Christian Forums and Message Board

General Discussion => General Discussion Forum => Topic started by: RB on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:37:57

Title: Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?
Post by: RB on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:37:57
A WiseMan saying.....
Quote
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 15:49:41
A WiseMan saying.....
Quote
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.
And if buildings were living beings, they would probably have eaten the woodpeckers. But alas....
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Victor08 on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 16:17:16
https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871 (https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871)
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016

Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being

03 | Bible Creation

The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 17:20:26
https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871 (https://www.thoughtco.com/ancient-creation-myths-117871)
by N.S. Gill
Updated August 30, 2016

Ancient Creation Myths
Stories of Coming Into Being

03 | Bible Creation

The first book of the Old Testament is the Book of Genesis. In it is an account of the creation of the world by God in 6 days. God created, in pairs, first the heaven and the earth, then day and night, land and sea, flora and fauna, and male and female. Man was created in the image of God and Eve was formed from one of Adam's ribs (or man and woman were created together). On the seventh day, God rested. Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden.

Looks like they missed

Modern Evolution Myth
Stories of Coming Into Being

Fallen humanity gropes around within the box of their microscopic planet, occupying an even smaller spec of time in eternity, and presumes to figure out their origins through evolutionary progressive mutation. Creating and redefining evidence as their theory evolves according to the dictates of their misguided efforts to uphold the same against all incriminating evidence, or serious lack of supporting evidence.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 17:25:12
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?    While some Christians suppose that the "yom" of Genesis mean literal days, the word can mean a host of other things, such as "in that time", "forever", and "always."

If what we observe in nature seems to conflict with what God says, we have misunderstood one or both of them.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 20:56:15
Why would it be offensive to any Christian, if God created the diversity of living thing though evolution?

Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 15, 2017 - 22:01:14
Quote
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.

Not everything in creationism twists to shed doubt on God's word.   There are some forms of creationism that are consistent with God's word.    And most creationists are as sincere and devout in their love of God as any other Christian.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 03:48:54
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
Amen my brother~From the beginning the Biblical record has been very clear that God creating the worlds, and He set the time keepers in motion in the heavens to implement its days. But lately, the real nature of the origin of the universe has been the subject of much discussion and debate by professing Christians. The sad fact is, there are many professing Christians who have swallowed the theory (and it's ONLY a theory) of evolution hook, line and sinker. And more than a few doubting Theologians have consequently attempted to incorporate man's humanistic reasoning and rationalizations into Christianity~ (I heard Jimmy Swaggart recently do this with his Gap theory in Genesis one~he did struggle in trying to present it) Some with their modern day theories of Theistic Evolution, they preach subjections like, "God created the world through evolution." But when considered carefully, Theistic Evolution is a contradiction in terms. Because it effectively makes all of God's word untrustworthy and suspect. For if one part of it is subject to manipulation and private opinion, then all of it is subject to this form of interpretation. We reject anyone's teaching that makes God's word untrustworthy and suspect. Unfortunately, what we have in this instance is an attempt by those who have their faith in the words of men, to try and have the best of both worlds. In other words, they want to profess some belief in God, and yet they want to also hold to what man has declared was the creation process. Mixing hot with cold, they have come up with a lukewarm solution that may be palatable for them, but is decidedly unpalatable to God. The fact is, you cannot serve two masters. The number one rule of sound hermeneutics is that when man's word blatantly contradicts God's word, then God's word must be the final arbiter of truth. And that rule stands no matter how cleverly the contradictions are cloaked or disguised. Indeed, how could there be the evolution of species when scripture tells us very clearly that the world, and all that was therein, was "created" in six days? And yes, I'm well aware of the half baked theories by compromising Theologians that the six days of creation weren't literal days, but these theories (like the men who cook them up), are in direct contradiction to all that the word of God plainly declares. And not contradicting something that God said implicitly, but contradicting what God has said explicitly and in very plain rational grammatical context. This attempt by some to justify the days of scripture to be understood outside of what is the common use of language in the Bible completely ignores the additional facts and qualifications that God has given. For the Bible not only says that the heavens and earth and everything therein was created in six days, He says that the seventh day makes up the Sabbath week. Indeed, this is where man's seven day week has come from. Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding. From what God has inspired written, we would have to be deliberately trying "not" to receive the very plain language, in order to understand it as anything but six literal days. So I must wonder about people trying to mix biblical Christianity with evolution, it's like trying to mix grace with works, they are opposite in their meaning.
Quote
Everything that Satan twists to shed doubt on Gods Word should be offensive to every Christian.
And IT IS, but much more so to God who has given to us his very own testimony concerning these things, which every believer receives by faith, without trying to appease the skeptics and  men who "think" they are wise above the scriptures!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 08:18:10
Nothing in evolution denies God's word.   How could it?   He made evolution.    Nor does anything in evolutionary theory say anything contrary to God's word.   

Quote
Moreover, God makes sure that He also further defines these days as the length between night and daylight, that there can be no rational misunderstanding.

The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged.   This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.

However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it.    Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other.   That does not serve God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 15:36:42

The notion of mornings and evenings without a Sun to have them, makes it clear that the "Yom" of Genesis cannot be literal 24 hour days, as even ancient Christians acknowledged.   This is not something evolutionary theory proposed; it's something Christians knew long before evolution was apparent.
It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.
Quote
However, it does not determine your salvation, so you can have whatever opinion you want on the subject, so long as you accept that God did it.    Let us not set a wedge to separate His people from each other.   That does not serve God.
AMEN to that.  And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 16, 2017 - 17:01:32
I don't care to say who starts these things.   I only wish they would stop. 

(Edit)

By that, I don't mean that it's wrong to discuss the issue.   Iron sharpens iron.    What I mean is that it's wrong to suggest that those who have a different opinion than we do, are somehow "calling God a liar", or are not real Christians.    Christians have all sorts of opinions on the way He created living things in their diversity, and none of those opinions separate any of us from God.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Lady Daffodil on Mon Apr 17, 2017 - 11:59:45
A WiseMan saying.....
Quote
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."
Evolution versus the Biblical account of creation. I will give some thoughts daily for the believer's mediations concerning God's marvelous creation and how detail everything is in perfect harmony.

[/Wow, I LOVE that quote!!!!  ::clappingoverhead::font]
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Apr 17, 2017 - 12:25:42
Quote
"If builders constructed buildings the same way that evolutionists construct the theory of evolution, then civilization would have been destroyed by the first woodpecker that came along."

I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all.

Let God be God, and have it His way.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 04:18:14
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Quote
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."
To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.
Quote
Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!

By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God. Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution, this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes, by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 04:56:42
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Now, I'd asked this question:

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Answer: Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 06:40:13
Quote
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

It is an observed fact.   There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

Quote
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

Quote
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

Quote
I am a Christian

So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Quote
and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Quote
Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 08:41:33
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-observable-fact/ (http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-observable-fact/)


Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *
 
Evidence for Creation


“Evolution is fact!” is one of the most popular evolutionary assertions made by evolutionists, ranging from those at the National Center for Science Education to those working for PBS.1, 2 Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.

Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species. He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.” Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God. Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim? By assuming that all change is evolutionary change. Why is this assumption wrong? Because the Bible permits biological change to a certain degree and, therefore, not all change is evolutionary change.

Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.3

Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

We can now revisit the evolutionary claim with which we began this article and evaluate it without making the erroneous evolutionary assumption that all change is evolutionary change. Using biblically appropriate language, we can interrogate the claim that evolution is fact with two questions. Do we observe change within a kind? Yes. Breeding experiments are the premier example of this. Do we ever observe one kind (i.e., one family) of species change into another kind (or family)? No. Every example of biological change that has ever been observed in real time has been change within a kind.

Even the classic textbook examples of evolution—changes in the size and shape of the beaks of Darwin’s finches, E. coli developing resistance to antibiotics, and HIV developing resistance to the immune system—all demonstrate change within a kind and never change from one kind into another. Evolution, as Darwin conceived it, has never been observed.

The evidence for the biblical model is so strong that even the world’s most famous living evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, must concede this point. “We can’t see evolution happening because we don’t live long enough,” he said in a 2009 interview.4 In other words, evolution is unobservable.

Wow. Not only is the “Evolution is fact!” claim false, but the complete opposite is true. Furthermore, since evolution is not observable, evolution isn’t even science! Yet, somehow in spite of this, Dawkins still concludes, “Evolution is a fact.”4 In light of what we’ve just discussed and what he himself admitted, we know he reached his conclusion in spite of the evidence—not because of it.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 09:47:22
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=674 (http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=674)


Someone might object, however, that the quotations I have employed (from evolutionists such as Dobzhansky, Clark, and others) to document the nonverifiability of evolution were written during the 1950s and 1960s. Much scientific research on evolution has occurred in the decades that followed, and thus it might be considered unfair to rely on such “dated” critiques of a concept like evolution that changes so rapidly and that has been studied so intently.

My response to such an objection would be to point out that I used the quotations from the 1950s and 1960s intentionally, in order to document that the situation over the past four decades has not improved. By the 1970s, for example, little had changed. At the height of his professional career, Pierre-Paul Grassé was considered by many to be France’s greatest living zoologist. In fact, Dobzhansky wrote of him: “Now one can disagree with Grassé, but not ignore him. He is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of Traité de Zoologie, author of numerous original investigations, and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic” (1975, 29:376). In 1977, Grassé wrote in The Evolution of Living Organisms:


Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs.

Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved (pp. 8,202, emp. added).

Three years later, in 1980, British physicist H.S. Lipson produced a thought-provoking piece in the May issue of Physics Bulletin, a refereed science journal. In his article, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Dr. Lipson commented first on his interest in life’s origin and, second, on his non-association with creationists. He then noted: “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit with it.” Dr. Lipson went on to ask how well evolution has withstood the years of scientific testing, and suggested that “to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.”

After reviewing many of the problems (especially from thermodynamics) involved in producing something living from something nonliving, he asked: “If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?” After dismissing any sort of “directed evolution,” Lipson concluded: “I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.” Like other evolutionists who have voiced similar views, Dr. Lipson hardly is ecstatic about his conclusion—a fact he made clear when he wrote: “I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it” (31:138, emp. in orig.).

Just a little over a year later, on November 5, 1981, the late Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:


One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

Colin Patterson was not the only one expressing such views, however. Over the past two decades, distinguished British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle has stressed the serious problems—once again, especially from the fields of thermodynamics—with various theories about the naturalistic origin of life on the Earth. The same year that Dr. Patterson traveled to America to speak, Dr. Hoyle wrote:


I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so, the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of biblical miracles.... It is quite otherwise, however, with the modern miracle workers, who are always to be found living in the twilight fringes of thermodynamics (1981a, 92:526, parenthetical comment in orig.).

In fact, Dr. Hoyle has described the evolutionary concept that disorder gives rise to order in a rather picturesque manner.


The chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein (1981b, 294:105).

And, in order to make his position perfectly clear, he provided his readers with the following analogy:


At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe (who is a professor of astronomy and applied mathematics at the University College, Cardiff, Wales) went even further. Using probability figures applied to cosmic time (not just geologic time here on the Earth), their conclusion was:


Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate.... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences...even to the extreme idealized limit of God (1981, pp. 141,144, emp. in orig.).

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe suggested, however, that this “higher intelligence” did not necessarily have to be, as far as they were concerned, what most people would call “God,” but simply a being with an intelligence “to the limit of God.” They, personally, opted for “directed panspermia,” a view which suggests that life was “planted” on the Earth via genetic material that originated from a “higher intelligence” somewhere in the Universe. But just one year later, in 1982, Dr. Hoyle wrote:


A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question (20:16, emp. added).

Three years after that, in 1985, molecular biologist Michael Denton authored Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which he stated:


In this book, I have adopted the radical approach. By presenting a systematic critique of the current Darwinian model, ranging from paleontology to molecular biology, I have tried to show why I believe that the problems are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework, and that consequently the conservative view is no longer tenable.

The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless.

The anti-evolutionary thesis argued in this book, the idea that life might be fundamentally a discontinuous phenomenon, runs counter to the whole thrust of modern biological thought.... Put simply, no one has ever observed the interconnecting continuum of functional forms linking all known past and present species of life. The concept of the continuity of nature has existed in the mind of man, never in the facts of nature (pp. 16,327,353, emp. in orig.).

In 1987, two years after Denton’s book was published, Swedish biologist Søren Løvtrup wrote in an even stronger vein:


After this step-wise elimination, only one possibility remains: the Darwinian theory of natural selection, whether or not coupled with Mendelism, is false. I have already shown that the arguments advanced by the early champions were not very compelling, and that there are now considerable numbers of empirical facts which do not fit with the theory. Hence, to all intents and purposes the theory has been falsified, so why has it not been abandoned? I think the answer is that current evolutionists follow Darwin’s example—they refuse to accept falsifying evidence (p. 352, emp. added).

In his 1988 book, The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability to Order the Universe, Australian physicist Paul Davies wrote: “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming” (p. 203, emp. added). That same year, evolutionary physicist George Greenstein wrote:


As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? (1988, p. 27).

In 1992, Arno Penzias (who fourteen years earlier had shared the 1978 Nobel Prize in physics with Robert W. Wilson for their discovery of the so-called “background radiation” left over from the Big Bang) declared:


Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan [p. 83, parenthetical comment in orig.].

In his 1994 book, The Physics of Immortality, Frank Tipler (who coauthored with John D. Barrow the massive 1986 volume, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle) wrote:


When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics (Preface).

One year later, NASA astronomer John O’Keefe admitted:


We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.... If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in (1995, p. 200).

Then, in 1998, evolutionist Michael Denton shocked everyone with his new book, Nature’s Destiny, when he admitted:


Because this book presents a teleological interpretation of the cosmos which has obvious theological implications, it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science—that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes....

Although this is obviously a book with many theological implications, my initial intention was not specifically to develop an argument for design; however, as I researched more deeply into the topic and as the manuscript went through successive drafts, it became increasingly clear that the laws of nature were fine-tuned on earth to a remarkable degree and that the emerging picture provided powerful and self-evident support for the traditional anthropocentric teleological view of the cosmos. Thus, by the time the final draft was finished, the book had become in effect an essay in natural theology in the spirit and tradition of William Paley’s Natural Theology (pp. xvii-xviii,xi-xii, emp. in orig.).

Such quotations could be multiplied almost endlessly. Even a cursory examination shows that there is much more that is “unknown” than “known” in the evolutionary scenario.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 17:11:19
Quote
Is Evolution an Observable Fact?

Yep.  Even speciation has been directly observes.   Most creationists admit the evolution of new species.   Many even acknowledge the evolution of higher taxa.

Quote
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D. *

Nathaniel has argued that there are no transitional fossils.   Even honest creationists freely admit that there are many of them.   Would you like me to show you?   Now Doctor Jeanson is a cell biologist, and was apparently shocked when paleontologists showed him numerous examples of such transitionals.   But later, he went right back to claiming otherwise.   So that's extremely damaging to his credibility.

Quote
Proponents of Charles Darwin want you to believe that his hypothesis is being confirmed right before our eyes.

Undergraduates demonstrate it every year.   Let's look at that claim.   Show me which of Darwin's five points have not been demonstrated to happen in nature.

Quote
Darwin’s ideas directly contradict the scriptural teaching on the origin of species.

Scripture does not say how God produced the variety of life we see.   It merely says the earth brought forth life.

Quote
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species (universal common ancestry). This concept contradicts Genesis 1, which teaches that God created different creatures “after their kind.”

If God had said how He did it, then you might have a point.  But of course, He didn't.

Quote
Darwin also claimed that each species’ original ancestors arose by natural selection, not by a direct act of God.

God says He created the Earth, and then the Earth brought forth life.   Why should it bother anyone that He used nature to produce life?

Quote
Finally, Darwin’s timescale for the origin of species—millions of years—is irreconcilable with the time of creation, which occurred about 6,000 years ago.

That is a modern belief, not consistent with scripture.   In fact, until the Seventh-Day Adventists invented YE creationism, most creationists were old Earth creationists.  It was, for example, the form of creationism presented at the Scopes trial.

Quote
So how do evolutionists get away with making this claim?

Direct observation.   

Quote
By assuming that all change is evolutionary change.

No, you've been misled about that.   It's why Darwinism was confirmed, and Lamarckism was refuted.

 
Quote
Specifically, the Flood account of Genesis 6-8 demonstrates that limited biological change can occur and has already occurred. When God commanded Noah to bring the land-dwelling, air-breathing “kinds” on board the Ark, He required that “male and female” of each kind be taken. This implies that reproductive compatibility identifies membership within a kind. Breeding experiments identify the classification rank of family (kingdom-phylum-class-order-family-genus-species) as roughly defining the boundaries of each kind.

No.  That's a misunderstanding.   For example, the Institute for Creation Research endorses the work of John Woodmorappe, who argues that "kind" is at the level of family.   But other creationists have other ideas.    Which taxon do you think defines "kind", and what is your evidence for that?

Quote
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae,

So it's family?   But then that would mean humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans are the same "kind."   You sure that's right?
     
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Victor08 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 18:09:23
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?

http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html (http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html)

A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander’s Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat

B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon’s Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose

C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet

D
Dhole
Diardi’s Clouded Leopard
Dingo

E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat

F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa

G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy’s Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier’s Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf

H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk

I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose

J
Jackson’s Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat

K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod

L
Least Weasel
Leighton’s Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel

M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller’s Mongoose
Mountain Coati

N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon

O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla

P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas’ Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues’s Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon

R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat

S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous’s Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger

T
Tayra
Tiger

W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine

Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 18:35:15
So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?


You should know Victor, carnivores didn't exist prior to the flood, T-Rex's ate leaves  ::smile:: 


Never really heard a good explanation as to how parasites survived though  ::pondering:: [size=78%] [/size]
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Victor08 on Fri Apr 21, 2017 - 21:35:58
Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.

https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.

Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.

These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.

How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: tooldtocare on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 03:24:23
I'm still here (:-
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 04:52:42
Where did Noah keep his bees? In the ark hives.
Are you mocking God Victor? What difference does it make how and where each animal that came unto Noah lived? If I were you, I would not be overly concerned about what is not revealed to us, but WHAT IS! There were bees for sure that went unto Noah under God's guidance, JUST AS ALL ANIMALS came unto Adam so he could name them. John Calvin wrote:
Quote
Moses now explains,—what had before been doubtful,—in which manner the animals were gathered together into the ark, and says that they came of their own accord. If this should seem to any one absurd, let him recall to mind what was said before, that in the beginning every kind of animals presented themselves to Adam, that he might give them names. And, truly, we dread the sight of wild beasts from no other cause than this, that seeing we have shaken off the yoke of God, we have lost that authority over them with which Adam was endued. Now, it was a kind of restoration of the former state of things when God brought to Noah those animals which he intended should be preserved through Noah's labor and service. For Noah retained the untamed animals in his ark, in the very same way in which hens and geese are preserved in a coop. And it is not superfluously added, that the animals themselves came, as God had instructed Noah; for it shows that the blessing of God rested on the obedience of Noah, so that his labor should not be in vain. It was impossible, humanly speaking, that in a moment such an assemblage of all animals should take place; but because Noah, simply trusting the event with God, executed what was enjoined upon him; God, in return, gave power to his own precept, that it might not be without effect. Properly speaking, this was a promise of God annexed to his commands. And, therefore, we must conclude, that the faith of Noah availed more, than all snares and nets, for the capture of animals; and that, by the very same gate, lions, and wolves, and tigers, meekly entered, with oxen, and with lambs, into the ark. And this is the only method by which we may overcome all difficulties;
And also to believe that God brought to him the best of the best,~ faith believes this, why should we believe anything less than this? So, concerning your article.
Quote
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark........Parasites and diseases.
I will only say this, for the article does not deserve more than what I'm going to say. With God nothing is imposssible~which animals God CAUSED to go unto Noah, you can believe that they were FREE OF DISEASES~God's does often work totally against what seemly is an impossibility to make it work for his own glory and honor. The list is LONG in the scriptures~Consider:
Quote
Daniel 1:5-16~"And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse."
ALL LAWS of nature would tell us that ANY KING'S daily provision would be a FAR superior diet to make one's skin fairer, hair and their health overall superior to those who were given pulse and water~and NO ONE would ever believe a poor man's diet of pulse and water one would GAIN weight and one's countenances much fairer than those who had a king's daily provision, the best money could buy...now would they?
Quote
These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood.
Sir, the ONLY unfortunate souls where those deluded souls OUTSIDE of the ark, and those who believe such nonsense, to even think that such SMALL THINGS God did not have PERFECT control of ALL ANIMALS that he sent to Noah to receive into the ark! It is so amazing that every deluded evolutionist looks for holes in our FORTRESS OF FAITH....but there are none to be found!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 09:28:05
Since Noah brought only two of each kind instead of two of each species, we know that many new species have arisen since the Flood. For example, Noah likely had two members of the family Equidae, and from this pair we have the species (horses, donkeys, zebras) and breeds (pony to Clydesdale) of equids observed today. Big biological changes within created kinds are perfectly compatible with Scripture.

Conversely, the Flood account makes it clear that changes from one kind into another are naturally impossible. Again, God commanded Noah to bring two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing kind to preserve the offspring of each kind. If organisms in one kind could be changed into another kind, this command would be superfluous. Hence, biological change on the scale that Darwin proposed is biblically unimaginable.

So, were all these carnivorous animals on the Ark and what did they eat after they disembarked?

[url]http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html[/url] ([url]http://www.animals.realisticcoloringpages.com/2015/10/list-of-carnivorous-animals.html[/url])

A
Aardwolf
Abyssinian Genet
African Golden Cat
African Palm Civet
African Wild Dog
Alexander’s Cusimanse
Altai Weasel
Amazon Weasel
American Black Bear
American Mink
Andean Bear
Andean Cat
Angolan Mongoose
Aquatic Genet
Arctic Fox
Asiatic Black Bear
Asiatic Golden Cat

B
Banded Linsang
Banded Mongoose
Bay Cat
Binturong
Black-Backed Jackal
Black-Footed Cat
Black-Legged Mongoose
Bobcat
Bornean Ferret Badger
Bourlon’s Genet
Broad-Striped Vontsira
Brown Bear
Brown Hyena
Brown Mongoose
Brown Palm Civet
Brown-Tailed Vontsira
Bush Dog
Bushy-Tailed Mongoose

C
Cacomistle
Canada Lynx
Cape Grey Mongoose
Caracal
Central African Oyan
Cheetah
Chinese Mountain Cat
Clouded Leopard
Collared Mongoose
Colombian Weasel
Common Cusimanse
Common Dwarf Mongoose
Common Slender Mongoose
Corsac Fox
Cougar
Coyote
Crab-Eating Mongoose
Crested Genet

D
Dhole
Diardi’s Clouded Leopard
Dingo

E
Egyptian Mongoose
Ethiopian Wolf
Eurasian Lynx
European Mink
European Polecat

F
Falanouc
Fanaloka
Fishing Cat
Flat-Headed Cat
Flat-Headed Cusimanse
Fosa

G
Gambian Mongoose
Geoffroy’s Cat
Giant Genet
Giant Otter
Giant Panda
Golden Jackal
Golden Palm Civet
Grandidier’s Vontsira
Greater Grison
Greywolf

H
Hausa Genet
Hooded Skunk

I
Iberian Lynx
Indian Fox
Indian Grey Mongoose

J
Jackson’s Mongoose
Jaguar
Jaguarundi
Javan Ferret Badger
Jungle Cat

K
Kaokoveld Slender Mongoose
King Genet
Kinkajou
Kit Fox
Kodkod

L
Least Weasel
Leighton’s Oyan
Leopard
Lesser Grison
Liberian Mongoose
Lion
Long-Nosed Mongoose
Long-Tailed Weasel

M
Maned Wolf
Marbled Cat
Marbled Polecat
Margay
Marine Otter
Marsh Mongoose
Masked Palm Civet
Meerkat
Meller’s Mongoose
Mountain Coati

N
Narrow-Striped Boky
Neotropical Otter
Nilgiri Marten
Northern Raccoon

O
Ocelot
Olingos
Oncilla

P
Palawan Stink Badger
Pallas’ Cat
Pampas Cat
Pardine Genet
Patagonian Weasel
Polar Bear
Pousargues’s Mongoose
Pygmy Raccoon

R
Red Fox
Red Panda
Red Wolf
Ring-Tailed Vontsira
Ringtail
Ruddy Mongoose
Rusty-Cat

S
Sand Cat
Sea Otter
Selous’s Mongoose
Servaline Genet
Short-Tailed Mongoose
Siberian Weasel
Side-Striped Jackal
Sloth Bear
Small Asian Mongoose
Small Indian Mongoose
Snow Leopard
Somali Dwarf Mongoose
Somali Slender Mongoose
South American Coati
Souther Spotted Skunk
Southern River Otter
Spotted Hyena
Spotted Linsang
Steppe Polecat
Stoat
Stone Marten
Striped Hyena
Striped Weasel
Striped-Necked Mongoose
Sulawesi Palm Civet
Sumatran Hog Badger
Sun Bear
Sunda Stink Badger

T
Tayra
Tiger

W
White-Nosed Coati
White-Tailed Mongoose
Wildcat
Wolverine

Y
Yellow Mongoose
Yellow-Throated Martin


Those details are not provided by scripture. If such extensive details were provided in scripture concerning all that is addressed by them, one would spend an entire life just trying to finish reading the Bible. Your questions reveal the real nature of your problem with the Bible, your lack of faith in God's word and therefore God Himself. Instead of easily identifying simple answers to your created or warmly welcomed dilemmas according to true faith in scriptures, you opt to cast doubt upon the accuracy of the word of God. You beleive yourself and other antagonists, to be of to superior intellect to accept that there is a being who could easily solve what would appear to be problems from your fallen human perspective. This you do, even though you believe humans are just more highly evolved apes without hair, rather than creatures created in the image of God, as the scriptures plainly testify.

Your presumed insurmountable obstacles are no problem whatsoever for God, or the mentally, physically, and intellectually superior human beings that existed before the flood. Your lack of faith in God's word has you seeing everything backwards. It causes you to doubt God's abilities, and view humanity as less capable and intelligent as apes the further back towards creation one goes, instead of 
more intelligent and capable as beings closer to the image of God nearer creation as scripture testifies. Thinking yourself wise, you have become a fool, placing the intellect and powers of observation of fallen humanity above the word of God. You worship the created, in place of the Creator.

The building and preparation of the ark was a huge undertaking which spanned 120 years. The builders were mentally, physically, and intellectually superior to humanity of today, not inferior ape like creatures. They lived up to nine hundred years, enabling the same people to start and finish the job with no interruption or need to change hands. They were directed by God Himself, and we do not know all the details regarding the same, He may have been more involved than we know from the short account recorded. Apart from this of course, God had, has, and will always continue to have complete control over all aspects of His creations. He is in control of nature, not the other way around. Nor is He in any way shape or form limited by it as we are. He brought the animals of His own choosing to the ark, and if He so desired all carnivores would have eaten straw during the deluge, and done just fine in doing so. Nevertheless, we do not know those details. Your lack of faith, causes your own short sightedness and inability to see outside of the box of fallen human limitations you impose upon yourself and others. You are a scoffer, who pretends to worship the same God of scripture that I and others do, while continually exalting the doubts and or supposed superior intellect of fallen humanity above the written word of God.

Jn 14:5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Mt 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded
;

Is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior? Is He "the way, the truth, and the Life, or not? Why do you reject the testimony of the Father and the Son, in favor of the testimony of fallen humanity? Is it not because of your lack of faith?

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

You are specifically addressed in scripture as one who lacks the faith necessary to please God. You may profess whatever you wish, but you fool yourself if you think you may exalt the observations of fallen and deprived humanity above the word of God, and still retain God's favor. God's favor toward humanity has been revealed in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. How long that favor will last is now in our hands, concerning how we will handle the word of God in relation to Him, and our fallen brothers and sisters. We will choose God's word and worship Him in doing so, or we will choose our own words and worship ourselves in doing so. This is where it all started. God said one thing, Satan said another. Fallen humanity chose to believe what Satan said above what God said, and here we are. Choose you this day whom you will serve.






 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 09:29:35
Where did Noah keep his bees?
In the ark hives.

https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark
HomeCreation/Evolution JournalIssue 11 (Winter 1983)The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
.
.
.
Parasites and diseases.

Some important complications arise with that extensive group of organisms known as parasites. Hundreds of thousands of species are known, and a very large proportion of them are host specific and must spend all or part of their lives within the host animal. Therefore the single pair of animals from each species had to carry aboard the ark the parasites that were adapted to living within or upon them. Although many of these are harmless freeloaders, others are pathogenic and often fatal to their host. Yet the fact that such organisms exist today demonstrates that they survived the flood, and the fact that they must inhabit their host shows how they survived.
The example of Homo sapiens will show the seriousness of the problem. Humans are sanctuary to over one hundred parasites, and many are host specific. Although the four species of human malarial parasites undergo sexual development in mosquitos, they must undergo further development in humans. Hence, a member of Noah's family must have had malaria at some point in his life and must have remained infected after the flood until the earth became sufficiently repopulated that the parasite passed to others. In similar manners, the vectors of many other parasitic infections are also specific to humans, such as the tapeworms Taenia saginata and T. solium, the intestinal worm Ascaris lumbricoides, the hookworm Leishmania tropia, the pinworm Enterobius vermicularis, three agents of filariasis, two species of Schistosoma, three species of lice, and many dozens more (Jones). Also, of course, the five types of venereal disease bacteria cannot survive outside their human abode.

These eight unfortunate souls were afflicted with enough diseases and discomforts to support a hospital—all as their part in "preserving life" through the great flood. And nearly every other animal on board—from Shem's lice to the right whales—had parasites of their own to cope with. What remarkable creatures they must have been; in order to ensure their survival they ha, d to be the strongest, healthiest, most fertile pair possible, while at the same time they had to carry a full set of debilitating parasites so as to guarante, , e their survival.

How was Noah assured that the proper complement of viable tapeworms was present in each rodent and each lizard waiting to come aboard? How could he confirm the presence of microscopic fauna in their tiny stalls? If a prospective passenger was lacking an essential flea, what could be done? Was there opportunity to correct any errors?

More of the same lack of faith and short sightedness of God according to the same.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 10:42:53
Quote
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact. A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts. To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Evolution may be to you an observed fact, and perhaps you are convinced by some theory that tries to explain it. But that really does not make it a reality.
 
Quote
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are. And besides, better theories remain to be theories which, by such statement suggest theories to have a never ending replacement by a better one.   

Quote
Now, I'd asked this question:
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.
 
Quote
I am a Christian

So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Perhaps. But that neither make evolution a reality. I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Quote
and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Nothing like that. God created man, and that in His image, and all living things and creatures according to their kind, not some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into all sorts of living things and creatures, and even into man who evolved to be in His image, and that even perhaps, by chance.   

Quote
Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Answer: Jesus Christ.
Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

I don't quite see what you are saying here.

Anyway, don't you agree with my answer?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: notreligus on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 13:14:13
"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 13:59:23
"Christian Evolutionists" say that man evolved and Jesus was created.   


Never heard that before.  ???
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 17:34:02
Quote
Never heard that before.  ???

Because it's completely false.    Astonishing that anyone would even suggest that is what Christians think, evolutionists or not. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 22, 2017 - 17:51:24
Quote
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

Quote
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.

I just showed you the difference.   Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts.   There are theories that explain them.

Quote
A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Almost.   A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena.   Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories. 


Quote
To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Which is why so many people get confused about it.  "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.

Quote
Evolution may be to you an observed fact,

It's been repeatedly observed.   Can't get more real than that.

 
Quote
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Barbarian responds:
Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

Quote
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.

Yep.  You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc.    Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game.   That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.

Quote
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

Quote
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.

Bingo.
 
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian.   So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Quote
But that neither make evolution a reality.

God made it a reality.  We're just learning about it.

Quote
I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too?   Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?

Quote
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS

Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.   If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.

 Barbarian observes:
 Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Quote
Now, some evolutionist may say:    What is your proof of God?

Barbarian chuckles:         
Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

Quote
I don't quite see what you are saying here.

I know.  It's why you keep going in circles.   Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.   

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 23, 2017 - 07:21:41
Quote
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

Barbarian observes:
It is an observed fact. There is a theory that explains it, just as Newton's theory of gravitation explains the fact of gravity.

Quote
A theory, be it in the scientific sense or not, is different from a fact.

I just showed you the difference.   Physical phenomena, like evolution and gravity, are facts.   There are theories that explain them.

Quote
A fact in the most basic scientific sense, is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

Almost.   A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomena.   Hypotheses, when they have been repeatedly verified by facts, are then considered to be theories. 


Quote
To the public, theory means an opinion or conjecture, and fact means reality.

Which is why so many people get confused about it.  "Theory" is as solid as it gets in science.

Quote
Evolution may be to you an observed fact,

It's been repeatedly observed.   Can't get more real than that.

 
Quote
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Barbarian responds:
Maybe not.   In science, theories are the highest level of confidence.   But if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory.

Quote
By saying "if a better theory came along, that explained observed evolution better than the current one, then it would be replaced by the new theory" just tells me what level of confidence scientific theories are.

Yep.  You put your life on the line for them daily, if you drive, go into skyscrapers, take medicine, etc.    Since science works by induction, we have to figure out the rules by watching the game.   That might seem wrong to you, but as you should know, nothing man can do does a better job of helping us get along in the world.

Quote
Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

Barbarian explains:
Science is inductive, and therefore cannot even comment on the supernatural.  So it's misguided to attempt to make God the subject of scientific inquiry.   And since it's a sin to test God, I'd be very reluctant to try, even if it was possible.

Quote
If that is so, then we can't expect science to say anything then about God.

Bingo.
 
Barbarian observes:
I am a Christian.   So are many, many scientists who accept the fact of evolution, which is consistent with His word.

Quote
But that neither make evolution a reality.

God made it a reality.  We're just learning about it.

Quote
I'm curious to know, if you know, how these Christian scientists have the evolution of life and of man consistent with God's words when, he believe:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCODING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

If you're willing to go with us that far, why not just trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it, too?   Why does it bother you so much that God uses nature to produce living things?

Quote
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS

Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.   If you can trust Jesus, there is no other possible meaning.

 Barbarian observes:
 Someone has merely convinced you that they are opposites.   In fact, they can't be.   God is the creator.   Evolution is therefore His creation.

Quote
Now, some evolutionist may say:    What is your proof of God?

Barbarian chuckles:         
Not unless he's really dumb.   God is not accessible to science.   Fortunately, He is accessible to scientists.

Quote
I don't quite see what you are saying here.

I know.  It's why you keep going in circles.   Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man? 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 23, 2017 - 08:47:20
Quote
Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.

Of course.   How could His creation be inconsistent with His word?   I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.

Quote
1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Quote
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;


Yes.  But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body.   So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance.   God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.

Quote
You said that God uses nature to produce living things.

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Quote
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.

No.   Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.   How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

 
Quote
Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.

No.   The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.   

Quote
Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

Quote
Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

Why would that bother you?   If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God?     I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.

Quote
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.

If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.

Quote
Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Quote
Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

See above.   He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Quote
You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Quote
You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Quote
That is supernatural, right?

Of course.   God does most things in this world by natural means.   It's why He made nature.   But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.

Quote
This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?

You're catching on.

Quote
If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.  Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 23, 2017 - 13:24:37
I posted:

Quote
Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words. That evolution don't contradict God's Words as follows:

1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have DOMINION OVER the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

You said that God uses nature to produce living things. Scriptures does not say that. It is you who say that. Haven't you just read what Scriptures say with regards as to how God created the living things, in the verses I cited above? God created ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And after creating the living things, what does scripture say? Scriptures says "God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD".

Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution. Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man. Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam? Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

And this is what you say is consistent with God's words?

Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body. So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits. Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution. If not, how? Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation? You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done. That is supernatural, right? This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right? If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Your response:

Quote
Let us focus on this matter:

I understand that it is your position that the evolution of life and man is consistent with God's Words.

Of course.   How could His creation be inconsistent with His word?   I think you meant "evolutionary theory", not evolution itself.

Quote
1.  God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD

2. God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Quote
3. God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS;


Yes.  But as Jesus says, God is a spirit and a spirit has no body.   So it's in our spirit and mind that we are like God, not in our appearance.   God does not have a body, unless He should assume one to show us something.

Quote
You said that God uses nature to produce living things.

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Quote
Now, you said that God created evolution. And basically you are saying that God created all life on earth, including man, by evolution.

No.   Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.   How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

 
Quote
Now, let's take man. According to the wisdom of man in what he calls science, man is created, coming from some living organism that evolved within millions or billions of years into the present man.

No.   The evidence shows it happened in a few million years from another hominin.   

Quote
Is this present form of man, the final form of man that God was said to have created in Genesis, the Adam?

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

Quote
Unless, the scientific mind will say when evolution stops, evolution will continue as it is a continuing process of change, I understand.

Why would that bother you?   If we've evolved since populations like Neandertals, what would that mean as far as our relationship to God?     I think this is more of a problem for man, and his prideful nature, than anything else.

Quote
Now, in relation to scripture saying that man was created by God in His own image, you explain this away by reasoning that Jesus says that God is a spirit and that a spirit has no body.   So we know we resemble Him not in physical likeness, but in our minds and spirits.

