Stunning victory of Creation

"I could discuss background microwave radiation with you until we were both blue in the face. I could show you things that you have no idea about, but I'm not turning this thread into a debate on one specific scientific subject."

I think we have already missed that baoat.

"We can open a new thread if you wish to debate background radiation and if that is what you want to discuss, that is GREAT because that is something I know a LOT about."

Feel free to start a new thread in the Science forum if you don't wish to review here but...

What do you make of the initial results from WMAP? I assert that this is great confirmation of inflation. If I am wrong, then what is the alternate explanation. Did God just carefully craft His universe to make it look like He used inflation?

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Dark Energy Induced Correlation with Radio Sources," M.R. Nolta, et al

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results," C.L. Bennett, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters," D.N. Spergel, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Implications for Inflation," H.V. Peiris, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Interpretation of the TT and TE Angular Power Spectrum Peaks," L. Page, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Parameter Estimation Methodology," L. Verde, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: The Angular Power Spectrum," G. Hinshaw, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Temperature-Polarization Correlation," A. Kogut, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Tests of Gaussianity," E. Komatsu, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Beam Profiles and Window Functions," L. Page, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Foreground Emission," C.L. Bennett, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Explanatory Supplement," M. Limon, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Data Processing Methods and Systematic Error Limits," G. Hinshaw, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Galactic Signal Contamination from Sidelobe Pickup," C. Barnes, et al.

"First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: On-Orbit Radiometer Characterization," N. Jarosik, et al.

That should be a good start. You can find all of these papers at http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/outreach/all_papers.cfm .

 

You know this thread is a crry over from the survey thread and I think altogether there have been over 500 entries.If we have learned nothing else,we have learned there are some fine minds here who are very able at debate. So the thought occurred to me, UTEOTW,IChemist,CBTS, why don't you guys take a stab at seeing things (be the devils advocate)from the YEC point of view? See if you guys can come up with enough information to make one think about YEC views.You know what,because you guys are sharp ,if I were a bttting man ,I would bet you could.

 

"Yes. There is a balance in the universe that is interdependent."

So they could not have been made just next to one another. It was necessary that they (and countless other examples) be made just as if they had been gravitationally interecting for hundreds of millions of years? They are 300 million light years away! Anything that happens there could not even be known to us or affect us for that much longer!

And...How did the light get here?

"Probably. I think these calculations are well beyond you or me."

Just about everything we have discussed is really beyond the abilities of any of us unless there happens to be an astronomer or geologists or biologists among us.

Is is astounding that you think that life would be affected if the distribution of distant galaxies was slightly different.

"I deny that the assumptions involved in the above classification according to the framework provided by the theory of evolution are necessarily true."

Just look at the data. If you draw trees based on how these things branch, you always get the same tree.

"Genomic divergences between humans and other hominoids and the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees," Chen FC, Li WH, American Journal Human Genetics, 2001 Feb;68(2):444-56.

When all the various sequences are considered as togther, they "supports the Homo-Pan clade with a 100% bootstrap value."

Now you can disagree about the interpretation and offer your own explanation for why this same pattern always emerges, but you canno deny the data. What assumptions could you possibly object to in data?

"You recently pointed out that there were parallel duplications going on with the human race. Yet here you deny that genetic similarities between men and various animals could have produced a similar result. You aren't being consistent. You only consider how the evidence works to your favor. You are limiting God."

By all means, give me an example of such duplications and where they support your position instead of mine. I do not think I have denied any such thing because I do not believe that I have been presented with any such thing.

"We discussed this at length. All this proves is a similarity in construction, not a common ancestor."

They were all built with the same defect? God gave them all the same three (now) useless genes and a fourth all broken in the same way?

Interesting construction.

"Please tell me the possible reasons you can imagine that God might have done this over the course of millions of years... and you will have answers as to why He might have done it in less than 10K years. I am not asking for the "how" here but the "why". God could have done it any "how" He chose."

