Stunning victory of Creation

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by Phillip:
In a stunning victory of Creationism vs. evolution most members of this board selected Creation as the way God made the universe and man. Although the evolutionists were quite outspoken in the thread, they were far out-numbered by those who read their Bibles...

The question is, why should such a small minority of evolutionists be so vocal on these forums, while the much larger majority of creationists are relatively quiet?

My guess is that some of the evolutionists have got well paid evolutionist jobs and they feel threatened by the arguments of creationists, so they feel they have to come here and fight their corner. I have also noticed that the evolutionists are reluctant to say anything about themselves in case their identity might be exposed.

The creationists are relatively passive because they are doing something that has got nothing to do with evolution and are not economically affected by the arguments. There might also be some creationists, including pastors and church leaders, who are concerned that the evolutionists are the most wealthy members of their congregation. They don't want the church collections to go down when evolutionists are thrown out of their jobs, so they stay cool about evolution and try to avoid saying much.

Mike

 

[blackbird]

Brother Mike! Last Wednesday I preached on the passage from Hebrews 11:3, "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Evolutionists say that we came from that one celled Ameoba---but that Ameoba IS VISABLE, isn't it???!!

Creationists understand that the world was formed by the word of God!! On day One---God said . . . and it was done! On day Two--God said . . . and it was done! On day Three, Four, Five, and Six---God spoke the word and it was so and so it was!!!

Us Creationists do insult the Evolutionists!! But thinkin' about it----I figure, better to insult human intelligence than to deny the word of God! Amen!!! If church collections go down because I insult whoever is an evolutionist---then so be it! I will not be "cool about evolution" but be "red hot" against it!!!

The Evolutionist's ways are not by faith---therefore they do not please God and the smartest thing they can say can't even begin to come close to the dumbest thing that God has ever said!!!

Blackbird
AKA Brother David

 

[OldRegular]

How did it all happen? How did we get here and why? These are questions that have plagued mankind, not just since Darwin, but through much of recorded history. At present there are two concepts or ‘models’, creation and evolution, used to explain the existence of the universe and man. Neither can be proven, therefore, both enter the realm of faith. Only the Creator was present at the start of creation. No one was present at the start of the evolutionary process.

The creation model begins with the eternal Creator of infinite intelligence, power, and authority who spoke the universe into existence out of nothing. Those scientists who believe in creation, and there are many, insist that the creation model best explains the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life.

The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result. A second ‘guess’, which is gaining some adherents, is the spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing but the mathematics of quantum physics and relativity theory [page 206, Vol. 2 and page 16, Vol. 3 of The Modern Creation Trilogy by Henry M. and John D. Morris]! Those scientists who exercise faith in evolution insist that the scientific data accumulated about the universe and life supports the evolutionary model. Unfortunately it is common for those who accept the evolutionary model to suggest, subtly or otherwise, that creationists are either simple-minded or unlearned.

A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations. The Hebrews were apparently unique in their teaching of divine creation.

A question, which person has the more reasonable faith?

1] a person who has faith that an omnipotent God created the universe, all living things, and a man and a woman at a specific time and place; or
2] a person who has faith that an unknown process produced, from either nothing or inanimate matter the universe, and then over a period of hundreds of millions of years all living species and by chance a human male and female at the same time and same place.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The question is, why should such a small minority of evolutionists be so vocal on these forums, while the much larger majority of creationists are relatively quiet?"

Because we should be in a search for the truth. I used to be YE. At some point I went to YE writers looking for support. What I found shocked me. I found the YE position was propped up by dishonesty and misrepresentation. I was horrified that people that set themselves up as CHristian leaders would act in such a way.

When you combine that with the anecdotes that are so easy to find about those who lose their faith when exposed to the truth about origins and those non-Christians who see the lies that are used to prop up YE and decide that they do not need to be part of a religion that relies on such and therefore never come to a saving knowledge of Christ, it became fairly easy to decide to be a vocal opponent of YE.

"My guess is that some of the evolutionists have got well paid evolutionist jobs and they feel threatened by the arguments of creationists, so they feel they have to come here and fight their corner. I have also noticed that the evolutionists are reluctant to say anything about themselves in case their identity might be exposed."