If we can trust Jesus, then we have to accept this as fact.

Quote
Perhaps you'll say that these too were created by evolution.

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Quote
Try using scriptures to explain that, if your scientific mind can't.

See above.   He's very clear about it:
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Quote
You said "Science can't even comment on God.   It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural". But by the theory of evolution, specifically that of life and living things, and of man, aren't you attempting to explain the supernatural thing that is creation?

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Quote
You say you are a Christian, so I assume you believe in the scriptures that speaks of water being made into wine by Jesus, among many other things God has done.

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Quote
That is supernatural, right?

Of course.   God does most things in this world by natural means.   It's why He made nature.   But when He wants to teach us something important, He often uses a miracle.

Quote
This supernatural thing then, you would admit, can't be explained by science, is that right?

You're catching on.

Quote
If so, if such so small a matter, compared to the supernatural grand creation in Genesis, you can admit that science can't explain, why do you now say then that the scientific theory of evolution seems to explain how God created the living things and man?

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.  Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

Barbarian:

Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Michael:

What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?

Barbarian:

More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Michael:

Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?

The earth brought forth living things. That does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production of the grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind.

When God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” That does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of the birds.

Barbarian:

Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened. 

Michael:

At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating. And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.

And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then, but is a theory that tries to explain how already existing living things change over time and evolve into  or become something that they originally were not.

And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?

Barbarian:

Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that. 

Michael:

So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus. That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?

What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures and is what it teaches. There is no scriptures that even hints that God created like so.

Barbarian:

Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Michael:

I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life. And that only after God have formed it, that God breathed into it the breath of life. It was only then that man became a living being, that is, with life.

Barbarian:

No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Michael:

Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.

I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness. But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it and explain how things came to be, coming up with theories as the Big Bang and evolution of life. Over the years, men came to think that by doing so, there will come a time that the human will someday know all truth and explain all things, and perhaps believe that man can do even what is impossible to do today, leading to ideas such as going to and living in Mars, teleportation, among others. Perhaps an excuse in doing this is saying that this is all for the good of humanity and for the glory of God, even while the obvious driving force really is for the survival of the human life and the pride and pleasures of man.

Barbarian:

This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Michael:

Of course God do miracles for His own purpose. And this making water into wine is one such miracle. And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.

Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles, that science has an explanation or theory concerning it - the Big Bang and Evolution.

Barbarian:

Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

Michael:

But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things. And if they can see them, they can make observations of them, can't they? And because they can see and make observations, some have come up with the theory of the Big Band and the theory of evolution.

See my comments regarding Romans 1:20 above.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 23, 2017 - 18:59:15
Barbarian observes:
Yes.  The major problem most creationists have with this text is that they don't like the way He did it.   The "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by these passages.   It clearly shows that God used pre-existing creation to bring forth new kinds.   Exactly how He did that is not stated in the Bible, but as you know the evidence shows that it was by variation and natural selection.

Quote
What evidence in the Genesis creation are you referring to that you claim shows that it was by variation and natural selection?

I said that? (Barbarian checks) No, turns out, that I didn't.    God didn't give us the details.   I'm merely showing you that Genesis is consistent with evolution.

Barbarian observes:
More specifically, God says that.   He created the Earth, and then, as He intended, the Earth brought forth living things.    He didn't give us the details, so exactly how He did it isn't important for us in our relationship with Him.

Quote
Where do we find God specifically says that He uses nature to produce living things?

Gen. 1:25 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Quote
The earth brought forth living things.

Yep.  Nature.  That's how God created life.  Using already-created things.

Barbarian explains that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life:
Evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. How life appeared is another issue entirely.   Darwin, in The Origin of Species, just supposed that God created the first living things, but didn't offer a specific idea how that happened.

Quote
At least Darwin recognizes that all begins with God as creating.

Even you admit that much.   Why not trust Him entirely and accept the way He did it?

Quote
And if Darwin speaks of God creating the first living things, it follows that it was when there was no living thing yet, and that there is nothing with life, except God.

You're getting it, now.

Quote
And by what you say there, evolution clearly is not about creation then

Not about the creation of life.  But certainly about the creation of life's diversity.

Quote
And concerning man, what do you suppose is the living thing that God created at first that evolved into the human being spoken in Gen.1?

Since there were human populations before our particular kind, using fire, making art and tools, and so on, it seems inescapable it was one of them.   But which was the first to be given an immortal soul, and gaining a sense of good and evil, we do not know.   Nor do we need to know.  Only know that it was done by God and that makes all the difference.

Barbarian asks:
Would it offend you if the first humans were Neandertals, or H. erectus?    Why would it matter?   I don't understand what it is that bothers you about that.

Quote
So, you are saying that the first humans were the Neandertals or H. erectus.

Or some other population of humans.   Why does it matter to you?

Quote
That would be like saying that God at first, created the Neandertals or H. erectus which evolve into the present human today in a span of millions of years, right?

H. erectus, probably.   But we don't know for sure.   Obviously, it was a population that preceded our own.

Quote
What bothers me is what you say and teach here, and even say that this is consistent in scriptures

Consistent with scripture.   As you see, it is.

Quote
and is what it teaches.

You know that's not what I said.   

Barbarian asks:
Why would you think our bodies, created from the earth, would mean our spirit is also from the Earth?    God says otherwise in Genesis.   We get that immediately from God, not by physical means.

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

A child could see it.   But maybe grown people in their pride have more trouble with it.

Quote
I hope you realize that what God formed of the earth is without life.

That is not what Genesis says.   It doesn't say that man was without life until God gave him a living spirit.   
 
Barbarian observes:
No.   We can certainly look about and understand His creation, but science can only tell you about the physical world.   It's why we, as scientists, must look on creation through faith in Him, to learn the truth of His role in it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Quote
Romans 1:20 speaks of the invisible things of God. It says that these invisible things are being understood by the things that are made. The invisible things of God referred to here includes His eternal power and divinity. And this, Paul says, is why all men are without excuse. Without excuse from what? From their sin, for all man, by the things that were made, can see the invisible things of God, and so knew God.

If you'll accept that much, why not accept it all?

Quote
I hope that you'll come to realize that the invisible things of God are known by all men, such as His power to create and His greatness.

That's what I just told you.   I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Quote
But there are people who don't even believe that God exist, and there are people who spend their time trying to find out, or give an explanation of, how things came to be as if they could really know the truth by it

We can learn efficient causes with science.   Final causes are forever beyond the reach of science.   Would you like to learn why?
 
Barbarian, regarding miracles:
This is an important point that many don't understand about God and miracles.   God doesn't need to do miracles to make things work in this world.  He does miracles when he wants to teach us something.    The miracle at Cana was expressly done to show us His power and to emphasize the roles of man and woman as partners in life, in the sacrament of marriage.

Quote
And science admit to not be able to give an explanation or a theory concerning it.

That's not the purpose of science.

Quote
Perhaps science don't take the creation of God, that is, all that God has made, including the earth, the heavens, plants, animals, man, etc., as miracles,

As St. Augustine pointed out, we are in awe of someone turning water to wine, while we take nature for granted.   Nature is a much larger miracle.   Not the least so, because God created it so as to be understandable and accessible to man.

Barbarian suggests:
Go back and read Romans 1:20 again.
Science can't see those invisible things, clearly seen, but scientists can.

Quote
But who invented, develop, and practices science? Men, whom you say can see those invisible things.

You're still confusing science with faith.   Two different ways of knowing.    Let God be God, and this will cease to bother you.
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 10:41:17
Barbarian,

I am sorry, but I find the way you respond to my post difficult to follow and so find it difficult to get what you mean. That is why you will see that I get to try different ways to compose my replies. And so I try yet another way here. But I'll have to gather first all that I think is what you have said so far. 

1. That you are a scientist and a Christian.
2. That evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things.
3. That evolution is not about the creation of life.
4. That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity. 
5. That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.
6. That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.
7. That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.
8. That science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.
9. That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life until God gave him a living spirit.   

On #2, 3: That evolution is the way existing populations of living things change and produce new kinds of living things. That evolution is not about the creation of life.

Michael:
Noted and well taken.

On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.

Michael:
I could not agree to this. For scriptures say when God created "God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, ACCORDING TO THEIR KIND, and every winged bird ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD" and say "God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, EACH ACCORDING TO ITS KIND”; AND IT WAS SO. And God made the beast of the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, cattle ACCORDING TO ITS KIND, and everything that creeps on the earth ACCORDING TO ITS KIND. And God SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD.", and say "God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, ACCORDING to OUR LIKENESS; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in HIS OWN IMAGE; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.

Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is. But I and I'd say, with the common man who does not observe what you scientist observe, have no reason to say that evolution is a fact. What we have is the word of God in scriptures. And these scriptures does not tell us that God, created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

On #6:  That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.

Michael:
I don't see it to be.

On #7:  That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.

Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.

On #8: That science can't even comment on God. It's too weak a method to approach the supernatural.

Michael: Noted and well taken.

On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

Michael:
Gen. 27 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Clearly, God first formed man of the dust of the ground. Then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The result, man became a living being.

Before God breathed into the nostrils of man which God had formed of the dust of the ground, is the man without life or already with life? The answer is: without life.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 11:00:21
Quote
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact.

Things like evolution and gravity are natural phenomena.    There are theories that explain them.   Theories are hypotheses that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.

Quote
And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time,

Probably so.   Evolutionary theory has been confirmed in many ways by many independent sources of evidence; it's very unlikely that it will be completely overturned by something better.    However, it is occasionally improved by additional information.   Darwin's basic theory has been changed by genetics, by neutralist theory, and by punctuated equilibrium.

Quote
Now, I'd asked this question:

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

God is not accessible to science, so He is neither a scientific theory nor a scientific fact.   You must find God other ways.

Quote
I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

As you learned, God and His word is consistent with evolution.   Couldn't be otherwise.  He created nature, after all.

Quote
Now, some evolutionist may say:
What is your proof of God?

If he was really stupid, he might.   Science can't prove or disprove God.   

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 11:01:17
 Remember, evolutionary theory is just the way scientists explain the observed fact of evolution.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 12:00:42
Remember, evolutionary theory is just the way scientists explain the observed fact of evolution.

And I suggest that scientist keep it that way.

Remember, science can't even comment on God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 17:56:50
Quote
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.

More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.

Quote
Michael:
I could not agree to this.

Take a look..
 Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.

Quote
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.

Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.

I've seen the evidence, so it's quite clear to me, as it is for almost all Christians who are scientists.

Quote
But I and I'd say, with the common man who does not observe what you scientist observe, have no reason to say that evolution is a fact.

Not knowing about something, is a disadvantage, yes.

Quote
What we have is the word of God in scriptures.

And these scriptures do not in any way deny the fact of evolution.
 
Quote
On #6:  That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.

Michael:
I don't see it to be.

Doesn't matter.   The truth is what it is, regardless.    God doesn't say how He created each kind.   So it's an open question theologically.   But the evidence is compelling.   Nevertheless you are no less Christian because of your new interpretation of Genesis.   It makes no difference at all to your salvation, even if you are a YE creationist.

On #7:  That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.

Quote
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.

Kinds.   In one sense, since all known life on Earth has more in common genetically than ways by which it differs, there is one kind.   However, God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded.

Quote
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

It is an addition to scripture which I do not think is warranted.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:15:30
Quote
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.

More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.

Quote
Michael:
I could not agree to this.

Take a look..
 Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.

What evidence?

Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution? 

"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.

Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.

After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.


What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.

Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.


Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.

I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.       

Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.

Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:31:48
Quote
On #5: That for you evolution is a fact and explained by a theory.

Michael:
Perhaps, because you are a scientist, you have your reasons why you say it is.

I've seen the evidence, so it's quite clear to me, as it is for almost all Christians who are scientists.

You and most scientist may claim that. But certainly, the vast majority of us humans have not seen what you considered evidence. Must evolution, not be like what science call gravity, the evidence of which is seen by all humans? That sure is more than just an indication, but is evidence to the fact that evolution, especially that of the evolution of man, is something that is not observable as to even be considered to be covered by science, more so be said to be a scientific fact.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:36:09
Quote
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.

More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.

Quote
Michael:
I could not agree to this.

Take a look..
 Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.

What evidence?

Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution? 

"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.

Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.

After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.


What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.

Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.


Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.

I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.       

Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.

Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.

Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 21:55:57
Quote
On #6:  That the theory of evolution is consistent with scriptures.

Michael:
I don't see it to be.

Doesn't matter.   The truth is what it is, regardless.    God doesn't say how He created each kind.   So it's an open question theologically.   But the evidence is compelling.   Nevertheless you are no less Christian because of your new interpretation of Genesis.   It makes no difference at all to your salvation, even if you are a YE creationist.

If you do not find evolution consistent with scriptures, would you believe still in the Bible? I hope so. And if you do, what would evolution be to you, being a scientist?

Now, you think that evolution is consistent with scriptures, do you think you now know HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures?

As a Christian, do you believe that creation was subjected to futility? That creation is under the bondage of corruption? That someday creation will be delivered from the bondage of corruption? As a Christian scientist, how does these truths relate to what science call evolution? 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 22:11:56
On #7:  That God created life, and used already-created things to bring forth new kinds.

Quote
Michael:
I agree that God created life. But I'd say further that God created life according to its kind, as described in Genesis.

Kinds.   In one sense, since all known life on Earth has more in common genetically than ways by which it differs, there is one kind.   However, God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded.

"kinds" it is then. Sorry for the error.

Initial creation? Where do you get this? Not in scriptures, to be sure. It's coming from your scientific mind I guess.

You said "God says that from that initial creation, nature produced all sorts of life, as He commanded."

Well, that is what you say, according only to your interpretation.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 22:47:26
Quote
On #9: That you don't agree that the man that God formed of the earth is without life, until God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

It is an addition to scripture which I do not think is warranted.

Did you miss out my comment on this matter? Let me copy and paste it here so you can comment on it.

Gen. 27 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Clearly, God first formed man of the dust of the ground. Then He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The result, man became a living being.

Before God breathed into the nostrils of man which God had formed of the dust of the ground, is the man without life or already with life? The answer is: without life.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon Apr 24, 2017 - 23:41:22
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.

Do you think so?

It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 03:45:45
Quote
Job 38:3-12~"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. 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;"
Such arrogance.......... of man to think that he can explain the underpinnings of creation, without God. That he can date and measure the foundations of the earth without ever being there to know. And make no mistake, this is a war of religions. And we are being beaten down by repetition of this indoctrination of the Evolution religion. When we watch programs like National Geographic, Paleo world, Archaeology Today, and other one-sided presentations, eventually through repetition man is literally brainwashed concerning evolution. Because it "appears" from the information which man "continually" hears, that the world must be billions of years old, based on all the (so-called) scientific evidence. But that verse I read before, Hebrews 11:3, tells the true story. The story of which man seldom has the ear to listen. And the reason is because he has become so deceived by these teachers, that he often (sometimes unconsciously) places more faith in their words, than in what is actually written in scripture itself. And that is nothing but unbelief. Especially with the new breed of post modern Theologians who have effectively been raised up under this constant indoctrination. Many have lost their faith in God's word, and gained a new faith in man's Religion of self. So while many professing Christians continue to claim that they have every bit as much faith in God's word as we do, in practice they prove otherwise by being led away in this error, and seeking to rationalize it away "because" of the new ideas that the evolutionists have put forth.
Quote
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God, while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning. Beware and take heed!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 04:23:18
Quote
2nd Corinthians 4:13~"We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them. "No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing. That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God? The fact is, God simply said, "Let there be light..." and there was! And when He created light from the stars to the earth, it was upon the earth instantly! It didn't take a million years, it was created 'in transit' instantly. The power to say and have it be, this is the power of The TRUE GOD of the holy scriptures, not the pseudo paper god that man invents. I find it absolutely astounding that someone calling themselves Christian (Supposedly knowing the power of God) would think that this type of creation power was unlikely, or hard to believe. Is God a man, or is He the Almighty? It's the very same way God created a mature human instantly (Adam), who was instantly capable of making mature decisions the very "day" he was created. God didn't create a tiny baby and wait years and years until Adam grew to be a man, He created a grown man, already mature, from the very dust of the earth. It didn't take Him 18 to 21 years to have Adam become a man. He did it in one day. And again, note carefully for those nay-sayers asking why would God create the appearance of a mature earth, Adam may have also "appeared" (Hebrews 11:3) to be many years old, but that appearance had absolutely no basis in fact about his actual age, did it? An Omnipotent God doesn't follow the laws of the universe, He creates them! They follow the patterns and courses that He has set, not vise versa. And that is what these man does not seem to fully comprehend.
Quote
Genesis 2:7-8~"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed."
So are we believers, or are we suffering from the unbelief of the world? Did man form by evolution from an ape, or on the sixth day, did God form man out of the dust of the earth, and then breathe the breath of life into him? I guess the answer we give all depends on what religion we subscribe to, and whom we put our faith in. If we practice the religion of man, who serves himself as the authority and ruler, then we will put our trust in the words of our god. And we will serve in his temple in lawlessness. On the other hand, if we practice the religion of true Christianity, then we will follow the laws of God, and put our trust in the words of our God, and will serve Him in His temple. So every Christian, in the Spirit of Christ, must finally decide whom he will serve. Not by what appears to be in our own eyes, but by what God says.
Quote
Proverbs 16:2~  "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits."
Sinful man is in love with himself, and has been from the beginning. And self-flattery is the universal sin of the humanist in this vanity. For he is unable to comprehend the miracle of God, and the infallible nature of His word. Like the earth, Adam was created mature. Indeed, if it were possible that the scientists today could go back in time with all their sophisticated toys and examine Adam on the very day of his creation, they would most assuredly proclaim in scientific bliss that Adam was definitely and scientifically irrefutably well over the age of one day. Yet they would be wrong, wouldn't they? Because God created Adam from the dust with the appearance and workings of age, while in "truth" he was actually only one day old. Not by what would appear to be in the eyes of man, but by what was accurate and written as God's undefiled declarations. In order that man is not confused, God told us that He created man on one day, which was one period of evening and morning. The question is, do we believe Him? As it is written, "..yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings.."

Because of this indoctrination, everyone isn't aware that scientific fact and evolutionary theories are not synonymous. These scientists make untenable claims and invalidated assumptions, and man simply accepts them as their gospel. Like the theory that everything evolved from single cell organisms. These things in themselves are as faith based as any belief that true Christians have. Especially given the very scientific laws, which they claim to be following. How this single cell just started duplicating itself, becoming both male and female over the years, mutating each version of itself, yet holding and surviving in a hostile environment, is the stuff of science fiction, not science. We would expect the world to be deceived by these theories, but what is truly disturbing is the lengths that the Church has been snared by this delusion. So much so that it is slowly but surely falling from the faith. From the Biblical perspective, it is totally contrary to scripture. So how can they believe this mutation theory, when God says He created Woman from a rib of Adam. Did she evolve from Adam or was she created from a rib? Again, it depends on if we are going to believe God, or believe man. Do we believe the scriptures, or do we instead believe the scientific journals. Do we believe the word of God that Adam was created a man, or man in saying he started out a single cell organism? Do we privately interpret the scriptures according to each new theory the scientists propagate, or do we let God be the interpreter of His own word? These are the questions that Christians of old answered unequivocally, unwaveringly, and confidently, but that today has them curiously scratching their collective heads, and wondering where is truth.
Quote
Genesis 2:21-23~"And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
If Adam was a blob of cell matter, why did he need to sleep so God could open him up and take his rib? Did God actually cause a deep sleep to fall upon a single cell organism to create a female version? Is the Bible all just a fable, or some fairy tale that God made up to as a bedtime story for Christians? God forbid, this is the absolute truth of God's word. The Agnostics, Atheists and Humanists call it a fable, but God declares that this is what He actually did. God's people trusted God's word concerning this for thousands and thousands of years. Only now, in our day of the rise of the Religion of evolution, are many of the Church looking at God's word as just a tall tale or an allegory that we never got around to interpreting. Our Lord tells all his faithful Prophets for thousands of years that He made the universe in six days, and since creation they accepted and believed it as literally six days. But now, in this time of growing wanton wickedness, we are supposed to believe that righteous God is revealing this secret to evolutionary scientists, who for the most part aren't even Christian? What is wrong with this picture? The truth is, man has become so smart (in his own eyes) in his own worldly knowledge, that he figures he can rule himself and exalt himself up to God-like status to know the secrets of creation. And the Church, departing from the faith, falls right in line by privately interpreting God's word in a way which is tortuous and self serving, in order to conform with these modern ideas.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 06:30:57
Quote
Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God

I have no idea how you could make that up from what I've said.   

Quote
who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so.

You still don't get it.  All things are possible with God.   That doesn't mean He can't do things He hasn't done.   Since He didn't give us the details on how he brought forth new species, it clearly isn't important to the message He's giving us in the Bible.   That should be good enough for you.

If he chose not to tell us that, it's better for you not to add it to scripture.    Let Him be God, and decide what is important.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 06:32:35
Quote
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.

Some things God left for us to find out for ourselves.   How the diversity of life was created by Him, that's one of those things.    It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 06:37:11
Quote
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which is the faith of Christ. I've actually had professed Christians ask me, "how can you believe that it was done in 6 literal days, do you doubt that the stars are so far out in space the light would take hundreds of thousands of years to reach here?" My answer surprises them. "No, I don't doubt that!" But what they are failing to understand is the power of the God who could created this universe. He didn't throw a speck of light out there and kick back waiting a billion years for that light to reach earth before continuing. That's nonsense. If He is powerful enough to create and put that light millions of light years out into space, why is He not deemed powerful enough to have it reach here just as quickly? What kind of God are we talking about? An impotent God, or THE Almighty Omnipotent God?

This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.   

However, it has numerous flaws.   One notable flaw is this:  If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.   Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light.   If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation. 

If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed.   Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive.   Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.

So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 07:44:57
Quote
It just seems to me that by Barbarian's position on evolution, that he knows HOW God created the different kinds of living creatures, a matter which he himself said is not spelled out in scriptures.

Some things God left for us to find out for ourselves.   How the diversity of life was created by Him, that's one of those things.    It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.

The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures. It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here. And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.

<<It's not spelled out in scripture, because it's not something He deemed important to our salvation.>>

So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW? We learn from God and follow His lead. God knows what's good for us.   

Consider and meditate on the following:

Heb.11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Without faith it is impossible to please God.

Leave plenty of room for faith. For the more you have it, the more you can please God. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Apr 25, 2017 - 17:34:31
Quote
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.

He doesn't say how in scripture, but He did leave plenty of evidence, showing us how He did it.   Would you like to learn a little about how we know?

Quote
It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.

As He says in Genesis, He used nature to do that.   

Quote
And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.

We are learning more and more about it.   As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.

 
Quote
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?

Because it's worth knowing.   For two reasons.   One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications.   Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God.   This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 01:21:56
Quote
The subject matter at hand is HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.

He doesn't say how in scripture, but He did leave plenty of evidence, showing us how He did it.   Would you like to learn a little about how we know?

It's clear enough, scripture don't say every detail of HOW.

Very well then, give us a little about what you say How you know it, as you please. 

Quote
It concerns the supernatural divine act of God that we are talking about here.

As He says in Genesis, He used nature to do that. 

And that's not exactly what God said. Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.

I don't understand and see it that way. What faith tells me and let me understand, is that God created everything by His word, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. And that God did so, by Christ, through Him and for Him, and that in Him all things consist.

And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.

Quote
And this you claim to know HOW and can now explain HOW.

We are learning more and more about it.   As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.

You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say. Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures. And there is no need to justify it Barbarian. It won't change what it is you claim.

Quote
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?

Because it's worth knowing.   For two reasons.   One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications.   Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God.   This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.

For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else. These is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God have made, and not to HOW God made things.

Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,  and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 04:42:14
This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.
No theological problem sir, none whatsoever. Neither are there practical problems since his true children refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think, which men like you do, and must do to convinced yourself and others that you are wise~ wiser than simple-minded believers who LOOK to the scriptures for their answers and not to men who refuse to come to the word of God as little children and be taught by the Spirit of the Living God....that's BELOW THEM and their high opinion of themselves.
Quote from: The Barbarian
However, it has numerous flaws.   One notable flaw is this:  If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.
Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS, no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that? If not, then we must not deceive ourselves into believing that we know the God of the holy scriptures.
Quote
If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.
God has never and will never be faced with any consequences, he rules nature and determines its laws, which laws he is NOT subject to, for with him NOTHING is impossible...he controls all and uses them for his own purpose and glory.
Quote
Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light.
Not with God, and it would be foolish to think so and a sign of us creating a god after our own imagination which is what most do btw. True believers look to the SCRIPTURES for all answer and they are there that is PROFITABLE!
Quote
2nd Timothy 3:16,17~All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
Quote from: The Barbarian
If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation. 
Only at creation, and during the creation of the earth and all things therein, God WAS NOT subject to any laws that man may THINKS he understands.
Quote from: The Barbarian
If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed.   Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive.   Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.
Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god. The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited~ it is only limited by our pitiful and limited faith and understanding, because we know SO LITTLE of his greatness and power, and others know less who do not trust the scriptures above all of the wisdom of man!
Quote
Job 36:26~"Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out."
Sir, if you can search out the years of God, then maybe you could learn a little more of his greatness~but that will never happen, for it is beyond our power to do so.  Read Job from chapter 32-to the end! It should humble all of us when we begin to think we know about God when in truth, we know so little of his greatness.
Quote from: The Barbarian
So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.
That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS~even though he could have done everything in a twinkling of an eye just as quick as the resurrection shall take place in the last day.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 07:10:43
Quote
And that's not exactly what God said.

Gravity isn't exactly what God said, either.   God didn't tell us about everything.   The important thing is that science and scripture do not contradict each other.

Quote
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.

Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here.   I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.

Quote
I don't understand and see it that way.

You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism.    But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.

Quote
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.

God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose.   If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins.
 
Barbarian observes:
We are learning more and more about it.   As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.

Quote
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.

Easy way to check.   Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world?    Yes, it does.   For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.

Quote
Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.

Yes, it's very clear how that happened, and getting clearer all the time.  He uses nature for almost everything in this world, and He made it knowable for us, so that we could get along in His world. 

 
Quote
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?

Barbarian explains:
Because it's worth knowing.   For two reasons.   One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications.   Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God.   This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.


Quote
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

Which is sufficient.   I'm just pointing out that a deeper understanding of His creation will enrich your faith.

Quote
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.

No.  Let's take another look...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.  (my emphasis)


Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen.    In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.   

These is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God has made, and not to HOW God made things.

God is telling you something very important here.   Listen to Him.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Apr 26, 2017 - 17:41:18
Barbarian observes:
This is a tempting argument for someone who would like to maintain YE creationism in spite of theological and practical problems with it.

Quote
No theological problem sir, none whatsoever.

Huge problems.    For example, the issue of mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.  But definition, a logical absurdity.

Quote
Neither are there practical problems since his true children refuse to put God in a box and limit him to our ability to reason and think

Hence YE creationists, who have convinced themselves that they are wise, wiser than traditional Christians who accept God's word as it is.   Their high opinion of themselves is not sufficient for us to abandon scripture.

However, it has numerous flaws.   One notable flaw is this:  If He made light faster back in the day, it would have all sorts of consequences.    Radioactive decay, for example, is tied to the speed of light.      If it was significantly faster at one time, all life on Earth would have been fried by a huge increase in ionizing radiation. 

Quote
Flaws ONLY with men like you, who have been corrupted by their own high opinion of themselves. Again, do you truly believe that God is limited to do anything differently than man has come to understand how such things work? So YES, God purposed light to just be there and IT WAS, no problem whatsoever. With God NOTHING is impossible, do you believe that?

Your difficulty here is that although God could have miraculously set aside everything He ordained in this world to make your story true, it is a very bad idea to suppose that the answer to every flaw is to imagine a new, non-scriptural miracle.   Once you start doing that, any story is equally plausible.   

No, that's not where you want to go, if you care about truth.

Barbarian observes:
If He created light on the way to the Earth, then we have images of stars exploding that never existed.   Both of these imply that God is intentionally deceptive.   Which is also a huge theological problem for a Christian.

Quote
Again you are putting the god of your imagination into a very small box that you and others have built for your god.

My God is truth.     There is no deception in Him, or by Him.   He will not deceive us. 

Quote
The God of the Christians do not believe that his power is limited

It is His nature.   And his truthfulness is not a limitation.
 
So it's easier and wiser to just accept creation as He did it.

Quote
That's why I believe in Genesis one and two concerning God creating the earth in SIX LITERAL DAYS

But, of course, it doesn't say six literal days.   That's a modern revision to His word.
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 12:11:33
Quote
And that's not exactly what God said.

Gravity isn't exactly what God said, either.   God didn't tell us about everything.   The important thing is that science and scripture do not contradict each other.

That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures. What scriptures says is that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Quote
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.

Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here.   I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.

I'm sorry to say that you have not. At least as pertains to God creating the different kinds of living things by using nature, called perhaps "creation by evolution". To the contrary, I find what you teach as contrary to scriptures which says the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Quote
I don't understand and see it that way.

You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism.    But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.

I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution. And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.

Quote
And as much as God did not say the details of HOW He did that, I accept to be a humble, wise and good thing not to spend my time, money, and effort in trying to know something that obviously God deemed wise and good not to tell us.

God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose.   If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins.
 
Barbarian observes:
We are learning more and more about it.   As you probably realize, it doesn't matter to our salvation, but it's accessible to anyone who wants to go look.

It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose.   If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.

You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things. But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.

Quote
You think you are, would be the more accurate thing to say.

Easy way to check.   Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world?    Yes, it does.   For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.

And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

Quote
Besides, while you say that, even now, you claim to know HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures.

Yes, it's very clear how that happened, and getting clearer all the time.  He uses nature for almost everything in this world, and He made it knowable for us, so that we could get along in His world.

That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?

Quote
So why bother putting and spending so much time, money, and effort in trying to know the HOW?

Barbarian explains:
Because it's worth knowing.   For two reasons.   One, it's of considerable practical use, and has (for example) medical applications.   Two, it can give you a richer and more complete understanding of God.   This is what St. Paul meant when he spoke of those invisible things, clearly seen.

Quote
For what it's worth, then it is for you. As for me, I take this matter of HOW God created all things, by faith and in faith. As it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

Which is sufficient.   I'm just pointing out that a deeper understanding of His creation will enrich your faith.

If that's what you are pointing, then no problem. But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God. For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man, and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of. If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.

Quote
And looking at what Paul meant in Rom. 1:20, what invisible things Paul there refers to, refers to God's invisible attributes, not anything else.

No.  Let's take another look...

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.  (my emphasis)


Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen.    In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.   

Quote
These, is what Paul says are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. Paul clearly points to WHAT things God has made, and not to HOW God made things.

God is telling you something very important here.   Listen to Him.

Yes, Paul said that God's invisible qualities are seen. Where? In the things made - the WHAT have been created.

And here's what God is saying in scriptures, listen to Him.

Romans 1:19-20 [EMPHASIS MINE]
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

In my previous post, I said:
Quote
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,  and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.

You have commented on every simple statement I made, yet seemingly, you have not on this, I'd say, more important portion. Anything you want to comment on this?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 13:59:12
https://www.isgenesishistory.com/ (https://www.isgenesishistory.com/)

Just watched the movie on Amazon. Good stuff.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 15:39:16
Quote
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.

That's not debatable; He did:
Gen. 1:11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Quote
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here.   I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.

Quote
I'm sorry to say that you have not.

See above.   That's what God said.   Why not just accept it His way?

Quote
I don't understand and see it that way.

Barbarian observes:
You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism.    But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.

Quote
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of creationism, and claim that it's required for all Christians to believe it.

Quote
And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.

I'm pleased that you understand this.     Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.

 
Quote
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose.   If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.

It merely shows that God expects us to use our minds to learn about His creation.   And that includes the way He used nature to produce the diversity of life on Earth.

Quote
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.

Yes, this is the case.  This is why the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.

Quote
But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.

No, that's wrong.   Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, or churches in union with them.    The next largest are the Eastern Orthodox Christians.    Both acknowledge that creation is consistent with evolution.    So do the various Anglican churches, and all but one group of Lutheran churches, and many, many others.

Barbarian observes:
Easy way to check.   Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world?    Yes, it does.   For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.

Quote
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

So He tells us in His creation.
 
Quote
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?

Do you believe God created you?  When do you suppose He'll stop creating people.   Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?   Or are you not a creature of God?
 
Quote
But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.

Doesn't seem very likely.  For example, Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project, is a devout evangelical Christian, and acknowledges the fact of evolution.

Quote
For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,

You're confusing the material world with "everything."    Science is limited to the physical universe.    By definition, it can't know anything beyond nature.   Fortunately, scientists can.

Quote
and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.

If we could do all that, and someday we might, what would that mean to our relationship with God?   I don't see that it would change at all.

Quote
If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.

You misunderstand what God meant when he said we had become like Him.   That is not what He meant.   

 Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.   

Paul says that the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen.    In His creation, if you are willing to set aside pride and preconceptions, you can see the power and divinity of God.   

 God is telling you something very important here.   Listen to Him.
 
 
Quote
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,  and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.

I already explained to you that science can't do that.    You're expecting it to be something it can never be.   It is limited to the physical universe.   Yes, if you understand more about His creation, it can make you closer to Him.   But science won't do it for you.   But I'll repeat it one more time.




 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Jaime on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 18:10:20
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating. THAT is not debatable. Soil does not create corn. That is done because the SEEDS bring forth after its own kind, by a pre-programed formula input by God, not the earth. Giraffes breed and produce offspring giraffes after the oarents kind. Not because of the earth, but because of God hand and design.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 20:50:39
Quote
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.

Of course.   God created all things.   He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see.    My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves.    The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien."    I don't think so.

Quote
THAT is not debatable.

Right.

Quote
Soil does not create corn.

Yeah, the direct bringing forth of a complex eukaryotic organism would be contrary to what we see in the fossil record and genetic data.   Primitive life first developing and later evolving into eukaryotes, would be more consistent with the evidence (and also consistent with scripture).


Quote
That is done because the SEEDS bring forth after its own kind, by a pre-programed formula input by God, not the earth.

God has no need to "program."   He built the capacity for living things to evolve into the very fabric of life.    One of the great engineering discoveries of the 21st century was that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems.   Genetic algorithms, using evolutionary processes of random variation and natural selection, are increasingly being used to fine-tune processes and machines.  God is wiser than we suspected.

Quote
Giraffes breed and produce offspring giraffes after the oarents kind.

Modern giraffes are quite a bit different than those of earlier times.   They diversified in the great ungulate radiation, and there are still several living branches, some of them relatively primitive compared to African giraffes.    The actual reason for the unusual adaptations of modern giraffes is kind interesting.    Like deer antlers, it turns out that neck length is allometric in giraffes, and only later became adaptive.    Would you like to see what we know about it?

Quote
Not because of the earth, but because of God hand and design.

"Design" is what limited creatures must do, because we can't truly create.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: geronimo on Sat Apr 29, 2017 - 21:34:41
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 00:31:31
Quote
That's right, God didn't tell us about everything. And scriptures did not say that God used nature to create the different kinds of living creatures.

That's not debatable; He did:
Gen. 1:11 And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.

Gen. 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Well then, we just then have to agree to disagree on this then.

Quote
Rather, I think, it's the scientist mind and eyes in you that understands and sees it that way.

Barbarian observes:
Actually, I'm speaking as a Christian here.   I'm merely showing you how the world does not in any way contradict His word.

Quote
I'm sorry to say that you have not.

See above.   That's what God said.   Why not just accept it His way?

As I have said above, we just then have to agree to disagree on this then.

Quote
I don't understand and see it that way.

Barbarian observes:
You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of creationism.    But if you learn more about His creation, it can't help but make you closer to Him.

Quote
I don't understand and see that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

You don't have to.   It won't affect your salvation, so long as you don't make an idol of creationism, and claim that it's required for all Christians to believe it.

Quote
And sure this matter does not affect salvation. But it sure does affect the truth written in scriptures. If not, I would not have this discussion with you.

I'm pleased that you understand this.     Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.

I'm glad you're pleased.

Quote
It's your opinion that "God gave you a mind and curiosity for a purpose.   If we didn't have those, we'd still be living in caves wearing animal skins". And it does not justify nor prove that God did indeed create the different kinds of living things by evolution.

It merely shows that God expects us to use our minds to learn about His creation.   And that includes the way He used nature to produce the diversity of life on Earth.

Quote
You and other scientist believes and claim to be learning more and more about the evolution of living things, to which the Christian scientist claim to be HOW God created the different kinds of living things.

Yes, this is the case.  This is why the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God.

Quote
But as for the vast majority of men, this is not so. And not even more so for the Christians.

No, that's wrong.   Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics, or churches in union with them.    The next largest are the Eastern Orthodox Christians.    Both acknowledge that creation is consistent with evolution.    So do the various Anglican churches, and all but one group of Lutheran churches, and many, many others.

Can you provide proof that the vast majority of Christians acknowledge that evolution is consistent with our faith in God, or with the scriptures, and that creation is consistent with evolution?

Barbarian observes:
Easy way to check.   Does our understanding of nature help us get along in the world?    Yes, it does.   For example, the same knowledge that confirmed Darwin's theory tells us how to make computers out of dirt.