Because experience tells us that God often chooses to accomplish His will through natural means. He allowed the layers to be sorted according to ratios of radioactive isotopes because that is how things happen according to the rules He set up for the universe.

"Perhaps it is nothing more than to see if men would believe His Word or their own mind. Before you go into it, this is no more deceptive than the test (allegorical or not) that God put into the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

What!?!

Setting up two things that appear to be true and wanting us to pick one is the same as telling man Adam not to eat of the tree and expecting him to obey? Are you suggesting that God did not tell Adam the truth about the consequences? Are you suggesting that the serpent was correct and God wrong?

I don't get that one.

"Why? Why would He give them something with such an attractive appearance then tell them it was undesirable?"

I think you could say that many things that are sin are attractive and desirable to the flesh. I don't get your comparison here.

 

Philip,

Charles, as much as I hate to say this, you just shot yourself in the foot. If you told this story in front of a jury, you would be laughed out of the room. You had better come up with a better explanation.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. DHK came in and blasted a position that few old earthers even hold.

You gotta get it right before you can argue against something!

And in front of a jury one could call experts in near eastern mythology as well.



That is the ultimate is straw man attack!

 

It is preposterous to you to make such a statement that seems to be a blatant lie. If evolution has nothing to do with cosmology why are you even partiipating in this discussion? Why do you have any interest in creation at all? Your participation in this thread should be nil, nada, mute, nothing, zero.
Here is the opening statement:

Creationism vs. evolution! = cosmology.

Cosmology:
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2 : a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe. (Marriam-Webster Dictionary)

Evolution attempts to give an explanation to the origin of the universe (i.e., "big bang theory"). This involves both cosmology and astronomy. Why are you blatantly lying when you already have used arguments from other branches of science (other than Biology in the Other Religions forum)?

2. Let's try the science of Chemistry. Does evolution affect Chemistry. Chemistry is involved in various dating methods such as Carbon 14, and radium argon dating. Carbon 14 dating doesn't have an accuracy past 3,000 years or so. It certainly can't date anything millions of years old. It is an impossible task for any of those methods to do so. Your evoutionary biases have skewed your Chemistry before you have even arrived at your results. You fail to take into account the many variables. You go strictly by the law of unifomitarianism which is not true, because all things do not decay at a uniform rate. There are catastrophies and other interuptive forces that cause processes to either speed up or slow down. You don't know the amounts that you start with. You weren't there to see how much of said elements you had to begin with. It is mostly guess work. Does evolution affect chemistry? Yes. Chemistry is used to try and prove evolution to be true, and its very biases affect the way the Chemist operates.

3. How about Geology? Are you going to lie about this one too? Go into all the high school text books that teach about the geological columns or tables, speaking of the cambrian and pre-cambrian eras, as well as others. You use circular reasoning in assessing the age of fossils found here. How do you know the age of the fossils in the Cambrian layer of the geological column? We know the age of the fossil by the age of the layer of the column. How do you know the age of the Cambrian layer? We know the age of the Cambrian layer by the age of the fossil? Right!!
Evolutionary nonsense.

4. Thermodynamics. You should have never mentioned it. You know very well that thermodynamics and consequently the science of physics has much bearing on evolution. It is the second law of thermodynamics that shoots down the theory of evolution. Summed up in a simple way: Everthing tends to a state of decay or degeneration. Or there is an increasing amount of entropy in the universe.
Even the Bible states this principle:

Romans 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

We wait for the redemption of our body. Why? Because it is in a constant state of decay and degeneration. The same is true of the entire universe. "We know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now." Everything is in a state of degeneration. It wiil always be that way. At least it will be that way until Christ burns this world with fire and creates a new world and a new heaven.

Yes, evolution crosses almost every branch of science there is, and it is either deceptive of you to say that it does not, or you are just blatantly lying; I am not sure which.