Did you miss this?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/20.html#000297

My job is in coal gasification research. But hey, maybe you can tell us where fossil fuels come from. There are some problems for you in that area.

We could talk about how if every landmass on the earth were covered densely in plants, there still would not be enough matter to make the proven reserves of fossil fuels. But we won'.

We could talk about how it cannot explain places were we see multiple coal seams on top of one another formed from multiple forest buried insitu. But we won't. (Or, ignoring coal for a moment, we could go down the road of the 27 forests completely buried in volcanic ash on top of one another in Yellowstone.)

Instead we will talk about the time required to make these fossil fuels. I know, this is where you trot out the experiments where somebody takes some cellulose and some water and heats it to some high temperature and pressure for a few weeks and comes up with some dark colored mass that at a glance vaguely resembles coal.

But that is not the real world. The problem is that coals formed at different temperatures have different chemical make ups. There is a better explanation than I could give at this coal bed methane site.

http://www.blackdiamondenergy.com/coalbed.html

Now there is an important chart on that site for our discussion. It shows how the maximum temperature at which coal is heated affects both its grade and the chemistry.

You will see that lignites and sub-bituminous coals are barely heated at all. Less than about 120 F for lignite and less than about 160 F for subbituminous. We would be able to tell if they were heated to a higher temperature because the rank of the coal would be different and the chemistry (OK, so those two are closely related) would be different.

 

[UTEOTW]

"The evolutionary model begins with - well that depends. Currently the most popular ‘guess’ is the ‘Big Bang Theory’ in which a tiny speck with infinite mass explodes: the universe, you, and I are the subsequent result."

I do not think that you are up to speed on inflationary theory. For that matter, neither I am I. But it is a common misconception to think that all of the mass of the universe would have been concentrated into a tiny area prior to the Big Bang. As I understand it, most of the mass of the universe came when the inflaton field settled in on an average value at or near zero after the inflationary epoch. The energy of the field was converted into matter. E=mc^2. Prior to this estimates of the mass of the universe that I have seen vary from as much as, say, 20 lbs to as little as something on the order of a microgram.

"A common misconception and misrepresentation is that evolution is the fruit of modern scientific research, beginning in the 19th century with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Actually belief in evolution and spontaneous generation of life is almost as old as recorded history and was included in the belief systems of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Rome, Greece, and the pantheistic religions of the Far East, in fact most of the ancient civilizations."

That is an assertion that begs for proof. Please show us where something very similar to biological evolution was believed more than a century before Darwin.

Besides, that is a red herring to the issue of whether the current observations are explained by evolution or not. What the ancients may have thought is not relevant.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

I'd like to know if there are any counselling services for people who feel that they are in a "Faustian pact" with their employer, having to go along with evolution to earn their bread and butter, but not really believing it.

As I have explained already, some of the people who appear on Baptist Board might have this problem. They manifest themselves as evolutionists, and they fight tooth and nail to oppose creationists, but really they are in a state of denial, unwilling to face up to their problems.

I'd like to know if a counselling service exists, just in case anyone wants to come clean and say what they really believe.

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

Ad hominem.

Follow the link I provided

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/20.html#000297

and you will see that I am not employed in any manner with anything related to evolution.

I have not made any pact with anyone.

I even explained to you above my opposition to young earthism. I find that it requires a horrifying level of dishonesty on the part of those in leadership positions. We can start bringing some of these up if you wish.

I do not think that those that argue for YE in settings such as this are dishonest, just that they have been duped by those in leadership positions. Old Regular made his quote of Asimov. He did not know that the person that supplied the quote had dishonestly left off the next few sentences which spell out just why entropy is not a problem for evolution.

Someone else has recently used the quote a few times about how the human ancestor fossils could fit in a small box. He did not know that he had been misled and that the quote was actually talking about a narrow period of time.

But someone deliberately took these quotes out of context and passed them along to begin with.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:


Did you miss this?

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2693/20.html#000297

Yes, I missed it. I came into this thread on page 22 (this page). However, I have generally found that it is unusual for evolutionists to talk about themselves and they normally have to be coaxed into it.

I came here because I was interested in the opening topic "Stunning Victory of Creation" and I couldn't be bothered to read all the other stuff that has got nothing to do with the opening topic.

