeration by saying that "every" biologist agrees. But it is not far off.

 

Helen,

Please do not falsely represent what I wrote! I specifically wrote about a false statement that you posted,

In reference to that statement, as you worded it, I replied

I did NOT say that there are no Ph.D. biologists who disagree with evolution and are even young-earth advocates.

Now please post documentation that establishes that ANY Ph.D. biologists agree with your statement as you worded it.

P.S. Please also post your short biography of each of those persons that you listed above and documentation that confirms that they have indeed earned a Ph.D. from an accredited institution of higher learning and documentation that they are actually employed as biologist. Note: I am NOT saying that they are not, I just want the documentation. If any of them have written a statement that agrees completely and without exception with your statement that I challenged, please post that statement so that our readers will know that you are right and that I am wrong.

 

Helen replied,

Helen,

Please post documentation that Danny Faulkner BELIEVES THAT “the earth is less than 25,000 years old.”

I don’t carelessly throw words around—I mean PRECISELY what I write—not just approximately, but PRECISELY!

And even if, by some quirk or fluke, you can come up with credible documentation that one screwball Ph.D. biologist or astronomer has actually written a statement that is in full, complete and precise agreement with your statements, we all know that there are thousands of them around the world who know that your position is worse than ridiculous.

 

I looked up Danny Faulkner at ChristianAnswers.Net

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/faulkner-dr.html

and found the following information about Danny R. Faulker

Danny R. Faulkner
• Creationist
• Astronomer
• Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University
• M.S. in Physics from Clemson University
• B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University
• Professor at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster (physics and astronomy)
• Associate Professor of Astronomy at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School
• Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals

It looks pretty impressive at first glance, but because it is a “Christian” website I know that the information is likely to be distorted or exaggerated, so I checked it out. And, sure enough, Danny R. Faulkner is not as impressive as this website leads one to believe.

For example, the University of South Carolina, Lancaster where Danny is said to be “Professor” is NOT an eight-year university offering both master and doctoral degrees—it is not even a four year college! It is nothing but a hole-in-the-wall 2-year school!

How about the “more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals”? I checked them out to find out who has actually published his papers. This is what I found:

PUBLICATIONS:
• D. R. Faulkner and B. B. Bookmyer 1978 “A Note Concerning EZ Hydrae” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 90: 307. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978PASP...90..307B&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• D. R. Faulkner and B. B. Bookmyer 1978 “An Increase in the Period of SW Laceratae?” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 1503. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/1501.html#1503
• D. R. Faulkner, P. A. Basilico, and B. B. Bookmyer 1979 “Epochs of Minimum Light, SW Lacertae” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 1685. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/1601.html#1685
• D. R. Faulkner and B. B. Bookmyer 1980 “Photoelectric Observations and Epochs of Minimum Light, SW Lacertae” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 92: 545. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1980PASP...92...92F&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4415562
• B. B. Bookmyer and D. R. Faulkner 1980 “Photoelectric Light Curves of RZ Columbae” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 1837. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/1801.html#1837
• D. R. Faulkner 1983 “Archer 5 Identified as RZ Com” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2290. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2201.html#2290
• D. R. Faulkner 1983 “Photoelectric Observations of TY Del” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2310. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2301.html#2310
• D. R. Faulkner and R. H. Kaitchuck 1983 “Epochs of Minimum Light for Several Eclipsing Binaries” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2321. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2301.html#2321
• D. R. Faulkner and D. H. Grossoehme 1983 “XY Leo and the Star BD +182304” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2335. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2301.html#2335
• D.R. Faulkner 1983 “V417 Aquilae: Photoelectric Observations and Improved Period” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2439. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2401.html#2439
• D. R. Faulkner, E. E. Evans, D. H. Grossoehme, and E. J. Moyer 1984 “Epochs of minimum Light, Displaced Secondary Eclipse of SW Lacertae” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2473. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2401.html#2473
• D. R. Faulkner 1984 “Photoelectric Observations of the Recent Eclipse of 22 Vulpeculae” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2599. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2501.html#2599
• D. R. Faulkner 1985 “BD 61277 Confirmed as an Eclipsing Binary Star” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2702. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2701.html#2702
• B. B. Bookmyer, D. R. Faulkner, and R. G. Samec 1986 “Photoelectric Light Curves of RR Leporis” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2873. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2801.html#2873
• D. R. Faulkner 1986 “Epochs of Minimum Light for Twenty-seven Eclipsing Binaries” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 98: 690. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986PASP...98..690F&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• D. R. Faulkner 1986 “An Attempted Confirmation of Archer Variables Near the Coma Star Cluster” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 2930. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/2901.html#2930
• D. R. Faulkner, R. K. Honeycutt, and H. R. Johnson 1988 “On the Violet Flux of N-type Carbon Stars” Astrophysical Journal 324: 490. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988ApJ...324..490F&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• H. R. Johnson, D. G. Luttermoser, and D. R. Faulkner 1988 “The Violet and Ultraviolet Opacity Problem for Carbon Stars” Astrophysical Journal 332: 421. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1988ApJ...332..421J&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• C. R. Mullis and D. R. Faulkner 1988 “A Period Change in WY Cancri” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 3206. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/3201.html#3206
• R. H. Kaitchuck, R. H. Honeycutt, and D. R. Faulkner 1989 “Spectroscopic and photometric Observations of Transient Accretion Disks in U Cephei” Astrophysical Journal 339: 420. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1989ApJ...339..420K&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• R. G. Samec, R. E. Fuller, R. H. Kaitchuck, B. B. Bookmyer, and D. R Faulkner 1989 “Synthetic Light Curve Analysis of the Close Binary Systems BX Andromedae and RR Leporis” Space Science Reviews 50, 359.
• C. R. Mullis and D. R. Faulkner 1989 “Epochs of Minimum Light for WY Cancri, Am Leonis, and RR Leporis” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 3354. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/3301.html#3354
• R. G. Samec, R. E. Fuller, B. B. Bookmyer, and D. R. Faulkner 1989 “RR Leporis, an Algol-like System” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 101: 180. The abstract may be viewed at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1989PASP..101..180S&db_key=AST&high=402cf7ce4425476
• C. R. Mullis and D. R. Faulkner 1991 “Epochs of Minimum Light for Eight Eclipsing Binary Systems” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars No. 3593. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/3501.html#3593
• D. R. Faulkner and D. B. DeYoung 1991 “Toward a Creationist Astronomy” Creation Research Society Quarterly 28: 87. May be seen at www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html
• D. R. Faulkner 1993 “The Role of Stellar Population Types in the Discussion of Stellar Evolution.” Creation Research Society Quarterly 30: 8-11. May be seen at www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/30/30_1/StellarPop.html
• D. R. Faulkner 1997 “Comets and the Age of the Solar System,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 11: 264-273. May be seen at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4108.asp
• D. R. Faulkner 1997 “Creation and the Flat Earth,” Creation Matters, November-December, p 1. This is a newsletter of the Creation Research Society. May be seen at http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/97/cm9711.html#Creation and the Flat Earth
• R. G. Samec and D. R. Faulkner, 1998 “UBV Light Curves of the Very Short Period W Uma Binary, GSC 03505-00677.” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 4611. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/4601.html#4611
• D. R. Faulkner 1998 “The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System.” Impact number 300. May be seen at www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-300.htm
• D. R. Faulkner 1998 “The Angular Size of the Moon and Other Planetary Satellites: An Argument for Design.” Creation Research Society Quarterly: 35: 23. May be seen at www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/35/astrodesign.html
• D. R. Faulkner 1998 “Is There a Gospel in the Stars?” Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12: 169.
• D. R. Faulkner, 1998 “The Current State of Creation Astronomy” Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Creationism (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship. R. E. Walsh, editor) pp. 201-216. May be seen at www.icr.org/research/df/df-r01.htm
• R. G. Samec, Laird, H., Mutzke, M., and D. R. Faulkner, 1998 “UBV Observations of the Solar-Type near Contact Binary, CN Andromedae.” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 4616. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/4601.html#4616
• D. R. Faulkner, 1999 “A Biblically Based Cratering Theory.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 13: 100-104.
• D. R. Faulkner, 1999 Letter to the Editor. Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal: 13: 63-64.
• R. G. Samec, D. R. Faulkner, N. W. Gothard, B. C. Parker, T. W. Savage, S. D. Anderson 1999 “UBV Observations of the Mass Exchanging Solar-Type Binary, BE Cephei.” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 4753. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/4701.html#4753
• D. R. Faulkner, 1999 “The Dubious Apologetics of Hugh Ross.” Creation ex Nihilo Technical Journal: 13(2): 52-60. May be seen at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4149.asp
• R. G. Samec, J. P. Tuttle, J. A. Brougher, J. E. Moore, and D. R. Faulkner 1999 “UBV Observations of the Tycho Variable, EF Bootis and the Discovery of a Pulsating Variable, GCS 3479 230” Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 4811. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/4801.html#4811
• M. Stoddard, R. G. Samec, D. R. Faulkner, R. L. Walker 2001 "1999 Observations of the Solar Type Eclipsing Binary, TY Ursae Majoris" Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 5169. May be viewed at http://www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/5101.html#5169