I have studied biology and took a class specifically in genetics. I took observations as you suggested. I recorded the observations I made. I drew conclusions from the observations I made. This is true science. It is science, i.e., knowledge gained from observable facts. The evolutionist doesn't have any observable facts to begin with. You weren't there at the beginning of the universe to examine the Big Bang. You can't even point to the missing link between man and animals today. If evolution were true then we should have an entire race of these missing links walking the earth, but you can't even find one verifiable and identifiable fossil of one, let alone a living one. It is a joke, or more accurately, a fairy tale relgion.
DHK

 

A quote from today's CBC News in context of "Deep Impact" talking of America's launch of a rocket to collide with a comet 430 million km. away (as if that is going to tell them anything about the origin of the earth!) All they need to do is read Genesis chapter one.

DEEP IMPACT
DHK

 

"It is preposterous to you to make such a statement that seems to be a blatant lie."

We'll see...

Those are strong words there. We have been having a nice, civil, adult discussion about a very contentious subject. We even gushed over each other a few pages back about how unexpectedly civil folks were being. I hope you are not trying to pull this down to thrid grade name calling. It would be such a shame and it would confirm the opinions of some here that this subject cannot be discussed without such happening.

Did you ever find a citation for your Huxley quote? I still do not think that the quote really exists. Though I just base that on the fact that Google fails to find it. It could be obscure.

"If evolution has nothing to do with cosmology why are you even partiipating in this discussion? Why do you have any interest in creation at all? Your participation in this thread should be nil, nada, mute, nothing, zero."

I am participating in this thread because I desire for us to know the truth. I personally find that YEC has been shown to do great harm. There are many anecdotal stories of those who have lost their faith over this and more about those who rule out coming to a saving knowledge of Jesus because of it. I think that the people who participate in such threads a good honerable people. I do not hold the same opinion of the YEC leaders.

"Creationism vs. evolution! = cosmology."

You are committing the logical fallacy of the false dilemma here. Perhaps multiple times.

There is no reason to frame this as "Creationism vs. evolution." I think that everyone here who holds an old earth position are also creationists. We do, however, differ with you on the means of creation. So you are setting up a conflict that does not exist.

And I am not sure how your "equation" is supposed to demonstrate the connection between biological evolution and cosmology.

"Cosmology:
1 a : a branch of metaphysics...[snip]"

While we are defining things, let's define evolution. I am pulling definitions off a college biology syllabus. These are the same basic definitions I have always heard.

One definition would be the study of the "change in allele frequency in a gene pool over time." A second, more general definition would be "changes in species composition over time."

Now, if I am telling a "blantent lie," then where does this definition fit into the definition you provided for cosmology? It does not! You made a serious change. Not just that I was wrong, but that I was telling a "blatent lie" and you are now unable to back up your claim. I would ask that you seriously consider withdrawing the accusation and issuing an apology.

"Evolution attempts to give an explanation to the origin of the universe (i.e., "big bang theory"). "

No, evolution seeks to explain observations we see in life. Evolution in its purest sense is not even concerned with the origin of life. It is only concerned with how life changes. That life could have been supernaturally created, formed through abiogenesis or dropped off by aliens on a picnic. Evolution is concerned with how that life changes. The Big Bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with the change in allele frequency of a population with time.

"This involves both cosmology and astronomy. Why are you blatantly lying when you already have used arguments from other branches of science (other than Biology in the Other Religions forum)? "

More baseless charges.

Have you seen the "young earth" part of young earth creationism? Young earth touches many areas. One of these is evolution. Others include geology and and astronomy. Just because they can all be used to conclusively refute a young earth does not make them all deal with changes in allele frequency in populations.

"Let's try the science of Chemistry. Does evolution affect Chemistry. Chemistry is involved in various dating methods such as Carbon 14, and radium argon dating."

That seems to be a bit of a stretch to me, but I'll let it go. I would consider dating more physics but it is multidisciplinary. But it is still not affected at all by changes in allele frequency in populations.

"Carbon 14 dating doesn't have an accuracy past 3,000 years or so."

False assertion. You will have to prove that one. The truth is that the method has been calibrated by things of known age to at least about 14000 years ago.