Quote
And that is not at all the issue here. The issue is what you teach that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution.

So He tells us in His creation.
 
Quote
That's what you believe, I can see that. And I guess it will be that way for you. So, perhaps, I'll just have to take note of that, that Barbarian knows HOW the supernatural divine God CREATED the different kinds of living creatures, that is by evolution. This belief renders God as to not have completed, to this day, the creation of the different kinds of living things. When do you guess it will be accomplished by God? Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?

Do you believe God created you?  When do you suppose He'll stop creating people.   Any hypothesis, or perhaps, a theory on this?   Or are you not a creature of God?

What you say here does not address the issue Barbarian. Procreation or the matter of begetting, generation and production, is different from the matter of creation by evolution, specifically that, of the creation of new kinds of living things.

I can see that the Christian scientist have had yet to make an hypothesis on the matter as to when God will complete the creation of the different kinds of living things, or when this ever continuing creation of different kinds of living things by evolution is accomplished by God and ends.

Quote
But as it is, what you really are getting at is not understanding what has been created, but that of the matter of HOW you think that God created the different kinds of living creatures. You think that man can go that distance as to be able to know the details of HOW the divine God created the universe. And this, more often than not, is what brings most scientist to not believing in a creator, that is, God.

Doesn't seem very likely.  For example, Francis Collins, who directed the Human Genome Project, is a devout evangelical Christian, and acknowledges the fact of evolution.


But Francis Collins is but one scientist, and is not all of the scientist. Besides, Francis Collins may well be a devout evangelical Christian, but I think that he acknowledges the evolution, not because of that, but because he is a scientist.

Quote
For by science, he believes that everything can be explained by man,

You're confusing the material world with "everything."    Science is limited to the physical universe.    By definition, it can't know anything beyond nature.   Fortunately, scientists can.

And by "everything", I mean to refer to that which science is limited with, as you say, the physical universe.

And let me add, not only science can't know anything beyond nature, nor could a any man for that matter, not even the scientists can. Yet science and scientists speaks of things such as the origin of life, which is a thing beyond nature and is not of the physical.

Quote
and even others perhaps believes that he can one day not only know but even can himself create other life forms, can travel at the speed of light, can go back in time, can control the weather, can read the mind of another, can make things move by the power of his mind, can stop aging, can cure every kind of disease, and a lot of other incredible things he can think of.

If we could do all that, and someday we might, what would that mean to our relationship with God?   I don't see that it would change at all.

That's what you say.

Quote
If man is able to do all that, then the evolutionist Christian even may say that man has evolved to be a super human being, and have gotten more closer to God, even closer to being like God, or further still, closer to being a god.

You misunderstand what God meant when he said we had become like Him.   That is not what He meant.

No, what I said there is a comment in relation to what you said in the matter of getting closer to God in relation to knowing His creation, with regards evolution. And my comment is not in any way, shape or form, about what God meant when He said we had become like Him.

Quote
Now, if you want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, look nowhere else, but to Jesus. For in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,  and Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. Nothing, not even a billion amount of science can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God. It seems to me that you are one among those who have been deceived into believing that science can.

I already explained to you that science can't do that.    You're expecting it to be something it can never be.   It is limited to the physical universe.   Yes, if you understand more about His creation, it can make you closer to Him.   But science won't do it for you.   But I'll repeat it one more time.


You don't seem to understand what I said in my post. 

Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 03:50:02
I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder. Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years. 
Brother, the answer to your question is absolutely. Our God who is infinite in knowledge created the worlds and all things, visible and invisible, to work perfectly and for its resources to last as long as he needed them to last til the appointed time~thereforth, there are NO CHANCES for failure, (the unbelievers of this world are convinced that THEY must police people to make sure their earth is not destroyed) that's borderline of blasphemy which I know you would not do, but many do with their understanding and following men who think they are wise with their little problems and stumbling  blocks that they are convinced that proves YEC'S to be fools~ and the scriptures not giving us sufficient information to trust God's word above them and their wisdom.
Quote
The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
The God of the Bible is referred to in the Bible (Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 43:1, Romans 1:25, etc.) as Creator of all that is, not the developer of some system that eventually produces all that is.To create by fiat (Genesis 1) implies the act of bringing something into existence directly and purposefully, not eventually and by chance.

Evolutionary theory (i.e. Darwinianism), on the other hand, has always been based on naturalism and has never postulated a role of any sort for the Creator God of the Bible. So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts. The resulting hybrid views are variously referred to today as Deistic evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationism, BioLogos, Framework interpretation, Day-Age and Gap theories. All such views are rejected by proponents of literal Biblical creationism and naturalistic evolution~with good reason.

Intellectually sharp scientific minds (past and present) such as Assimov, Sagan, Dawkins, and Provine have all been absolutely consistent in saying that if an impersonal, inanimate  evolutionary system can rearrange molecules and chemicals in such a way as to have produced all that is, then there is certainly no need or place for God and religious myth in this world~they TRULY understand this and is the driving force behind TRYING to linked the two together!
Quote from: Barbarian
Some creationists make creationism a stumbling block for unbelievers who might otherwise come to Him.
For a short side note.....Sir, ALL given to Christ by God, WILL COME TO HIM~our love for God, or hatred toward God CANNOT affect a person's free gift of eternal life, impossible.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 04:10:06
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:28:20
Quote
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

Obviously, evolution is no different than anything else in this world.   It's all God's creation.   Without macroevolution, life would never have produced us.   And it was God's intention to produce us.

Macroevolution is directly observed to happen.   Even many creationists now admit that speciation is an observed fact.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:36:20
Quote
One species does not evolve into another.

Even many YE creationists admit that it's a fact.   From one of the largest creationist organizations, "Answers in Genesis:"

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species.1 According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859, Darwin set out to demolish this widespread view.

Darwin showed how the fixity of species ran counter to all the evidence he had been collecting for twenty years. His book managed to convince most scientists that species were not fixed or unchangeable. In the process, the church was proved wrong, with tragic consequences.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/do-species-change/

It is true that speciation is an observed fact.   They have one thing wrong there, however.   It was never the church's position that each kind of living thing was created as it is.  Indeed, St. Augustine pointed out that God created the potentiality for different living things, from which they appeared over time.

It's impossible to deny macroevolution, so AIG did the next best thing; they redefined "macroevolution" to exclude the evolution of new species.    The Institute for Creation Research has redefined it to exclude the evolution of new species, genera, and families of organisms.    The catch-22 here is that in doing so, they put humans and all other apes into the same kind.

Rock and a hard place.

Quote
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.

Which is why He created evolution.    It was the way He chose to produce life in all its variety.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:44:45
Quote
Evolutionary theory (i.e. Darwinianism), on the other hand, has always been based on naturalism and has never postulated a role of any sort for the Creator God of the Bible.

That's also true of gravitational theory (i.e. Newtonianism).  Science can't even discuss the supernatural.  However this...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

...which is the last sentence of Darwin's The Origin of Species, makes it clear that the theory in no way rules out God's creation.

Quote
So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.

No, that's wrong.   If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever.    Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.




 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 07:57:28
Quote
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.

Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?

He's the Creator.  Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything.    Hence St. Paul's point:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation.    It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you.    So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done.   Last summer, out on the Olympic Peninsula, I had just such a moment, and recorded the scene:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8899/28711908665_22cde7d7c1_z.jpg)

It may not look like much to you, but that light coming through the canopy, the tree, the land, and the living things there, all showed me His wisdom and power, and I was transfixed.

This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him.   Learn from it.



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 08:16:44
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.
Amen!  In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.  That, they contend, evolved into another Fly that looks the same but some genetic marker(s) are different.  Ever had a child, Barb?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:03:56
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:09:04
Quote
So believing in both the God of the Bible and macroevolutionary theory necessarily involves a very awkward redefining of terms, and an anomalous merging of concepts.

No, that's wrong.   If you accept an omnipotent Creator, there is no conflict whatever.    Even Richard Dawkins, who hates religion, admits that our world is consistent with God.

Richard Dawkins denies God exists, how could he then ever admit that our world is consistent with God?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 09:13:31
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: avenger on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 11:46:10
I believe that God is the creator of all things, but because the books of the Bible were written thousands of years ago for a largely illiterate group of people... I would not presume that the Genesis account of Creation was an accurate representation of how it transpired.

Why did Jesus speak in parables? 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 12:55:25
Quote
Amen!  In Barbs evidence, the Fly became another Fly.

Or in our case, a primate became another primate.   We are actually much loser in looks to a chimp than a housefly resembles D. miranda.   Closer genetically, too.   And we know genetic matches show relatedness, because we can check it on organisms of known descent.
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 12:58:25
Quote
Richard Dawkins denies God exists


He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html)

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 13:13:30
Quote
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist.   It's limited to the physical universe.   

I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died.    I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be.     Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world.    And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.

When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.   

And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 14:20:23
Quote
You don't seem to understand what I said in my post.

Do you agree that if one want and seek for a richer and more complete understanding of God, that he need not look nowhere else, but to Jesus?

He's the Creator.  Obviously, there is nowhere else to look; he made everything.    Hence St. Paul's point:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I'm a biologist; I spend a lot of time out looking at His creation.    It doesn't replace scripture; it enriches and illuminates it, as St. Paul tells you.    So there are times when I'm out in the middle of it, and there's a little epiphany for me, as His power and majesty are made clear to me in the things He has done. 

This is also the work of Jesus; His creation is for us, and as St. Paul says, to teach us about Him.   Learn from it.

I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures that Jesus is the express image of God, the exact representation of his being. That in Jesus, dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. These truths speaks loud and clear that nothing can offer and give you a richer and more complete understanding of God, other than the person of Jesus Christ.

Concerning what Paul said in Rom. 1:20, let me quote, including v.19:

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being. Paul obviously was not referring to something that man has been able to discover through various scientific study, such as DNA. So, what God has made, the creation, bears testimony about His invisible qualities, even His eternal power and Godhead.

We see several characteristics of this revelation of God's invisible attributes:

1. It is clear, evident and plain, and all man is aware of (for God hath shewed it unto them).
2. It is understood by all man (so that they are without excuse) BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE (does not say by how things are made).
3. It has been there since the creation of the world (from the creation of the world are clearly seen).
4. It is not a full revelation, in the sense that it does not reveal everything about God, such as His mercy, His love and grace, but only some such as His power and Godhead.

It is wise for one to ponder about this. I won't be surprised if this will lead him to Christ, who is the express image, the exact representation of the invisible God, the Creator.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 14:25:25
Quote
Richard Dawkins denies God exists


He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url])


you should read his books.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 15:55:12
Quote
you should read his books.

I've read a couple of them.   Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me.   And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 16:03:20
Quote
I'm beginning to suspect that your being a biologist, a scientist that is, somehow put some veil over the clear and plain truths revealed by God in scriptures

As one humble and perceptive Christian noted, truth cannot contradict truth.   If a person sets pride aside, and lets Him in, then it becomes clear that there is no contradiction.    Jesus is not just the best way to learn about God.   He is God, fully and completely.   

 
Quote
These verses talks about a revelation about God. Let me call it "natural revelation". Verse 19 states the fact of natural revelation, and verse 20 explains how. This revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. Now, we must not fail to consider the time when Paul said these things, and that this is in relation to people who has ever lived in the past up to the time of Christ. This natural revelation is that which may be known about God, that is immediately evident to every human being.

Yes, you're getting to the heart of this; he's saying that if you look at creation with an open and willing heart, you will see His power and Godhead.    Now this means that a hunter, for example, does not use faith in tracking game, but if he opens himself to what he has learned, it will tell him about God.

Likewise, those of other avocations will, if they open themselves to the fact, learn about Him.   Not as hunters or scientists, or plumbers, but in the creation with which they work.   Science is no different than any other in this regard.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 18:21:21
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 21:51:40
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Not a matter of deflection but a matter of relevance, and I honestly can't bother less about what you guess.
Your question is based on a hypothetical. A response would be hypothetical as well and therefore useless to this discussion.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 21:53:49
Quote
you should read his books.

I've read a couple of them.   Speaking as a biologist, his tendency to see selection everywhere, even where we can't really document it, bothers me.   And his somewhat irrational fear of faith is disturbing, although he tends to keep it out of his academic work.

If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:02:55
Quote
Richard Dawkins denies God exists


He admits that he can't do that:
Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html[/url])


Sad article.
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors. And that man actually managed to become an archbishop.

Just shows how deep Christianity has sunk in some parts of our society if it can no longer discern where Satan is at work.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:04:46
Quote
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.

As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God.   Hence, he's an agnostic.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:05:14
Quote
What is even sadder is that there are Christians who give a solidly atheist Dawkins credit for lying that he considers himself an agnostic.


Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html)

Quote
This topped by another denier who believes that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.


It stings the pride of some people, but of course, it is consistent with God's word and the evidence for it is overwhelming.  Would you like to see some of it?

Satan loves dividing God's people and setting them against each other.   While we may differ on exactly how God created our bodies, we should remember that it's not a salvation issue, and we should avoid making an idol of either evolution or creationism.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:17:19
Quote
If you have read his books then you also know that the man is an atheist who attributes nothing in this world to God or even considers God as a potential explanation of this universe.

As you see, Dawkins admits that he doesn't know that there is no God.   Hence, he's an agnostic.

Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:27:20
Quote
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.

Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:39:49
Quote
Right. The man who wrote a book called "The God Delusion" is not an atheist.

Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.

That's what liars do...they lie.
If you, after reading his books, can't see what Dawkins is then I feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 22:49:28
Quote
The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, is a God designed plan, not the earth doing the creating.

Of course.   God created all things.   He just used nature to create the diversity of life we see.    My inclination is that attributing "design" to God is giving Him less credit than an omnipotent Creator deserves.    The IDers suggest that the "designer" might be "a space alien."    I don't think so.

What Jaime is emphasizing is on the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures AFTER THEIR OWN KIND" which speaks against any teaching that God created the different kinds of living things by the evolution that you speak about. Jaime explains too that the phrase "The earth bringing forth creatures" does not mean that the earth does the creating. And that is certainly not what it means.

Let me share to you a bit of my study of some verses of the Genesis scriptures, in relation to this important point.

On the 5th day:
KJV
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

The Hebrew scripture translated in English as "bring forth" in v.20 is "sharats" which means swarm or teem. It does not denote any sort of creation process at all. In v.21, the Hebrew scripture translated in English as "brought forth" is the same "sharats".

We can see this meaning clearly in the NKJV version:

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Further, in v.20, it says "and fowl that may fly above the earth" (KJV). By your take on evolution which you tie up with the phrase "bring forth", that would mean that the waters brought forth fowl, would it not?

Further still, v.20 states what God said, and v.21 states what God did, that is, He created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. "created"~ meaning past and done.   

What is your comment on this?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:02:38
Quote
Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

As you might have learned from this discussion, there is no possible way science can prove that God doesn't exist.   It's limited to the physical universe.   

I've been through "dark night of the soul" when my faith flickered and nearly died.    I made it back out, by being willing to face the truth, no matter what it turned out to be.     Staring into the abyss, I stepped over the edge and into it, an act of faith that there was something beyond me and the world.    And with the help of God and the young woman who has been at my side now for 51 years, I regained my faith.

When I was lost in that dark valley
where God is a distant "maybe,"
you did what you had to do.   

And it saved me
even though at the time
all I could see was betrayal.


What if the question was:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 - 23:10:45
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon May 01, 2017 - 00:30:13
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth. It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.

Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.

This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Mon May 01, 2017 - 03:27:57
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God. Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.
AVZ's analysis is absolutely true. To a confess measure of faith in evolution is a sign of a measure of unbelief that is not much different to a staunch God-hating atheist. Evolution is an idea from the old serpent, the enemy of God and truth.  It's the doctrine/god of Mystery Babylon, both commercial and the great whore~who portrays as a daughter of Jehovah, but who are in truth from the generation of the wicked.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Mon May 01, 2017 - 03:46:37
Yep.   He says he's an agnostic, and can't prove that there is no God.
NO MAN CAN OR CANNOT~to know is a GIFT given, ONCE given, then we know by many infallible proofs that ONLY children of faith CAN SEE.
Quote
Acts 1:3~"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"
Faith is free gift given to the seed of Jesus Christ, that he secured FOR THEM. The word of God has many, many truths, where faith must be used to believe, the list is long, beginning with a serpent TALKING to a woman! The faith that Jesus Christ had is the VERY FAITH that every child of promise lives by~which men like Dawkins mock and make fun of...but one day, we shall laugh, and he shall mourn to see just how delusional he was!
Quote
Galatians 2:20~"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."
You see, it takes FAITH to believe that we were crucified WITH CHRIST and that the very life we now live is by the FAITH OF CHRIST that has been freely imparted to us. The battle is not so much over evolution, but EVERY SOUND DOCTRINE that's recorded for us to believe...CREATION just happens to be one of them. It is the very first truth that one must believe and hold fast to, or the others hidden truths will never be seen and understood.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Mon May 01, 2017 - 04:11:17
Quote
2nd Peter 3:16-18~"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen."
We are exhorted to watch for the errors and false ideas of men in Christ's name, that we are not led astray by them. But Theologians today seem to think that there can be no errors of teaching, and we can question everything in scripture, each one of us interpreting personally or privately to suit whatever the scientists declare is true. But in doing so, we fall from our own stedfastness in the faith of the gospel. We must be diligent, careful not to become corrupted and unbelieving wherein we have our mind and conscience defiled. For then we will be professing we know God, while in works denying him. Remember, Christ said, "A tree is known by its fruits." Can men have faith in God's word, and yet every time man says it cannot be literally true, they start looking around to find what else it could possibly mean besides what it said? Isn't that the very essence of putting faith in man's word over God? We can call it Theistic Evolution, Progressive Evolution, Evolutionary Creation, Christian Intellectualism, or any other name, but changing the title doesn't make it a new phenomenon. It's the same old worldly non-belief that has plagued the Church since the beginning.
Quote
2 Corinthians 4:13~ "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;"
We believe because we have the spirit of faith, which as we said above~is the faith of Christ.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Mon May 01, 2017 - 06:34:48
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 01, 2017 - 07:08:55
Quote
There is no need to modify the question, it's intent is totally irrelevant to the discussion, and besides that it is inconsistent.
Science has already irrefutably proven that a virgin cannot give birth.


It's called "parthenogenesis."   And there's no absolute bar to it happening in humans, although it's so unlikely that we will almost certainly never see a documented case other than the one God produced miraculously.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html)

Happens in other organisms, though; just not mammals, unless there's a series of rather unlikely events.

Quote
It has also irrefutably proven that something that is dead for 3 days cannot come back to life.


Humans anyway.   But why would it surprise you that Jesus could produce a miracle?

Quote
Alan is attempting to set up a straw man argument; if science irrefutably proves that evolution is true...I MUST accept its premise.


Actually, he asked if you would accept it.   Couple of caveats:
1. science never actually proves things; it just gathers evidence to the point that it's foolish to believe otherwise.   The way you depend on most things you find to be true in your daily life.

2. Evolution, including speciation, has been directly observed.   So not really a concern.

Quote
If Alan is consistent he therefore must accept himself that Jesus could not have been born or resurrected from death because science has irrefutably proven both cannot happen.


That might be a problem for an atheist, but I'm guessing that Alan knows that God can do miracles.

Quote
This whole discussion is about where a person puts his faith. It's either science or the Word of God.


Science depends on evidence alone.    It can't involve faith, because it has no way to evaluate faith as a way of knowing.

Quote
Either God created everything and evolution did not happen...or evolution happened and the account in Genesis is a false testimony of events.


No, you're wrong about that.   God created everything, and evolution is just one of the ways he did it.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue May 02, 2017 - 04:28:43
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Tue May 02, 2017 - 05:19:07
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?


Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting  ::giggle::


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Tue May 02, 2017 - 06:01:02
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?


Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting  ::giggle::


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.

You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question?   ::frown:: ???
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Tue May 02, 2017 - 06:04:53
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?


Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting  ::giggle::


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.

You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question?   ::frown:: ???


What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question.  ???
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Tue May 02, 2017 - 11:50:48
Quote
On #4: That evolution is about the creation of life's diversity.

More correctly, evolution Is the way God created each organism according to its kind.

Quote
Michael:
I could not agree to this.

Take a look..
 Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [22] And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [23] And the evening and morning were the fifth day. [24] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. [27] And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. [29] And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: [30] And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done.

He doesn't say how He created them according to their kind, but the evidence shows it was by evolution.

What evidence?

Genesis 1:21 And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

What evidence can you show that will prove that God created sea creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

What evidence can you show that will prove that God every winged fowl according to their kind by evolution? 

"the waters brought forth" does not mean to say that it was the waters that caused the production or creation of all the sea creatures, and of every winged fowl, or that the sea creatures and winged fowl were made out of the waters, or that evolution took place from out of the waters.

Genesis 1:22 And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth.

After God have created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind, God commanded them to "Increase and multiply", not to "evolve" further into some other kinds of living creature.

Genesis 1:24 And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.


What evidence can you show that will prove that God created every land creatures according to their kind by evolution? 

"The earth brought forth" does not at all mean to say that it was the earth that caused the production or creation all the land creatures, or that the earth creatures were made out of the earth, or that evolution took place from out of the earth.

Genesis 1:26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.


Clearly, what God created is man, the kind of which you and I belong. Did God created man by evolution? You say, claim and insist, that it is by evolution, and even say that this is consistent with scriptures, even while on the other hand you yourself say that scriptures doesn't say how God created.

I understand that you believe that God created the present humankind by evolution, which tells me that you now know HOW God created man. You apparently believe this, not because scriptures reveals this, but obviously because of man's scientific wisdom. That God created the first living humans, perhaps the Neandertals, or H. erectus, or what have you, which over some million years thereafter, evolved into the humankind of today. And I would wonder if the first living humans for you are Adam and Eve or that they are rather the first of them that evolved into the humankind of today.       

Scientist seems to say that creation of new kinds of living things still persist by evolution, up to the present day. After all, evolution, I understand, is taught to be a continuing process of change, and which is now turning out to be a creation method. And this tells me, in relation to evolution, that we still continue to evolve. Until when?Into what? That nobody can say, I guess.

Another thing on evolution is that, if this is a natural creation process created by God, anyone then who tampers with it, I think sins against God.

Michael, Barbarian believes he and others are new prophets of God who have finally evolved enough to now reveal the truth God could not reveal to us through Moses or any of the other prophets or bible writers, who apparently weren't evolved enough to do so. I'm afraid you and I simply haven't evolved enough to understand his prophecies yet. He speaks for all those whose parents are monkeys. So it is.
He, he, he, he he!  Your right, I haven't evolved, I'm still the mess my momma gave birth to, God blesself.s her pea picking
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed May 03, 2017 - 01:05:28
Hey guys,
 I don't belong in this conversation/discussion, but do have a question. Maybe just a simple answer, but I wonder.
 Creation is a fact I'd say to everyone on this board, and without creation, evolution is a non issue. I just wonder if it weren't for evolution, could/would creation have survived oh these many years.
 The question is, why must they be mutually exclusive?
  Thanks and blessings.

This is not about mutual exclusivity. Evolution (i.e. macro evolution) is a non-option because it doesn't exist and it cannot happen.
One species does not evolve into another. Not in 100 years, not in 10,000 years, not in a million years and not in a billion years.
God could not have used something that does not exist and does not happen.


What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? Will you still deny and stand on your above statement?

Is this a serious question?
If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question.

Let me take that for the sake of Alan, even while I feel the same way as AVZ on the question.

If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

NO.

Alan, let me modify your question and let me know your answer:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?


Utter foolishness, you and AVZ are denying a very conceivable possibility and creating an impossible premise in an attempt to make your point.  ::doh::

I gave you my answer to what to you is a very conceivable possibility. Now, what is your answer to the question:

If scientists irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?

Or would you like me to say what you said to AVZ, "Nice deflection, I guess you couldn't honestly answer the question"?


Nice try, but don't try holding me to the wall when neither of you have answered my question, the path of deflection is persisting  ::giggle::


BTW, many scientists have indeed stated that creation and intelligent design are irrefutable fantasies, that stands as opinion though rather than observable data, so not bite there.

Okay, so I won't have to guess that you couldn't honestly answer the question. You have shown me that you can't.

You asked "If science irrefutably proves that God does not exist in the next few decades, will you deny Christ?". And my answer is NO. And you say that I have not answered your question?   ::frown:: ???


What are you talking about? I NEVER asked that question.  ???

Oooop! My bad. My sincere apologies.

And so, please ignore everything regarding that then.

I hope I got it right this time:

Alan: <<What if science irrefutably proves evolution to be the truth within the next few decades? >>

For me to answer properly, please clarify "to be the truth". Is it the truth, being that, God created the different kinds of living things using already created nature and evolved them for millions of years from there?

By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed May 03, 2017 - 11:45:55
Quote
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?

Did God create you?    Or did He finish creation before He made you?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Wed May 03, 2017 - 13:41:20
Did God create you?    Or did He finish creation before He made you?
I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!
Quote
2nd Timothy 1:9~"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
The doctrine is called eternal justification. That's the ONLY and just way God could have been a friend of Abraham BEFORE the legal payment for our sins were paid for by Christ. Noah would have NEVER found grace in the eyes of God EXCEPT he was eternally justified by the grace of God BEFORE the foundation of this earth. Bottom line, when God purpose to do anything according to his will, IT IS AS GOOD AS DONE~for WHOM can defeat his will, or even hinder him?  No one.
Quote
https://www.amazon.com/Justification-Eternity-Tercentenary-Appreciation-John/dp/0952707438
Quote
From Spurgeon's Sermons "Adoption", Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Vol. 7

But there are one or two acts of God which, while they certainly are decreed as much as other things, yet they bear such a special relation to God’s predestination that it is rather difficult to say whether they were done in eternity or whether they were done in time. Election is one of those things which were done absolutely in eternity; all who were elect, were elect as much in eternity as they are in time. But you may say, Does the like affirmation apply to adoption or justification? My late eminent and now glorified predecessor, Dr. Gill, diligently studying these doctrines, said that adoption was the act of God in eternity, and that as all believers were elect in eternity, so beyond a doubt they were adopted in eternity. He further than that to include the doctrine of justification and he said that inasmuch as Jesus Christ was before all worlds justified by his Father, and accepted by him as our representative, therefore all the elect must have been justified in Christ from before all worlds. Now, I believe there is a great deal of truth in what he said, though there was a considerable outcry raised against him at the time he first uttered it. However, that being a high and mysterious point, we would have you accept the doctrine that all those who are saved at last were elect in eternity when the means as well the end were determined. With regard to adoption, I believe we were predestined hereunto in eternity, but I do think there are some points with regard to adoption which will not allow me to consider the act of adoption to have been completed in eternity. For instance, the positive translation of my soul from a state of nature into a state of grace is a part of adoption or at least it is an effect at it, and so close an effect that it really seems to be a part of adoption itself: I believe that this was designed, and in fact that it was virtually carried out in God’s everlasting covenant; but I think that it was that actually then brought to pass in all its fullness. So with regard to justification, I must hold, that in the moment when Jesus Christ paid my debts, my debts were cancelled — in the hour when he worked out for me a perfect righteousness it was imputed to me, and therefore I may as a believer say I was complete in Christ before I was born, accepted in Jesus, even as Levi was blessed in the loins of Abraham by Melchisedec; but I know likewise that justification is described in the Scriptures as passing upon me at the time I believe. “Being justified by faith,” I am told “I have peace with God, through Jesus Christ.” I think, therefore that adoption and justification, while they have a very great alliance with eternity, and were virtually done then, yet have both of them such a near relation to us in time, and such a bearing upon our own personal standing and character that they have also a part and parcel of themselves actually carried out and performed in time in the heart of every believer. I may be wrong in this exposition; it requires much more time to study this subject than I have been able yet to give to it, seeing that my years are not yet many; I shall no doubt by degrees come to the knowledge more fully of such high and mysterious points of gospel doctrine. But nevertheless, while I find the majority of sound divines holding that the works of justification and adoption are due in our lives I see, on the other hand, in Scripture much to lead me to believe that both of them were done in eternity; and I think the fairest view of the case is, that while they were virtually done in eternity, yet both adoption and justification are actually passed upon us, in our proper persons, consciences, and experiences, in time, — so that both the Westminster confession and the idea of Dr. Gill can be proved to be Scriptural, and we may hold them both without any prejudice the one to the other.
Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed May 03, 2017 - 17:29:29
Quote
I'll help my friend out. He made me perfect in Christ BEFORE he created the worlds and all things!

Not even Adam was so created.    God says he was created after the world was created.   You were formed in the womb long after that.

Psalm 139:13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Quote
Spurgeon had a little trouble of giving the proper sense of Justification, yet would never disagree with his mentor whom he learned so much from.

"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. "
Charles Spurgeon, The Power of the Holy Ghost
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Jean74 on Wed May 03, 2017 - 18:07:25
Proof of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Who died and rose from the grave and will come on back to get us all that believe in Him.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed May 03, 2017 - 18:51:41
Quote
Proof of God is through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. Who died and rose from the grave and will come on back to get us all that believe in Him.

Yes.   Whether we accept the fact of evolution or not.   It makes no difference to our salvation.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Thu May 04, 2017 - 04:17:33
Not even Adam was so created.    God says he was created after the world was created.   You were formed in the womb long after that.
That's not the way you worded it. You asked:
Quote
Did God create you?    Or did He finish creation before He made you?
You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.

Now concerning Spurgeon's statement concerning the gap theory~I respect much of what Spurgeon taught but he's was not a bible teacher as Gill, Brine, Richardson and many others before him~as a matter of truth, he was known more for his flowery speech and being a great orator than teaching bible truths. What he believe concerning creation were his personal beliefs which I know very little of his overall beliefs concerning creation but will investigate so I can be more knowledgeable~I only know what you quoted from here, if I had known more, then over the years I have forgotten, for I first read behind CHS around forty-five to fifty years ago. That's beginning to be a long time~it went SO FAST!

There is NO gap in Genesis 1:2,3, but the Holy Spirit is simply revealing to us the PROCESS of creation STEP BY STEP AS God created this earth, and the worlds and all things therein. The Gap theory is JUST THAT, a theory by man which good men like Spurgeon may very well had been influenced by modern day Theistic Evolution....(from Darwin on)

One more thought:
Quote
Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."
David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Thu May 04, 2017 - 06:00:43
Quote
By the way, this is my comment. Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?

Did God create you?    Or did He finish creation before He made you?

Yes God did. And you? He created me long after He finished creating Adam and Eve, in whom all of mankind were descended from. I was not created by evolution, by the way, and neither was Adam and Eve. Were you created by evolution?

The question remains:

Evolution, as per my understanding, that it is a continuing process, even as we speak. When will this end that we can say that finally, God had finished what He intended to create. And if this has not ended today, does it not follow that because evolution continues, concerning God's creation of man, that man today is yet to evolve to its final state?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu May 04, 2017 - 07:11:07
Barbarian observes:
Not even Adam was so created.    God says he was created after the world was created.   You were formed in the womb long after that.

Quote
That's not the way you worded it.

That's the way God worded it.   Why not just accept it His way?

Barbarian asks:
Did God create you?    Or did He finish creation before He made you?

Quote
You kinda left the door opened wider than you should have or maybe intended to do, that allowed me to give you a biblical truth. So, it is a bible truth that this world and all things are the results of God's eternal purposes in Jesus Christ, which includes his elect body, he being the head...even though, yes, we were born in time.

Sounds like you just found a really wordy and obscure way to agree with me.   You were created in time, of course.   So His creation is proceeding as each of us is born.

Quote
Now concerning Spurgeon's statement concerning the gap theory~I respect much of what Spurgeon taught but he's was not a bible teacher as Gill, Brine, Richardson and many others before him~as a matter of truth, he was known more for his flowery speech and being a great orator than teaching bible truths.

But in this case, he's just showing you what creationism was before the modern revision that gave us YE creationism.   Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.

Quote
One more thought:
Quote

    Psalm 139:13-16~"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

David being a prophet was speaking not of himself but of Christ and HIS MEMBERS OF HIS BODY!

So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was?    I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God.    He is God.   And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: RB on Thu May 04, 2017 - 07:52:07
So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was?    I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God.    He is God.   And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.
I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures) and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.
Quote
Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.
Believe so? We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove? It proves not one thing. The majority has ALWAYS been wrong when it comes to spiritual truths!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu May 04, 2017 - 18:29:56
Barbarian asks:
So you're telling me that David wasn't created by God, but Christ was?    I'm sorry, but that conflicts with some very basic facts of Christianity, among which is, Jesus is not a creation of God.    He is God.   And as you seem to already realize, Christians are created in time, just as everyone else is.

Quote
I have some meetings to attend~I'll come back and filter through your confused mess (theology~you obviously are very intelligent, but that does not translate into knowing the scriptures)

Well, I can always learn more.   If I were to boast about knowing more about it than others, it wouldn't really do me any good, would it?   

Quote
and then see if I can speak more clearly to you, which I have my doubts.

I'll be waiting to hear.

Barbarian observes:
Almost all creationists, prior to the early 1900s, believed in an old Earth.

Quote
Believe so?

Yep.   That was the form that was presented at the Scopes trial, for example.    It was that way until the Seventh-Day Adventists passed their doctrines on to fundamentalists.

Quote
We shall see~and even if many did, WHAT does that prove?

Only that YE creationism is a modern doctrine, no older than the last century.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat May 06, 2017 - 17:22:11
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php (http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/junk_dna_standalone.php)

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm (http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i10f.htm)

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/04/3538701.htm (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/04/3538701.htm)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat May 06, 2017 - 17:24:20
How do evolutionists explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE)

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Victor08 on Sat May 06, 2017 - 18:11:24
How do evolutionists explain this?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url])

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106 (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106)

Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
Hiroshi Kawase, Yoji Okata & Kimiaki Ito
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2106

Abstract
We report that male pufferfishes (Torquigener sp., Tetraodontidae) constructed large geometric circular structures on the seabed that played an important role in female mate choice. Males dug valleys at various angles in a radial direction, constructing nests surrounded by radially aligned peaks and valleys. Furthermore, they created irregular patterns in the nest comprising fine sand particles. The circular structure not only influences female mate choice but also functions to gather fine sand particles in nests, which are important in female mate choice. Strangely enough, the males never reuse the nest, always constructing a new circular structure at the huge cost of construction. This is because the valleys may not contain sufficient fine sand particles for multiple reproductive cycles.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat May 06, 2017 - 19:27:16
How do evolutionists explain this?
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE]www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKTBVO07ZhE[/url])

[url]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106[/url] ([url]https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02106[/url])

Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish
Hiroshi Kawase, Yoji Okata & Kimiaki Ito
Scientific Reports 3, Article number: 2106

Abstract
We report that male pufferfishes (Torquigener sp., Tetraodontidae) constructed large geometric circular structures on the seabed that played an important role in female mate choice. Males dug valleys at various angles in a radial direction, constructing nests surrounded by radially aligned peaks and valleys. Furthermore, they created irregular patterns in the nest comprising fine sand particles. The circular structure not only influences female mate choice but also functions to gather fine sand particles in nests, which are important in female mate choice. Strangely enough, the males never reuse the nest, always constructing a new circular structure at the huge cost of construction. This is because the valleys may not contain sufficient fine sand particles for multiple reproductive cycles.


Simply describing what the fish does, does not explain how or why evolutionary processes would or could bring about such.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:10:03
From your link:
Quote
ALL THE DNA IN OUR CHROMOSOMES IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE
Nature  20 October 2004
Your site is quite wrong:

Mice do fine without 'junk DNA'
Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.

More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. 

 And now Edward Rubin's team at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California has shown that deleting large sections of non-coding DNA from mice appears not to affect their development, longevity or reproduction.

The team created mice with more than a million base pairs of non-coding DNA missing - equivalent to about 1% of their genome. The animals' organs looked perfectly normal. And of more than 100 tests done on the mice tissues to assess gene activity, only two showed changes. The results are reported in this week's Nature2.

The group has now created mice missing three million base pairs. "We can see no effect in them," Rubin says.
Tough test

Knowles cautions that the study doesn't prove that non-coding DNA has no function. "Those mice were alive, that's what we know about them," she says. "We don't know if they have abnormalities that we don't test for."

David Haussler of the University of California, Santa Cruz, who has investigated why genetic regions are conserved, says that Rubin's study gives no hint that the deleted DNA has a function. But he also believes that non-coding regions may have an effect too subtle to be picked up in the tests to far.

"Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years," he argues. "Darwinian selection is a tougher test."

There seems to be some non-coding DNA that has functions.   But most of it, as shown here, can be removed with no observable effects.    And of course, there's no reason at all why non-coding DNA can't be adapted by evolution to do some kind of function.

Most creationists have given up on this story.    When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were investigating functions of non-coding DNA.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:13:50
From another of your links, the statement Pasteur was opposed to evolution.   This is false.    He acknowledged the fact.   

The link also says that the fossil record has refuted evolution by a lack of transitionals.    We can address this by a simple challenge.    You give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form between the two.   Which two would you like?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:17:00
From another of your links:
Quote
Darwin's theory is further used to support the belief that ancient humans — Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and Denisova — did not mix. In fact, based on Darwin's assumptions, most anthropologists claim that modern humans were simply descended from Cro-Magnons, who had exterminated their less-fit adversaries.