• R. G. Samec, D. Banks, R. Hernandez, D. R. Faulkner, D. B. Williams 2001 "A 100 Year Period Study of V523 Cassiopeiae: A Triple Star System?" Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 5175. May be viewed at http://www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/5101.html#5175

• W. Van Hamme, R. G. Samec, N. W. Gothard, R. E. Wilson, D. R. Faulkner, R. M. Branley 2001 “CN Andromedae: A Broken Contact Binary?” Astronomical Journal 122, 3436-3446. View the abstract at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/journal/issues/v122n6/201273/brief/201273.abstract.html

• R. McKenzie, R. G. Samec, D. R. Faulkner 2003 "CCD Observations Of The Short Period Near Contact System: UY Muscae", Information Bulletin on Variable Stars, number 5405. May be viewed at www.konkoly.hu/IBVS/5401.html#5405



[ September 17, 2005, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: Craigbythesea ]

 

Young earth created in six literal days. This is also stated in the fourth commandment in Exodus 20.
All scripture is God breathed and the first few chapters of Genesis is scripture. It does not make any difference what a bunch of people who has a wall covered with degrees has to say, what matters is what God clearly states in His revealed record, the Bible.
At the judgement seat of Christ we will not have to answer for why we did not believe a bunch of scientists, only where we failed to believe Him.
If one were to have been here on the eight day, let's say, we might well think that all of this had been here for quite some time. That is because God created a world that was ready to use, He thought of everything.
One other thing that is absolutely sure: God did not create some ooze that, through several changes became a monkey that would be the ancestor (humanly speaking) of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I am fearful for people who cannot grasp one of the basic truths of God's Word: that He created everything that is, out of nothing and did not need any help.

 

Craig, your attitude is not something I care to encourage here. You can find the bios of the people I mentioned in the book "In Six Days; why 50 scientists [who are all Ph.D.'s from universities...] choose to believe in creation" edited by John Ashton, Ph.D., out of Hew Holland Press in Australia, 1999.

Danny Faulkner and I are both members of Creastion Research Society, all of whose members are YEC.

From this association, my involvement with Phil Johnson in the Intelligent Design movement, from emails that Barry and I get, and from other assocations, I know very well that there are quite a few very qualified scientists who know for a fact that evolution as it is presented (in other words, not variation/speciation, which no one argues with) is a crock.

On the other hand, truth is never determined by numbers. The truth is simply the truth, whether only one person knows and believes it or whether it is self-evident to everyone alive in the world. (Wegener is an excellent example of the first and the effects of gravity on earth probably a pretty good example of the second as far as the field of science goes)

A number of people have pointed out now that 'macro' evolution effectively calls God a liar and negates the entire foundation of our Christian faith and the work of Jesus. That is something that should be considered seriously by those who try to ride the fence with this thing called 'theistic evolution'.

 

This statement is absolutely false and every Ph.D. biologist living today knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that this statement is false. There is no scientific evidence of any kind whatsoever for a young earth, and every reputable scientist knows that. Some of them, however, who have no respect for either science or human decency, deliberate twist, distort, manipulate, and misrepresent evidence for an old earth to make it appear to be evidence for a young earth. I have personally been a witness to this pernicious hocus-pocus for more than 25 years, and I have in the past posted examples of it, as others on this board have done.