Kromer, B., Ambers, J., Baillie, M. G. L., Damon, P. E., Hesshaimer, V., Hofmann, J., Jöris, O., Levin, I., Manning, S. W., McCormac, F. G., van der Plicht, J., Spurk, M., Stuiver, M. and Weninger, B. 1996 Report: Summary of the workshop "Aspects of High-Precision Radiocarbon Calibration". Radiocarbon 38(3): 607-610.

It is actually good to about 50000 years, depending on the quality of the sample and skill of the lab.

I'll maintain a bit more restraint here than you and not make any personal attacks alledging whether or not I can discern if you are merely wrong or are being deliberate.

"It certainly can't date anything millions of years old."

Correct. C14 dating is only good to about 50000 years, max.

"You go strictly by the law of unifomitarianism which is not true, because all things do not decay at a uniform rate. There are catastrophies and other interuptive forces that cause processes to either speed up or slow down."

False assertion. Things do decay at a constant rate. If you have data that shows how the decay rates inside solid rock can be changed, then please present it. I have never seen such.

First off, decay rates can be estimated from first principles, so we do have a pretty good idea of why the rates are what they are and what would have to change to change the rates. Second, light has a finite speed. Therefore when we look inot space, we are looking back in time. As far out as we can see, decay rates (for example the decay of heavy isotopes produced in supernovae) are the same.

"You don't know the amounts that you start with. You weren't there to see how much of said elements you had to begin with."

Many methods do not require you to know the starting amounts. The few that do have been shown to be valid when tested in conjunction with other methods. Is this more baseless assertions or do you have something concrete to present?

"3. How about Geology? Are you going to lie about this one too? Go into all the high school text books that teach about the geological columns or tables, speaking of the cambrian and pre-cambrian eras, as well as others. You use circular reasoning in assessing the age of fossils found here. How do you know the age of the fossils in the Cambrian layer of the geological column? We know the age of the fossil by the age of the layer of the column. How do you know the age of the Cambrian layer? We know the age of the Cambrian layer by the age of the fossil? Right!! "

Then maybe you have an explanation for why all fossil life seem to group itself, worldwide, into such narrow slices. Maybe you can tell us why worldwide you only always find very specific fossil together in the same layers. Maybe you can tell us that when you radiometrically date the layers that a re suitable for such that the layers with the same organisms always date the same age, regardless of location.

No, you have no logical explanation for how all these animals and ratios of isotopes got so perfectly dated.

When we look at layers, we find that there is a certain mix of index fossils that are always found together at each layer. When we find layer tha can be dated directly, the layers with the same mix always date to the same age. So, logically, we conclude that layers with the same mix that cannot be dated directly, are most likely the same age as the other layers with the same fossils that could be dated. What is wrong with this? You also ignore other methods that contribute. For example, you may not be able to directly date a layer but instead use index fossils while you can bracket the age by dating layers above and below that can be directly dated. Now you are using multiple lines of evidence that agree and compement one another.

And this still does not show how geology is affected by changes in allele frequency.

"Thermodynamics. You should have never mentioned it. You know very well that thermodynamics and consequently the science of physics has much bearing on evolution. It is the second law of thermodynamics that shoots down the theory of evolution. Summed up in a simple way: Everthing tends to a state of decay or degeneration. Or there is an increasing amount of entropy in the universe."

You really should have avoided this one. My thermodynamics textbook states the second law in the following terms.

"No apparatus can operate in such a way that its only effect is to convert heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

"No process is possible which consists solely in the transfer of heat from one temperature level to a higher one."

"It is impossible by a cyclic process to convert the heat absorbed by a system completely into work."

Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics Smith and Van Ness 4th Edition 1987

When you can tell me how that relates to changes in allele frequency or how it prevents changes in allele frequency or how you take those textbook statements of thermo and turn it into what you are claiming, get back with me. For now, you are only showing your misunderstanding of thermo.

"I have studied biology and took a class specifically in genetics. I took observations as you suggested. I recorded the observations I made."

