Which do you trust, God or science?

I did not find that information
at that address. Note also that if those
Po decay values are correct, the rocks could
not have been there on Creation day
13 March 4004AD. Ooops, logical boo-boo

 

You may want to check further into what AIG has to say on this subject.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/radiohalo.asp

You will find that there have been halos found in rocks that even AIG admits were not original. Now that we have data that even your own source accepts as showing halos found in rocks that have been formed during the history of the earth, we should easily see that the prescence of such halos does not imply a young earth or that the rocks with such halos are original.

 

Ed,
All I said reguarding the Rock forming is that it had to form in less than three minutes, very easy for God. I never claimed the link had that info. The post clearly states that I got it from a book.
UTEOTW,
Thanks for the info. I guess that puts the former and later evidence at best "inconclusive".
Although there is still much to be gained from the colafied wood evidence supporting a world-wide flood.
No matter, the bottom line is that it is still faith for an Old Earth or Young Earth. The bible is still my final authority on ALL matters of faith and practice.

Ro 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar ; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

That verse certainly includes me and everyone else, even if not on purpose.
God bless,
David

 

Glory2God: "Real science NEVER contradicts the bible!!!"

Strangely, the reverse is true:
The Bible NEVER contradicts Real science!!!

 

WELL SAID!!!

 

Theological progress is constant. Theological [theory] changes frequently in fact almost daily. YEC is a theory period, which has many devotees. These devotees as a general rule only accept thier authorites as valid and tend to reject those who disagree with them.

[Still] the Bible is God's Word. God is constant and unchangeable. Let God be true and all men liars.

(Just to put things in a proper perspective!)

Rob </font>[/QUOTE]Actually Deacon all you have done is thrown a clod in the churn. I seriously doubt that "Theological progress" is constant. In fact I believe it is regressive. I suspect that we have more so-called Christian cults now than at any time in the history of the Church.

 

Isn't it funny so many will quote unbelieving men's flawed opinons when the Bible tells what we need to know about the origin of man and the world we live on. The OP asked who do you trust. I see for some it isn't God, becasue He isn't the one they are quoting, but rather men who oppsoe God.

 

Originally posted By Old Regular:

It might be interesting to debate that.

It should be a topic on a different thread though.

Rob

 

Since the population of the earth is greater than it ever has been in the past, it is reasonable to suppose there are more cults than ever in the past. Why not?

 

There is progress in religion, however. For example, it is now nearly universally considered to be wrong to own slaves.

 

“How would you like to fly in an airplane produced by chance random processes—no intelligence involved?”

These words, believe it or not, are an exact quote of the first sentence in a February 8, 2005, article written by Ken Ham, president/CEO, Answers in Genesis–USA.

Every third-grader knows that no evolutionists believe or teach that man or any other creature evolved on the basis of random processes but rather by the process of natural selection. Therefore there can be no doubt or question that Ken Ham has less than a third grade education or that he is willfully and knowingly falsifying and distorting the truth for the express purpose of deception—and we all know that Ken Ham completed the third grade.

If any of you doubt my honesty and integrity, you can read the article for yourself at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0208philly.asp

 

Are you saying that natural selection involves intelligence?

 

Depends on the definition of "slave".

A classic definition is "one whose labor as a resource belongs to someone else or whose product of labor belongs to another." Under this definition, taxation on wages makes one a slave.

 

Certain extremely immoral and unethical individuals would have us believe that the only alternative to intelligent design is random chance and that evolutionists believe and teach that to be the case. However, these most wicked and pernicious individuals who have no respect for the truth or the persons they are attempting to deceive know for a fact that no evolutionist has EVER believed or taught such ridiculous nonsense. I don’t believe that man evolved from another species, but I am certainly not going to resort to the most iniquitous of sins to convince others that I am right and they are wrong.

 

This is inconsistent reasoning on your part UT. When evolutionists make conjectures based on the general status of things, you call that good science and assert that science can never really "know" anything with absolute certainty but only rely on the preponderance of evidence. But here, you want to use the anomaly to disqualify a proof given by creationists.

The advantage in this however goes to us. It is you that needs to prove only one possibility. We can be satisfied with disproving or undermining your position or with proposing an alternative or both. The reason is that we depend on the choices of an almighty Creator. You depend on natural processes which are subject to the laws of probability.

There is a 100% probability when will/intelligence is involved in selection/design. The probabilities for evolutionary processes are not only low in many instances... they are cummulative in nature. Evolution has one highly improbable, speculative event built on another, built on another, built on another,... all the way back to a flawed premise that everything in nature must have a naturalistic cause and explanation.

The glue that holds the TOE together is the assumptions it makes. Read your bias into the evidence and the evidence will naturally support your bias. Overwhelming evidence of this pervasive bias is another reason I reject evolution.

 

Certain extremely immoral and unethical individuals would have us believe that the only alternative to intelligent design is random chance and that evolutionists believe and teach that to be the case. However, these most wicked and pernicious individuals who have no respect for the truth or the persons they are attempting to deceive know for a fact that no evolutionist has EVER believed or taught such ridiculous nonsense.</font>[/QUOTE] I have seen quotes from notable evolutionists that contend exactly what you deny.