But hey, maybe you can tell us where fossil fuels come from. There are some problems for you in that area.

Since it's a statement (that I have some problems) and not a question, there is nothing to answer. In any case, I'm not getting distracted onto the formation of fossil fuels because it's just another attempt to divert this thread away from the opening topic.

Mike

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I do not think that you are up to speed on inflationary theory. For that matter, neither I am I. But it is a common misconception to think that all of the mass of the universe would have been concentrated into a tiny area prior to the Big Bang. As I understand it, most of the mass of the universe came when the inflaton field settled in on an average value at or near zero after the inflationary epoch. The energy of the field was converted into matter. E=mc^2. Prior to this estimates of the mass of the universe that I have seen vary from as much as, say, 20 lbs to as little as something on the order of a microgram.

Uh, 'scues me UTEOTW, but I'm a little lost here. Are you saying the mass of matter before the big bang would hve been approximately 20 lbs to as little as a microgram? (I am assuming you are using standard Earth sea-level gravity as the standard for measuring mass since you are using weight.)

Do I understand this correct? So, with so little mass does this little ball of mass contain all of the mass and energy of the universe within it before the big-bang? That must be some huge amount of energy since the mass is so small. What do you propose this energy takes the form of?

Am I missing what you are saying entirely?

Just curious. I don't mean to sound condescending, I am trying to understand what you are describing.

Thx,
Phillip

 

[UTEOTW]

"Since it's a statement (that I have some problems) and not a question, there is nothing to answer. In any case, I'm not getting distracted onto the formation of fossil fuels because it's just another attempt to divert this thread away from the opening topic."

It is not a distraction if it is possible to show that the opening statement was not valid because YE fails to explain the observations of the world around us.

You do not have to answer but it becomes one more thing for which YEers cannot account.

Maybe someone else would like to take a shot. I'll add a question mark at the end for you.

How would the formation of the fossil fuels be explained in a young earth in a manner consistent with observations?

 

[UTEOTW]

Along those same lines, let me return to anoth problem from the last page that no one seems to want to answer.

Let's look to see if we have creationist explanations for angular uncomformities.

What are angular uncomformities? These are places where layers have been laid down. Then the layers are tilted at an angle. Then the layers are eroded down some. Then additional layers are laid down on top of these. Go here to see some pictures from the Grand Canyon.

http://www.casdn.neu.edu/~geology/department/staff/naylor/geo1212/gc_unc.htm

Now the question becomes, just how were these layers created in a young earth? MostYEers like to say that all the layers were laid down in the flood. But that does not leave a way for some layers to de deposited, hardened into rock, tilted, eroded, and then covered with additional deposits. Some have suggested that the tilted layers were original. This cannot be because some of the basal layers are limestone. You cannot have an original layer that has fossils in it.

Any ideas with logic and evidence to support it?

 

[Phillip]

Blackbird (Bro. David,) Good post. I certainly appreciate it. Here is another location in the Bible (now reaching into the New Testament where the evolutionist must "reinterperet" into an allegory. I'll post a few more verses of the same scripture to prove my point since the flood is also mentioned:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Heb 11:2 For by it the people of old received their commendation.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God.
Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
ESV

If I take the evolutionist view of the OT, then I must reinterpret this too. So, we have now stepped into the New Testmament in our allegorical reinterpretation. When does it end?

Personally, I think it will not end until the entire Bible becomes an allegory and we might discuss why in another thread that I am thinking about starting: "Is evolution a religion" or "Is evolution compatible with Christianity".

I think that we can show that a good 99 percent of evolutionists do not believe in Intelligent Design PERIOD. Therefore, I ask are the two mutually exclusive?

 

[UTEOTW]

"Uh, 'scues me UTEOTW, but I'm a little lost here. Are you saying the mass of matter before the big bang would hve been approximately 20 lbs to as little as a microgram? (I am assuming you are using standard Earth sea-level gravity as the standard for measuring mass since you are using weight.)

Do I understand this correct? So, with so little mass does this little ball of mass contain all of the mass and energy of the universe within it before the big-bang? That must be some huge amount of energy since the mass is so small. What do you propose this energy takes the form of?

Am I missing what you are saying entirely?