So you claim that there are no observations when you have actually made observations in the field yourself? And you are making what kind of charges against me?

"You weren't there at the beginning of the universe to examine the Big Bang."

Still has nothing to do with changes in allele frequency. And we can look at the effects. Surely you are not saying that everything has to be directly witnessed to be believed. Surely you have pieced together what happened through clues in the past. You are not being consistent if you have.

"You can't even point to the missing link between man and animals today. If evolution were true then we should have an entire race of these missing links walking the earth, but you can't even find one verifiable and identifiable fossil of one, let alone a living one."

Why would I of necessity need a living example? I really doubt that many species have remained completely unchanged over the last few million years. As far as fossils go tying humans to the past...

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis

Granted, some of these may have been side branches and not direct, but they do show a progression of creatures intermediate between modern humans and fossil apes.

I guess you now realize that there actually are lines of evidence for the Big Bang since you neither repeated the charge not sought to refute any of the lines of evidence I presented.

 

DHK,

This is exactly the kind of argument that hurts the credibility of the YEC movement.

Carbon 14 dating does work if properly calibrated.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply because earth is not a closed system.

"Transitionals" have been found.

Don't dredge up these old fallacies - they hurt your cause.

 

He could have instantly extended it to our galaxy/solar system/planet where He Himself would come in the flesh one day.

Psalm 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

HankD

 

So, for example, when I look at SN1987A, what am I seeing.

SN1987A was a supernova where the light reached us in 1987. It is located in the LMC, about 160 thousand light years away. So it would take far more than 6000 years for the light to have reached us from that event. Now, if the light recording the event has been "instantly extended it to our ... planet" then this even never accually happened! Then what exactly are we looking at? Light was created en route recording events that did not happen?!?

"Psalm 104:1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:"

So when old earthers use Psalms it is immediately pointed out that the Psalms are poetic. But when a young earther quotes an obviously poetic Psalm, we are supposed to make a literal connection that is extremely tenuous even if you are desparately looking for it?

But, while we are at it, I'll then take this Psalm as Biblical confirmation of inflationary theory. Inflation says that in the first moments of the creation of the universe that it was stretched at an incredible rate to many times its initial size at greater tha nthe speed of light. This sounds like a reasonable description of that to folks living thousands of years ago for me.

The Bible is in agreement with inflation and lets us know that God was in charge of it.

 

UT, Have you ever walked in and sat down an hour and 30 minutes into a 2 hour movie?

If the person sitting beside you said, "This movie started only a short while ago", do you then proceed to tell them how that could not be so because the characters in the movie could never have matured to the point you see them in that amount of time? Why you couldn't even begin to explain their ancestory in that amount of time.

No. When someone says that a created thing began at a certain time your presumption is that the appearance of "maturity" is intentional and integral to the creation in some way... even if you don't understand it.

Everything that appears natural is not. God's decision as to whether to reveal His hand to us is not a matter of deception but sovereign choice. Everything you believe about processes could be absolutely true and still not prove that God didn't decide to start with a mature rather than immature universe. It does not prove that God acted only through natural means rather than supernatural means.

My pastor has leukemia. He was diagnosed with it over 3 years ago... and given 6 weeks to live. He got worse as predicted then got better... much better. The doctors continue to tell him that his variety of cancer is untreatable. His medication is only to alleviate the symptoms. His continued life is not the result of medication. He is not now nor has he ever been in remission. He mystifies the doctors- there is no medical reason that he shouldn't be dead.

Natural science fails to have an explanation for this... and he isn't unique.

Was the tree that saved the soldier that saved the squad that saved the army that won the battle that won the war there accidentally, providentially, or by supernatural intervention. If you believe in God and that He has a plan for the history of man, prove your answer. We most often assume that it was there either accidentally or providentially but God has the ability to put it there supernaturally if He so chose... or does He?

 

That's great that God has so blessed your pastor. He can do what He want when He wants with our bodies.

I see alot of cancer patients, alot of terminal cancer patients. I have seen multiple people with near miraculous stories - but I have also seen hundreds die in accordance with the prognosis given.