This is also false.    The same genetics that shows all organisms have a common descent, shows that humans and Neandertals were subspecies, not separate species, and that many modern humans carry Neandertal DNA.    You can't believe everything you see on the internet, sad as that is.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:30:40
Quote
Role of Huge Geometric Circular Structures in the Reproduction of a Marine Pufferfish

How do evolutionists explain this?

Mutation and natural selection.   

Much more complex behavior than that has been shown to be the result of reflex arcs.   Provisioning wasps burrows, termite nests, and so on have been so determined, often with examples of intermediate behaviors.    Would you like to learn about some of them?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun May 07, 2017 - 08:49:21
Like you said, you can't believe everything you see on the internet, and your responses are on the internet, as well as that which I have supplied. You will continue your non stop war with the word of God along with all the other evolution cronies, denying that you are at war with that which you blatantly contradict, and I will continue to point out and declare that you are in fact at war with the word of God. God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.

Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian? One of us is not telling the truth. That means one of us is a liar. It doesn't matter if we believe the lie, liars end up in the lake of fire. This is according to Him who is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Paul shares the same testimony regarding those who have not the love of the truth and choose to believe lies.

2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun May 07, 2017 - 14:33:33

So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God?  Absolutely nothing!  (2 Peter 3:8).  That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is.  How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None.  There is no "years" in the heaven of God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 07, 2017 - 16:30:03
Quote
Like you said, you can't believe everything you see on the internet, and your responses are on the internet, as well as that which I have supplied.

I'm citing Nature which is one of the most well-regarded journals in science.   As you see, the facts directly contradict your sources.

Quote
You will continue your non stop war with the word of God along with all the other evolution cronies,

As you may have seen, most Christians admit that evolution is consistent with God's word.   It's not consistent with the modern doctrine of YE creationism, but that's man's invention, not God's word.

Quote
God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.

Your salvation does not in any way depend on your opinion of evolution.   Unless you make an idol of creationism, you will be as welcome in heaven as one who accepts that evolution is God's creation.

Quote
So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?

Jesus says that we will not know until it's upon us.   

1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night.


That's good enough for me. 

Quote
One of us is not telling the truth. That means one of us is a liar.

I'd prefer to think you are sincere in your belief, and merely mistaken.

It's a very bad idea to add new requirements for salvation.   Let God decide, and accept it His way.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun May 07, 2017 - 22:12:15
Quote
God will settle this affair along with all others when He returns.

Your salvation does not in any way depend on your opinion of evolution.   Unless you make an idol of creationism, you will be as welcome in heaven as one who accepts that evolution is God's creation.

This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.

Either way, I find them as being opinions. Let me move on to discuss other matters with you, by initially throwing in a few questions.

Questions:

1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 08, 2017 - 06:29:49
Quote
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.

If you meant that accepting that God created different kinds of living things by evolution will not cost one his salvation, unless he makes an idol of evolution, you are exactly right.

[quote[1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?[/quote]

Jesus provided you with a list of things you must do it you want to spend eternity with him.   He summarized them in Matthew 25:31-46.    That's what He says will determine your eternal home.   

Quote
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?

See above.   I don't see how you would do it, without accepting that He created all things.  How He created all things is not critical.

Quote
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?

I don't think man's new doctrines are really of any use in salvation.   
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 08, 2017 - 07:09:10

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon May 08, 2017 - 08:31:41
Quote
This is also like saying that one whose opinion of evolution is God's creation or that God created the different kinds of living things by evolution, unless he make an idol of himself, or of his human intelligence, or of science, will not make it to heaven.

If you meant that accepting that God created different kinds of living things by evolution will not cost one his salvation, unless he makes an idol of evolution, you are exactly right.

Quote
1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?

Jesus provided you with a list of things you must do it you want to spend eternity with him.   He summarized them in Matthew 25:31-46.    That's what He says will determine your eternal home. 

It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer. I am not asking for a list of things one must do.

Quote
2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?

See above.   I don't see how you would do it, without accepting that He created all things.  How He created all things is not critical.

A direct answer would be nice and in order.


Quote
Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?

I don't think man's new doctrines are really of any use in salvation.

Please just answer the questions and avoid evading them. Thanks.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon May 08, 2017 - 09:14:00

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.

Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:00:49

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.

Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin.  The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less.  Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and  Heb 9:11.

The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 08, 2017 - 11:58:56
Quote
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.

I gave you Jesus' direct answer.    He tells you specifically what you must do to spend eternity with Him.   Do that, He says, and you will.   Don't do it, and you spend eternity with Satan and his angels.  What more do you want Him to tell you?   Theology won't save you.   Satan is a master theologian.   What will save you is following Jesus.

If this puzzles you, read Luke 10:25-37   Why did Jesus tell His followers to emulate a heretic instead of the thelogically correct Levite?

When you understand that, you'll understand what it is that will bring you salvation.
 

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Mon May 08, 2017 - 21:02:31

So, how many millions or billions of years do you reckon we will have to be waiting for the new heaven and new earth that God will create Barbarian?
What is a million or a billion years to the eternal God?  Absolutely nothing!  (2 Peter 3:8).  That you bring that question into the discussion shows a certain lack of understanding of who and what God is.  How many years did God wait until he created this heaven and earth? Answer - None.  There is no "years" in the heaven of God.

Yea, but the first time He didn't have all the saints in heaven with Him, whom He had promised a new heaven and a new earth some of which He described. Do you think He'll have them waiting around billions of years for the new heaven and earth to evolve? Or are all those promises and the book of Revelation just like Genesis to you. Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around. So, what do you think?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 08, 2017 - 21:57:21
Quote
Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.

Why would you think evolution had anything at all to do with it?    Evolution is part of nature.   What God is promising us is far, far beyond nature.
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Tue May 09, 2017 - 07:11:37
Quote
Like, no one really knows exactly what it means or how very long it might take God to finally bring about these things which He promised. If the new heaven and earth are going to be beyond what we could even begin to imagine, seems like it would take a lot longer for your evolution to finally bring it around.

Why would you think evolution had anything at all to do with it?    Evolution is part of nature.   What God is promising us is far, far beyond nature.

::thumbup::::thumbup::
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Wed May 10, 2017 - 18:58:21
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Thu May 11, 2017 - 00:09:50
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?

My goodness...so we will have to wait for another 15 billion years until heaven is ready?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Thu May 11, 2017 - 04:46:29
So God used evolution the first time, but wont use it the second time, is that it? If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe, then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution? Why would one have to include it, and the other not?
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,  It is a process dealing with procreation, not creation.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Thu May 11, 2017 - 11:38:39
What a perfecly simple minded answer.  Creation is found at the root of the word procreation.  It is greatly dismissed as a fairytale but My God, the God of Creation created everything in six days. (Gen. 1)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Thu May 11, 2017 - 11:46:16

What a perfecly simple minded answer.  Creation is found at the root of the word procreation.
Now that is funny to the point of stupid.  Do you know the difference in meaning between create and procreate?  Apparently not.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: jeager on Thu May 11, 2017 - 12:11:10
Let me see now.
The Earth was created in 6 literal days.
God rest on the 7th literal day.
Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect.

Now about that swamp land I want to sell ya.

Once again let me remind some people that the Genesis account was written for people
with no notion of science what so ever.
It was written BY people with no notion of science at all.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu May 11, 2017 - 12:16:17
Quote
So God used evolution the first time,

In this world, He does.

Quote
but wont use it the second time, is that it?

It only works in nature.   Not anywhere else.

Quote
If every time the bible speaks of the first creation it is referring to evolution as you believe

God doesn't mention evolution, or gravity, or protons in the Bible.   

Quote
then why wouldn't the creation of the new heaven and new earth also involve evolution?

Because it only works in nature.  Won't work beyond that.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu May 11, 2017 - 12:17:38
Quote
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,

Precisely.   It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Thu May 11, 2017 - 13:43:57

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.

Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin.  The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less.  Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and  Heb 9:11.

The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.

Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For  the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.

My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu May 11, 2017 - 20:40:42
Hmm... We can either believe that mankind eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God, or we can believe that rocks and snails and trees are eagerly awaiting that.   Seems to be that the latter interpretation is obviously false.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Thu May 11, 2017 - 22:01:22
Is 65:16 That he who blesseth himself in the earth shall bless himself in the God of truth; and he that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. 17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. 18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.


Is 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord. 22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.


2 Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.


Rev 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth? Will this require evolution again or not, and why or why not? Do you believe this world will be destroyed and a new heaven and earth created for the saved? Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri May 12, 2017 - 00:04:24
Quote
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?

Why would it matter?    He chose to do this world over a long period of time.   What if He does it different next time?    Should we be offended?

Quote
Will this require evolution

Evolution is part of nature.   And the world to come is not natural.   It's a mistake to impose what you know about this world on the world to come. 

Quote
Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?

I don't think that your misunderstandings about what we believe are holding you back as much as your inability to clearly explain what you believe.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri May 12, 2017 - 00:45:41
Hmm... We can either believe that mankind eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God, or we can believe that rocks and snails and trees are eagerly awaiting that.   Seems to be that the latter interpretation is obviously false.

Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For  the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance.  The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri May 12, 2017 - 00:59:11
Quote
It would be nice of you, and not appear evasive, if you'll answer the question with a direct answer.

I gave you Jesus' direct answer.    He tells you specifically what you must do to spend eternity with Him.   Do that, He says, and you will.   Don't do it, and you spend eternity with Satan and his angels.  What more do you want Him to tell you?   Theology won't save you.   Satan is a master theologian.   What will save you is following Jesus.

If this puzzles you, read Luke 10:25-37   Why did Jesus tell His followers to emulate a heretic instead of the thelogically correct Levite?

When you understand that, you'll understand what it is that will bring you salvation.
 

Let me take us back to my questions:

1. Is it necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything there is, to be saved?

Let me guess then. Your answer is Yes?

2. Is it necessary to believe that all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, that all things were created BY God, and FOR God, and that God is before all things, and BY Him all things consist, to be saved?

Your answer is Yes?

3. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility?

Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?

4. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man?

Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?

5. Being a Christian, do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

Let me guess then again. Your answer is No?

There. Did I guess you right? 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:16:14

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.

Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin.  The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less.  Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and  Heb 9:11.

The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.

Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For  the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.

My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.

And your take on the creation in v.19-21 would be obviously wrong.  Please explain how the creation, other than mankind, could eagerly wait for anything.  How does the sun, the moon, and the stars eagerly await the revealing of the sons of God.  What on earth could that possibly mean?  And just what is the corruption (v.21) that is spoken of there?  When iron and oxygen combine to form rust, that is corrosion, that is chemistry.  When you eat food and digest it to form the stuff of your body and to provide the energy necessary, that is a chemical corrosion process.  Is that corruption?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri May 12, 2017 - 06:48:59

Being a Christian, do you believe or not that creation was subjected to futility? And do you believe or not that the creation is in bondage to corruption, and not only man? And do you believe or not that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption?

I assume that you are referring to your understanding of Romans 8 with that question.  The word translated "creation" in Romans 8:19-22 is from the Greek word ktisis.  It is the same as that in Mark 16:15;

Mar 16:15  And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

I am curious, Michael, being a Christian, do you believe that you need to preach the gospel to that same creation as you have rendered in Romans 8?  If so, do you do it?  And it you do, do you do it openly where other folks can watch to do that?  And if you do, I would really be interested in just a sample of your message to that "creation".

What I am suggesting here is that your interpretation of the passage in Romans 8 is altogether faulty.

Before I get to answer your question, can you answer the questions in the portion of my post that you quoted?
I would have thought my answer was apparent. There is absolutely nothing about the physical universe that God created that was changed as a result of Adam's sin.  The "creation" that is spoken of in Romans 8 is mankind, no more, no less.  Same as "creation" in Mark 16:15, as well as Gal 6:15 , Col 1:15, Col 1:23 and  Heb 9:11.

The "corruption" that you think you see in the whole of creation, and not just man, is just as God created it.

Romans 8:19-23
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For  the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation[/b] groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22.

My take on the creation in v.19-21 is, it refers to all of creation, excluding mankind.

And your take on the creation in v.19-21 would be obviously wrong.  Please explain how the creation, other than mankind, could eagerly wait for anything.  How does the sun, the moon, and the stars eagerly await the revealing of the sons of God.  What on earth could that possibly mean?  And just what is the corruption (v.21) that is spoken of there?  When iron and oxygen combine to form rust, that is corrosion, that is chemistry.  When you eat food and digest it to form the stuff of your body and to provide the energy necessary, that is a chemical corrosion process.  Is that corruption?

Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance.  The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.

Paul, with the passage, imparts to us, in like sense as he had in Rom. 1, that even the creation speaks out and testify of the invisible things of God, but here even about the blessed hope of redemption of the sons of God, as by that, it too will be delivered from its bondage to corruption and freed from its subjection to futility. This he have done so, in connection to the sufferings of the children of in the present time, that such are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be soon revealed in them.

Reading the passage, what is clear about creation is that it was subjected to futility and is in bondage to corruption. And that it will be set free and be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. The questions really are:

What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:01:16

Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.

Quote
Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.  The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.

Quote
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption.  Everything else is just as God created it  --  the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe.  There is no bondage or corruption there.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:29:13

Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.

Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?

And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility? 


Quote
Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.  The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.

Quote
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption.  Everything else is just as God created it  --  the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe.  There is no bondage or corruption there.

So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:

"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."

Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri May 12, 2017 - 07:54:22

Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.

Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?

And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility? 

The futility is the condemnation,due to trespasses and sins, to eternity apart from God i.e, in Hell.

{quote]

Quote
Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.  The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.

Quote
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption.  Everything else is just as God created it  --  the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe.  There is no bondage or corruption there.

So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:

"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."

Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.

How do I explain it?  Quite simply, you are wrong.  Being anxious for anything is not something that any other than mankind can do.  The fall of Adam has no effect on our physical being or our spiritual being.  And that is not my problem.  That you do not understand that is your problem.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri May 12, 2017 - 08:07:31
Quote
How long do those of you who preach evolution think it will take to bring about the new heaven and new earth?

Why would it matter?    He chose to do this world over a long period of time.   What if He does it different next time?    Should we be offended?

Quote
Will this require evolution

Evolution is part of nature.   And the world to come is not natural.   It's a mistake to impose what you know about this world on the world to come. 

Quote
Or is this all a fairy tail to you as the first account of creation and the flood are to you?

I don't think that your misunderstandings about what we believe are holding you back as much as your inability to clearly explain what you believe.

In other words, your not going to answer the questions. The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe. The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God, go much deeper and cause far more damage to the faith, than you are willing admit or investigate in depth. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Fri May 12, 2017 - 10:36:52
People of the World do not believe Matthew 18:3, AMO.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Fri May 12, 2017 - 11:10:54

Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being subjected to futility?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.

Okay, so, what can you understand of mankind with its being subjected to futility?

And by the way, was mankind subjected to futility? 

The futility is the condemnation,due to trespasses and sins, to eternity apart from God i.e, in Hell.

Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
Quote

Quote
Q:  What can you understand of creation with its being in bondage to corruption?
A:  Mankind and only mankind.  The corruption is in man's spirit due to trespasses and sins.

Quote
Q: What can you say of creation, how it will be when it has been delivered from the bondage of corruption?
A: Only in the trespasses and sins of man is there corruption.  Everything else is just as God created it  --  the entire universe and the natural laws that govern the universe.  There is no bondage or corruption there.

So, how do you refute and explain what I said in my previous post with regards to what your interpretation that creation in the passage refers to mankind? Let me quote the relevant post:

"In v.19, it speaks of the creation as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. And in v.20, that it was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly. If the creation is mankind, v.19 would be false, in that, it would mean that mankind waits for the revealing of the sons of God, and that with eagerness. The atheists don't, for one, among others, which will altogether make v.19 false. Another is that, it will render v.20 as saying that mankind was forcibly subjected, and that to futility, which we know is false. And verse 21 would then be saying that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God. That would also be false, in that, only the children of God will be delivered and made free from corruption.  And finally, in v.23, which says "we also" tells us that the "we" is not included in the creation that is spoken of in vs.19-22."

Side Comment: If I'm not mistaken, I think that your problem with this passage is connected with your belief that the Fall of Adam has no effect on the physical, and only on the spiritual.

How do I explain it?  Quite simply, you are wrong.  Being anxious for anything is not something that any other than mankind can do.  The fall of Adam has no effect on our physical being or our spiritual being.  And that is not my problem.  That you do not understand that is your problem.

So all you have for a refutation is the thought that other than mankind, being anxious for anything is not possible with anything else.

Well then, so goes the passage with your take of creation as being mankind. 

By the way, do you know about a figure of speech in which an inanimate object or abstract idea is represented as animated, or endowed with personality? This is somewhat what Paul used in that passage regarding creation. Else, if that is not the case, and take it to be plain and literal, so then will the passage be rendered absurd, ridiculous and false.

I have explained this in reply#153, which I think you have ignored. Here it is:

Paul personified creation as leaning forward eagerly in anticipation of the great day when God will fully redeem it too. God subjected the whole creation to futility. The "whole creation" (excluding man, v. 23) acts as though it is going through birth "pains," in that it is straining to produce its fruit. Its sufferings are both a result of past events indicating their being under bondage of corruption, and an indication of future deliverance.  The sons of God share this sense of groaning and anticipation that Paul described the whole creation as feeling.

Paul, with the passage, imparts to us, in like sense as he had in Rom. 1, that even the creation speaks out and testify of the invisible things of God, but here even about the blessed hope of redemption of the sons of God, as by that, it too will be delivered from its bondage to corruption and freed from its subjection to futility. This he have done so, in connection to the sufferings of the children of in the present time, that such are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be soon revealed in them.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Fri May 12, 2017 - 11:40:04
Quote
Evolution is strictly a physical phenomenon,

Precisely.   It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.

Who says so and how would you know?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri May 12, 2017 - 17:18:14
Quote
In other words, your not going to answer the questions.

Rather, you don't like the answers.    The amount of time God used in this world to create things has nothing at all to do with the next.    We live in a world created in time, but that's not what you have in eternity.   


Quote
The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.

I don't wish to be unkind, but it seems to me that if you just accepted His word as it is, you'd have no problem understanding how the physical universe fits into His will.

Quote
The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God

I accept it precisely because I accept the word of God first.    My one objection to YE creationism, is that it puts one more obstacle between unbelievers and God.    If they see someone preaching that they must believe something demonstrably false, then they walk away.   Now, it's true that there are many YE creationists who admit that evolution/creationism has no bearing on one's salvation, and that both views are consistent with Christian belief.   If this is your view, then you do no damage to the faith.

If you insist that only YE is acceptable for salvation, then you are opposing God's desire that no man be lost.

And if so, you're not serving God.   

Think about it, at least.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri May 12, 2017 - 17:40:10
Barbarian agrees:
Precisely.   It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.

Quote
Who says so and how would you know?

Heaven is such that those who achieve it, have absolute subordination of their bodies (yes, we will have bodies) to their spirits.   As Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, with a physical body he invited his disciples to examine for themselves, yet was able to move through a wall with that same body, so we will have the same subtility.

John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. ... [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

Our bodies clearly don't have that kind of ability now.   But in the next world, they shall.

God constantly contrasts Heaven and Earth as two entirely different places.    Yes, Heaven is a state of being, but it is also a place.   If one has a body, then one has a location, hence a place.

It will not be like anything we have ever encountered; it will be an entirely different state and existence:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.

So no one in this world has ever encountered anything remotely like it.

1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Fri May 12, 2017 - 21:38:43
Barbarian agrees:
Precisely.   It won't be in heaven, because Heaven is not part of nature.

Quote
Who says so and how would you know?

Heaven is such that those who achieve it, have absolute subordination of their bodies (yes, we will have bodies) to their spirits.   As Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, with a physical body he invited his disciples to examine for themselves, yet was able to move through a wall with that same body, so we will have the same subtility.

John 20:19 Now when it was late that same day, the first of the week, and the doors were shut, where the disciples were gathered together, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them: Peace be to you. ... [20] And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord.

Our bodies clearly don't have that kind of ability now.   But in the next world, they shall.

God constantly contrasts Heaven and Earth as two entirely different places.    Yes, Heaven is a state of being, but it is also a place.   If one has a body, then one has a location, hence a place.

It will not be like anything we have ever encountered; it will be an entirely different state and existence:
1 Corinthians 2:9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.

So no one in this world has ever encountered anything remotely like it.

1 Corinthians 13:12 We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.

But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?
Who says there is no nature in heaven?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat May 13, 2017 - 07:09:39
Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting.  That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense.  How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God?  The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary.  It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator.  The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.

Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view.  I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite.  But perhaps that is just me.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat May 13, 2017 - 08:40:16
Futility: The quality of producing no valuable effect, or of coming to nothing; uselessness.
And that is how you view God's creation? Interesting.  That sort of makes your notion of the Romans one reference to creation as symbolism or a figure of speech to be absolute nonsense.  How could something you proclaim to be useless, producing no valuable effect and coming to nothing enlighten anyone about its creator God?  The obvious implication of Paul's discussion in Romans 1 is quite the contrary.  It is the gloriousness, the grandeur, the majesty, the greatness of creation that speaks of its creator.  The futility that you ascribe to God's creation does no such thing.

Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view.  I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite.  But perhaps that is just me.

Easy. First, I don't get to choose what scriptures says 4WD.

Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.

4WD: <<Seriously Michael, your thoughts of God imparting original sin upon the whole of mankind because of Adam's sin and the ascribing to His creation the futility you see in it doesn't strike me as a very reverent view.  I see no glory to God expressed in either thought; in fact quite the opposite.  But perhaps that is just me.>>

It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth. All these were not God's intention for man, and the rest of creation. Will I complain to God that He had to subject the creation as He had only because Adam sinned? Perhaps, you'd say you see no glory to God expressed in this. Now, Adam and Eve multiplied, until the generation of Noah. In Noah's time, men were so wicked that God destroyed them all, except Noah, who found grace from God, and those in the ark with him. But, not only was man destroyed, but literally, the rest of creation. Will I again complain to God that He had to destroy even the rest of creation, because of wicked man? And perhaps again, you'd say you see no glory to God expressed in this. Well, you can say that, as you do. But, that is what the just and righteous God did.

And so, you are right in saying "But perhaps that is just me". 

So, if you find my view as something unacceptable to you, for the reasons you here expressed, then perhaps, you can look into your view that creation there in Rom. 8:19-23  refers to mankind, and tell us what it makes of the passage as saying, and if it does not stand contrary to other truths in scriptures. And I already have shown you what it makes of the passage. And it makes it false. If you say it does not make it false, please show and explain it to us then. I'd be happy to know, for up till now, you have evaded in addressing it.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat May 13, 2017 - 09:01:07
Quote
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?

It's proof that God can set aside the laws by which this world works, when He wishes to do so.   It's His creation, of course He can.   But that just puts a finer point in it; nature will never be what Heaven is.


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat May 13, 2017 - 09:18:23
Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.
  What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?
Quote
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.
What curse of the ground are you talking about?  The thorns and thistles?   What curse of the earth are you talking about?

You seem always to read into Scripture was is not there  --  on just about every topic on which you post.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sat May 13, 2017 - 12:39:15
Quote
But isn't the fact that Jesus did all these "heavenly things" here on earth, even ate food in His new body, proof that heaven and nature can go together perfectly?

It's proof that God can set aside the laws by which this world works, when He wishes to do so.   It's His creation, of course He can.   But that just puts a finer point in it; nature will never be what Heaven is.

and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat May 13, 2017 - 13:30:41
Second, what could be said of the futility spoken of in Rom.8, that creation was subjected to, is obviously not with regards to its testimony about its creator, but with regards to its having been under its bondage to corruption, that it never reaches the perfection that God originally intended it to achieve.
  What corruption are you talking about; what bondage to corruption are you talking about?
Quote
It's not my thoughts of God, but what is in scriptures. The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind. Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.
What curse of the ground are you talking about?  The thorns and thistles?   What curse of the earth are you talking about?

You seem always to read into Scripture was is not there  --  on just about every topic on which you post.
<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>

Is this not in your Bible?

<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>

Is this not in your Bible?

If you just read Gen. 1-2, how the ground or the earth is said to bring forth all that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food, before it was cursed. Because of Adam's sin, God cursed the ground, that it bring forth thorns and thistles. And that for the sake of Adam. Look around what has become of the earth today, and that, as it was for Adam when he sinned, all for the sake of man because man sinned.

With regards every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, in the beginning, did God not given every green herb for meat? And because of the sins of man, were they not cursed? Were they not later been made food for man, killed and eaten? Look around, what has become of them?

Can't you see this corruption that is upon creation because of sin, of sinful man? Can't you see creation is under bondage to this? Can't you the futility that they have been subjected to? If you don't, then perhaps you need to look again.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat May 13, 2017 - 14:58:29

Quote
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?

That wasn't my claim.   I'm pointing out that the physical universe is not heaven, and that things work differently there.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: tooldtocare on Sat May 13, 2017 - 15:58:10
We are all human beings
flesh and bones
All I can say is.,.,,...,......,...,.,...,
Love the stranger as thyself (:-  ::announcment::
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat May 13, 2017 - 16:50:56
Quote
In other words, your not going to answer the questions.

Rather, you don't like the answers.    The amount of time God used in this world to create things has nothing at all to do with the next.    We live in a world created in time, but that's not what you have in eternity.   


Quote
The answers would begin to reveal just how little of scripture you actually believe.

I don't wish to be unkind, but it seems to me that if you just accepted His word as it is, you'd have no problem understanding how the physical universe fits into His will.

Quote
The implications of what you have chosen to believe above and over the word of God

I accept it precisely because I accept the word of God first.    My one objection to YE creationism, is that it puts one more obstacle between unbelievers and God.    If they see someone preaching that they must believe something demonstrably false, then they walk away.   Now, it's true that there are many YE creationists who admit that evolution/creationism has no bearing on one's salvation, and that both views are consistent with Christian belief.   If this is your view, then you do no damage to the faith.

If you insist that only YE is acceptable for salvation, then you are opposing God's desire that no man be lost.

And if so, you're not serving God.   

Think about it, at least.

There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost. This will be their own doing, not God's.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat May 13, 2017 - 18:25:35

<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience.  That is in my Bible.
Quote
<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden.  The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles.    Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed.  From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke.  As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat May 13, 2017 - 21:54:48
Quote
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.

Fortunately, you're wrong about this.   There is absolutely nothing that says the way you think God created the diversity of life matters to your salvation.   It's a modern doctrine, it's not a Biblical doctrine, and it's false.    I'm not trying to be unkind.   I really am not.  But this is a doctrine that is damaging to the church and to Christian faith.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sat May 13, 2017 - 22:38:06

<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience.  That is in my Bible.

That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.


<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden.  The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles.    Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed.  From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke.  As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.

So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.

Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sat May 13, 2017 - 23:20:19

Quote
and how does that support your claim that there is no nature in heaven?

That wasn't my claim.   I'm pointing out that the physical universe is not heaven, and that things work differently there.   

What you said is that the creation of heaven is far beyond nature, so evolution cannot apply.
You also say that the creation of our universe is not far beyond nature, so evolution does apply.

What exactly is the difference between creation one universe versus the other?
In both cases we are talking about a supernatural event...creation.

For one scenario, the creation of heaven, you claim science cannot explain it because it is supernatural.
For the other scenario, the creation of our universe which equally is a supernatural event, you insist science is able to explain.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun May 14, 2017 - 06:47:06
Quote
There is nothing to think about. There is truth. All who choose to reject truth in favor of deception will be lost.

Fortunately, you're wrong about this.   There is absolutely nothing that says the way you think God created the diversity of life matters to your salvation.   It's a modern doctrine, it's not a Biblical doctrine, and it's false.    I'm not trying to be unkind.   I really am not.  But this is a doctrine that is damaging to the church and to Christian faith.

2 Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun May 14, 2017 - 06:54:35

<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience.  That is in my Bible.

That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
Of course it is the issue.  It debunks any notion of original sin.

Quote

<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden.  The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles.    Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed.  From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke.  As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.

So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.

Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.

The primary matter in all of this is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis".  And the simple truth is that you have chosen the wrong one.  And in doing so you have a completely wrong interpretation.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun May 14, 2017 - 11:39:58
Quote
All I can say is.,.,,...,......,...,.,...,
Love the stranger as thyself (:-  ::announcment::

You have it right, my friend.   

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. [38] This is the greatest and the first commandment. [39] And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. [40] On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun May 14, 2017 - 11:57:48

<<The fall of Adam brought sin into the world, into mankind.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience.  That is in my Bible.

That is not the issue. The thing is, it's in the Bible.
Of course it is the issue.  It debunks any notion of original sin.

The issue in this segment is if what I said that "the fall of Adam brought sin into the world" is in the Bible. And it is. But then you put up another issue instead, that "What might have happened as a result of Adam's disobedience was completely undone as a result of Jesus obedience." is in the Bible. And so, I said , that is not the issue.

Anyway, on the issue you injected, here's my comment. So, what is it that you say was the result of Adam's disobedience that was completely undone by Jesus' obedience?

<< Man was taken out from the presence of God, have to work for his food, and the woman to bear children with much pain, the snake was cursed, and so too is the ground, the earth.>>

Is this not in your Bible?
Man [Adam] was ejected from the Garden.  The result of the curse of the ground is thorns and thistles.    Yes, the woman shall bear children in pain and the snake was cursed.  From that you get that the universe was subjected to the bondage of corruption?? What a joke.  As I said, you read far more into the Scriptures than the Scriptures ever say.

So, what I was saying is in scriptures. That's the issue.
Another point is the truth that, the sin of man affects the creation.

Another truth is that, creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption. What is left for us to discern is not that, but what the futility is and the bondage of corruption is. We may have differing views and opinion to this, but that is a secondary matter to the truth of the matter that creation was subjected to futility and is under bondage of corruption.

The primary matter in all of this is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis".  And the simple truth is that you have chosen the wrong one.  And in doing so you have a completely wrong interpretation.

And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun May 14, 2017 - 12:40:02

And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?


According to Strong's:
G2937

κτίσις

ktisis

ktis'-is

From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.


According to Thayer:
G2937

κτίσις

ktisis

Thayer Definition:
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
Part of Speech: noun feminine


So then the correct translation must be from the context and there is no context that would suggest that the universe is at all intended in Romans 8.  Clearly it is mankind that has been subjected to futility. It is mankind that is held in the bondage of sin and corruption.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Sun May 14, 2017 - 15:27:19

And what is the correct translation of the Greek word "ktisis" according to you?


According to Strong's:
G2937

κτίσις

ktisis

ktis'-is

From G2936; original formation (properly the act; by implication the thing, literally or figuratively): - building, creation, creature, ordinance.


According to Thayer:
G2937

κτίσις

ktisis

Thayer Definition:
1) the act of founding, establishing, building etc
1a) the act of creating, creation
1b) creation, i.e. thing created
1b1) of individual things, beings, a creature, a creation
1b1a) anything created
1b1b) after a rabbinical usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called)
1b1c) the sum or aggregate of things created
1c) institution, ordinance
Part of Speech: noun feminine


So then the correct translation must be from the context and there is no context that would suggest that the universe is at all intended in Romans 8.  Clearly it is mankind that has been subjected to futility. It is mankind that is held in the bondage of sin and corruption.

Are you saying here that the correct English translation of the Greek word "ktisis" is mankind? I don't see that anywhere in the references you posted.

Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:

Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?   

In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.

Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?

Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?

Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?

Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.

Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 15, 2017 - 07:52:22
Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:

Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-life
Quote
In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.

Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
We are all subjected to futility.  That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.
Quote
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Interesting question.  Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].
Quote
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?

Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.

Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Again the problem you raise is not rectified if ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation".  However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man.  I believe Paul is making the case that even we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.

Now I would ask you a question. 

Q:  If the Greek word ktisis is rendered as the whole of creation, could you describe the corruption and the bondage to that corruption that you see in the universe in the whole of the natural world other than the corruption of man that arises from man's trespasses and sins.  What corruption and bondage to that corruption to you see in the sun?  In the moon?  In the whole of the Milky Way galaxie?  In the cosmological universe?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Mon May 15, 2017 - 09:20:40
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all. Let God be God, and have it His way.
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!
Quote
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."
To defer to believing what man says is true, rather than what the word of God says, is to do what is right in our own eyes and is the way of the world.
Quote
Proverbs 12:15~"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise."
It has never been, nor should it ever be the way of a true believer. We must hearken unto God's counsel on the creation and of what is right, for He ponders the heart and knows our real intent. He knows whose word we are placing above His, and He is not mocked by justifications nor rationalizations. Despite the great evolution myths being perpetrated upon man, Evolution is not a proven science, and never will be. It is JUST like Paul called it...science SO-CALLED!

By the introduction of sin into the world, the human race has been steadily declining, not getting better. And in observing creation, man has no justification for not believing in God. Because what we read in the bible mirrors what we see in the world. Not a world that is evolving to get better, but that God created a perfect world, which is in now in steady decay physically and morally because of man's sins. And in this time of moral degradation, the Church must stand fast and continue to have faith in what God says the creation days were. For though it may appear that the worlds are billions of years old, and framed of themselves through eons of evolution, this is not the true creation process. Though it may appear that man evolved from monkeys or Apes, by seeing certain of mankind that would allow another man who considers himself wise to think that THEY ARE THE MISSING LINK....this is not the true creation process, it's just a vain idea of men who consider themselves wise, and who rejects anything that completes with his wisdom. It is only by the willfulness of man that he reasons this out in his own eyes, and in his own mind this seems logical. But this is not the true creation process. It is simply the haughty spirit, the pride, and vanity of man in unbelief, who surmises that he knows more than God about creation and wants you to consider just how wise HE IS. I have met a few of these haughty spirits.
AMEN!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Mon May 15, 2017 - 09:23:36
I understand that the concept of evolution of life and man is yet a theory and not a fact. And I believe that such will remain to be a theory for the longest time, even longer than the time that life and man is thought to have evolve to what man is now.

Now, I'd asked this question:

Is for you, God a theory or a fact (truth)?

I am a Christian, and that being, needless to say, for me God is true and is a fact. So, there goes evolution, into the trash, rendered false.

Now, some evolutionist may say:

What is your proof of God?

Answer: Jesus Christ.
And AMEN again!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:45:08
Anyway, let's grant, for the sake of argument, that mankind is the correct translation, how do you explain what becomes of the passage then:

Romans 8:19-23 (ktisis=mankind)
19 For the earnest expectation of mankind eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For mankind was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because mankind itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole mankind groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.

In v.19, it speaks of mankind as to eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

Q: Do all man wait for the revealing of the sons of God? The atheists? The Satanist?
As hyperbole, yes all men are waiting for the after-life
Quote
In v.20, mankind was subjected to futility. And that it says, not willingly.

Q: Is mankind subjected to futility against its will? How is that? Do this not contradict the free will of man?
We are all subjected to futility.  That is the circumstance of life in this physical realm.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with the free will of man.

A hyperbole? Well, I don't see the reason why Paul needed to use a hyperbole regarding this, more so that such hyperbole is improper since such is an exaggeration to the point of suggesting a lie. And no atheist waits for the revealing of the sons of God.

I find the idea that mankind is subjected to futility, and that not willingly, to be inconsistent with the truth in scriptures. Who subjected mankind then to futility against mankind's will? And for what purpose?

Also, try to bring now what verses 19 and 20 in the context of what Paul was trying to point out to whom he writes to.

Quote
Verse 21 says that mankind will be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Q: Would all man be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption? Does this not stand contrary to scriptures that says that only the children of God will be delivered and made free from the bondage of corruption?
Interesting question.  Since the predicament you raise exists no matter whether ktisis is rendered creature [i.e., mankind] or creation [i.e., inclusive of the whole of creation].

It seems apparent that is a predicament to you. This is not so, in my take of the "creation" in the passage, which I take as all creation except mankind.

Quote
Q: Will the statement not be erroneous and false, in that, how will mankind, which includes the children of God, be be delivered into the glorious liberty of the children of God?

Verse 23, says "we also", makes the "we" not included in the mankind that is spoken of in vs.19-22, for if they are included, then the statement will be erroneous. and false.

Q: Who then are the "we", if not included mankind?
Again the problem you raise is not rectified if ktisis is translated as creation, since we are not excluded from "creation".  However I believe that the "we also" certainly makes the case that ktisis in this passage is speaking only about the creature, i.e, man.  I believe Paul is making the case that eyven we who make up the body of Christ have not been freed from the futility that derives from living in this physical world, simply by believing in Christ. We will realize that only when Jesus comes again.

In my take of what "creation" is in the passage, there is not a problem as there is in your take of it as "mankind". This verse is exactly what qualified and defined the "creation" spoken of in verses 19-22. And that is why, my take of "creation" in the passage is that it refers to all creation except mankind.

Now I would ask you a question. 

Q:  If the Greek word ktisis is rendered as the whole of creation, could you describe the corruption and the bondage to that corruption that you see in the universe in the whole of the natural world other than the corruption of man that arises from man's trespasses and sins.  What corruption and bondage to that corruption to you see in the sun?  In the moon?  In the whole of the Milky Way galaxie?  In the cosmological universe?