Just curious. I don't mean to sound condescending, I am trying to understand what you are describing."

Well, since I do not have the training nor the math ability to fully comprehend it all, it may be difficult for me to add more. But I will try.

I assume you have been at least exposed to the concept of fields? The gravitational field of the earth is one example we should all be familar with. Well there are other fields. For example, it is thought that the Higgs field fills the universe and is responsible for giving matter its mass by the way the different particles interact with the field.

Well there is another field called the inflaton field. This field pushes space itself apart. Normally the value is zero on average. But, in inflation, right at the birth of the universe the field got "stuck" at a higher value for a brief moment. At that time, a very small amount of mass (remember mass does not depend on gravity so 1 kg on earth is still 1 kg on the moon and is 1 kg in deep space) got pushed apart by this field. Space expanded at much greater than the speed of light. This is not a relativity problem because it is space itelf and not something travelling through space.

One of the parts I cannot understand is where the energy for the field came from. I know I have read that it came from gravity as the mass was pushed apart but I do not understand how.

Now eventually the field returned to zero. But when it did what had been just a tiny space had been mutliplied an incredible number of times over. The energy of the field was given up to the space and turned into energy by the familar E=mc^2.

One thing that happened was that the field did not return to zero at exactly the same moment everywhere as a consequence of quantum mechanics. This meant that some space was spread more then others.

This light unevenness is what gave the slight density differences which led to the formation of galaxies and the larger structure of the universe. Now inflation predicts a specific way in which the size of these variations should vary. Deep space surveys that look at the distribution of galaxies have shown that this distribution holds. (I can only remember coming across that once. The next part I am much more sure about.) Recently, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisortopy Probe has shown that the variation of the cosmic microwave background follows the predicted pattern.

I hope that helps.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
How would the formation of the fossil fuels be explained in a young earth in a manner consistent with observations?

Why are you so persistent in your attempts to divert this thread, and why are you so embarrassed about the poll results?

You've told us about your job, so you are not trying to protect your butt in some way, but can you tell us why evolution is so important to you, and why you are making so much effort to try and defend it?

Mike

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

Any ideas with logic and evidence to support it?

This is our problem with this whole thread. Are we allowed to use "supernatural" means as "logic"?

If not then we cannot debate our position of Creationism period and therefore you have us blocked simply by the rules you are placing on the debate. "If it cannot be proven scientifically--(seen, observed, or proven to occur naturalistically) then it is not valid." That is the assumption I am making that your statement above really means. Right or wrong? And how do we come to terms on debating this issue with the introduction of supernatural forces?

 

[UTEOTW]

"You've told us about your job, so you are not trying to protect your butt in some way, but can you tell us why evolution is so important to you, and why you are making so much effort to try and defend it?"

I answered this immediately before your "counselling" post

Because we should be in a search for the truth. I used to be YE. At some point I went to YE writers looking for support. What I found shocked me. I found the YE position was propped up by dishonesty and misrepresentation. I was horrified that people that set themselves up as CHristian leaders would act in such a way.

When you combine that with the anecdotes that are so easy to find about those who lose their faith when exposed to the truth about origins and those non-Christians who see the lies that are used to prop up YE and decide that they do not need to be part of a religion that relies on such and therefore never come to a saving knowledge of Christ, it became fairly easy to decide to be a vocal opponent of YE.

and immediately after the "counselling" post.

I even explained to you above my opposition to young earthism. I find that it requires a horrifying level of dishonesty on the part of those in leadership positions. We can start bringing some of these up if you wish.

I do not think that those that argue for YE in settings such as this are dishonest, just that they have been duped by those in leadership positions. Old Regular made his quote of Asimov. He did not know that the person that supplied the quote had dishonestly left off the next few sentences which spell out just why entropy is not a problem for evolution.

Someone else has recently used the quote a few times about how the human ancestor fossils could fit in a small box. He did not know that he had been misled and that the quote was actually talking about a narrow period of time.

But someone deliberately took these quotes out of context and passed them along to begin with.

The lack of honesty with YE leaders struck a certain nerve with me and convinced me that their position is impossible or else they would not feel the need to lie about the data.

"Why are you so persistent in your attempts to divert this thread, and why are you so embarrassed about the poll results?"