God makes the rules, that's for sure. But life is lived under the conditions of the natural order He established.

Can God heal miraculously? Yes! Does He ever? Yes!

Does He always?

No.

Many a dear saint has succumbed to cancer despite many fervent prayers for a miracle. God does work miracles for His glory - but according to His wisdom.

Now consider the creation. I see God working in the system He has established. He could have made the earth in a snap. He could have made it over aeons. He could have made it with the appearance of age (Hank's example of Jesus' making aged wine was good!).

But just as we cannot force God into miraculously healing every sick believer we cannot force Gos into having created in 6 literal days several thousand years ago.

 

I agree with everything you said.

The point isn't that God always acts supernaturally but rather that He sometimes does. YEC and 6 literal days cannot be discounted as a possibility as long as the God of the Bible is accepted as a potential cause.

 

With all due respect Charles, perhaps you cannot "force" God into creating all thngs into six literal days several thousand years ago. But just as you have observed God's miraculous healing in individuals that prop up your faith in the living God, is it not better just to trust in the evidence that Bible gives over and over again that God did create all things six literal days? Does it not become a question of what God says as opposed to what man says?
DHK

 

Under relativity theory, time is not inviolate. There is a possible path an angel might fly that, by having flown along that path, he could legitimately reckon the 13+ billion year history of the universe to be only 10,000 or 6000 years. Why an angel would want to fly along that strange path of course would be a mystery, but such a flight path does exist.

 

It was God that created the universe. In creating the universe, he created time as well for man's sake. Within the time span of the creation of the universe he also created the angels. So the answer to your question is no, especially for one who is a YEC. For the earth, at the most is 10,000 years old. Thus the angels would only be 10,000 years old. God created time for man's sake, and for man's sake works within a time frame that man can understand though he himself is eternal.
Check Heb.1:14, and you find the purpose why angels were created--to minister to man.
DHK

 

Possibly. There are probably infinite possibilities. Regardless of where you come down on this issue, as a Christian you should at least acknowledge that God chose the one He chose.

Probably so. Do you claim to know all of the details of why the universe must be as it is right now? Human history is special. Regardless of your view of origins, it is more than apparent that God has only dealt with us for the last 6K-10K years. I have no doubt that the universe is exactly as it should be in 2005 AD.

God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent... I am certain that such a distance is no limitation to Him at all.

First, you assume uniformatarianism as a basis for that belief.

Second, assuming an omnipotent Creator... So what?

Do you know for certain that the sources for the light that we see in the sky are still there?... or were ever there?

Do you know for certain that the distance measuring calculations are correct? Do they ever make assumptions that could be falsified by unseen, unknown fields or effects in deep space? Who stepped a distance to say... the first star to confirm the methods used for determining these extraordinary distances?

Is the sun really closer to the earth sometimes or is it just an optical illusion caused by certain atmospheric conditions on the appearance of a setting sun?

Not what I meant UT. Some of these calculations are beyond any man of any time. Period.

Slightly. What is slightly? What would a "slight", permanent shift in the angle of the earth's axis do? What would a "slight" decrease in the distance to the moon or sun do?

Slight is relative. Do you deny that neighboring stars have an effect on our sun and that our sun has an effect on us?

Just look at the Bible. It says that God created. In particular, it says that God formed man specially.

I don't object to objective data. I object to subjective classification of the data to support the assumption that evolution is factual and that a Creator God was not the cause for anything we see in nature.

They were all built with genetic similarities that reacted in similar ways when exposed to similar environmental conditions. This is every bit as plausible as assuming that they all evolved into different species by an unknown, untestable process.

So? Scripture and experience tell us that He doesn't always use natural means. Our whole faith is centered on the belief that He will not always use natural means.

Not looking for "how"s at this point but rather "why"s. He could establish the same rules no matter what the starting point for operation was.

What!?! He didn't set up nature to necessarily appear the way evolutions says. That assumption of appearance is only necessary if you have first discounted the possibility of direct creation.