In fact, abiogenesis requires reliance on chance as does evolution's cosmology. There are no mechanisms there for natural selection since you are dealing with non-coded events. Natural selection applies to biology but is still somewhat dependent on chance events such as mutation and coincidental environmental favorability.

You may not favor the terms "chance" or "random" but the implications of naturalistic evolution require these elements play significant roles.

Your indictment of these people is hardly warranted especially considering the extreme dishonesty employed by naturalists/atheists/evolutionists when dealing with the ideas of creationists. How is it "honest" to automatically dismiss someone's ideas based on nothing but a philosophical bias?

Intelligence BTW whether OEC, YEC, or some theory sympathetic to evolution like Behe apparently believes is a much more scientific approach to the existence of information than any naturalistic idea.

Bottom line. You have overblown the supposed dishonesty of creationists while ignoring the dishonesty of naturalists.

 

Thanks for your honest answers. They do help; they make me feel more comfortable with your beliefs in an intelligent design and with the literalness of Adam and Eve. Although I have swung more towards a young earth theory, I was probably very close to your theory before and I certainly cannot prove that old earth is not a possibility, especiallly with the use of the wording in Genesis. We can certainly agree to disagree on that issue and still trust Christ.

It is the evolutionist that believes there HAS to be a natural answer for everything--that's where I get off the train.

I have been debating and debating that a variable MUST be included in science if a person believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Almighty and omnipotent God.

To believe that in one's heart would make a person have to at least consider the possibility of a variable added to the creation formula which allows for supernatural occurance to have taken place.

If you believe in this Omnipotent God, and don't at least take the variable into consideration, then I feel it is bad science. That has been my point all along. Do you agree with it?

 

Phillip, a Christian can't believe that there is a natural explanation for everything.
Even a Christian "Evolutionist" believes in miricles.

Pardon the reposting of an much earlier post about theistic evolutionists.
*************

Theistic Evolution’s (T.E.) appeal is its acceptance of modern science and basic principles of evolutionary theory. These main beliefs gave T.E. its initial name, “Concordism”. Theistic evolution is most simply portrayed by a fully wound clock. Accordingly Theistic Evolutionists feel it would be inappropriate for God, who presumably is a consummate designer, to intervene periodically to adjust the clock.

A chief proponent, Howard Van Till, dislikes the term Theistic Evolution and would rather call it a “Fully Gifted Creation” He believes that God created a universe which depends continually upon God but which has been endowed with the ability to accomplish what God wants it to accomplish without any "corrections" or "interventions."

God endowed nature with all the (natural) causal powers it ever needs to accomplish all the things that happen in nature. Van Till writes:
quote:

I would argue that historic Christian thought welcomes the concept of a Creation gifted with all of the form-producing capacities now presumed by the natural sciences. Drawing primarily from the fourth and fifth century works of Basil and Augustine, I find a substantial basis for articulating a 'doctrine of Creation's functional integrity' that envisions a world that was brought into being (and is continuously sustained in being) only by the effective will of God, a world radically dependent upon God for every one of its capacities for creaturely action, a world gifted by God from the outset with all of the form-producing capacities necessary for the actualization of the multitude of physical structures and life forms that have appeared in the course of Creation's formative history, and a world whose formational fecundity can be understood only as a manifestation of the Creator's continuous blessing for fruitfulness. In such a Creation there would be no need for God to perform acts of 'special creation' in time because it has no gaps in its developmental economy that would necessitate bridging by extraordinary divine interventions of the sort most often postulated by Special Creationism. “Basil, Augustine, and the Doctrine of Creation’s Functional Integrity”, From Science & Christian Belief 8, No. 1 (1996): 21-38.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/S&CB4-96VanTill.html

My initial response to reading Van Till’s proposal was to propose a new moniker, Gifted Universe, Self Sufficient, (GUeSS). How could an unprejudiced outside observer know the difference between a Gifted or Guided creation and one that occurred as the atheistic evolutionists propose? But this is actually T.E.’s strength: where creationists see weakness in the Grand Evolutionary Theory, Theistic evolutionists see God’s creative hand. And Van Till’s “Fully Gifted Creation” does not necessarily prevent supernatural miracles from taking place, just an economy of miracles.

The theory of Theistic Evolution magnifies God’s immanence and providential wisdom (foresight).

From “Theistic Evolution Revisited” originally posted in the Creation Evolution archived forum in the BB basement.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/36/179.html?

Rob

 

Automatically dismissing absolute nonsense, lies, and deception is not being dishonest. Furthermore, dishonesty and deception are the routine tactics of modern-day creationists, and many examples of this have been posted on this message board. However, I have yet to see so much as one example of a modern-day evolutionist employing the tactics of dishonesty and deception. And shuffling the word “atheists” in between “naturalists” and “evolutionists” is about as far as one can escape from Christian ethics .

 

You just demonstrated the dishonest, knee-jerk bias I was referring to.

No it isn't. You and others here superimpose God on a system that is characteristically atheistic by your own testimony. The theory is designed to completely ignore God while explaining nature... that is atheistic.

"a" without "theos" God

The truth is that evolution has as its objective the explanation of everything that materially exists without reference to or reliance on anything immaterial.