I have no embarrassment about the results. In fact, I was pleased that so many voted against YE in a Baptist only area. 30% as old earth is not that bad.

If you were to read the whole thread you will see a variety of topics covered. I am not trying to divert, I am attempting to go on the offensive. I spent pages and pages letting everyone else dictate the flow and determining which topics to explore. I was tired of being defensive. I have answered the questions and now I want to turn it around and start making the YEers defend some positions.

But as you can see, that is a difficult task. They can seemingly bring up an endless array of topics but if I try and steer them to something else I am suddenly accused of "diverting" the thread. But even on topics that the YEers bring up, answers are not very forthcoming. We cannot even get a single mechanism for evolution that entropy prevents but you still act like you are making a devestating blow.

But the questions remain unanswered.

 

[UTEOTW]

"This is our problem with this whole thread. Are we allowed to use "supernatural" means as "logic"? "

Supernatural is of course allowed in a discourse between believers. However, it becomes a useless discourse to simply attribute everything for which there is not an answer to the supernatural. Especially things that do not seem to be logical for an intelligent designer to do.

Create a mature, functional universe. Fine. Place in that universe signs that only make sense in an old universe, I don't buy it.

It is like the question I asked about the iridium rich layer with shocked quartz and tektites at the K-T boundary. You asked if God could have simple placed the layer there. The answer is He could have, but that it does not seem logical. To place layers with fossils of dinosaurs below layers without dinosaurs separated by this thin boundary layer is a strange thing to do. Either it happened naturally, in which case you cannot explain this layer in the middle of the flood deposits, or God decided to place evidence for an asteroid impact that did not happen into the geologic record. I just do not buy the second answer because I find it dishonest.

To me, such answers make the whole discussion moot. If we cannot trust what we see, then none of us can make a case for any bit of physical evidence. It is why I pressed you earlier to answer if you thought the data shows a young universe or if you thought the data shows an old universe but that God made it that way for His own purpose. If the latter, we have noting to discuss. If the former, then you need to explain some things as showing an actual young earth instead of falling abck to the supernatural everytime. Because to fall back to the supernatural for every bit means that you accept that all the data points to an old earth but you choose to accept something else.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Because we should be in a search for the truth. I used to be YE. At some point I went to YE writers looking for support. What I found shocked me. I found the YE position was propped up by dishonesty and misrepresentation.

Have you not found any honest creationists, and do you feel the same sense of indignity against dishonest evolutionists, for example the people who set up the Piltdown Man, and various other evolution frauds?

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

I think that most of the YE leaders are dishonest. Not necessarily all of them, but there seems to be a pattern where when you investigavte their claims they are found to not be honest.

Quote mining is the mostt obvious and easy to see example. Pages exist of nothing but quotes and when you bother to go find the quotes they almost invariable mean something else when placed in context. Again, I do not fault the people who come here and pass these things on unless they have been previously shown the actual quote. However the person who first did the mining was deliberately dishonest.

Samething with all the claims you see about dating using radioisotoes. This gets into the big guys; Morris, Austin, Snelling. How many times are these guys going to deliberately select samples they know (and any geologist selecting samples would know) will give the wrong date? How many times are they going to date xenoliths that did not melt and say dating does not work? These guys lie about results.

There are some that are not dishonest. Helen's husband, Seterfield, shows up occasionally and he seems to be an honest fellow. Some are honest but simply wrong.


"...Piltdown Man..."

And you know of whom that uses Piltdown Man as evidence?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:

The lack of honesty with YE leaders struck a certain nerve with me and convinced me that their position is impossible or else they would not feel the need to lie about the data.

By your response I would assume two things:

(1) You side with those who claim since the 50's that the age of the earth has changed from thousands of years old then about 50 years later it is now billions and billions of years old. Is that honesty? The evolutionists are in a constant state of change.

(2)Research requires documentation. I have seen none to support your generalization about YE folks. Give some examples from men like Morris and ICR. I have read the rebuttals against them and find none to be very compelling. In fact Henry Morris has written a book "That Their Words May Be Used Against Them." He documents their words to disprove what they claim and how they have changed their positions.

So give us some documentation to support your generalization about YE leaders. Who are those leaders and what are their claims you disagree with?