Quite the contrary. I am suggesting that He did and that Adam ignored what God said in favor of his own interpretation of appearances.

Nope. I am suggesting that when the opinions of men about the appearance of something conflict with what God said about the same thing... the men are wrong.

Evolution is apparently attractive to people- isn't it? Right or wrong, it feeds a desire to explain everything in terms that man can control and define.

You may never admit it but your belief in evolution is ultimately based on assumptions that are not scientific. You assume a level of naturalism that is not necessary if God "could" create the world directly. You assume a level of involvement by God that differs from what He said.

 

For those that believe in evolution, and yet believe in God (I assume everyone since this is a Baptist thread), why not consider the internal evidence of the Bible which is overwhelming.

First, the Book of Genesis itslef is written as an historical book, and there is no reason to take it as allegorical or as mythology. The first 11 chapters have been under attack by unbelievers, by atheists, for a number of years now. Are we, as beleivers to side with them? Genesis is a straight forward historical account of God's record in history to mankind.

This history is attested by many throughout the Bible: Moses, David, Solomon, Job, Jesus, Peter, Paul, just to name a few. If we say that the historical figures were allegorical and not historical we infer that all of these individuals (including Christ) were lying. They referred to these events as actual historical events. In their minds there were no allegories and no myths here.

One of the greatest arguments is that of the Sabbath day in itself. God rested on the Sabbath day, the seventh day of creation. He rested on the seventh day. This was an actual 24 hour day was it not (just like all the other days). Why would it be any different. When God gives the Law to the nation of Israel in Exodus 20 he says specifically that he created all things in six days and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the sabbath day would be a holy day to them. They were to rest on the Sabbath day. What were the Israelites to think? That the preceding six days were allegorical and the seventh day was literal? I don't think so!! All seven days were 24 hour days just as the Sabbath day was to be observed (from sundown to sundown--a period of 24 hours).
In Exodus 31 the laws of observing the Sabbath become even more strict and stringent. Here the Sabbath Day is instituted as a sign of a covenant between the nation of Israel, and their generations forever. Again, what were the Israelites to think? Was it six allegorical days of creation and the seventh literal, or were they all literal? The Sabbath was a sign for all generations from that day forward. The penalty for not observing it was death.
To this day the Jews still observe the Sabbath as their holy day. The Sabbath is Saturday--a 24 hour day. Our days, from Sunday to Friday are still 24 hour days. We do not live in a dream. We live in a real world with real people, who when they die, become history. That is what happened 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. When they died they became history. Genesis is a historical book. The Jews still attest to that today. Every time you write the date you attest at least to a time period before or after Christ. A.D. (anno domini or after his death), and b.c. (or before Christ). I would assume that "before Christ" would stretch all the way back to the creation.

In Matthew 19, the Pharisees come questioning Jesus concerning divorce. Jesus answers them by quoting from Genesis.

Matthew 19:4-6 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

These are portions from: Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21-14. Jesus believed this was an historical account or he would not have answered in such a way. God created Adam and Eve male and female. They did not evolve, they were created. God made them. Do you deny the testimony of Christ, and infer that he is lying here?

Job records his discourse with God. God rebukes Job, and in doing so describes what happened at creation:

Job 38:4-14 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it, And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors, And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

It was God that laid the foundations of the earth.
He refers to the angels ("sons of God").
It is a descriptive passage that describes creation, and possibly a reference to the flood.

Job lived around the same time that Abraham did, and thus was not that far removed from these events (such as the flood). These would have been real events to him, not just mythological stories.

2 Peter 3:3-7 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Are you willing to deny Peter's reference to creation. Peter believed in creation. It was an historical account to him. He says nothing of evolution. He states the law of unifomitarianism, and debunks it as a theory that scoffers believe in. He refers to the flood as well. This also is an historical event. He also refers to the coming of the end of the world, and what will be thereafter. Do you believe Peter? Do you believe the Bible. Is it then so hard to believe what the Bible has to say about creation?
DHK