The "ktisis" is correctly translated in the English as "creation". Now, as to whether it refers to the whole creation or not is defined by context.

With regards your question, please refer to repiy#163 & #169.

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:50:07

 If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!

Ecc_1:5  Also, the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again.

Quite clearly from that verse the sun must revolve around the earth.  So the Bible says, so the truth it is.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 15, 2017 - 11:59:33

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Mon May 15, 2017 - 13:02:00

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.

Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.

In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon May 15, 2017 - 19:11:55

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.

Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.

In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather.  You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large.  In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Mon May 15, 2017 - 19:30:26
4WD, look around you, anywhere you are and watch the World News.  Things are not maintaining nor are things getting better.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 15, 2017 - 21:17:09

Quote
4WD, look around you, anywhere you are and watch the World News.  Things are not maintaining nor are things getting better.

Humans, indeed are corrupt.   His world is, as He said, "very good."   


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon May 15, 2017 - 23:16:08

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.

Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.

In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather.  You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large.  In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?

Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
Unlike heaven which will be eternal and not subject to corruption because there is no sin.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon May 15, 2017 - 23:28:56
Quote
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.

No one actually knows that.   You see, the sum of all the energy in the universe is equal to zero.    Always has been, from all indications.   And yet here we are, plants grow, babies are born, and the world works as He intends.

Quote
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.

You don't know that.   God may leave it here.    Or He might just end it.   Doesn't matter.   Or He might bring about an infinity of universes.   There's no point in imagining these things, because He hasn't told us.   Let us be humble and listen to what He says, without adding things.


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Tue May 16, 2017 - 00:50:45
Quote
Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.

No one actually knows that. You see, the sum of all the energy in the universe is equal to zero. Always has been, from all indications.

Next to the Evolution Theory yet another scientific hypothesis that has not been proven correct.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Tue May 16, 2017 - 06:04:40

Now, with regards the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, that I have no knowledge of. Perhaps if I were a scientist and studied and observed them, I would somehow relate such, to the scriptures and know perhaps a little about the futility they have been subjected to and how are they in bondage to corruption.
Had you studied anything at all in sciences you would of course see that your view of the universe being corrupted or being bound by corruption is ridiculous and there is no way that God would intend for your interpretation to be imposed upon His word.

Perhaps, if you were me. I do know where that is coming from. And I that I could understand you. But neither you nor I, even anyone for that matter, can really say anything with any degree of certainty with regards the matter of whether the sun, moon, milky way galaxy, the universe, are subjected to futility and in bondage of corruption or decay, or are not. For we simply are incapable of knowing as limited as we are. But we can trust God's words on what it says on creation, as a whole. It would have been great if scriptures have details, on big and complex, far and distant creation that man can't see as we see the creation here on the earth we live. But must we not submit to the wisdom of God? Yes, we must.

In your take of "creation" in the passage of Rom. 8:19-23, as mankind, I have shown you what it makes of it as to make it contradict scriptures. On the other hand, in my take of it as to refer to all creation excluding mankind, the only problem you have with that is that you can't accept that creation was subjected to futility and under bondage to corruption. Apparently, it is really a matter of believability and incredibility to you, more than anything else. It's a problem of acceptance, and that not because it contradicts truth, but that you find it hard to believe and find it ridiculous and incredible. But, I guess, you have believed some things in scriptures that are hard to believe and that you find ridiculous and incredible, like so.
Absolute blather.  You have yet do define even in the vaguest of terms what the corruption and the bondage to that corruption could possibly mean relative to the universe at large.  In what way is the universe corrupt or under bondage?

Decay, entropy. This universe is under the bondage of death, in the same way that man became under bondage of death once sin entered the world.
This universe will either be destructed or self-destruct.
Unlike heaven which will be eternal and not subject to corruption because there is no sin.
You think entropy is the result of Adam's sin???    rofl  rofl  rofl  rofl  rofl  rofl
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue May 16, 2017 - 06:30:35
Quote
Next to the Evolution Theory yet another scientific hypothesis that has not been proven correct.

Which of Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory have been shown to be false?

Most people who think they hate science don't really understand it very well.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 11:15:25
Conclusions
http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood (http://creation.com/instant-petrified-wood)

Quote
The evidence, both from scientists’ laboratories and God’ natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.

Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.


Just another sign, that millions of years theories, are just that, theories. Pure science has observed that petrification can and does happen rapidly. Theoretical science has not and cannot observe it taking millions of years.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 11:26:49
http://www.icr.org/fossilization (http://www.icr.org/fossilization)

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

Quote
Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.

Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.

Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.

Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).


Same deal. Fossilization itself requires for the most part rapid burial and removal from the decaying effects of natural surroundings. All indicative of major cataclysmic events, such as a world wide flood. Nevertheless, theoretical science opts for fossilization over the course of millions of years. Which is again, unobservable, of course.

It has also been proved that coal and oil can be formed rapidly under the right conditions, such as a cataclysmic flood producing extreme pressures and heat over massive areas. Yet theoretical science opts for countless millions of years, unobservable of course.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 13:48:13
Quote
Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.


They merely show strata have been eroded after being formed and solidified.   This demonstrates that there was not a single worldwide flood.

Quote
Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization.


Which is why animal fossils are normally found where sedimentation was relatively rapid.   The Karoo formation, formerly a river delta, has billions of vertebrate fossils.

 
Quote
The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.


Only if you think the conditions today are "extraordinary."    Those fossils are continuing to be formed right now.

Quote
Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.


Not so rapid.    Some are forming near my home when a forested area was flooded decades ago by a dam.   The trees are still upright, very gradually being buried by layers of sediment.   They will, if uplift and erosion does not occur, eventually form polystrate fossils.

Quote
Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiation


Rigor mortis takes a while.   About six hours to complete. 

Quote
—sudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).


No, that's wrong.   The pulled-back head found in so many fossils of dinosaurs and birds is caused by an interesting process, that goes on for a long time after death:

In a paper published last month in the journal Palaeobiodiversity and Palaeoenvironments, Achim G. Reisdorf of the University of Basel in Switzerland writes that the trouble with the death-throe hypothesis is that carcasses are flexible. To fossilize in the traumatic death position, a carcass would have to be quickly buried in the exact spot where it died, without any transportation.

But that is unlikely, Mr. Reisdorf wrote. Many of the dinosaurs found in opisthotonic posture are land animals that fell into sediment at the bottom of bodies of water, and probably had to settle before reaching their final resting place.

Mr. Reisdorf thought water might be the key. So he and a colleague, Dr. Michael Wuttke, decided to try some kitchen science. They bought fresh chicken necks from a butcher and plunged them into water buckets.

Immediately, the necks bent backward by 90 degrees. After three months and significant rotting, they had twisted further backward — to 140 degrees.

These results were verified at Brigham Young University by a paleontologist, Brooks B. Britt, and an undergraduate student, Alicia Cutler.

“When you hold a carcass in your hand, it’s like a limp rag, you can move it anywhere,” Dr. Britt said. “But as soon as we put the first dead chicken in the water, we realized, ‘Holy smokes, this is amazing.’ The head immediately curved backwards.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/archaeopteryx-fossils-appear-twisted-but-not-because-of-agony.html?mcubz=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/science/archaeopteryx-fossils-appear-twisted-but-not-because-of-agony.html?mcubz=1)

So this is actually strong evidence against sudden burial. 

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 13:51:34
   
Quote
The evidence, both from scientists’ laboratories and God’ natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.

    Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.

I have been told this many times, but each time I ask for a checkable source that shows wood can be petrified quickly to resemble the petrified wood we see in nature, no one knows where this evidence can be found.

What do you have?



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 17:03:45
http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-wood-petrify/ (http://www.icr.org/article/how-long-does-it-take-for-wood-petrify/)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 17:22:01
http://www.grisda.org/origins/05113.htm (http://www.grisda.org/origins/05113.htm)

 
Quote
Petrified wood is possibly the fossil type with which most people have greatest familiarity. One of the most frequently expressed questions among a group visiting a petrified wood exposure is "How rapidly does petrification occur?" The answers to such questions have often expressed speculation, but seldom have been based on dependable data.
    Anne C. Sigleo in a paper entitled "Organic geochemistry of silicified wood, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona" that appears in the September 1978 issue of Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (vol. 42, pp. 1397-1405) demonstrates that silica mineralization is an impermeation or void-filling process in which mineral matter is deposited in cracks, openings between cells, and spaces left by cell fluids. This process takes place while the wood is relatively intact. Consequently petrified wood preserves the original pattern of cell structure, and often contains carbon and organic compounds. For noncarbonaceous petrified wood the organic material was degraded and removed subsequent to mineralization. The most probable mechanism for wood silification as proposed by Dr. Sigleo is hydrogen bonding between silicic acid [Si(OH)4] and the hydroxyl functional groups in cellulose.
    Silica mineralization evidently takes place within the chemical (impurity concentration) and pH (acidity-alkalinity) range of most surface waters. Dr. Sigleo cites experiments which indicate that silica deposits at the rate of 0.1 to 4.0 millimeters per year on wood immersed in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (1); fresh twigs will partially silicify within 24 hours at room temperature in a sodium metasilicate solution at concentrations of 5-10 parts per thousand (2); fresh wood can be silicified within a year by alternate immersion in water and ethyl silicate (3). The latter process does not represent naturally occurring conditions. Ethyl silicate is used because in the presence of water it decomposes and releases a high concentration of monomolecular silicific acid within the wood tissue. Also of interest but not mentioned by Sigleo is the observation that plant tissue silicifies after several years of immersion in jars of water containing 750 parts per million of silica (4).
    These examples provide some possibilities regarding the formation of petrified wood and suggest that wood could become petrified within a few years if it remained saturated with water that had percolated through a layer of fresh volcanic ash.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 17:30:17
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/petrified.html#2 (http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2005/petrified.html#2)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 19:25:39
In the abstract of the article:
It might be noted here that some of the thoughts expressed on the topic of petrification are admittedly speculative... It would be desirable to understand further the actual nature of the chemical interaction of silicia(sic) in solution with wood components and their derivatives, not just for the petrification problem alone, but for the role  plant-derived organic matter has in many geologic and soil processes of both academic and economic interest.

Moreover, the author does not claim that the process using man-made chemicals, produces fossilized wood.   Since buried wood is highly unlikely to come into contact with concentrated ethyl silicate, the author was right to call the work "speculative."

This is fossilized wood:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Petrified_wood_closeup_2.jpg)

Would you mind showing me what creationists have been able to make in the lab?




Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 19:31:48
A while back, I asked the most relevant question in this discussion;
Which of Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory have been shown to be false?

I wish someone would answer it. 



 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 10, 2017 - 20:55:07
Seems like there is a pretty common thread concerning dinosaur demise. Of course there is no way they all died in the biblical flood. All emphasis in the following is mine.

http://creation.com/geology-documents-dinosaurs-fleeing-noahs-flood (http://creation.com/geology-documents-dinosaurs-fleeing-noahs-flood)

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1771 (http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1771)

THE GLOBAL FLOOD
One theory pertaining to dinosaur extinction fits the available data better than any other proposed explanation: the global Flood of Noah’s day. Since one of the major facts of dinosaur destruction is that most major dinosaur fossil graveyards were caused by huge amounts of water, the theory that most dinosaurs died during the worldwide Flood is the best explanation for the mass destruction of dinosaurs.

GRAVEYARDS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOODING
The Dinosaur National Monument fossil quarry is one of the largest fossil repositories in the world, where over 1,600 fossilized dinosaur bones are buried (“Dinosaur National Monument,” 2004). Built around the major rock face that contains the fossils is a museum, which offers interesting information about the early discovery of the site in 1909. Like almost every federally funded dinosaur exhibit, the Dinosaur National Monument also propagates the standard evolutionary refrain that the dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. One intriguing thing about this monument is its explanation regarding the cause of its huge fossil graveyard. The wall opposite the rock face contains a large painted mural. This mural shows various dinosaurs wading through deep water. Under the mural, a placard reads: “After a seasonal flood: This scene of 145 million years ago is based on clues found in the rock face behind you. Carcasses brought downstream by the fast-moving, muddy water were washed onto a sandbar. Some were buried completely by tons of sand—their bones preserved in a nearly perfect state” (emp. added).
Interesting, is it not, that such a huge fossil graveyard is said to have occurred because of a “seasonal flood”? Further research has shown that many fossil finds are explained using a seasonal, regional, or flash-flood scenario. In November 1999, University of Chicago paleontologist Paul Sereno uncovered a 65-foot-long dinosaur called Jabaria. This skeleton was almost 95% complete. What was the explanation for its burial? “It looks as though the dinosaurs may have been caught in an ancient flash flood and buried quickly” (“Dinosaur Articles...,” 1999, emp. added). Robert Sanders, in an article copyrighted by the University of California, described a huge pterosaur graveyard by noting: “The fossil bones were found strewn throughout an ancient flood deposit in Chile’s Atacama desert, suggesting that they were animals or corpses caught up in a flood perhaps 110 million years ago at the beginning of the Cretaceous period” (1995, emp. added).
A BBC article discussing the series “Walking with Dinosaurs,” explains that much of the information for the first episode of the series came from a fossil find called the Ghost Ranch, located near Abaquiu, New Mexico. The article describes this site as one of the richest fossil finds in the world. Why were so many dinosaurs buried suddenly? “Palaeontologists believe that the collection of fossils was the result of a mass death around a dwindling water resource during a drought. Before the bodies of the animals were eaten by scavengers, a flash flood buried them in muddy sediments where they were preserved” (“Dig Deeper,” n.d., emp. added).
In the Fall of 2007, a massive fossil bed was uncovered in an area known as Lo Hueco, in Spain. The fossil bed contained at least 8,000 fossils, and bones from an estimated 100 Titanosauruses as well as several other dinosaur species (Catan, 2007). What caused such massive burial? Fernando Escasco, a paleontologist at Cuenca’s science museum, said that the animals were probably washed into the fossil bed by “heavy flooding” (De Elvira, 2007, emp. added).
THE GLOBAL FLOOD OF NOAH’S DAY
How interesting to learn that evolutionists explain many of the largest dinosaur graveyards in the world as having been caused by a flood (though they are quick to include words such as “seasonal,” “flash,” “regional,” and the like). It is important to recognize that any other theory of massive dinosaur destruction besides the global Flood of Noah’s day, must still somehow propose that great amounts of water directly caused many of the dinosaur graveyards around the world. In truth, the global Flood of Noah’s day (as recorded in Genesis 6-8) provides an excellent explanation for many (if not all) such graveyards around the world. The Bible explains that “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights” (Genesis 7:11-12). Furthermore, “all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered” (Genesis 7:19, emp. added). During that year-long Flood, countless thousands of dinosaurs would have drowned and been buried quickly in muddy deposits around the world. It is reasonable to conclude that these dinosaur burial grounds became the well-known fossilized graveyards scientists have discovered around the world.

http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-herd-buried-in-noahs-flood-in-inner-mongolia-china (http://creation.mobi/dinosaur-herd-buried-in-noahs-flood-in-inner-mongolia-china)


http://nmstatefossil.org/item/18 (http://nmstatefossil.org/item/18)

Colbert suggested the animals might have been poisoned, and the bodies of the dead animals swept away by a flash flood, to congregate in a low spot and be quickly buried in mud.

https://phys.org/news/2011-11-ancient-birds-died.html (https://phys.org/news/2011-11-ancient-birds-died.html)

Findings show ancient birds died in flash flood

The discovery was made in the Sebes area of Transylvania, Romania and includes a large collection of bird fossils and eggs, both partial and whole, trapped within the limestone. It is believed that this colony of birds was wiped out when a flash flood hit the area some 100 million years ago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059754/Silence-enantiornithines-Fossils-flood-wiped-colony-dinosaur-era-birds.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2059754/Silence-enantiornithines-Fossils-flood-wiped-colony-dinosaur-era-birds.html)

Silence of the enantiornithines: Fossils show flood wiped out colony of dinosaur-era birds

http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_epg2.asp (http://www.dinodictionary.com/dinos_epg2.asp)

Notes: Discovered in large numbers in Alberta, Canada, Eucentrosaurus is one of the best-known ceratopsians. Apparently a herd of these dinosaurs died all at once, perhaps caught in a flash flood. Smaller than Triceratops, Eucentrosaurus had a forward-curving 18-inch (46-cm) nasal horn and a pair of small horns above its eyes. Skin casts exist that show Eucentrosaurus to possess a knobby skin with hexagonal or pentagonal bumps set close together.

http://www.ky3.com/content/news/Local-dinosaur-bone-hunters-discovering-new-fossils--425936763.html (http://www.ky3.com/content/news/Local-dinosaur-bone-hunters-discovering-new-fossils--425936763.html)

The scientific name for the creatures behind the bones Matt mentioned; a Hadrosaur. They may have died a cruel death.

Matt explains, "These are the duck-billed dinosaurs. This bone bed... we're still trying to figure out the geology behind it. But, it looks like a herd of dinosaurs got swept away in a flash flood.”

http://news.yale.edu/2014/09/10/thick-skinned-dinosaur-gets-last-laugh (http://news.yale.edu/2014/09/10/thick-skinned-dinosaur-gets-last-laugh)

Other explanations attributed the frequent occurrence of hadrosaur skin in the fossil record to hadrosaurs’ lifestyle — they tended to live (and die) along rivers, where flash flooding could quickly bury them in alluvial sediments, protecting the corpse from scavengers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/dinosaur-museum-in-small-town-alberta-hopes-to-hit-the-big-time-1.3211366 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/dinosaur-museum-in-small-town-alberta-hopes-to-hit-the-big-time-1.3211366)

Seventy-five million years ago, tiny Pipestone Creek was a torrent in a land of active volcanoes and lumbering dinosaurs. During a flash flood thousands of the creatures were swept down river, their carcasses collecting at a bend in the river. The fossils grew into the landscape until Lakusta got curious and went out one day with a shovel.

http://careyjaneclark.com/thursday-killed-dinosaurs/ (http://careyjaneclark.com/thursday-killed-dinosaurs/)

In fact, taking a tour through the Royal Tyrell museum in Drumheller, Alberta (a must-see!), you will notice that over and over again, they say things like “This dinosaur drowned in a flood.” “This herd of dinosaurs were killed trying to cross a raging river.” “This dinosaur died in a flash flood.”

https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2010/02/10/4456894.html (https://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2010/02/10/4456894.html)

Body fossils such as dinosaur bones, can be transported a long way from the area in which the animal lived and died. For example, a dinosaur that died inland could be washed into a river as the result of a flash flood and the carcase carried out to sea, where eventually it sank.  This could result in the preservation and fossilisation of a land living animal in marine deposits, as in the case of the Dorset (England), Scelidosaurus.  Trace fossils on the other hand, preserve evidence of the activity of animals, their tracks, trails, burrows all being preserved as part of the fossil record. 

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/velociraptors-dog-sized-cousin-with-trademark-sickle-claws-unearthed-in-canada/ (https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/velociraptors-dog-sized-cousin-with-trademark-sickle-claws-unearthed-in-canada/)

The Pipestone Creek bonebed has yielded thousands of fossil finds, most of them belonging to a large horned dinosaur called Pachyrhinosaurus. It's thought that a huge herd of these animals died in a flash flood at this site millions of years ago, leaving a graveyard of jumbled remains.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/7961753/Fires-and-floods-make-Isle-of-Wight-rich-source-of-dinosaur-remains.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/dinosaurs/7961753/Fires-and-floods-make-Isle-of-Wight-rich-source-of-dinosaur-remains.html)

Dr Sweetman said: ''When a fire was rapidly followed by an intense flood, a snapshot of life on the Isle of Wight 130 million years ago was taken and preserved for us to see today, making the Isle of Wight one of the most important dinosaur sites in the world.

https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/03/11/the-carnegie-quarry-diaspora/ (https://extinctmonsters.net/2015/03/11/the-carnegie-quarry-diaspora/)


About 150 million years ago, a severe drought ravaged the western interior of North America. In eastern Utah, malnourished dinosaurs gathered near a dwindling river. Unwilling or unable to leave the water source, they eventually died of thirst or disease. When rain finally returned to the region, three or four successive flash floods washed dozens of animal carcasses into a relatively small depositional area to the southeast. Today, this site is known as the Carnegie Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, and it is one of the most incredible fossil sites in the world.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/a-raja-a-jain-a-tagore-meet-desi-dinosaurs-that-once-roamed-india-s-plains/story-EEfvnpOJjsoJUlV0vmjjKP.html (http://www.hindustantimes.com/more-lifestyle/a-raja-a-jain-a-tagore-meet-desi-dinosaurs-that-once-roamed-india-s-plains/story-EEfvnpOJjsoJUlV0vmjjKP.html)

The dinosaurs would have taken big strides – they certainly had the legs for it – but they didn’t reach their destination. Something, possibly a flash flood, struck mid-way, uprooting trees and killing everything in its path. The herd died together, decomposing quietly, their skeletons falling apart as layers of earth began to cover them.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 12:29:49
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 13:45:50
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.


Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 14:17:18
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.


Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.

Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 15:20:37
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.


Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.

Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.


Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:11:51
Quote
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,


The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta.   There are many other such examples.   No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.

Quote
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.


As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.

Quote
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth


Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.   

Quote
massive erosion


Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.

Quote
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.


The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material.  But only by processes that never occur in nature.    So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood.    "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood.    And so on.

How would a year-long flood make these?

(http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg)

Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high.    So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.

How do you think the river did this in a year?



 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:36:00
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.




Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.

Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.


Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.

Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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.

Was Peter ignorant of the truth you now posses, or are you one of the scoffers described above. Do you deny the flood, and future judgement by fire?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.


How about that, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed the story you know to be untrue. Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't this mean you know more and better than God? Is your testimony above that of the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not your God and Savior? How is it, you know more and better than He whom your life completely depends upon?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 18:55:19
Quote
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,


The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta.   There are many other such examples.   No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.

Quote
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.


As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.

Quote
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth


Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.   

Quote
massive erosion


Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.

Quote
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.


The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material.  But only by processes that never occur in nature.    So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood.    "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood.    And so on.

How would a year-long flood make these?

([url]http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg[/url])

Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high.    So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.

How do you think the river did this in a year?



 


You are willingly ignorant of scripture, and real science. A global flood moving unimaginable masses of water could cut through solid rock, even steel reinforced concrete with ease. Its called cavitation.

https://www.icr.org/article/6920 (https://www.icr.org/article/6920)

The even layers of strata observed all over the world are evidence of rapid layering and formation, not layers built up slowly over millions of years that would have obvious signs of severe erosion and depressions caused by the same.
As for all your arguments concerning floods, much of what you are describing would also result from the major flood, and subsequent floods and or evacuations over time as a result of the same. Your millions of years simply are not necessary for explanation, or the best or most scientific explanation available. You simply choose the desires of your own imagination for your science, rather than the sure testimony of God's word. Go tell someone else the bible does not teach a global flood. All such is willing ignorance of God's word as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Jun 11, 2017 - 20:24:35
Quote
You are willingly ignorant of scripture,

I've spent a lifetime studying it.   

Quote
and real science.

I teach real science.

Quote
A global flood moving unimaginable masses of water could cut through solid rock, even steel reinforced concrete with ease. Its called cavitation.

You'll never get the hairpin turns you see in those entrenched meanders that way.   It would just blast right through those walls.   The only way to make those kinds of turns is by slow, gradual erosion during periods of uplift. 

 
Quote
The even layers of strata observed all over the world are evidence of rapid layering and formation, not layers built up slowly over millions of years that would have obvious signs of severe erosion and depressions caused by the same.

But they mostly aren't even.   You see tilting, bending, erosion and gradual change.    Many of these show deserts and forests that appeared and then went away between layers of what the ICR imagines to be "flood deposits."    How did a desert appear in the middle of a great worldwide flood?

Quote
As for all your arguments concerning floods, much of what you are describing would also result from the major flood
 

No.   For example you wouldn't see those meanders, or deserts in the middle of the layers, if that were true.

Quote
Your millions of years simply are not necessary for explanation,

As you learned, those meanders could form in no other way.  You simply choose the desires of your own imagination for your belief, rather than the evidence.   The Bible does not say that there was a global flood.    That is man's addition to His word. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Mon Jun 12, 2017 - 06:01:22
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.




Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.

Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.


Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.

Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.



This is the problem. Far too often I see YEC referring to published scientific data as "scoffing at scripture" when that simply isn't the case, in fact most pay very little credence to religions of any sort and focus primarily on the observable data that is all around us. Pitting science against God seems to be the goal of YEC, science is not akin to a conspiracy theory against God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 17:19:41
If the best explanation for the preservation of dinosaur fossils is flood conditions, and apparently it is, then logical progression dictates that the best explanation for the vast majority of fossils is also flood conditions. So why would supposed scientists searching for truth, avoid the most suitable explanation for fossils found in scripture? Obviously, something more is going on here.




Because the majority of scientists obviously don't agree that floods were the cause of dinosaur demise. Flooding could have possibly been a side effect of the earth being impacted, but not the official cause. 135 million years is an extremely long time and we have discovered a minute fraction of specimens that were preserved in ideal conditions. That's no coincidence, it boils down to a realistic number of probability.

Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation, but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation. We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth, massive erosion, the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly. This is all observable scientific reality, all of which a world wide catastrophic flood could and no doubt would facilitate. All rejected for unobservable theories of millions upon millions of years, which contradict some obvious evidence, and leave gaping questions regarding many issues, such as fossilization. Creationists are not the ones turning from observable scientific research regarding this issue.


Just imagine how many catastrophic floods could have occurred in 135 million years.

Yes, imagine is all that one can do concerning what happened over the course of 135 million years. Thus the imagination of scoffers is passed off as authentic science today. They scoff at the scriptures, and real observable science relating to natural world around us pointing to a global flood, and pass off their own imaginings as real science.

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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.

Was Peter ignorant of the truth you now posses, or are you one of the scoffers described above. Do you deny the flood, and future judgement by fire?

Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Lk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.


How about that, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, believed the story you know to be untrue. Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn't this mean you know more and better than God? Is your testimony above that of the words of Jesus Christ? Is He not your God and Savior? How is it, you know more and better than He whom your life completely depends upon?
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother.  They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate  minds.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 17:27:15
Quote
Yes, I know, they won't make an obvious connection. They routinely refer to flood conditions as the most probable reason for their preservation,


The Karoo assemblage, for example is an old delta from an ancient river that carried the bodies down the river and buried them in the delta.   There are many other such examples.   No need to invent a worldwide flood, which is neither in evidence, or in scripture.

Quote
but won't go their concerning their deaths. Though many do this as well, just not admitting of the biblical flood. They observe that flood conditions best explain their preservation.


As mentioned above, the evidence shows many, many floods but no worldwide floods.

Quote
We can now observe that the formation of the layers of sediment of the earth


Which cannot be reconciled with a world wide flood.   

Quote
massive erosion


Much of which, like entrenched meanders and rejuvenated rivers, which could not be caused by a worldwide flood.

Quote
the formation of coal, oil, and even petrified wood, can all happen rapidly.


The Germans, for example, came up with a way to make petroleum from organic material.  But only by processes that never occur in nature.    So far, no one has been able to produce fossilized wood.    "Silication of wood" does not produce anything like fossilized wood.    And so on.

How would a year-long flood make these?

([url]http://geotripperimages.com/Erosional_Processes/DSC05032%20Goosenecks%20of%20the%20San%20Juan%20River.jpg[/url])

Hint: the vertical wall here are nearly a kilometer high.    So we know that they were solid rock when the river cut them.

How do you think the river did this in a year?



 

I know not of the god you worship but the God of Creation, my LORD, my God can make anything look as He wishes it to appear and no man can tell the difference. (2Thes 2:11)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Jun 13, 2017 - 21:20:20
Quote
I know not of the god you worship

He's the Creator, who made a covenant with Abraham.   He's a good one to know.   Give Him a call.


Quote
but the God of Creation, my LORD, my God can make anything look as He wishes it to appear and no man can tell the difference.

If you are willing to call in a non-scriptural miracle whenever your theology runs into trouble, then any story is equally possible.

Not a good practice, I think.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 06:58:41
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother.  They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate  minds.


What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: geronimo on Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 07:55:13
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother.  They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate  minds.


What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?

Alan,
 Before that question can be answered accurately, it may be necessary to identify the recipient.
 Just saying.
 Blessings.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Wed Jun 14, 2017 - 08:55:12
They have not ears to hear nor eyes to see Spitiual Matters brother.  They have been deceived by the Liar of Liars and will neither look nor listen and God having sent a great delusion and has turned them over to reprobate  minds.


What exactly do you mean by "God having sent a great delusion"?

Alan,
 Before that question can be answered accurately, it may be necessary to identify the recipient.
 Just saying.
 Blessings.


Please feel free to engage, this is just open discussion.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 17, 2017 - 09:51:57
All emphasis in the excerpts provided is mine. The links to the articles the excerpts were taken from are provided above the same.

https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html (https://www.livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html)

Quote
Thousands die in flood

Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.

The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.

“The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns.”

The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.



http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/there-evidence-flood-was-global (http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/there-evidence-flood-was-global)

Quote
5.  Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa.  The same is true of plants.  From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation.  Dinosaur National Monument in Utah has a visitor’s display where numerous dinosaurs are exposed.  Agate Fossil Beds National Monument is a good places to see numerous fossil mammals jumbled together.  Other parts of the world also illustrate fossil graveyards.  The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4).  The Messel site near Frankfort, Germany, is also a most unusual collection of animals and plants.  These two sites along with others mentioned above reveal the following information:  1.  The burial of great quantities of animals together.  2.  Rapid burial and excellent preservation.  3. The presence of species now limited to different continents.  4.  The position of mammals that suggest death by drowning.  Geological processes as seen in the modern world cannot account for such unusual conditions.  A world-wide catastrophe involving water is the easiest explanation.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071210-dinosaur-grave_2.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071210-dinosaur-grave_2.html)

Quote
The fossil creatures were found grouped together in clay and silt sediments, suggesting a river created the dinosaur graveyard.
"Flooding maybe was responsible for the accumulation of carcasses," Sanz said.



http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/ (http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/graveyards/)

Quote
Perhaps the most challenging fossil phenomena for Darwinian apologists to explain are the vast graveyards of animal remains that are found throughout the world. Ongoing excavations in the Gobi Desert tell of one such sight that has become an embarrassment to evolutionists. Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals. There is no evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that is thought to delineate when the dinosaurs became extinct.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3397188/Dinosaur-graveyard-date-moment-mass-extinction-Fossil-bed-suggests-large-numbers-beasts-killed-single-event-65-million-years-ago.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3397188/Dinosaur-graveyard-date-moment-mass-extinction-Fossil-bed-suggests-large-numbers-beasts-killed-single-event-65-million-years-ago.html)

Quote
’Dinosaur graveyard' may date back to the time of the mass extinction: Fossil bed behind a New Jersey mall suggests large numbers of creatures were killed as a result of a single event 65 million years ago

At the time of the creatures' death, the region is believed to have been a shallow sea.

The shallow sea would have been teeming with life, more so than on the land, so if a single event hit the region, a large number of prehistoric marine animals would have been affected.   

A number of intact remains of large dinosaurs have been found in the same rock layer, thought to have once been the bottom of the sea bed in which they swam. This evidence suggests they died at the same time as a result of an asteroid impact in Mexico (illustrated) and their bodies sunk to the bottom of the shallow sea

This layer was the ancient sea's bottom, 40ft (12 metres) below the surface and potentially holds the bones of dinosaurs that died in the mass extinction. 

Palaeontologists think this may be the case because the skeletons of larger animals remain mostly intact, indicating they died at the same time and their bodies settled on the bottom of the sea bed, The New York Times reported.  


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/t-rex-skull-discovery-tyrannosaurus-head-skeleton-montana-us-hell-creek-a7199676.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/t-rex-skull-discovery-tyrannosaurus-head-skeleton-montana-us-hell-creek-a7199676.html)


Quote
They believe it was aged about 15 to 25 when it died, possibly after falling into the river and drowning. It may also have died elsewhere and then been washed into the river by a flash flood.


http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html (http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html)


Quote
The Question of Fossils
The Karoo deposit in South Africa - 800 Billion Fossils


These deposits are so immense that even after decades of fossil collecting, bones are still sticking out of the ground.  The Karoo formation is a water deposited sediment bed up to 20,000 ft thick. Massive fossil graveyards of dinosaurs exist all over the world. The Morrison beds in North America, (covering thousands of sq. miles), the dinosaur beds in Montana, Alberta, the Dakotas, Colorado, Utah, Africa, Europe and China, etc., etc., contain literally millions of dinosaur fossils piled together in heaps and mixed with other creatures. Ten thousand Hadrasaurs were found on Egg Mountain alone, including all age groups and eggs jumbled together in a mass death. Would this happen under normal, uniform conditions? The answer is No. Think about it, they are all in water deposited sediments! The Buffalo question-  Millions of buffalo were slaughtered on the North American plains during the last century, so multiplied thousands of fossil buffalo should be common but are any great buffalo fossil graveyards to be found? No. Their remains were disposed of by the normal ravages of the weather, scavengers, and decomposition.  So why are there great fossil graveyards of dinosaurs and thousands of other species where the bones of these beasts lie entombed in heaps, together with fossilized mammals, fish, insects, plants etc., testifying that they all perished together in a great mass death?

How to make a "Fossil"
It's well known to scientists that fossils are not made by creatures dieing a natural death.  This misconception propagated for decades in school textbooks and museum placards.  The reality is fossils are formed catastrophically by quick burial.  All that's required is;

   1   Quick Burial
   2   Water
   3   Sediments

Many Fossil beds uniformly contain undersea and terrestrial animals and plants buried together, just as one would expect if deposited as a result of  flood.  Others mix many types of animals normally not living together.  Fossil beds consistently never contain transitional forms, a long standing misconception advanced by evolutionists in the textbooks.  Bones are found from widely different sites and lined up to support evolution theory in pick and choose fashion. Despite this effort, 1/2 way forms are absent, just like we see them absent today.  I posted this question to one the most prominent Zoologists in the world, Dr. Collin Paterson of the British museum in London and he responded; "my colleges in the tropics tell me the same thing!  The conversation started with my comment that no "in-between" types exist in Alaska also.  If evolution were true, many, many in-between or "transitional" types should be present.  They are not.  Anyone ever report a hairless walking chimp in Africa?  No!  Besides, the DNA and cell mechanism prohibit such development's. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jun 17, 2017 - 10:10:43
The following quotes are taken from the link below.

http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html (http://www.genesisalive.com/the-question-of-fossils.html)

"Fossils are an embarrassment to evolutionists" - Dr. Gary Parker PhD.

New Mexico - Human Bones mixed with sloths and camels in Cavern
Bryan, William Alanson; Science, 70:39-41 1929

A cave was discovered by local treasure hunters on the lowers slope of Bishops cap by a Mr. Roscoe Conkling of El Paso in the 1920's. Intrigued by its soft floor, a party was formed and excavations began in the presence of a recognized authority who could witness the potential unearthing of items of importance. Digging down through the layers, animal bones now extinct began to be exposed and removed, then suddenly a human skull cap appeared at the 12 foot level. Further down the sediment layers a hard lens was encountered, and when broken through was found another skull and remains of numerous other animals including a camel nearly 21 feet in depth. The scientist commented that this finding was of national significance, but for one reason or another, it never got into the textbooks.


More Caverns filled with bones World-Wide

Alfrend Rehwinkle in his volume The Flood, 1951 (See Corless Handbook of Geological Enigma's Sourcebook Project 1980 p. 668-9) relates this type of phenomena is not isolated, there being documented discoveries in England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, USA, Russia and Malta of these same deposits. For example in Greece on the Island of Cerigo, there is a place called the "Mountain of Bones" being 1 mile in circumference. In Burgundy France, is found a steep promontory 1000 feet above the valley floor. Looking skyward is a natural fissure filled to the brim with the broken remains of bears, foxes, wolves, horses, oxen and other animals. Such a deposit was surely made by waters passing over the top of the edifice, these parts settling to fill the crevasse. Similar deposits exist in the British Isles and Sicily, the latter where more than 20 tons of bones were mined out for commercial purposes. On Gibraltar, fissures in number reach over one thousand feet high, full of animal bones, and in one place, claimed human artifacts. Near Odessa, Russia, a cavern was found full of animals such as cat, hyena, horses, boars, mammoth, rhinoceros, deer and smaller animals such as rodents, hares, martens, otter, wolves and foxes all mixed together in no order. This not to mention the 4500 bone remains of bears! Upon close examination of all these deposits we find that very few complete skeletons remain, disproving these deaths being accidental. We must consider their occurrence being a direct consequence of the Flood. More evidence of high water deposition is found detailed in the fossils section in this volume.