This man’s work has been proven to be defective, and his conclusions have been proven to be absolute nonsense both on this message board and in the scientific community. There are hundreds of Ph.D. astronomers around the world whose work demonstrates that the universe is billions of years old, and there is not even one Ph.D. astronomer alive today who supports the absolutely ridiculous notion that the earth is less than 25,000 years old.

Christian fundamentalist extremists have the right to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense and falsehoods they want to, but they have the responsibility to tell the truth when communicating with others.

Did God create the earth in six literal 24-hour days 4 or 5 billion years ago? I don’t know, but there are no scientific reasons to believe that God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days either 4 or 5 billion years ago or 10,000 years ago—and there are no solid biblical reasons to believe that either. There are, however, VERY solid biblical reasons to believe that the first 11 chapters of Genesis is a collection of epic narratives rather than an historic account. I have posted on this subject extensively in other threads and I have found that most Baptists prefer to believe what tickles their ears rather than the facts, so I am not going to waste my time again in this thread.

</font>[/QUOTE]1. Isn't this the theology forum...and exactly what does science have to do with theology?

2. Craig,

Some of your statements sound a bit like what I remember as being taught by liberal theologians like Bultman and others who lean more toward what we find in the Westar Institute. Perhaps, I am misunderstanding you, but you do believe that God created the universe, correct? You don't think the entire Pentateuch is nothing but epic narratives like Gilgamesh, right?

3. I do, however, agree with you, Craig, that there is not enough Biblical nor scientific evidence to conclusively state that the world is a young earth. But, then again, neither is there conclusive proof that the world is old, either. I don't think it is really known and that it really matters in the long run to the message or theology of the Bible.

4. In response to one of your other posts on this thread where you stated that the credibility of a statement was in question because it came from a Christian, why does that automatically cast a shadow of doubt over his testimony any more than it would if he were a secular scientist? Are you trying to tell me that he has a hidden agenda and the secularist don't? I think we know better than that.

Joseph Botwinick

 

One thing that I have noticed is the need for the non-literalists to show the numbers of "scientists" who agree with them.

For all intents and purposes, if you claim to accept God at His word, all you claim is "God said it!"

If you DON"T accept God at His word, you claim the "multitudes" of "professionials" who agree with you.

I'll take God's word at face value, regardless of what the "experts" say!
************************************
As Helen said earlier, nobody is going to change anybody else's beliefs, so why this confrontation?

My concern is for those who may be unbelievers/young Christians that are reading these posts, and I want them to at least realize that there is an alternative to the "Church of the Monkeys Uncle", and that the faithful of this church appeal to man and not God for their foundational support.

Hopefully they will think a bit before swallowing the hellish bait that satan has put out there to keep them from God.

 

Actually, just-want-peace, in the years I have been on the internet, there have been times when people's beliefs have been changed. Every once in awhile I will get an email from someone thanking me for hanging in there because it either changed what they believed, brought them back to the faith of their childhood, or helped them through some confusing things.

For that it is worth it, at least to me.

My concern, like you, is for those who are young believers or non-believers and who want to know what is really going on in all this.

Here are some excellent books I highly recommend for those in a position of wanting to know more about the side that is so mocked (creation science)

In Six Days; why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation -- edited by John F. Ashton, Ph.D., New Holland Publishers, 1999

Science and its Limits; The Natural Sciences in Christian Perspective -- Del Ratzsch, InterVarsity Press, 2000 (second edition, which is what I have)

Of Pandas and People -- Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon, academic editor Charles B. Thaxton, Haughton Publishing Company, 1993

Darwin's Black Box; the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution -- Michael J. Behe, The Free Press, 1996

Icons of Evolution, Science or Myth? -- Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000

The Rise of the Evolution Fraud -- Malcolm Bowden, Sovereign Publications, 1982

The Biotic Message; Evolution versus Message Theory -- Walter James ReMine, St. Paul Science, 1993

Darwin on Trial -- Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 1991

The Right Questions; Truth and Meaning in Public Debate -- Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, 2002

There are a lot more books, but these are quality publications without the hype that does characterize some creationist publications.