Its official, fossil sites have totaled more than 1 million around the world. 3 Great fossil graveyards that exist in every major continent in the world. In these graveyards vast numbers of creatures are violently mixed together. There are dinosaur graveyards in America and China with hundreds of dinosaurs mixed and buried together with clams, turtles and many other animals. Many fossil graveyards are high up in mountainous areas. In Sicily for example, four thousand feet above sea level on Mount Etna, there are two caves crammed with the bones of thousands of hippopotamus in each grave. On the island of Malta there are lions, tigers, mammoths, birds, beavers, hippopotamus, foxes and more all mixed together. One cave in Malta contains so many fossils that Malta's present size would not keep this awesome quantity fed for just one week!  In America, a death pit exists near Hollywood, with eagles, doves and approximately two hundred and fifty saber tooth tigers and fifty elephants. In Oregon there are beds with elephants, camels, cats, bison, mammoths and mastodon, whales and turtles, mice, lemurs, opossum, beaver and dozens of types of clams to name a few all in water sediment deposits. (1, 2)
1. Oregon Fossils, Orr & Orr 2009, p.103, 196-201, 223.
2. Oregon Geology, Orr&Orr 2012, p.199


Along the Arctic coast, naturalists found thousands of mastodons laying out in the tundra, in Siberia, entire islands were made of bones and carcasses of the animals and many were found intact and washed in jumbles by the millions. In Antarctica, fossil beds abound. In California, petrified fish, fossilized with mouths open, backs arched and fins spread, have been found. Many of these fish are partly on end with the body passing through two planes of rock-strata.By modern geology this would mean that the fish-tail is separated from its head by millions of years. That, of course, is not possible. There are approximately five fish per square foot over approximately four square miles. This equates to more than one billion fossilized fish! These graveyards are dramatic evidence that an era of the world ended with enormous violence world-wide in scope.  Many Geologists and Paleontologists have an innate distaste for catastrophism, and that's understandable, Catastrophists easily identify every strata of sediment with a worldwide flood, layer upon layer in the rocks. The author experienced this in college geology classes, when professors were presented with this evidence they abandoned uniformity! 

Like the soft body Mosasaur found in South Dakota  in 2010 (1), all have been rapidly buried, died, and then later exposed as uniform erosion has exposed them.  Actually, if compare this Mosasaur to the Mammoth soft body finds in Siberia and Alaska, they were exposed in identical ways, so why are the Mammoths dated only in thousand of years old and the marine reptiles 80 Millions of years past?   Who makes these determinations, are they taking into account soft body tissue and know decay rates into consideration?  Who ever heard of soft body tissue surviving more than a few hundreds of years in thawed sediment?   "As recently as 2010, a newly discovered ten-foot-long Mosasaur fossil was discovered along the Missouri River in South Dakota; "Its "remarkable" preservation not only kept the bones in articulated positions, but also retained some original soft tissues." The report also stated, "This fossil also includes the contents of the animal's stomach―its last meal."(1) "The fossil that was discovered this past summer lived during the Age of Reptiles 80 million years ago." (2)

Truly, considering the magnitude, variety and quantity of fossil deposits found around the globe from the Arctic to Antarctic, Australia to Arkansas and Russia to South Africa, a story is told among the heaps of dead.  One interpretation says these deposits happened randomly across the eons in local events; another most all occurred in one world-enveloping event that 4 chapters of the Bible are consumed to describe.  The basic elements of the Catastrophe are also recorded in over 100 history accounts of peoples and cultures of the past from around the world.  As no one has observed fossils deposited stacked like this anywhere in any recent event local or other wise, looking at the sum of it is compelling.  As of this writing, the world fossil grave yards exceed 1 million in number, so many that maps from every continent are so full of these graveyards individual resolution is difficult to provide information on their specific locations.

Human Fossils
Evolutionists often mention that if the Bible is true, where are all the human fossils left from the flood?
Just offshore of Guadeloupe, in the West Indies, lies a formation of limestone dated as Miocene, or about 25 million years old. However, history records show that in the late 1700's many human skeletons---all indistinguishable from modern humans---were excavated from this limestone. One of the quarried specimens, ensconced in a 2-ton slab, was shipped to the British Museum where It arrived in 1812 and was placed on public display. But with the ascendance of Darwinism, the fossil skeleton was quietly spirited away to the basement. The discovery of these human remains has been well documented in the scientific literature.  In many places around the world, human remains have been found behind walls in sealed caves, could these have been people trying to escape the flood waters?  Now if you were someone who new a flood was coming, what would you do?  Most likely get into a boat or go to high ground.  Neither place would provide much of an opportunity to be buried.  Besides, mammals sink then float and disintegrate, reptile drown and sink.  Maybe that's why we see far more reptiles like dinosaurs in the fossil beds.

Book Report - Forbidden Archeology
Human remains huddled to gather in groups, fragments, skulls, femurs and every body part have been uncovered all over the world.  They come out of hardrock and coal mines, sealed in caves and every other condition imaginable. Hidden from the public view for decades, two daring scientists have dared to expose the back room of anthropology in the recent book Forbidden Archeology authored by Micheal Cremo and Richard Thompson now in its 15th printing.  Their work also document page after page of relics from a society of pre-history, including tools, ceramic ladles, pots, dolls, images, signage and metal extrusions unearthed in deep strata across the globe. These articles are exactly what we would expect to find if there was a would wide flood.  For more see page this site Flood Artifacts.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jun 23, 2017 - 22:01:32
Quote
If we let God be God, then we do that by believing the scriptures as our only source for truth!

If you accept scriptures as your only source for truth, then you are not following scripture:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Rock and a hard place, it seems.
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jun 23, 2017 - 22:11:09
There used to be a popular creationist whose debating style was to throw out dozens of claims as fast as he could,  hoping that his opponent would run out of time before he debunked them all.   This was the infamous "Gish Gallop."    I'm not sure why that came to mind just now, but let me get started...

Quote
Back when these centrosaurs lived, Alberta was warm and lush, and encompassed lowlands on the western coast of the Western Interior Seaway, a vast inland sea that divided what is now North America in half. The way the fossils are linked together in the same layers of earth within these bonebeds suggests all these centrosaurs were wiped out simultaneously.

The likely culprit in this scenario was a catastrophic storm, which could quickly have routinely made the waters flood up as high as 12 to 15 feet (3.6 to 4.6 meters), if experiences with modern floodplains are any guide.

“The flooding could have reached more than 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the shoreline," Eberth told LiveScience. "The landscape basically just drowns.”

The flat area would have provided no high ground for escape, leading to thousands of animals drowning in the rising waters.

Either than, or it was the delta for the ancient rivers which led into the area.    Today, we see the same sort of thing, where rivers carry bodies of dead animals downstream, only to drop them at the delta where the water slows down.    Deltas form flat, very level deposits, and these extend offshore for many miles.   Given the fact that one of these is known and observed to happen, and that the other seems to have left no signs whatever (extreme turbulence would be obvious in the deposits, if this was the result of a single catastrophic flood, and as your source admits, the evidence is just the opposite.

We'll deal with the rest sequentially over a few days.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jun 24, 2017 - 16:59:07
Quote
Massive graveyards of thousands and even millions of fish, dinosaurs, and mammals are seen in North America, Europe, and Africa.  The same is true of plants.  From Utah-Colorado north to Alberta-Saskatchewan, Canada, thousands of dinosaurs are found in certain beds such as the Morrison Formation.

Almost always where streams slowed or formed deltas.   Which is what we see happening today.   Bodies get swept down river and are dropped where the river slows or enters a larger body of water.   This is no mystery.

Quote
The city of Cincinnati, Ohio sits on top of a great mass of sea animals (Figure 4).

The Great Barrier Reef is a similar mass, still forming.   No mystery there, either.
 
As you see, no great catastrophe is necessary to produce this kind of assemblage.   We see it going on today.

I'll do another one tomorrow.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 08, 2017 - 09:26:51
We can both look at what is here now before us, and form our reasoning in relation to the same. Neither of us has or ever could have any idea what natural events transpiring right now might leave for future observers millions of years from now. Millions of years does not increase the probability of the preservation of fossils, to the contrary, it makes such all the more unlikely. The long ages evolution requires, are in fact detrimental to the probability of fossil preservation. They allow for far to much time and change to make such preservation likely or logical. This concerning natural presently observable rates of decay and change, and the destructive forces of catastrophic localized or global events, which even evolutionists are well aware have occurred. Never mind these details though, evolutionists stick to their more unlikely theories, regardless. The best explanation for such huge and ever increasing number of preserved fossils is fairly recent catastrophic event, or events, not countless millions of years of unlikely preservation. But hey, you of course have the right to put your faith in whatever you wish.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 08, 2017 - 09:32:06
Here is some more evidence of young earth and creation you can deny and explain away according to your faith.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue (https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield-traces-blood-soft-tissue)

Quote
Scientists studying dinosaur evolution are finding many more bones to pick.

Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought. Details appeared June 9 in Nature Communications.



https://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-tissue-found-in-cretaceous-fossil-bird/ (https://crev.info/2017/03/more-soft-tissue-found-in-cretaceous-fossil-bird/)

Quote
More Soft Tissue Found in Cretaceous Fossil Bird
Unrepentant over extreme falsification, evolutionary paleontologists are just taking it for granted that soft tissue can survive millions of years.

Scientists have reported soft tissues from the lower hindlimb of a Cretaceous bird. Writing in Nature Communications, Jiang et al. say,



http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/ (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/)

Quote
Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Attorneys for a California State University, Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.
While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”



https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/27/scientists-discover-first-fossilised-dinosaur-brain-tissue (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/27/scientists-discover-first-fossilised-dinosaur-brain-tissue)

Quote
Dinosaur brain tissue discovered for first time in 130m-year-old fossil

While casts of the inside of dinosaur brain cases have been found before, it is the first time fossilised brain soft tissue has been discovered for any land-living vertebrate.
“The most striking thing is that something as delicate as brain tissue, and which you wouldn’t expect to ever see, has been preserved,” said Alex Liu, co-author of the research from the University of Cambridge. “It just speaks volumes [about] the spectacular preservational quality that can be obtained in the fossil record even 130 million years after this dinosaur is alive.”



https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html)

Quote
"We have shown the presence of protein preserved in a 195 million-year-old dinosaur, at least 120 million years older than any other similar discovery," study co-author Robert Reisz of the University of Toronto Mississauga, told AFP.
"These proteins are the building blocks of animal soft tissues, and it's exciting to understand how they have been preserved," he added.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html#jCp (https://phys.org/news/2017-01-dino-rib-yields-evidence-oldest.html#jCp)


http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material (http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material)

Quote
Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

- Two Dinosaur Soft Tissue Predictions Confirmed! Real Science Radio hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams had predicted on air and in writing at rsr.org/predictions that:
- Dinosaur soft tissue will be found not only in rare circumstances, but rather easily, i.e., when looked for. CONFIRMED in 2015! The journal Nature Communications reported original tissue in six of eight dinosaur bones investigated, leading to the conclusion that "preservation is more common than previously thought." And:
- Original dinosaur and other biological tissue will be found largely independent of the claimed age of the fossil. RECONFIRMED in June 2016! The journal Nature Communications reported original biological material in Gunflint chert allegedly from 1.88 billion years ago in the Proterozoic "Eon" (i.e., layer). First CONFIRMED in 2014, The Journal of Paleontology reported original soft tissue in Precambrian "beard worms" that are allegedly 530 million years old! (See 60+ similar discoveries.)


http://westerndigs.org/americas-most-complete-armored-dinosaur-soft-tissues-intact-found-in-montana/ (http://westerndigs.org/americas-most-complete-armored-dinosaur-soft-tissues-intact-found-in-montana/)

Quote
America’s Most Complete Armored Dinosaur, Soft Tissues Intact, Found in Montana

Finding a complete skull and tail intact, along with a host of well-preserved soft tissues, may illuminate the physiology and evolution of these unusual animals, said Drs. Victoria Arbour and David Evans of the Royal Ontario Museum, who reported the find.
“The new specimen … is the most complete ankylosaurid ever found in North America, making it a key reference skeleton for interpreting more fragmentary specimens,” the researchers write, in the new issue of Royal Society Open Science.



https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2017/03/22/confuciusornis/ (https://whatsinjohnsfreezer.com/2017/03/22/confuciusornis/)

Quote
Although at first glance the skeletal remains of that fossil are not fabulous compared with some other Confuciusornis, what makes this one lovely is that, on peering at it with multiple microscopic and other imaging techniques, he (and me, and a China-UK collaboration that grew over the years) found striking evidence of very well-preserved fossil soft tissues. Our paper reporting on these findings has gone live in Nature Communications so I can blog about it now.


https://www.infowars.com/massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-feathers/ (https://www.infowars.com/massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-feathers/)

Quote
MASSIVE DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE DISCOVERY IN CHINA – INCLUDES SKIN AND FEATHERS!

A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time.  According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers.  But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible. 

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Jul 10, 2017 - 07:27:30
Quote
Here is some more evidence of young earth and creation you can deny and explain away according to your faith.

Scientists have known for a very long time that organic material can survive for many millions of years.    Coal, oil, plant resin, and invertebrate connective tissue have been known for a very long time.   So far, no one has actually found tissue or even cells as anything but fossils of equal age.

The fact that collagen can survive hundreds of millions of years in anoxic conditions, if sufficient iron is present is a relatively new discovery.    Interestingly, these discoveries have provided one more bit of evidence for evolution.

A bit of heme (part of a hemoglobin molecule found in blood) was isolated from a T-rex fossil.    When injected into rabbits, it formed antibodies against the heme.    The antibodies reacted more strongly against the heme of birds than that of modern reptiles, validating the other evidence, showing birds evolved from dinosaurs.

And now you know the rest of the story.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Jul 10, 2017 - 07:29:13
Quote
A fossil bed in China that is being called “Jurassic Park” has yielded perhaps the greatest dinosaur soft tissue discovery of all time.  According to media reports, “nearly-complete skeletons” have been discovered that even include skin and feathers.  But of course if these dinosaurs are really “160 million years old”, that should be absolutely impossible.

That would be very cool.   But the skin and feathers so far reported, are fossilized, replaced by minerals.    Do you have a link?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 05:17:50
Scientists have known for a very long time that organic material can survive for many millions of years.    Coal, oil, plant resin, and invertebrate connective tissue have been known for a very long time.   So far, no one has actually found tissue or even cells as anything but fossils of equal age.

The fact that collagen can survive hundreds of millions of years in anoxic conditions, if sufficient iron is present is a relatively new discovery.    Interestingly, these discoveries have provided one more bit of evidence for evolution.

A bit of heme (part of a hemoglobin molecule found in blood) was isolated from a T-rex fossil.    When injected into rabbits, it formed antibodies against the heme.    The antibodies reacted more strongly against the heme of birds than that of modern reptiles, validating the other evidence, showing birds evolved from dinosaurs.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Knowing it, doesn't increase the chances of it happening one bit, accept in the minds of those exercising authentic faith in that which they choose to believe. So, a fossil formed antibodies? Something about your above argument doesn't add up bro. Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to mount against the probability of your chosen and treasured theory.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 08:05:41
(Barbarian shows that numerous examples of organic material existing for hundreds of million of years have been known for many years)

Quote
Knowing it, doesn't increase the chances of it happening one bit,
Quote

It merely shows the reality that such molecules can survive for many millions of years, under the right conditions.   No one is surprised by that.

Quote
accept in the minds of those exercising authentic faith in that which they choose to believe.


No point in denying what is already known, is there?

Quote
So, a fossil formed antibodies?


When a bit of the heme (fraction of a hemoglobin molecule) was injected into a rabbit, the rabbit produced anitbodies against it.   The antibodies reacted most strongly to the heme of birds, rather than that of modern reptiles, confirming again the prediction that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Quote
Something about your above argument doesn't add up bro.


It's not an argument.    It's just a documented fact.

Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.


Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted.   Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.

Here's more...

 Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html)
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 08:33:46
Bold and underlined in the following quote is mine.

Quote
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Abstract

Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.


Precisely what evolutionary theory predicted.   Twist it how you wish, the evidence continues to confirm evolutionary theory.

Here's more...

Now, for the first time, scientists have obtained partial protein sequences from the soft tissue remains.

"The sequences are clearly from T. rex," said John Asara of Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led one of the studies.

In addition, both studies found similarities between the dino sample and the bone collagen of chickens, providing molecular support for the hypothesis that modern birds are descended from dinosaurs.

Soft tissue, and fossilized soft tissue are two different things. Do you deny finding actual soft tissues or not? If finding similarities between species equalled proof of theories, their could be no end to the number of theories which could fabricated according to the same. T-Rex to chickens, really? Get a grip. Again, the countless ages necessary for changes of such an enormous and extremely complex nature, do not logically allow for the preservation of soft tissue in ay way shape or form for hundreds of millions of years. Who cares about logic though, when supporting ones religion, right?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 09:56:33
Who cares about logic though, when supporting ones religion, right?
That most definitely is the position of the Young Earth Creationists.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 11:55:40
I notice that it's been a few billion years since God constructed evolution, but the oldest standing human buildings are a few thousand years old.    There's a lesson in those facts, if anyone wants to learn about them.    He knew best, after all.

Let God be God, and have it His way.
The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 12:00:29
The lesson we can learn from the presentation of the man made Theory of Evolution is that man still needs to overcome his pride and to stop trying to supercede the authority of God.
Supersede the authority of God??  Seriously??  The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 19:09:25
Quote
Soft tissue, and fossilized soft tissue are two different things.

Yep.  So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old.   As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years.   As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen.   Amber, for example. 

On the other hand, tissues, which are assemblages of intact cells, remain to be demonstrated.

The point is, that these intact materials once again verified evolutionary theory which says that birds evolved from dinosaurs.    There are a few ornithologists who say that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, but the discovery that dinosaur heme and collagen is most like that of birds would be the case for either of those.   

Quote
If finding similarities between species equalled proof of theories,

"Similarities" is too vague.   This shows that the molecular structure of bird heme and collagen are most like that of dinosaurs, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.   

Quote
T-Rex to chickens, really?

To be precise, T. rex (the species part of the name is always lower-case) is a distant cousin to the dinosaurs that actually gave rise to birds.   Huxley, over a hundred years ago, first proposed that connection, based on anatomical features of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs.   The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and numberous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was further confirmation.   And now, the predicted fit of dino/bird collagen and heme further verify the theory.

 
Quote
Again, the countless ages necessary for changes of such an enormous and extremely complex nature, do not logically allow for the preservation of soft tissue in ay way shape or form for hundreds of millions of years.

I realize you really, really want to believe this.   But the evidence shows that you are incorrect.    We have known for a very long time that some organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in the proper conditions.   It's not just heme and collagen.   Reality wins out over anyone's beliefs.   
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jul 14, 2017 - 19:16:07
Quote
Supersede the authority of God??  Seriously??  The only thing that is being superseded is your, and most YECs, interpretation of Scripture.

We should always be humble enough to recognize that we can be wrong, and while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, neither YE creationism nor evolution are confirmed by scripture.    Theologically, YE creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us.

We often forget this; if I have failed to confirm that from time to time, I have been wrong in failing to do so.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 15, 2017 - 06:06:19
We should always be humble enough to recognize that we can be wrong, and while the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, neither YE creationism nor evolution are confirmed by scripture.    Theologically, YE creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us.

We often forget this; if I have failed to confirm that from time to time, I have been wrong in failing to do so.

Yes of course we can be wrong.  I do not view YEC as un-Christian.  The congregation that I fellowship with is probably 90% YEC.  However, it is typically the YEC that views anyone holding to an old universe and evolution as sub-Christian.  As I often point out, the difference here as in most differences in theology is not what God has said but rather what one thinks God means by what He said, i.e., interpretation.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Jaime on Sat Jul 15, 2017 - 07:26:50
As goes pretty much any issue especially doctrine. It's always a matter of arguing over what God said to whom based on a given perspective viewed through a particular semantic filter through the sieve of long held dogma.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 15, 2017 - 07:33:26
As goes pretty much any issue especially doctrine. It's always a matter of arguing over what God said to whom based on a given perspective viewed through a particular semantic filter through the sieve of long held dogma.

 ::thumbup:: ::thumbup::

So, so true ! !
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 15, 2017 - 10:58:20
Barbarian -
Quote
Yep.  So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old.   As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years.   As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen.   Amber, for example. 


I hardly think Amber and animal soft tissues are enough alike to use as complementary examples of decay over time.

You know nothing. You illogically claim to know these things survived over a hundred million years, because this is essential to your faith, not reality in any way shape or form. Short of being around for more than a hundred million years to examine dead animals you witnessed buried in the ground for that amount of time, you know nothing. Which is simply to say, you know nothing. You presume organic materials can last so long, because that allows for your faith. That is all. Apart from this, the following quote from the site provided doesn’t seem to support your above claim. Are they misrepresenting facts, or are you?

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material (http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-original-biological-material)

Quote
Biological Material Found: As of 2017, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including beta-keratin, the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton components actin, tropomyosin, and the related motor protein myosin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, pigment and evidence of melanosomes, DNA-related histone proteins, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double-helix tests.



Barbarian -
Quote
On the other hand, tissues, which are assemblages of intact cells, remain to be demonstrated.


Again, the quote I provided doesn’t seem to be on the same page as you, as the following quote does not either.

http://www.icr.org/article/mysteries-stunning-soft-tissue-fossil/ (http://www.icr.org/article/mysteries-stunning-soft-tissue-fossil/)

Quote
In 1992, while peering through a microscope at dinosaur bone fragments that had their hard minerals removed, Schweitzer discovered red discs that appeared identical to reptile red blood cells. She wrote in the December 2010 issue of Scientific American:

And those ruby microscopic structures appeared only in the vessel channels, never in the surrounding bone or in the sediments adjacent to the bones, just as should be true of blood cells.1

The find was an utter shock because of the long-held belief that fossilized bones have had all their original materials replaced by external minerals. Thus, a colleague's admonition to prove they aren't red blood cells has motivated Schweitzer's research ever since. So far, she has been unable to do this. She has also been unable to prove that fresh-looking blood vessels, various soft protein samples, and structures identical to bone cells (osteocytes) are anything other than what they appear to be.

These discoveries presented profound mysteries. Researchers had always expected that "after millions of years, buried in sediments and exposed to geochemical conditions that varied over time, what was preserved in these bones might bear little chemical resemblance to what was there when the dinosaur was alive."1 But this is an extraordinary understatement. In fact, given what is known of tissue and biomolecular decay, after all that time there should be nothing preserved at all and, thus, zero resemblance to any original dinosaur tissue.


Barbarian -
Quote
The point is, that these intact materials once again verified evolutionary theory which says that birds evolved from dinosaurs.    There are a few ornithologists who say that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common ancestor, but the discovery that dinosaur heme and collagen is most like that of birds would be the case for either of those.


No, you deny what the point is, and insist it is whatever you make it. We are not subject to the confines of the box which is your own faith.  The point brought forward is that no organic materials and or soft tissues should exist after over a hundred million years. You do not like the implications of this point upon the validity of your faith, so you illogically just accept that these things can survive over a hundred million years, and move on to that which can be construed to support your faith. Never mind the ever increasing discoveries and evidences which bring that faith into question. There are all kinds of similarities between animals and species. None of these similarities supply any more proof of evolution than they do of creation. Similarities would be likely to both. Evolution however, lacks the evidence of the countless millions of intermediary links which should exist according to their faith. Creationists need no such links.


Barbarian -
Quote
“Similarities” is too vague.   This shows that the molecular structure of bird heme and collagen are most like that of dinosaurs, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted. 


No, this shows that evolutionists are always on the look out for whatever evidence they may construe to their own ends. They have been wrong many times before, and may very well be wrong about this as well. If or when they present a list of comparison between molecular structure of heme and collagen of birds with every other species, then and only then could anyone know if they are most like that of dinosaurs. For now, they simply claim it because it backs up their faith. Such is not science. Produce the proof of data from scientific examination with all other species. Then if such could or can be established, you can continue to search for the real necessary evidence to back up your faith, finding more of the countless intermediary forms of developmental stages that should exist according to evolutionary faith.
  

Barbarian -
Quote
To be precise, T. rex (the species part of the name is always lower-case) is a distant cousin to the dinosaurs that actually gave rise to birds.   Huxley, over a hundred years ago, first proposed that connection, based on anatomical features of birds, crocodiles, and dinosaurs.   The discovery of feathered dinosaurs and numberous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds was further confirmation.   And now, the predicted fit of dino/bird collagen and heme further verify the theory.


You mean, according to your evolutionary faith. Please do provide the info on the supposed numerous transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. Huxley has been proved wrong before, and shown to jump to conclusions in support of his evolutionary faith. Observe -

http://creation.com/bathybius-haeckelii (http://creation.com/bathybius-haeckelii)

Quote
The Bathybius affair was one of the first instances of false evidence being used to support Darwin’s theory. It becomes clear that finding such evidence was of utmost importance to men like T.H. Huxley and Ernst Haeckel, and this clouded their judgment. When found out, Huxley admitted his error in 1875, but not whole-heartedly, leaving a measure of doubt in people’s minds even in 1879. Haeckel continued to allow fictitious examples of ‘Monera’ to be used in textbooks for decades afterwards. The Duke of Argyll complained about such lack of integrity in science, that involved a failure to investigate properly, overconfident statements and attempted bullying of critics to gain their silence.

It was Thomas Henry Huxley’s enthusiasm that brought Bathybius into the world (figure 1). He was encouraged in this endeavour by Ernst Haeckel, who was one of the foremost supporters of abiogenesis during the latter part of the nineteenth century; the idea that life can arise from non-life. Bathybius though was to turn into a real embarrassment for both when it was found to be merely a chemical precipitate (amorphous gypsum). Seemingly their judgment was clouded due to their strong determination to find evidence for Darwin’s new theory. But there is also evidence that Huxley was engaged in a campaign of rhetorical bullying at the time as well to silence critics. The Duke of Argyll (George Douglas Campbell) for instance complained about a ‘reign of terror.’



Barbarian -
Quote
I realize you really, really want to believe this.   But the evidence shows that you are incorrect.    We have known for a very long time that some organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in the proper conditions.   It's not just heme and collagen.   Reality wins out over anyone's beliefs.
 

You have known and know absolutely nothing. You presume and pass off your presumptions as scientific established fact, according to your desire to establish your own faith above that of others. You lift up yourself as the latest prophets of God, reinterpreting His word for all according to your own prideful and debased understanding. Peter though, under the inspiration of God, warned us of your kind long ago.

2 Pet 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

You are willingly ignorant of the fact that God destroyed this world with a global flood, and therefore will not examine scientific evidence in light of this truth. You are deceived. Therefore do you promote and argue your evolutionary faith. Your faith is in the word of fallen humanity above the testimony of God’s word. Regardless of what you claim, the word of God condemns your course of action concerning this matter.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Jul 16, 2017 - 08:22:06
Barbarian observes:
Yep.  So far, no one has actually shown unfossilized tissue that is millions of years old.   As you just learned, we do have examples of heme and collagen (which are organic materials, but not tissue) that have survived hundreds of millions of years.   As you see, that's not new; we knew that could happen.   Amber, for example.

Quote
I hardly think Amber and animal soft tissues are enough alike to use as complementary examples of decay over time.


As you know, no one has actually demonstrated survival of animal tissue.   Not even intact cells.   Right now, we have collagen and heme, with some pigment molecules, amber, and some invertebrate molecules.

Quote
You know nothing.


Sorry, postmodernism has no credibility with me.

Quote
You illogically claim to know these things survived over a hundred million years,


Normally, going with the evidence is considered logical thinking.    So physics, geology, genetics, and so on all support the observation that these organic molecules survived for many millions of years.   

You deny the evidence because this is essential to your faith, not reality in any way shape or form.

Quote
Short of being around for more than a hundred million years to examine dead animals you witnessed buried in the ground for that amount of time, you know nothing.


If your argument is that we can't know anything we weren't there to personally observe, I'd say you were being extremely illogical.    Forensics, fire investigation, archeology, and a great many other sciences belie your belief.

Quote
You presume organic materials can last so long, because that allows for your faith.


Long before YE creationism was invented, physicists knew the rocks in the Earth were many millions of years old.   Numerous checks have verified their findings, including an accurate measurement of the pyroclastic flow that destroyed Pompeii.    So no point in denying what is so obviously demonstrated.

Quote
If or when they present a list of comparison between molecular structure of heme and collagen of birds with every other species, then and only then could anyone know if they are most like that of dinosaurs.


No, that's wrong.   You're confusing a class of organisms (birds) with single species.    All that was necessary to confirm the prediction was to show that birds are biochemically more like dinosaurs than either group is to reptiles.   That confirms that birds and dinosaurs form a single ingroup within reptiles.

As you learned, the prediction was confirmed twice, once by heme and once by collagen.   Finding intact tissue would be the final test.  Such tissue, having intact cells, would almost certainly have DNA.   And we already know what it will show, since the only living group of reptiles from the archosaurs, (crocodilians) shows genetic affinity to birds.

If you really want to know about birds, you have to consider the crocodile.

That point was driven home this week with the release of the genomes of 45 bird species, which reassigned some perches on the avian evolutionary tree and included some seemingly odd bedfellows.

Down near the roots of that avian tree lies a mysterious ancestor that was decidedly more terrestrial and terrifying than the finch or the wren.

The archosaur, or so-called “ruling reptile,” roamed Earth about 250 million years ago, and “was something that was very reptilian, very early-dinosaur-ish, and then it evolved into modern-day crocodiles and birds,” said David Haussler, Scientific Director of the UC Santa Cruz Genomics Institute, a coauthor of several studies that came out of the avian genomics effort.

“So it really is the proper dinosaur ancestor,” Haussler said. “And birds and crocodiles are the proper descendants of this ancestor.”
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-crocodile-bird-genome-20141212-story.html)

Quote
you can continue to search for the real necessary evidence to back up your faith, finding more of the countless intermediary forms of developmental stages that should exist according to evolutionary faith.


It always surprises me that YE creationists have so little regard for faith that they equate it to science.    Stronger faith would make it unnecessary for creationists to hold to those beliefs.




 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Wed Jul 19, 2017 - 10:01:57
Dealing with facts and ignoring Trash Science is critical to productive thought processes.  Dealing from Unproven Theories will never produce truth!  All you have presented here is Trash Science ad is unprovable except one assumes assumptions are true and that is a double edged sword that bounces back into your face.  Where is the proven reassurance, the field trials?  Without those your presentation is all lies!
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 11:14:56
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYfNYcush4M

There are so many things that just don’t fit the theory of evolution.

If “Christian” evolutionists are correct, then the creation account of scripture is either a lie, or one that needs to be interpreted for all by the new evolutionary prophets for the rest of us. Those who supposedly know the real truth, above the testimony of the prophets of God who wrote the scriptures. Genesis 6-10 is also completely false, since this account written by the prophets cannot fit into the evolutionary details provided by our prophets of the same. The following scriptures also either contain lies within or are a lie themselves.

Jos 24:1 And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God. 2 And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods. 3 And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan, and multiplied his seed, and gave him Isaac.

Job 22:15 Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men have trodden? 16 Which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a flood:

Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

Mt 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

Lk 17:24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. 25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

2 Pet 2:1But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

If the judgment of God upon humanity through the flood is not true, why should any fear that the future judgment pronounced by the same prophets will or would be true?

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.


The above is either true or a lie. If it is true then evolution is a lie. If evolution is true then the above is a lie.

Josh 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 11:33:25
AMO,

The mention of the "flood" in Joshua 24:2 and 24:15 is "river" in nearly all other translations and therefore do not help you in your claim.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Jul 21, 2017 - 22:10:07
Quote
If “Christian” evolutionists are correct, then the creation account of scripture is either a lie, or one that needs to be interpreted for all by the new evolutionary prophets for the rest of us.

You're off by a little over 1600 years.   The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.   


Quote
Those who supposedly know the real truth, above the testimony of the prophets of God who wrote the scriptures.

All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.

While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea. 

Have a little humility.     Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.




 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 06:03:37
Have a little humility.     Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.

 ::thumbup:: ::thumbup::
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 09:45:34
AMO,

The mention of the "flood" in Joshua 24:2 and 24:15 is "river" in nearly all other translations and therefore do not help you in your claim.

Interesting. Learn something new every day. The verse does seem to make more sense especially if in fact a river was crossed by Abraham in his travels to Canaan. That's another topic altogether though.

This in no way effects the force of the fact that evolutionists must deny the validity of a whole lot of scripture to follow their unbiblical faith. I'd still like to hear an explanation of all the scriptures telling of or referring to the flood, by the evolutionary prophets who refute these scriptures. Are these scripture just a lie, or is there light in them which only the evolutionists know or can explain? Please do address the issue.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 09:51:10
You're off by a little over 1600 years.   The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.   


All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.

While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea. 

Have a little humility.     Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.

Yes there have always been those who denied the words of God's prophets. Now you are just more of the same.

You are probably right concerning "Christians". This world now has "Christians" which allow for almost anything and everything the bible condemns. Those who place their beliefs and faith in the observations of fallen humanity above the word of God. There is no light in them.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 09:57:25
Quote
Have a little humility.     Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.

There is no humility in placing the word of man above the word of God. All such is false and deceptive humility. The self destructive humility of the devil himself. The first one to put the authority of his own words above that of God's.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 17:16:07
It usually is not the word of God that is at issue.  It is almost always in a particular interpretation of the word of God that there is a problem.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 19:08:22
It usually is not the word of God that is at issue.  It is almost always in a particular interpretation of the word of God that there is a problem.

Yea, God's word makes simple conclusive statements, then some reinterpret them to mean whatever they wish.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 19:54:21
Yea, God's word makes simple conclusive statements, then some reinterpret them to mean whatever they wish.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Yes, now look up the Hebrew word yom which is translated "day":

From Strong's:

H3117

יום

yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.


From Vines OT:

Day

yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).


So much for your simple conclusive statement.  As I said, it is almost never about what God said, it is almost always about one someone thinks God means when He said what He said.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Jul 22, 2017 - 23:28:28
We should always remember that our particular interpretation of scripture can be in error, and be humble enough to recognize that other Christians may have different interpretations, and still be good Christians.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 08:45:15
Yes, now look up the Hebrew word yom which is translated "day":

From Strong's:

H3117

יום

yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.


From Vines OT:

Day

yom (H3117), "daylight; day; time; moment; year." This word also appears in Ugaritic, extrabiblical Hebrew or Canaanite (e.g., the Siloam inscription), Akkadian, Phoenician, and Arabic. It also appears in post-biblical Hebrew. Attested at every era of biblical Hebrew, yom occurs about 2,304 times.
Yom has several meanings. The word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime: "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" (Gen_8:22). The word denotes a period of twenty-four hours: "And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day..." (Gen_39:10). Yom can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration: "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ. Compare Gen_2:4 : "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [beyom] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens...." Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation. Another nuance appears in Gen_2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment": "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day [beyom] that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Finally, when used in the plural, the word may represent "year": "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from year to year [yamim]" (Exo_13:10).
There are several other special nuances of yom when it is used with various prepositions. First, when used with ke ("as," "like"), it can connote "first": "And Jacob said, Sell me this day [first] thy birthright" (Gen_25:31). It may also mean "one day," or "about this day": "And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business..." (Gen_39:11). On Joseph's lips, the phrase connotes "this present result" (literally, "as it is this day"): "But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive" (Gen_50:20). Adonijah used this same phrase to represent "today": "Let king Solomon swear unto me today that he will not slay his servant..." (1Ki_1:51). Yet another nuance appears in 1Sa_9:13 : "Now therefore get you up; for about this time ye shall find him." When used with the definite article ha, the noun may mean "today" (as it does in Gen_4:14) or refer to some particular "day" (1Sa_1:4) and the "daytime" (Neh_4:16).
The first biblical occurrence of yom is found in Gen_1:5 : "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." The second use introduces one of the most debated occurrences of the word, which is the duration of the days of creation. Perhaps the most frequently heard explanations are that these "days" are 24 hours long, indefinitely long (i.e., eras of time), or logical rather than temporal categories (i.e., they depict theological categories rather than periods of time).
The "day of the Lord" is used to denote both the end of the age (eschatologically) or some occurrence during the present age (non-eschatologically). It may be a day of either judgment or blessing, or both (cf. Isaiah 2).
It is noteworthy that Hebrew people did not divide the period of daylight into regular hourly periods, whereas nighttime was divided into three watches (Exo_14:24; Jdg_7:19). The beginning of a "day" is sometimes said to be dusk (Est_4:16) and sometimes dawn (Deu_28:66-67).


So much for your simple conclusive statement.  As I said, it is almost never about what God said, it is almost always about one someone thinks God means when He said what He said.

Yea like I said, God makes a simple conclusive statement, and some people turn it into whatever they wish. For the last 4 thousand years the Jews and others have been keeping the seventh day sabbath according to the commandment, but God didn't even mean literal days when speaking it. That makes a lot of sense. Then He even punished Israel many times over for not keeping that literal seventh day as commanded, yet He didn't even mean a literal day when He said it. Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Deception always complicates that which is simple. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 08:59:00
AMO. what is the meaning of the word "day" in Gen 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 09:15:02
From Strong's:

H3117

יום

yôm

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): - age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger.

I took the liberty of emphasizing a most important element of determining when the word day means more than a literal one or not. When it is not, the scriptures themselves help define this by an associated term, explanation, or straight up testimony to the contrary. On the other hand no doubt, when God intends that all should know it surely does mean a single literal day, He does the same that all should understand this as well. As in the creation account when he referred to each day with an evening and a morning. These are associated terms that unquestionably point to a literal single day. Accepting of course for those who simply refuse to allow scripture to speak for itself. You shared the above from Strong's, will you not heed it's own recommendations. Please do show us how you will explain this away as well. Just how much more complicated can you make the subject according to your deception?

As far as that which you shared from Vines OT, this is the opinion of just another man such as yourself, that is all. God absolutely did not rest from creation to the first coming of Christ. During that time He was very busy dealing with the fall of humanity, and the constant backsliding of His professed people. Since the fall He has been continually working and striving to get fallen humanity to enter into His rest, that they might be saved from the sinfulness of their own works.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 09:38:07
AMO. what is the meaning of the word "day" in Gen 2:4  These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, ?

Strong's

8435 towldah to-led-aw' or toldah {to-led-aw'}; from 3205; (plural only) descent, i.e. family; (figuratively) history:--birth, generations.

It means this is the history of the birth of this world. The order of its creation.

Genesis 2:4New King James Version (NKJV)

4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:4Amplified Bible (AMP)

4 This is the history of [the origin of] the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [that is, days of creation] that the [a]Lord God made the earth and the heavens—

Genesis 2:4Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

4 This is the history of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens—

Genesis 2:4Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

Man and Woman in the Garden

4 These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation. At the time[a] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,


Genesis 2:4Common English Bible (CEB)

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

World’s creation in the garden
On the day the Lord God made earth and sky—

Genesis 2:4Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

(A: iv, S: ii) 4 Here is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created. On the day when Adonai, God, made earth and heaven,

Genesis 2:4Contemporary English Version (CEV)

4 That’s how God created the heavens and the earth.

The Garden of Eden
When the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,

Genesis 2:4Darby Translation (DARBY)

4 These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,

Genesis 2:4Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

The First Man and the Garden of Eden
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky.

Genesis 2:4GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

The Creation of Man and Woman
4 This is the account of heaven and earth when they were created, at the time when the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 2:4Good News Translation (GNT)

4 And that is how the universe was created.

The Garden of Eden
When the Lord[a] God made the universe,

Genesis 2:4Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)

Man and Woman in the Garden
4 These are the records of the heavens and the earth, concerning their creation at the time[a] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 2:4International Standard Version (ISV)

Humans in the Garden
4 These are the records of the universe at its[a] creation. On the day that the Lord God made the universe,

Genesis 2:4Modern English Version (MEV)

Adam and Eve
4 This is the account[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Genesis 2:4New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)

I. The Story of the Nations
The Garden of Eden. 4 This is the story[a] of the heavens and the earth at their creation. When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens—

Genesis 2:4New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 [a]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.

Genesis 2:4New English Translation (NET Bible)

The Creation of Man and Woman
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created—when the Lord God made the earth and heavens.

Genesis 2:4New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

Adam and Eve
4 Here is the story of the heavens and the earth when they were created. The Lord God made the earth and the heavens.



Genesis 2:4New International Version (NIV)

Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 2:4New International Version - UK (NIVUK)

Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

Genesis 2:4Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

4 These be the generations of heaven and of earth, in the day wherein the Lord God made heaven and earth, (These be the generations, or the creation, of the heavens and the earth, in the days when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,)


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Jul 23, 2017 - 14:52:52
As far as that which you shared from Vines OT, this is the opinion of just another man such as yourself, that is all. God absolutely did not rest from creation to the first coming of Christ.
It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ.  It says God rested from "...all his work that he had done in creation."  Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).

And by the way, you still didn't answer how long was the "day" in Genesis 2:4.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 29, 2017 - 13:14:06
It doesn't say God rested from creation to the first coming of Christ.  It says God rested from "...all his work that he had done in creation."  Many would argue that He is still resting from His work of creation and will until He creates the next "heaven and earth" (2 Pet 3:13).

And by the way, you still didn't answer how long was the "day" in Genesis 2:4.

My bad.

Quote
And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Gen_2:3). In this verse, "day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating this universe. This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends at least to the return of Christ.

It was until at least His second coming.

The meaning of the word day in Gen 2:4 is made evident by the context and terms used surrounding it.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.  4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

The word day refers to the time period of creation, the six days God created it in, and the seventh day on which He rested. This is what the context and related term generations suggests. Just as the words day in relation to each day of creation were a single day as the terms morning and evening attached to each one of them unquestionably suggests. Which suggestion you ignore or deny because you don't want to believe in a six day creation, or young earth. I'm not the one ignoring context or related terms here, you are.

I wouldn't describe being full time involved in the salvation of rebellious humanity, rest. Especially when doing so involved God becoming a human being, being tempted as we are, being falsely accused, persecuted, hated, beaten, tortured, and crucified for that salvation, would you? Perhaps those whose chosen beliefs require such a contradictory view, must incorporate the same. I have no such dilemma.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Jul 29, 2017 - 13:16:41
A few more articles concerning rapid formation in contrast to the false claims of the need of millions of years and evolution to be where we are now.

http://creation.com/rapid-stalactites

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/rocks-and-minerals/rapid-opals-outback/

http://creation.com/the-rapid-formation-of-granitic-rocks-more-evidence

http://creation.com/rapid-formation-of-the-mount-isa-orebodies

http://youngearth.com/grand-canyon-nautiloids

https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Aug 01, 2017 - 19:49:37
 
Quote
https://www.livescience.com/8312-canyons-form-quickly-gusher-suggests.html

Actually, it's been known for a very long time that a huge release of water can scour out canyons in relatively short time.  Decades ago, the scablands were determined to be the result of a sudden flood when Lake Missoula suddenly broke out of a glacial trap.   It was a model for the Martian canyons that seem to have been similarly formed.   What can't happen suddenly is this:

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)

This sort of formation can only happen over millions of years, in a rejuvenated river where the bed becomes trapped and cuts deeper and deeper into stone.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu Aug 03, 2017 - 07:50:36

Quote
[url]http://creation.com/the-rapid-formation-of-granitic-rocks-more-evidence[/url]


This belief would be easy to support.   Just make some granite in the laboratory.   It's easy to melt the minerals found in granite if you have a proper furnace.

But getting them to solidify into separate crystals, that's another thing entirely.    There are granites only a few thousand years old, but the crystals are almost microscopic.    The longer the hardening process takes, the larger the crystals.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Thu Aug 03, 2017 - 13:29:18
It is truly sad that you and your friends, I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 08:48:50

Quote
It is truly sad that you and your friends, I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.

If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 09:35:35
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?
I am not the one ginning things up, that is you and the
Devil.  I am obeying Jesus when He said we must believe as a small child.  When all of my children were small they thought I was a every word that came out of my mouth
they thought I was a genius and they questioned nothing and thought I was the toughest and roughest and coud beat anyone up.  Sad to say but you are not bekieving that way.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 10:45:28
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?

I wonder just what non-scriptural miracles you are referring to? Would you mind sharing them with us?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 19:30:40
Barbarian suggests:
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?

Quote
I am not the one ginning things up

But you are.    When you see something that could not have happened as creationists say it did, it's wrong to imagine a new miracle to cover the problem.

Quote
I am obeying Jesus when He said we must believe as a small child.

Then why not accept His word as it is, without adding new miracles?
 
Why add things to make your own ideas fit?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Fri Aug 04, 2017 - 20:49:05
Dear Evolutionist.

What is one evidence for evolution, please?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Alan on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 07:32:09
Dear Evolutionist.

What is one evidence for evolution, please?


Bacteria is one evidence that we can observe in motion, it evolves to resist new antibiotics and evolves to produce new enzymes that are responsible for maintaining life in vertebrates.
Here is another quick and short link that gets straight to the point.

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution (http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution)


Could go on all day posting links to research but I doubt it will be absorbed or even given an objective study.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 11:29:52
Barbarian suggests:
If you have to gin up all sorts of non-scriptural miracles to support your new interpretation of Genesis, shouldn't that be telling you something?

But you are.    When you see something that could not have happened as creationists say it did, it's wrong to imagine a new miracle to cover the problem.

Then why not accept His word as it is, without adding new miracles?
 
Why add things to make your own ideas fit?

I guess your not going to tell us what non scriptural miracles you were referring to.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 14:53:59
Quote
Dear Evolutionist.

What is one evidence for evolution, please?
Here's  few:

Observed speciations.

Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection

Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record

Zero transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any

Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things

Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles

Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.
 
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 15:00:05
Quote
I guess your not going to tell us what non scriptural miracles you were referring to.

Just showed you one. 

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)

Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.

And the response was that:
Quote
I assume you have a group of like minded people, have tried to limit the power because that does not mean He has not sent this reat delusion you imagine o believe Barb.

Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work?  Sure, He can.  But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 15:44:29
Just showed you one. 

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)

Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.

And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work?  Sure, He can.  But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.

Just exactly how is this photo a non scriptural miracle? You and others presume that what we see could only come about over the course of millions of years, and that makes it a non scriptural miracle. Is that it? BALONEY! You have no idea what varying results could transpire from a global catastrophic flood, which included changing the entire surface of the earth when the fountains of the deep erupted, and flood waters wreaked havoc upon the same for many years to come as they slowly receded shifting and moving the surface of the earth in ways we cannot imagine. Countless millions of tons of water and mud moving about rapidly and creating destruction and mass burials all the while. Your photo is easily just much of the same creating a channel following a path of least resistance during the same. This is not to mention the many more minor catastrophes and convulsions of the earth taking place in succession as the world settled into its new form of water and land placement, or should I say displacement.

No doubt for many decades if not centuries after the flood the surface of the earth was much softer and more pliable than it was originally, or is now after so many thousands of years of settling and intense pressure from the sheer mass of it all. Things you presume would take millions of years would happen much more rapidly in such an environment. As a scoffer though, what would you know of these things.

2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Your are willingly ignorant of these truths of scripture, therefore is there no light in you pertaining to them. Thus you turn to the supposed experts of this world for light, over the testimony of the word of God.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 16:21:27
Just showed you one. 

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)

Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.

And the response was that:
Can God set aside the rules by which He makes this world work?  Sure, He can.  But if you try to cover up the problems with your new doctrine by imagining unscriptural miracles, then any belief is equally valid.

Of course this could of happened in a single flood. What? You think the flood was slow and calm?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 16:23:46
Here's  few:

Observed speciations.

Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection

Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record

Zero transitional forms where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be any

Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things

Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles

Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.

I see you are not too good at reading comprehension.

I asked for ONE.

Now, lets discuss things ONE at a time.

"Observed speciations."

Oh, variations within a kind happen. But they are still the same kind of animal.

We get big dogs, little dogs, black dogs and brown dogs.

But they are STILL a dog!

This is NOT evidence they all came from soup 4.6 billion years ago or that dogs and cats are related.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:07:44
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

Just another link in the supposed evolutionary chain, breaking. Surprise, surprise, variation in skull types is not necessarily proof of different species and or evolutionary process of development, as supposed. Evolutionists admit that if these skulls found together were found separately, they would have been deemed different species and stages of evolutionary development. No telling how much more of evolutionary conjecture is just as flawed. Time will continue to tell no doubt, as it already has.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:35:54

Observed fitness increasing in populations under natural selection



Observed FITNESS?

Really?

Natural selection SELECTS, it doesnt CREATE anything.

This is NOT "evolution".
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:40:48


Huge number of predicted transitional forms either alive or in the fossil record


There is no such thing as a LIVE "transitional" form.

You DO know that the so-called "fossil record" exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks, right?

We see polystrata fossils. Petrified trees in the upright or even upside DOWN position going through SEVERAL rock layers that are supposedly thousands or millions of years apart in age. This proves the layers are NOT as old as people make them out to be.

There are, in fact ZERO transitional fossils.

If you find a fossil in the dirt or rock the ONLY thing it can tell you is that SOMETHING DIED. You dont know it had ANY kids, let alone how old it is as radiometric carbon dating methods DONT work.

And why you think a fossil in the ground can do something a living creature cant ( which is, produce something other than its' kind ) is beyond me.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:42:38

Genetics, showing the same nested hierarchy of species in a family tree of all living things


Can you rephrase this one, i dont really get what you mean.

Is this the "family tree" that shows, as darwin said that all living things are related?

If so, i refer you to my comments regarding fossils.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:45:04


Molecular data showing heme and collagen molecules of dinosaurs are more like those of birds than of modern reptiles


You can build many different things with metal. It is a good building material and usually a building material does not need to be made if metal will do the job.

This shows a common DESIGNER.

If you are saying that birds came FROM dinosaurs, you are not up with current research as the so-called dino-birds have been proven to be false.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 18:46:28

Suboptimal structures like human hips, backs, and feet, that show common descent from 4-legged animals.

Common structures show a common DESIGNER. Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 19:39:45
Common structures show a common DESIGNER. Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.

And no one who understands evolution would ever assert that to be the case.  I am not necessarily a proponent of evolution, but totally inaccurate posits like that do not help the discussion.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:34:03
Quote
Observed FITNESS?

Really?

Yep.    Fitness is usually not hard to quantify.   Would you like some examples?

Quote
Natural selection SELECTS, it doesnt CREATE anything.

Mutation and natural selection do tend to increase fitness in a population.  That is what evolution is.

Quote
This is NOT "evolution".

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   And that's what we see.   Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:39:16
Quote
Common structures show a common DESIGNER.

God is not a designer.    He's the Creator.    Design is what imperfect creatures do.    And your assumption is incorrect about common structures.   For example, sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins have common structures, but when you look closely, they are derived from different things.    You're assuming analogous organs, while evolution is about homologous organs.   For example, dolphins are anatomically more like us than they are like sharks, even though they are analogous to sharks.   

Common descent is marked by homologies.

Quote
Again, just because apes and humans LOOK similar, that does not mean the ape is my granddad.

Again, you're confusing analogies with homologies.   The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on.    It is confirmed by genetic data showing that chimps and humans are more closely related than either is to other apes.    So we shared a common ancestor that had already diverged from other apes.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:46:38
Quote
You can build many different things with metal. It is a good building material and usually a building material does not need to be made if metal will do the job.

But because of details in the metal, it's possible to find where two metal objects have a common origin.  For example, archaeologists can determine by the mix of trace elements in copper artifacts that the ore from which they were made, came from a common source in Cyprus.   

This shows a common origin, not a common designer. 

And we can check these findings by seeing if related individuals have more similar molecules than more distantly related ones.    In the case of the dinosaur heme and collagen, the prediction was that it would be most like that of birds and crocodiles, and not as much like other modern reptiles.    The prediction was confirmed.   

There's no functional reason for this; it just shows common descent.

Quote
If you are saying that birds came FROM dinosaurs

This pretty well nails it, since it shows that they are closely related.   

Quote
you are not up with current research as the so-called dino-birds have been proven to be false.

You've been misled about that.   Ornithologist Alan Feduccia has claimed that birds did not descend from dinosaurs, but that both birds and dinosaurs descended from a common thecodont ancestor.    The results from heme and collagen show this is very unlikely, and numerous new transitional forms demonstrating the origin of birds, has convinced most scientists that Feduccia is wrong.

Would you like to learn more about the issue?

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:55:07
Quote
There is no such thing as a LIVE "transitional" form.

Of course there are.    For example, there are transitional forms between wood roaches and termites.   There are transitional forms between eutherian mammals and reptiles.   There are transitional forms between invertebrates and chordates, and so on.   Would you like to learn about some of them?

Quote
You DO know that the so-called "fossil record" exists NOWHERE except in the textbooks, right?

If you think so, you've never taken a good look at a limestone cliff.    There are many, many examples.  Want to learn about those?

Quote
We see polystrata fossils. Petrified trees in the upright or even upside DOWN position going through SEVERAL rock layers that are supposedly thousands or millions of years apart in age.

Nope.   The layers are only a few decades apart, in most cases.    There are some polystrate trees being formed a few miles from my house, where a woods flooded by a dam years ago, is slowly burying them in sediment.   

Quote
There are, in fact ZERO transitional fossils.

Let's test your belief.   Name me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected and I'll see if I can find a transitional.    Which two would you like?

Quote
If you find a fossil in the dirt or rock the ONLY thing it can tell you is that SOMETHING DIED.

No, that's wrong, too.    We can tell things like what kind of food it ate, if it was a freshwater or saltwater organism, what kind of metabolism it had, and many other things.    Would you like to talk about how we know these things?

Quote
let alone how old it is as radiometric carbon dating methods DONT work.

Carbon-14 works fine, but it has to short a half-life to be of much use in paleontology.  Would you like to learn how older rock are dated?



 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 05, 2017 - 22:59:16
Barbarian observes: 
  Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
 
Quote
Of course this could of happened in a single flood.

No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that.   Meanders require slow, gradual erosion.   A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks.    We have such examples like the scablands.     Meanders are never suddenly produced.    Would you like to learn why?


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 00:54:12
Barbarian observes: 
  Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
 
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that.   Meanders require slow, gradual erosion.   A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks.    We have such examples like the scablands.     Meanders are never suddenly produced.    Would you like to learn why?

Your right, no one will ever see it happen like that. There will never be a global flood again, and if there was, no one would live to tell anyone anything about it. Nor will anyone ever see, or has anyone ever seen it happen over the course of millions of years. Not possible. Your presumptions are as much conjecture as all he rest, and based upon the faulty observations of fallen humanity in contradiction to the word of God. Though you deny that word even when right in front of your face. Do you really believe, even if the world was countless millions of yeas old, that one spot on it would remain so unchanged for millions of years as to perfectly preserve the slow erosion of what we see in your photo over that course of time? Even that notion, is just plain silly.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 03:18:28
Barbarian observes: 
  Just showed you one.
Such a formation could not have happened in a single flood.   It requires millions of years of slow erosion.
 
No, it can't and you'll never see it happen like that.   Meanders require slow, gradual erosion.   A strong sudden flood would just have gouged out surface marks.    We have such examples like the scablands.     Meanders are never suddenly produced.    Would you like to learn why?

Yes, it can.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 03:20:31
God is not a designer.    He's the Creator.    Design is what imperfect creatures do.    And your assumption is incorrect about common structures.   For example, sharks, icthyosaurs, and dolphins have common structures, but when you look closely, they are derived from different things.    You're assuming analogous organs, while evolution is about homologous organs.   For example, dolphins are anatomically more like us than they are like sharks, even though they are analogous to sharks.   

Common descent is marked by homologies.

Again, you're confusing analogies with homologies.   The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on.    It is confirmed by genetic data showing that chimps and humans are more closely related than either is to other apes.    So we shared a common ancestor that had already diverged from other apes.

No, He is a creator. At least you admit there IS a God. God designed us AND created us.

"The evidence that humans and other apes have a common ancestor is based on homologous structures like brain, jaws, and so on"

Wrong. Again, it shows a common designer or creator.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 03:23:03
And no one who understands evolution would ever assert that to be the case.  I am not necessarily a proponent of evolution, but totally inaccurate posits like that do not help the discussion.

Oh, so humans and apes are NOT related?

Thats EXACTLY what evolutionists say.

I, too dislike inaccurate posts.

For someone who does not believe in evolution, you sure defend the religion a lot.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 03:27:11
Yep.    Fitness is usually not hard to quantify.   Would you like some examples?

Mutation and natural selection do tend to increase fitness in a population.  That is what evolution is.

No, its natural selection.

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   And that's what we see.   Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.

Thats ONE very loose definition of evolution.

No-one disputes changes within a kind. big dogs, little dogs, etc.

But to extrapolate that into the belief that all living things ( humans, apes, cats, mice, plants, grass, etc. ) are all related to each other and that life began 4.6 billion years ago from a rock is a fairytale.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 03:33:11
But because of details in the metal, it's possible to find where two metal objects have a common origin.  For example, archaeologists can determine by the mix of trace elements in copper artifacts that the ore from which they were made, came from a common source in Cyprus.   

This shows a common origin, not a common designer.

Good point, my friend. But, i only used this as an analogy. Do you at least get what i am trying to say?

And we can check these findings by seeing if related individuals have more similar molecules than more distantly related ones.    In the case of the dinosaur heme and collagen, the prediction was that it would be most like that of birds and crocodiles, and not as much like other modern reptiles.    The prediction was confirmed.   

So in other words ( so i understand you, i am not an academic ) because i have nails and some mammals have nails, that proves we are related somewhere along the line, is that what you are trying to say?


There's no functional reason for this; it just shows common descent.

This pretty well nails it, since it shows that they are closely related.   

Fine.

You've been misled about that.   Ornithologist Alan Feduccia has claimed that birds did not descend from dinosaurs, but that both birds and dinosaurs descended from a common thecodont ancestor.    The results from heme and collagen show this is very unlikely, and numerous new transitional forms demonstrating the origin of birds, has convinced most scientists that Feduccia is wrong.

Wow, so a person CLAIMS that birds did NOT descend from dinosaurs? I have seen many professors say the opposite.

Show me a "transitional form", please. NOT a whole list, just ONE please and lets discuss it.

Would you like to learn more about the issue?

So far i havent seen you present any evidence and you havent disproven anything i have said.

Plus, you said you are NOT an evolutionist, so why would i come to YOU?

Also, since you are NOT an evolutionist, you just want to argue.

I would prefer to hear form an EVOLUTIONIST.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 06:04:36

Actually, it's been known for a very long time that a huge release of water can scour out canyons in relatively short time.  Decades ago, the scablands were determined to be the result of a sudden flood when Lake Missoula suddenly broke out of a glacial trap.   It was a model for the Martian canyons that seem to have been similarly formed.   What can't happen suddenly is this:

(https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/221/flashcards/2900221/jpg/meander-entrenched-13E8AA99E082F8C2D68.jpg)

This sort of formation can only happen over millions of years, in a rejuvenated river where the bed becomes trapped and cuts deeper and deeper into stone.

There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 07:13:44
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.


In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions.  There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time.  And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods.  An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here

http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 08:09:10
Quote
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.

In the Snake River canyon, shown above, there are deserts and forests at different levels in the rock along with animal burrows, insect hives, etc.   Seems unlikely that those would have had time to appear in flood deposits being laid down and then be covered during a year-long flood.    How do you suppose that happened?


Quote
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.

Nope.   Never does.   Sudden erosion never meanders.   Those are almost kilometer-high banks.   They were solid rock when they were eroded.   Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters.   Would you like me to show you?


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 08:11:54
[quote[So far i havent seen you present any evidence[/quote]

Just showed you some, which refutes your argument.
 
Quote
Plus, you said you are NOT an evolutionist, so why would i come to YOU?

I'm a biologist.   But I accept the fact of evolution. 

Quote
I would prefer to hear form an EVOLUTIONIST.

I'm just showing you the evidence for evolution.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 08:15:53
Barbarian observes:
Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time.   And that's what we see.   Random mutations are winnowed through natural selection, so that fitness increases.


Quote
Thats ONE very loose definition of evolution.

No,that's the precise one used by scientists.

Quote
No-one disputes changes within a kind. big dogs, little dogs, etc.

Actually, many professional creationists now admit the fact that new species, genera, and families evolve.   They suppose there's some kind of "wall" at higher taxa, but they can't show that it exists.



But to extrapolate that into the belief that all living things ( humans, apes, cats, mice, plants, grass, etc. ) are all related to each other and that life began 4.6 billion years ago from a rock is a fairytale.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Amo on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 10:49:18
Quote
Nope.   Never does.   Sudden erosion never meanders.   Those are almost kilometer-high banks.   They were solid rock when they were eroded.   Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters.   Would you like me to show you?

Again and again, all your presumptions are based upon the false concept that all things are the same as they once were, and continue the same as they always have. This you believe and propagate against the direct and plain testimony of the word of God, even addressing exactly what you are doing. You have placed your own understanding above the word if God, and are hopelessly deceived because of this.

2 Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 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. 5 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: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 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. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

You are one of the scoffers Peter was referring to of the last days. You preach that all things have remained as they were in your false model of God's creation over millions of years, so that you can observe and figure out just how it happened in contradiction to the plain testimony of scripture. You deny the flood, because your precious evolution cannot be true if it really happened.

Tell us, since the flood didn't happen, do you believe the rest of what Peter said was going happen in the future is really going to happen? Or do you deny this testimony in the word of God also? Just how much of God's word needs to be trashed according to your own understanding?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 15:27:23
There is in fact much scientific evidence that the various layers of sediment are deposited in a very short time, some instantaneous, which explains why fossils are preserved in those layers.
The formation in your picture could have been shaped in a very short time.
Indeed, and with our Omnipotent God it could all be done in less than 24 hours.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 15:39:13
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions.  There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time.  And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods.  An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here

[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]

You are not serving the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for whom nothing is impossible including the Great Delusion e promised to send, the very thing a part of is being discussed here?  And Jesus taught us, "Except you believe!"
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: th1b.taylor on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 16:01:20
You're off by a little over 1600 years.   The realization that Genesis was not a literal history came about long before Darwin or any sort of evolutionary theory.   


All that traditional Christian believe refutes is the testimony of YE creationists, and their new interpretation of Genesis.

While denying the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis does not put you outside of His people, referring to those who don't agree with you by putting quote marks around the word "Christian" might be a bad idea. 

Have a little humility.     Neither YE creationism, nor acceptance of evolution are requirements for being a Christian.
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom!  When I taught the Primaries Class I  never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 17:37:18

You are not serving the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for whom nothing is impossible including the Great Delusion e promised to send, the very thing a part of is being discussed here?  And Jesus taught us, "Except you believe!"


It is strange indeed to find such arrogance in such ignorance.  Or perhaps not.  Do you really think that God would so completely distort the science He Himself created?  I think not.  The question here to me is clearly whether God actually needs the distortion and delusion that you seem to perceive in order that His faithful would remain so.  Again, I think not.  But perhaps it is not God who requires such distortion and delusion in order that you can believe.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 17:39:51
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom!  When I taught the Primaries Class I  never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.
And it is probably a good thing they didn't since you don't really have a clue about what either theory is;  or for that matter even what "theory" means with regard to either.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 20:47:32
Quote
Again and again, all your presumptions are based upon the false concept that all things are the same as they once were, and continue the same as they always have.

God made the rules.  He doesn't change.    If you have to assume things not in scripture to make your point, isn't that something for you to think about?

If you would accept God's word as it is, without adding anything to it, all of your difficulties would  be gone.   Worth a try?

 Instead of scoffing at God's creation, just accept it as it is. 

Quote
Tell us, since the flood didn't happen

What makes you think there wasn't a flood?   Turns out, there was a huge flood in the Middle East about the right time.   It covered a huge area, drowning settlements, pastures and covering mountains.    It's now known as the Black Sea.    Was that Noah's Flood, or is the story entirely a parable?    It doesn't matter.    What matters is what God was telling you in that story.    Listen to the point.    It doesn't matter at all whether or not there was a Good Samaritan in the literal sense.   What matters is the lesson.    Pay attention to that.

Let God be God and do it His way, not yours.



 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 20:49:47
Quote
And Jesus teaches us that except you believe as a small child you cannot enter into the kingdom!  When I taught the Primaries Class I  never, even once, had one of them ask me how the Big Bang "theory" and/or the "Theory" of Evolution fit into the Scriptures.

You should have learned from that.    The Bible isn't about science, and science can't tell you what God tells you.    Listen to Him, accept it His way, and stop trying to fit scripture into your own wishes.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:14:04
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions.  There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time.  And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods.  An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here

[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]


As far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, there is no proof that desert conditions formed the layers. In fact the same layers are found globally over different continents, also in countries without desert conditions.
Burial of fossils always happens in a short time, it cannot be done over a long time.
There is no evidence of corrosion between layers, which is a real problem for science.
Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:19:09
In the Snake River canyon, shown above, there are deserts and forests at different levels in the rock along with animal burrows, insect hives, etc.   Seems unlikely that those would have had time to appear in flood deposits being laid down and then be covered during a year-long flood.    How do you suppose that happened?


Nope.   Never does.   Sudden erosion never meanders.   Those are almost kilometer-high banks.   They were solid rock when they were eroded.   Soft sediment always slumps and collapses when it erodes more than a few meters.   Would you like me to show you?

How deep do you say Snake River Canyon is, kilometer high banks?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:28:15
2 Peter 3:3

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.


1) Peter warns us that men will come and claim that everything goes on the way it has always been. That is not true.
2) These men will do so deliberately, ignoring Gods Word. The earth being formed by water.
3) God will destroy the world in a day, impossible according to the scientists
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:30:35
In the Grand Canyon several of the layer deposits are the result of desert conditions not sea conditions.  There is no way that could have happened in a short period of time.  And your argument completely avoids the data provided by radiometric dating methods.  An excellent discussion of the subject may be found here

[url]http://www.reasons.org/articles/radiometric-dating---a-christian-perspective[/url]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Maa_V3_GQA
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 06:29:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXMcR1D-vSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Maa_V3_GQA

Ken Hovind ??   rofl   rofl   rofl

Have you read anything about him?  Even the AnswersinGenesis folks think he is a sham.  He compared the Grand Canyon to a farmers pond in Tennessee.   He's a joke.  His geology credentials should give it away.  His credentials in any science should give it away.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 06:37:01
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years

Whether He can is not the question.  The question is whether He did.  God's own creation says He didn't.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 07:13:08
Whether He can is not the question.  The question is whether He did.  God's own creation says He didn't.

Within 48 hours:
Then the LORD God provided a leafy plant and made it grow up over Jonah to give shade for his head to ease his discomfort, and Jonah was very happy about the plant.
But at dawn the next day God provided a worm, which chewed the plant so that it withered.


Within 24 hours
The next day Moses entered the tent and saw that Aaron's staff, which represented the tribe of Levi, had not only sprouted but had budded, blossomed and produced almonds.


DO you have issues with the term "day" in either of the above accounts...or is it only in Genesis where you dispute the term "day"?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 07:32:40
DO you have issues with the term "day" in either of the above accounts...or is it only in Genesis where you dispute the term "day"?

And how about you?

Gen 2:4  This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

How many hours in that day?  24?  144?  And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"?  24?  0?  Not even measurable in physical earth time?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:00:13
And how about you?

Gen 2:4  This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

How many hours in that day?  24?  144?  And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"?  24?  0?  Not even measurable in physical earth time?

Yeah, predictable response. You pretend not to see the difference between Genesis 1 & 2?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:08:46
Yeah, predictable response. You pretend not to see the difference between Genesis 1 & 2?

Yeah I do see the difference. And in neither case is "day" speaking about a 24-hour day as we measure hours and days.  You like to insist on a literal reading concerning Genesis, the creation, the garden etc.  What is the literal reading of Genesis 3:24?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:18:46
Yeah I do see the difference. And in neither case is "day" speaking about a 24-hour day as we measure hours and days.  You like to insist on a literal reading concerning Genesis, the creation, the garden etc.  What is the literal reading of Genesis 3:24?

Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 08:38:48
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.

And where is the garden and that angel now?  Where God put them?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 09:43:44
Quote
As far as the Grand Canyon is concerned, there is no proof that desert conditions formed the layers.


There are deserts buried in some layers.    How do we know this?   We have cross-bedded dunes hardened into stones, and burrows of desert organisms.    In other layers there are buried forests.   How, in one year, did deserts and forests have time to develop in "flood sediments?'

Quote
Burial of fossils always happens in a short time, it cannot be done over a long time.


It's happening about a mile from where I live.   Upright trees flooded by a dam decades ago, are slowly being buried in layers of sediment.   If the area later dries out, we'll have slowly-produced polystrate fossils.

Quote
There is no evidence of corrosion between layers,


No, that's wrong, too.   The deserts, for example, have sand-worn stones and cross-bedded dunes from eroded rock.

Quote
Radiometric dating is proven unreliable.


Recently, argon/argon testing accurately dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii.   
Precise dating of the destruction of Pompeii proves argon-argon method can reliably date rocks as young as 2,000 years

http://www.pompeiana.org/News/1997/08_28_97%20-%20Precise%20dating%20of%20the%20destruction%20of%20Pompeii%20proves%20argon-argon%20method%20can%20reliably%20date%20rocks%20as%20young%20as%202,000%20years.htm
So you're wrong about that, too.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 10:33:47
And where is the garden and that angel now?  Where God put them?

How does that matter? Even if anyone knew where it was, you couldn't go there because the angel wouldn't allow you.
Anyway, being part of creation the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 12:06:30
How does that matter? Even if anyone knew where it was, you couldn't go there because the angel wouldn't allow you.
Anyway, being part of creation the Garden of Eden was destroyed in the flood.

I know you didn't intend it, but that was actually funny.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 15:54:14
And how about you?

Gen 2:4  This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

How many hours in that day?  24?  144?  And how many hours in "the day of the Lord"?  24?  0?  Not even measurable in physical earth time?

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 17:18:11
Quote
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.

The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one.    Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 17:22:20
Quote
Don't see a problem. God expelled Adam and Eve and placed an angel to guard access to the garden of Eden.

Actually, it was not an angel, it was angels:

Genesis 3:24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.



Apparently, they had to share the sword.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 18:15:46
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one.    Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.

Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light. You just consider that explanation absurd because you choose to reject it.
Christians never saw Genesis as a parable, until centuries later some of them caved in to the atheist theory of evolution.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 18:27:56
The word translated as "day" can mean "lifetime", "Forever", "always", "in my time", and so one.    Christians saw it as a parable, because it's absurd to talk about evenings and mornings with no Sun to have them.

But He qualifies what He said. The morning and the evening were THE first day.

God did not tell us to work thousands of years and have a thousand years off.

Context, context, context
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: geronimo on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 20:28:19
 Time does not exist in God's economy.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Mon Aug 07, 2017 - 23:09:10
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. “The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History”. (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).

Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.

Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.  Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948.  Julia L (?)

Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).

The Nampa Image is a baked clay figure obtained from a well being bored in 1889 at Nampa, Idaho. It was pumped from rocks 300 feet deep under a “Tertiary” lava sheet (12 million years old.) The problem for evolutionists is how can a man made clay figure 12 million years old (supposedly) have been laid down before man evolved 3 million years ago (supposedly)?  Source: American Geologist, F.Wright, 23 (1899), p.267.

Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination.  Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.

Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, “A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia’s Institute of Geology: “If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears.”” Why did Professor Amanniyazov assume dinosaur extinction 150 million years ago as absolutely certainty? Why did he not consider the alternative position of dinosaurs living with man recently? The fact that dinosaur and human footprints have been found in the same rock strata proves that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
This is a great problem to evolutionists who believe that dinosaurs became extinct 70 million years ago. Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs died out 67 million years before man appeared. These footprints prove that:
a) Man and dinosaur lived at the same time, and b) The evolutionary geological column is completely wrong in its dating of rocks.
 The evidence for these tracks being genuine are:
 i) The tracks of man and dinosaur are widely distributed from Turkestan to Texas.
 ii) The tracks are mostly exposed by bulldozers or erosion.
 iii) Two Palaeontologists have pronounced them genuine:
 - Dr. Camp of the University of California, and
 - Dr. G. Westcott of Ypsilanti, Michigan.
 iv) The associated dinosaur tracks are accepted as valid.
 v) Some prints have ridges of mud pushed up around them.
vi) Upon sawing through the footprints, the rock particles underneath are more compressed than particles surrounding the prints. Source: “Scientific American”, A.G. Ingalls: “The Carboniferous Mystery” 162 (1940), page 14. See R.L. Wysong “The Creation-Evolution Controversy”, p.373

Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their “in place” growth and fossilisation.

Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.

Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big. These O and B class stars, and P Cygni stars could not continue atomic fusion longer than 50,000 to 300,000 years.

Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now. Spectra from stars reveal abundant hydrogen in stars.This implies a young universe.

Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun’s diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth’s oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.

Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun’s heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.

Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).

Jupiter’s Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike, having the same amount of volcanoes and impact craters, but this is not so. Evolution claims that all planets were molten 5 billion years ago and volcanic activity stopped 4 billion years  ago as they cooled. The moons Ganymede and Callisto have no volcanoes and many impact craters. Europa has no volcanoes and no impact craters. Io has 7 active volcanoes and no impact craters. Titan has volcanoes.

Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune (4) have rings, which could not survive 4 billion years. Jupiter’s intense magnetic field radiation would sweep out its rings. (Bradford Smith, a Voyager Scientist).

Venus’ high temperature and little erosion, imply a young age for Venus. If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.

Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes, as well as month-long dust storms. Several thousand years of this weather would have seriously eroded these edges and its strong colour differences. Powerful solar UV radiation would have long ago broken down the small amount of water, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere and hydrogen into space. Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen, but measurements show the opposite being some surface water and very little atmospheric oxygen.


Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.

Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth’s surface, never being found in the rock strata. If earth were 5 billion years old, we would find many meteorite craters in the sedimentary rock strata, but we don’t. Thus all meteorites which have struck the earth, have hit it in the last 5000 years.

Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened. This great oil pressure argues strongly against millions of years age for oil wells, and implies an age for oil of around 10,000 years. Oil, coal and gas were formed during the Great Flood 4,400 years ago (in 2418BC).


Earth’s Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan’s Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth’s known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than “white hot” initially.“Popular Lectures and Addresses”(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415).  If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).

 Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates

Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year.  If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times. There would be a layer of sediment on the ocean floor at least 60 miles thick. However, the average depth of sediment on the ocean floor is about 800 metres, and the continents have not eroded once yet. The Tasman Sea off Australia is not part of a subduction zone of ocean floor being pushed deep into the earth. Subduction zones could not dispose of 10% of incoming sediment. Hence, sea floors seem young.

Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them. Unless man cuts them down, they never seem to die. 17 Bristlecone pines are dated about 4,000 years old. Since the Flood occurred about 2,418 BC, this implies that:
a) all the pre-Flood Sequoias and Bristlecones were wiped out by the Flood, and b) there is no record of any living tree older than the Flood.

Man’s Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC? This cuneiform tablet is the oldest human writing from Sumeria. When human records first appear, they show man to be highly developed with a sophisticated civilisation. This agrees better with a creation date of 4074 BC than with evolution’s 1 million year history of man. Why did man do nothing for 1 million years? Because he has only been here for 6,000 years. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 06:41:04
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were THE first day.

Actually it doesn't say THE first day.  Verse 5 uses the cardinal number: God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.   Only subsequently are the ordinals second, third, fourth, etc., used.  Some biblical scholars attach a significance to that, but I won't bother.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 13:07:46
[quote[Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light.[/quote]

That won't work.    "Morning" doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky."    It means "When the sun comes up."    Evening doesn't mean "light goes away."    It means "when the sun goes down."

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 14:05:10
Ah, the Gish Gallop.    "Toss out as many fake ideas as possible, and maybe they won't have time to debunk all of them.    So we'll start at the top...

Quote
YOUNG EARTH EVIDENCE
Astronomical Records. Because of the rarity of solar eclipses at any given location, and because astronomers can date every solar eclipse going back thousands of years, when an ancient tablet or manuscript mentions a solar eclipse, we can accurately date that record, and other events associated with it in other countries. Before 2250 BC, we have no records of any solar eclipse being seen by man. “The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 BC, based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History”. (Ralph Linten, The Tree of Culture (1955), p 520).


So you're saying that before we had written records, we have no written records of eclipses?   If you thought about it for a bit, you could probably figure out why.

Quote
Writing. The oldest writing is a Sumerian pictograph written on clay tablets dated about 3500 BC.


So writing was invented a few thousand year ago, and therefore...?    What?

Quote
Iron Pot in Coal. Professor W. Rusch has reported an iron pot encased in coal dated by evolutionary standards at 300 million years old. (Creation Research Quarterly (March, 1971) p.201). The pictured affidavit reads as follows: Sulphur Springs, Arkansas, November 27, 1948. While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla. in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression or mold of the pot in the piece of coal. Jim Stall (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.  Frank J. Kenwood Sworn to before me, in Sulphur Springs, Arkansas this 27th day of November, 1948.  Julia L (?)


No confirmation?   But suppose coal could somehow form in a few hundred years.    Wouldn't change anything in evolution.   BTW, we have found objects and human bodies in peat thousands of years old, so we know that at least some coal takes a very, very long time to form.

Quote
Metal Bowl. An intricately carved metal bowl was blasted out of solid pudding stone. (Scientific American, June 5, 1852).


Can't find any records of it.    There have been a lot of hoaxes, but none with any demonstration that the article was really found in situ.

 
Quote
Pollen in Pre-Cambrian Strata. Pollen from Angiosperm and Gymnosperm trees (woody plants supposedly 260 million years old have been found in Pre Cambrian Hakati shale in the Grand Canyon (supposedly 570 million years old). The problem here for evolutionists is conifer pollen existing 300 million years before it appeared on earth. Some spores are stained with red oxide from surrounding rocks, thus proving that the spores are not from present day contamination.  Source: Nature, R. Stainforth, 210 (1966) p.292.


Interesting thing is, it was loose aggregation, and was the same pollen as could be found in much younger strata a few yards higher on the cliff.   Not long ago, a YE creationist from an Adventist university went to check out the story:

A total of fifty samples from the same strata which Burdick had studied were processed. All slides were completely scanned. No single example of an authentic pollen grain was obtained from any of these samples. In fact, the slides produced from the Hakatai Formation were in most cases completely free from any material of biologic origin, modern or fossil.
http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/pollen/eng/index.html

Mind you, that's a YE creationist talking.

Quote
Turkmenia. Notice this report in the Sydney Morning Herald, 21 Nov. 1983, “A report from the Soviet news agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia – but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, director of Turkmenia’s Institute of Geology: “If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million, not 5 millionyears.””


That one has been tried here in the United States.    The "Paluxy Man Tracks" story depends on the way erosion can make dinosaur tracks look human:

Confronted with these findings, a leader of the scientific creationists conceded that the tracks could no longer be ''regarded as unquestionably human.'' A movie incorporating the disputed tracks, ''Footprints in Stone,'' produced by the Films for Christ Association, has been withdrawn from circulation as a document in support of divine creation. 5-Year Investigation What specialists in dinosaur studies have reported finding are clear traces of dinosaur toes associated with the so-called ''man tracks'' along the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Tex., southwest of Fort Worth. The discovery was described by scientists who visited the site early this month and reviewed the results of a five-year investigation of the tracks by Glen J. Kuban, an expert on dinosaur footprints.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/17/science/fossils-of-man-tracks-shown-to-be-dinosaurian.html

Quote
Polystrate Trees. Crossing several rock strata are trees preserved as well at their tops as at their bottoms. These fossil trees bridge an evolutionary imagined time span of millions of years, that would preclude their “in place” growth and fossilisation.


You've been misled about that.   There are some of them forming about a mile from my house.   No palentologist says that it took millions of years to form.   The trees near my home have been about 1/4 buried in less than 40 years.

Quote
Galaxy star clusters (spirals with billions of stars) move so rapidly that they would not stay together if the universe were very old.


Star clusters are very small compared to galaxies.   And they do indeed "evaporate" over time, as individual stars gain enough kinetic energy to escape them.   Doesn't happen much in galaxies, though.   The massive gravitation of billions of stars make it very difficult for a star to reach escape velocity.

Quote
Large Stars. Some stars are so large that they radiate energy 10,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. They could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate this fast for millions of years, because their initial mass would have been too big.


Supergiants do indeed form and explode in a very short time, relative to the Sun.    But they do last for millions of years, not billions.    We still see them forming, and now and then we see one explode.

Quote
Abundant Hydrogen in stars. Hydrogen in stars is continually being converted into Helium. Hydrogen cannot be made from other elements. Fred Hoyle states that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists think, then there would be little hydrogen left, as it would be converted to Helium by now.


In the universe, the great mass of hydrogen is not in stars, but in clouds of gas.    There are still stars being made as these clouds collapse.    Our sun is burning up hydrogen at a rate that will deplete it in about 4.5 billion years. 

Quote
Solar shrinking. Since 1836, over 100 different observers at the Greenwich Observatory and US Naval Observatory have measured the sun’s diameter to shrink at 0.1% per century or 5 feet per hour. At this rate, 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large as to boil earth’s oceans, making life on earth impossible. 100,000 years ago our sun would have been twice as large.


In 1987, several astronomers from Paris Observatory made an announcement regarding the size of the Sun that astonished their colleagues (Kippenhahn, R., 1994, pg. 163). They claimed that solar eclipse data from 1666 to 1719 showed that the Sun was 2000 kilometers larger than it is today. This amounts to a 0.3 percent reduction; and the time period, which roughly corresponds to the Maunder Minimum, seemed to be more than coincidental. However, this data was found to contain an error regarding the 1715 solar eclipse path of totality. Consequently, the Sun was the same size in 1716 as it is today, and astronomers were reassured.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qshrink.html

Quote
Comets elliptically orbit the sun and are thought to be as old as the sun. As comets orbit the sun, they lose some of their water and gases from the sun’s heat, gravity and tail formation. The tail consists of material driven away from its head by solar energy. Some comets regularly seen in the 19th Century have broken up and vanished, or plunged into the sun. All comets should self-destruct in a short ime, less than 10,000 years. There should be no comets left. Evolution cannot explain comets in an old solar system. Comets are young objects created in a young solar system.


You've been misled here, too.   We have now observed that there are a huge number of potential comets orbiting the Sun out beyond Pluto.   Every now and then, one of them is disturbed, and falls toward the sun in a highly elliptical orbit.    So new ones are constantly being produced as old ones eventually evaporate or hit the sun.

Quote
Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in less than 10,000 years. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 18).


The rings are largely empty space, and it would be a lucky meteor indeed that happened to hit a rock in one of the rings.    But Saturn does capture many meteoroids and incorporate them into the rings.

Quote
Jupiter’s Moons. If they evolved, they should be physically alike,


Moons don't evolve.   But they can form in a number of different ways, and their mass, distance from a planet, and type of formation will make a big difference in their characteristics.

Moons that are not big enough to have tectonic movement (or to have a huge planet gravitationally squeezing them) will not have volcanoes.

Quote
d little erosion, imply a young age for Venus.


Venus is eroded.   

Quote
If Venus was 4 billion years old, its dense atmosphere should have worn away its craters.


Venus has tectonic activity, so your assumption is wrong.

Quote
Mars has little erosion and some water. Mars has many sharp edged craters and volcanoes


Probes have shown only worn structures, except for a few meteorite craters that are relatively recent.

Quote
Evolution predicts no surface water and much atmospheric oxygen


It predicts no such thing.   If you doubt this, show us where Darwin's theory predicted this.   Science would predict that in the lack of photosynthesis, there would be little free oxygen.   Do you see why?

 
Quote
Lunar Recession. Due to tidal friction, the moon is moving away from earth at about 4 cm per year (1 ½ inches). At this rate, 5 billion years ago the moon would have been 200,000km. closer.


The Roche Limit (closest a moon can be to a planet without being torn apart by gravity) is about 18,400 km.    The moon is about 384,000 km away so the moon could have receded no more than 365600 km, or 36,560,000,000 centimeters.    At less than 4 cm a year, that would take about 9.1 billion years.   So no problem for an ancient Earth there.

Quote
Meteorite Craters only occur on the earth’s surface, never being found in the rock strata.


No, that's false:

 The geologic record contains at least 130 positively identified "fossil" craters. They are preserved in all the major strata from the Precambrian (2 billion years ago) to Recent times. The following partial list, Chicxulub excepted, is from R. A. F. Grieve and P. B. Robertson (1979). Since then many more fossil craters have been found, but a portion of their 1979 list will do just fine. With one exception, all of those listed are larger than Meteor Crater in Arizona.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/meteor.html
 
 As you see, these objections wither in the light of evidence.    More tomorrow.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 14:22:28
Hey, Barbarian,  I have to say, I do admire your patience.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 14:56:28
Quote
Hey, Barbarian,  I have to say, I do admire your patience.

I was a teacher.   I learned patience the hard way.



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 22:05:22
[quote[Feinted ignorance. There is an explanation for that; God being light.

That won't work.    "Morning" doesn't mean "big light appears in the sky."    It means "When the sun comes up."    Evening doesn't mean "light goes away."    It means "when the sun goes down."

That statement is not defendable. How about parts of the globe where during specific seasons the sun does not come up? Are you saying there is no morning?
We connect morning, afternoon and night to specific events, but if we were to take those events away we still divide days into their respective parts.

Genesis doesn't make that claim. God made light, and He called the light day...and the dark He called night.
God created the sun at a later stage, and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.

The mere question that needs to be answered is: Can God create something that has no source?
If you insist that light could only exist if it had a source; the sun...then how could God create a complete universe from nothing? Where did the source material come from?
How about God Himself? He has no source either.

Why is is so difficult for you to accept the existence of God without a source, a universe without a source...and yet reject the existence of light without a source?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: KiwiChristian on Tue Aug 08, 2017 - 23:35:17
Whether He can is not the question.  The question is whether He did.  God's own creation says He didn't.

if they were NOT 24 hours, YOU tell US how long it was.

also, how long did the plants survive without light? 24 hours they can cope with. thousands of years? nope.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 07:21:22
if they were NOT 24 hours, YOU tell US how long it was.

also, how long did the plants survive without light? 24 hours they can cope with. thousands of years? nope.


First of all, it is not just light for illumination, but the also important aspect of heat and warmth.  Without the sun, the earth would be pretty chilly, chilly enough to freeze the water, at least at the surface, and everything else in seconds.

I can give you a good estimate, based upon relativity, of how long each day was.  But I suspect you would neither understand nor be convinced.

But if you really are interested, go here:

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html?s=rab

The thesis of this article is that both billions of years and six 24-hour days, when day is viewed from God's perspective at the beginning, are correct.  It deals with the effects of the space-time considerations of the expansion of the universe.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 08:52:11
Quote
That statement is not defendable. How about parts of the globe where during specific seasons the sun does not come up?

I can't believe you're serious.    If clouds diffuse the sunlight, you think people don't call it morning?   Seriously?

Quote
Are you saying there is no morning?

That's what you seem to be saying.

Quote
We connect morning, afternoon and night to specific events,

Specifically, morning is at sunrise, evening is at sunset.   That's how it's done.

Quote
God created the sun at a later stage

Which is why Christians realized that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories.


 and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.

Quote
The mere question that needs to be answered is: Can God create something that has no source?

No, the question is: "Does it make sense to have mornngs and evenings with no sun?    As Christians have said, no, it doesn't.

(Straw man alert)

Quote
Why is is so difficult for you to accept the existence of God without a source, a universe without a source...and yet reject the existence of light without a source?

Your new doctrine, you need to handle it.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:06:30
Quote from: AVZ on Sun Aug 06, 2017 - 21:28:15
Quote
4) God can do in 1 day what man claims should take a 1000 years
Whether He can is not the question.  The question is whether He did.  God's own creation says He didn't.

Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: 4WD on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:24:30
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

What is a day, scripturally?  Is a day the period of daylight?  24 hours?  144 hours (Genesis 2:4)?  a really long time?  an era?  How long is the day in Genesis 2:2?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:41:03
Finishing up the Gish Gallop attempt:
Quote
Oil Well Pressure. When oil drillers first penetrate oil wells, oil gushes out because the oil and gas are under great pressure from surrounding rocks. Sedimentary rocks surrounding the oil wells are porous. Studies of these show that the oil would seep out before 100,000 years, but this has not happened.


Actually, it happened almost everywhere, except where thick and completely impermeable formations domed over the gas and oil.    In those rare cases, the oil and gas pooled under great pressure and are still there.   Notice that the ground above such formations does not have oil and gas seeping up, unless there was a crack in the formation.    Where there isn't an impermeable cap, we do see petroleum rising to the surface.    So that won't work, either.
 
Quote
Earth’s Molten Interior. Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten. The earth is slowly cooling from the surface inwards according to Stefan’s Law of Radiation. Lord Kelvin in 1889 calculated that the earth could not be billions of years old because of earth’s known rate of cooling, the existing temperature gradient in the earth, and the assumption that the earth could not have been hotter than “white hot” initially.“Popular Lectures and Addresses”(London: MacMillan, 1889, p.415).  If earth were billions of years old, it would have cooled far more than it now has, even if we assume a radioactively generated heating mechanism. (W T Brown, In the Beginning, p 17).


Turns out the amount of radiation is precisely the amount needed for observed heat flux in the Earth.   In fact, when radiation was discovered, Lord Kelvin agreed that his calculations were invalid.    But even if they weren't you wouldn't get any comfort from them.    Kelvin figured that it would have had to be something like 10 million years for a molten Earth to get to this point.

Quote
Radiohaloes are colour rings around microscopic radioactive minerals in rock crystals. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohaloes indicate that Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateau were deposited within months of one another, not from 225-255 million years apart, as evolution claims. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohaloes, having no evidence of their mother elements,imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactive decay rates


Turns out, these radiohaloes don't form unless there are deposits of uranium close by.   And that's important, because, it establishes that the polonium was from decay of uranium.

Brawley (1992) and Collins (1997). They note that many concentric ring haloes line up along visible fractures within the host mica. Such fractures are very common in mica crystals. Micro-fractures could provide conduits for the rapid movement and concentration of radon-222, a gaseous daughter product of uranium-238 which forms part way along the decay chain leading to polonium. Radon-222, itself an alpha emitter, has a half life of 3.82 days and is produced continuously in the decay of the parent uranium. Migration of radon along fractures with hold-up points at tiny structural traps would result in exactly the same concentric ring pattern assigned by Gentry to polonium alone (because polonium is a daughter isotope of radon decay). Assigning a halo diameter to radon is difficult as the radon alpha decay energy is very close to that of polonium-210 ; the two ring structures commonly cannot be distinguished
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

Moreover, Gentry's argument depends on his assumption that the granite is "primordial rock" created in situ.    But the granite is intrusive, from lava that flowed into faults in sedimentary rock, which would have to be older than the granite.    And that also rules out Gentry's assumption.

Quote
Ocean sediment. There is not enough sediment on the sea floors for earth to be 5 billion years old. Rivers add about 28 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year.  If this had occurred for 1 billion years, the continents would have eroded away many times.


Would have, if plate tectonics was not building new continental crust.   But we observe this happening in many places around the world.    Likewise, seafloor is observed to be subducted under the continents, destroying those sediments in the mantle.   And new seafloor is being produced at mid-oceanic ridges.   This is why sediments in the Atlantic ocean are brand new at the mid-Atlantic ridge and many millions of years old at the continental shelves.

Quote
Tree Rings. The oldest living things are Bristlecone pines growing in Eastern Nevada, aged about 4,600 years old (sometimes producing 2 growth rings per year, so their age would be less), and Sequoia Gigantea in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods have no known enemies, and never have any dead trees among them.


No, that's wrong:
https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr151/psw_gtr151_13_piirto.pdf

And one famous one had weakened to that it had only one living branch left.   It recently fell and died.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/09/508919216/iconic-sequoia-tunnel-tree-brought-down-by-california-storm

And why do it with trees?  Why not just find the oldest human and claim that proves a young Earth?

Quote
Man’s Recorded History.If man has lived on earth for 1 million years, why do we only find human records going back to about 3500 BC?


So you're claiming that the fact that we have no written records prior to the invention of writing, means the Earth is young?   Seriously?
 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 09:42:49
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

God is truth.   The "appearance of age" argument assumes God to be deceptive.   So not credible.


Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:00:38
I can't believe you're serious.    If clouds diffuse the sunlight, you think people don't call it morning?   Seriously?

That's what you seem to be saying.

Specifically, morning is at sunrise, evening is at sunset.   That's how it's done.

Which is why Christians realized that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories.


 and that's not to say that the light in the first days had to come from the sun. Besides the sun has more functions than just light.

No, the question is: "Does it make sense to have mornngs and evenings with no sun?    As Christians have said, no, it doesn't.

(Straw man alert)

Your new doctrine, you need to handle it.

You are completely turning my post upside down.
You said "Morning means when the sun comes up" and "Evening means when the sun goes down".
My challenge to you is: in places where the sun does not come up in the morning, are you therefore claiming that there is no morning in those places?
Similarly, there are times in the year in some places where the sun does not go under...hence you claim those people there do not have evenings?

You say that is does not make sense to have mornings and evenings without the sun.
I disagree, mornings, noons, evenings and nights are expressions of a time period.

Let's say a blind person asks you what time it is, would you say "what does it matter to you? It's night".
Of course not. Even a blind person who does not experiences light knows time, and mornings and evenings.

In Genesis the term day and night are related to light and dark.
When the light was on, it was day and when the light was off, it was night. Thats the terminology used.
Mornings and evenings existed before the sun was created.

The whole crux of the matter is, can God have created light without creating a sun (the source). I say yes. Light is made of particles, the same as everything else in the universe is made of.
God does not need a source to display its effect.
We see that in Exodus when God calls Moses. The burning bush that burned but had no source for fire.
We also see that in Acts, where there is the sound of a wind...yet there was no wind to make that sound.

You are simply saying that Genesis is incorrect because ONLY the sun can account for light (or dark).
I am saying that that's not true, God could have easily woven light particles together at the start of creation as He wove the particles together that make up all matter of which the rest of creation exists.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:05:02
God is truth.   The "appearance of age" argument assumes God to be deceptive.   So not credible.

God is truth. I agree.

The rest I'd say I'd respect as your opinion. And we all have different opinions. But what are your answers to the questions:

Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:29:19
Quote
You are completely turning my post upside down.

Don't see how.   Your argument seems to be that if it's cloudy, the sun doesn't come up.    People have always known better.

Quote
My challenge to you is: in places where the sun does not come up in the morning, are you therefore claiming that there is no morning in those places?

So far, the sun has always come up wherever there is morning.   Even if it's obscured by clouds, it comes up.   And people have always known this.

Quote
Similarly, there are times in the year in some places where the sun does not go under...

Hebrews were completely unaware of that, but yes, in polar regions, They refer to those as days without an evening.

Quote
hence you claim those people there do not have evenings?

So they say.    When I lived a lot farther north, my parents would say in the summer, "be home by evening", and that meant sundown, even if it was 9:00.

Quote
You say that is does not make sense to have mornings and evenings without the sun.

Yep.   That's how language works.   

Quote
I disagree

Doesn't matter.  Words mean things.   And usage determines meanings.   If you have a private definition, it changes nothing.
 
Quote
You are simply saying that Genesis is incorrect

I'm saying Genesis is correct and you are wrong.

Because only the sun can account for mornings and evenings.

Quote
I am saying that that's not true

Doesn't matter.   Language is what it is.

 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 10:33:06
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

God is not deceptive.   So He would not do something that would mislead us.

Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

I think Augustine had it right.   God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended.   Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.

Quote
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?

Only God is eternal.    So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 11:09:10
Michael said:
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?

God is not deceptive.   So He would not do something that would mislead us.

Nobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.
Michael said:
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
I think Augustine had it right.   God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended.   Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.

So, can you tell me, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what of nature did God initially created that developed into the Adam that the Bible said God created? Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?

Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?

Michael said:
Quote
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Only God is eternal.    So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.   

I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created. Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be? And what God have created instantly as he intended them to be and need not go through the process of evolution?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 13:25:15
God is not deceptive.   So He would not do something that would mislead us.

You really have very little esteem for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Let me share a secret with you...I have yet to meet a single Christian who is deceived and believes Adam and Eve were created as one day old babies.
What I am saying is that every Christian who believes that God created a fully functioning and mature universe, realizes and acknowledges that this is not deception on God's part.
The only person who considers it to be deception is you.

So I would say the following.
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.
The only deception is then any theory that denies or rejects a seven day creation and/or it's sequence as stated in scripture.
On top of that, anyone who denies and rejects the accounts listed in Genesis would then label the Bible as deceptive and misleading.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 18:03:07
Quote
You really have very little esteem for those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

So long as they acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, I esteem them as my brothers in Christ.   YE creationism is an error, but it doesn't cost you your salvation.   It's just a mistake, and YE creationists, unless they abandon essential Christian belief, are no less Christian than the rest of us.    Sometimes, both sides forget this, but we should never forget it.

Quote
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.

Of course they are.   They just aren't the way YE creationists have revised them.


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 18:18:29
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

Barbarian observes:
 I think Augustine had it right.   God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended.   Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.

Quote
So, can you tell me, according to your knowledge of things, of science

I can tell you from scripture. 

Quote
what of nature did God initially created that developed into the Adam that the Bible said God created?

God says that He created Adam's body from pre-existing creation, as he did with the other animals, but then directly gave him a soul.    Particularly, He says he made man a living soul.   You are a soul.  You have a body.

Quote
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?

God says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.

Quote
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?

No, obviously not.   God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body.    (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)

Barbarian observes:
Only God is eternal.    So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.   

I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created.

That's what He says in Genesis.

Quote
Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly

Initially, it seems, there was only energy.    This is why atheists were initially so opposed to the Big Bang.   It's as though someone said "let there be light."

Quote
and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?

The Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation.    We do know some of the details of what happened after life started.   What would you like to know?

The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work.   Everything else in this world changes.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Sonofason on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 22:03:20
It also suggests the even the phrase ,"there was evening and there was morning" probably does not mean what most think it does since there was no sun or moon to establish what we call evening and morning.AMEN to that.  And for what it is worth, it is usually only the YECs that are the wedge drivers in all these discussions.

I personally do not know if evolution of species is true.  I've not seen any convincing evidence of it.  When I ask others for evidence, I get unjustified claims, and/or scientific jargon that I just don't understand.  When I ask for an explanation, I get, "well, I don't understand it either, but that's what the science says, so it must be true".  Well, If I am going to believe something, I'm going to require evidence...not just any evidence, but evidence I understand...evidence that convinces me that it is true.  I do believe, without doubt, that God created everything.  If it turns out that evolution is true, I have no problem with it; I can quite easily see evolution fitting into the context of the Bible without any manipulation whatsoever.  The same is true with regard to the "6 days of creation".  Surely God is capable of having created the heavens and the earth in just six 24 hour days.  And He may have.  But there is nothing written in the Bible to suggest that they were indeed six literal 24 hour days being referred to.

I like definitions.  I think the meanings of words are important.  I realize that a single word can have various meanings and connotations depending on the context, and of course the intent of the author. 

According to a real definition for the word day, a day is "a time of prominence".

day:
- a period of opportunity or prominence
- an era of existence or influence
- the interval of light between two successive nights
- a time of light
Day - definition of Day by The Free Dictionary

The Bible tells us, whether literal or metaphoric we can only speculate, that God is light.  If God is present, creating, it is day.  If he takes a step back and removes His presence, it is as night.

You are correct; there is no human being who can set in stone for us God's intended meaning when He inspired the author of the first chapter of Genesis to write of the mornings and evenings of the days of God's creation.  But we can have a look at the definitions and we can see what the possibilities are. 

We find:
morning - The first or early part; the beginning
morning - definition of morning by The Free Dictionary

evening - A later period or time
evening - definition of evening by The Free Dictionary

Every time God was present it was day. When He was beginning His work for the day, it was morning. When He was finishing with His work for the day, it was evening. And God saw that it was good. "...And the evening and the morning were the first day." (Genesis 1:5)
Following Christ



Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 22:49:39
Quote
I personally do not know if evolution of species is true.  I've not seen any convincing evidence of it.  When I ask others for evidence, I get unjustified claims, and/or scientific jargon that I just don't understand.


Most creationist organizations now acknowledge the fact of speciation.   Most acknowledge higher taxa developing from others, perhaps new genera or families.   As I understand it, scientists see a single bush with many branches, while most creationists see a series of independent bushes with few branches.

(https://ncse.com/files/images/NeoCreo_Orchard.img_assist_custom.jpg)

(https://assets.answersingenesis.org/img/cms/content/contentnode/header_image/speciation.jpg)

Quote
When I ask for an explanation, I get, "well, I don't understand it either, but that's what the science says, so it must be true".  Well, If I am going to believe something, I'm going to require evidence...not just any evidence, but evidence I understand...evidence that convinces me that it is true.


Here's what evolutionary theory says:
Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than it's fellows.
3. Some of these differences affect the chances of an organism living long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with favorable differences tend to leave more offspring.
5. Each generation, the changes accumulate,and explain the diversity of life.

Genetics, neutralist theories, and punctuated equilibrium have modified his ideas, but these five basic ones remain.

Linnaeus, not aware of evolution produced a tree of living things, a nested hierarchy of life:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Haeckel_arbol_bn.png)

The remarkable thing is that DNA tests of the sort that determine paternity and ancestry, produce something very, very close to the tree Linnaeus drew.   That's one key point.

The other key point, is that such trees suggest transitional forms.   And over time, we have found the predicted forms.   What's more important is that we have never found a transitional where there shouldn't be one, according to evolutionary theory.

There are now directly observed speciations, and while this is consistent with the creationist idea of evolution limited to "kinds", the existence of transitional forms between "kinds" is strong evidence for evolution.

There's more.   Would you like to talk about it?


 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: AVZ on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 23:20:02

Quote
If God is not in the business of deception or misleading, then the accounts in Genesis must be true as they are written down.

Of course they are.   They just aren't the way YE creationists have revised them.


Objection 1
If indeed the account in Genesis is true as it is written down, then do you subscribe to the sequence of events:

- Light was created before the sun was created
- Land plants were created before sea creatures
- Birds were created before reptiles
- Mammals were created before insects
- Plants were created before the sun was created
- Earth was created before any other planet


Objection 2
You say that leading the idea that the creation days are literal 24 hour day would be deceptive by God.
From the generation of Adam to the generations in approximately the 18th century, man did not have access to scientific data and the evolution theory.
Believers from the Jews in the Old Testament to the Christians in the 18th century believed in literal 24 hour creation days.
It is your claim that they were deceived and mislead by God?


Objection 3
According to you morning and evening make sense only when there is a sun. The sun was created on the 4th day.
Is it therefore your conviction that at least day 4, 5 and 6 are literal 24 hour days since there is a literal morning and an evening in those days?
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Sonofason on Wed Aug 09, 2017 - 23:29:05
Most creationist organizations now acknowledge the fact of speciation.   Most acknowledge higher taxa developing from others, perhaps new genera or families.   As I understand it, scientists see a single bush with many branches, while most creationists see a series of independent bushes with few branches.

I understand that many creationist organizations acknowledge that speciation occurs.  And as I have said, while I don't know if it does occur, I do believe it is quite possible that it does occur.  The point of my comment is not whether or not it is true, but that it really doesn't matter to me if it is true, because whether it is true or is not true is of no consequence to the God inspired Scriptures contained in the book of Genesis.  What I do care about is not whether or not evolution is true, but why I should care if it is true?  Of what consequence to me is evolution with regard to my walk with God?  Of what consequence is it to me in my relationships with others?  How does knowing the truth about evolution affect my life?  Why should I care?



Here's what evolutionary theory says:
Darwin's theory:
1. More are born than can survive to reproduce.
2. Every individual is slightly different than it's fellows.
3. Some of these differences affect the chances of an organism living long enough to reproduce.
4. Those with favorable differences tend to leave more offspring.
5. Each generation, the changes accumulate,and explain the diversity of life.

Genetics, neutralist theories, and punctuated equilibrium have modified his ideas, but these five basic ones remain.

Linnaeus, not aware of evolution produced a tree of living things, a nested hierarchy of life:

The remarkable thing is that DNA tests of the sort that determine paternity and ancestry, produce something very, very close to the tree Linnaeus drew.   That's one key point.

The other key point, is that such trees suggest transitional forms.   And over time, we have found the predicted forms.   What's more important is that we have never found a transitional where there shouldn't be one, according to evolutionary theory.

There are now directly observed speciations, and while this is consistent with the creationist idea of evolution limited to "kinds", the existence of transitional forms between "kinds" is strong evidence for evolution.

There's more.   Would you like to talk about it?

With regard to your numbered list, it resembles the start of most conversations I have with pretty much every person who feels the need to try to convince me that evolution is true.  And as I had pointed out, they always begin with unsupported claims.  Now I am not trying to suggest that these claims are not valid facts.  I don't know.  They could be facts?  Your next step will be to provide something that resembles actual evidence for evolution, and what I expect to see is a few citations from various articles that make yet more claims about evolution, but claims that will lack actual evidence to support those claims.  After that, you will likely then show very detailed scientific journals citing studies about genetics that both you and I don't understand.  You will accept that evidence because it is in the name of science.  I will reject it as evidence because I cannot be convinced by evidence that I don't understand, simply because some scientist, or even if all scientists agree that it is actual evidence that actually supports the claim it is intended to support.

You should understand that I already view evolution as reasonable.  I see it as believable.  And if I should see convincing evidence, I will certainly be convinced.  But if I should spend time on this, can you tell me what the benefit will be?  If God is my life, what is evolution to me?

Nevertheless, I'd be happy to talk about it. 
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: Michael2012 on Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 01:58:23
Quote
Michael said:
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old man or a man that man would evaluate to be about 30 years old in Adam?
Barbarian said:
Quote
God is not deceptive.   So He would not do something that would mislead us.
Michael said:
Quote
Nobody is saying that God is deceptive, nor that God would do something that would mislead us. So, perhaps you can just give your honest and direct answer to the question.

Barbarian haven't given an answer.

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?
Barbarian said:
Quote
I think Augustine had it right.  God created the universe in an instant, and then used the nature he had created to develop it as He intended.   Notice that He says in Genesis that he uses existing creation to make living things.

What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?

Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.

Now back to my question. Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

Can you tell me what to you, that which comprise the universe that God created at an instant then, which in time this very created things evolved and developed to be what God intended it to be?   

Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?
Barbarian said:
Quote
God says living things came from existing creation, as He willed it to be.

So what is your answer to the question?

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
Also, if God created the universe in an instant, do you say that everything of the universe then is at the same age?
Barbarian said:
Quote
No, obviously not.   God says from initial creation, there developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body.    (He directly intervened to give each of us a soul)

What then do you and science say was God's initial creation which developed land, water, living things, and man's physical body?

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
And I'm curious, do you believe that everything there is, except God, was created? Do you believe that there was a point in eternity that there was nothing but God, when no creation was yet?
Barbarian said:
Quote
Only God is eternal.    So it's absurd to think of anything else not being created.
Michael said:
Quote
I agree. And since that is the truth, then God have created from out of nothing, at least those which you consider what they are in their initial state as they were created.
Barbarian said:
That's what He says in Genesis.

But then, in your take of creation, what creation we now see was not what God initially created. As such, at the time God created from out of nothing, He did not create much, if not all that you say evolved to be what things we now see to exist. And that these things then, even while you say that God created them, were actually not creation from out of nothing but came from the evolution of those that God created initially from nothing. 

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
Perhaps, you can tell us, according to your knowledge of things, of science, what God have created instantly
Barbarian said:
Quote
Initially, it seems, there was only energy.  This is why atheists were initially so opposed to the Big Bang.   It's as though someone said "let there be light."

So, it seems to you. And you don't know, in short. But then, you insist that, such is the case. Well....

And so, energy evolved into what is the universe and everything in it, including you and the rest of mankind. And since evolution continues, everything yet is not what God intended of that initially created energy to be it's final nature, form and shape. Well...

Quote
Michael said:
Quote
and later go through the process of evolution to be created in time what God intended them to be?
Barbarian said:
Quote
The Bible says He intended living things to appear from his initial creation.    We do know some of the details of what happened after life started.   What would you like to know?

The only things that seem to have not changed from the initial creation are the rules by which He makes our universe work.   Everything else in this world changes.

Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.

Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration, so that man cannot find out the work which God hath made from the beginning to the end.

I have been asking you what I'd like to know in connection with creation by evolution. But you apparently can't give an answer. All you gave was what seems to be according to you as can be seen in your answers above. I wonder why you ask me what I wanted to know still.

You cited Ecclesiastes 3:11 from where we are told that God made all things good in their time, and hath delivered the world to their consideration. And this, so that man cannot find out the work which God made from the beginning to the end. So, I wonder why, even while God, in scriptures, have pointed that out, you seem to believe what men, in their quest for what God says is impossible, theorize to explain the work which God made from the beginning to the end. And if man cannot find this out, what they come up with are certainly far from the truth, no matter how reasonable they may seem to you.   
Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 08:09:17
Quote
Objection 1
If indeed the account in Genesis is true as it is written down, then do you subscribe to the sequence of events:

- Light was created before the sun was created

The sun is a fairly recent star.   Of course there was light before the sun.

Quote
Land plants were created before sea creatures

That's a problem only if you try to convert the parable into a literal history.   But as Christians have always known, mornings and evenings without a sun make it clear that it is not a literal history.

 
Quote
Earth was created before any other planet

Genesis does not say that.

Quote
Objection 2
You say that leading the idea that the creation days are literal 24 hour day would be deceptive by God.

No, it's just man's attempt to remake Genesis into a form more acceptable to him.

Quote
From the generation of Adam to the generations in approximately the 18th century, man did not have access to scientific data and the evolution theory.

And yet, early Christians acknowledged that Genesis 1 and 2 were not literal histories, even at the beginning.

Quote
Believers from the Jews in the Old Testament to the Christians in the 18th century believed in literal 24 hour creation days.

No, that's false.   St. Augustine, for example, showed that the "yom" could not be literal days.

Quote
It is your claim that they were deceived and mislead by God?

It's my observation that the modern doctrine of YE creationism is a false one.

Quote
According to you morning and evening make sense only when there is a sun.

Words mean things.    Unless you change the definition, you're pretty much stuck with the word as it is.

Quote
The sun was created on the 4th day.

Which is one reason we know the "days" of creation were not literal ones.

Quote
Is it therefore your conviction that at least day 4, 5 and 6 are literal 24 hour days since there is a literal morning and an evening in those days?

They aren't literal days.  They are merely (as St. Augustine showed) categories of creation.

Title: Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
Post by: The Barbarian on Thu Aug 10, 2017 - 08:24:53
Quote
What do you exactly mean when you say "at an instant'?

Saying "in an instant" have me understand that the universe was created, everything that is what comprise the universe, at the same time and in a very very very tiny amount of time.

Read Genesis and learn.   God created the universe with a word.   But then it developed as He intended.   He makes that very clear.

Quote
Now back to my question. Did God create in a day, a day old earth or an earth that man would evaluate to be millions or billions years old?

No, of course not.   He says otherwise.

Quote
Can you tell me what to you, that which comprise the universe that God created at an instant then, which in time this very created things evolved and developed to be what God intended it to be? 

His creation is continuing even now.   Don't try to put a fence around God.  Your sentence is not grammatically clear.   Could you try again?

Quote
Now, do you not say that evolution is happening this very day and will continue on? If so, do you say that God's intended creation is not yet and will be complete when the process of evolution stops?

Do you think people are not creations of God?   If so, His creation is continuing.

Quote
Can you tell me what of nature did God initially created that developed into the other creatures that evolved into the animals and birds and fish and trees that the Bible said God created?