Christian Forums

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 19:31:11
Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

Rev_20:2  And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

So Amo, is Satan really a serpent like it says there, a reptile such as a snake, a lizard, or maybe an alligator or a crocodile?  What do you think?  Is the reference to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be taken literal or symbolic?  How about in Revelation 20?  Same serpent?   Literal or symbolic?

No he isn't, and the bible itself makes this abundantly clear. Nor is he a dragon, or a roaring lion. He is a fallen angel named Lucifer. Do I need to supply the scriptures proving such, or are you knowledgable enough of the same to admit the obvious. We know that the serpent, dragon, and lion are just symbols representing different characteristics of Satan because this is how the scriptures themselves use these symbols. Please show us the same regarding six days of creation symbolizing countless millions of years of evolution. Thank you.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 20:13:03
There are actually creationists who think it's an issue.

 
Trait?   No, having water is not a trait.   


They don't have a common ancestor.   I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking all things are traits.

It's the homologies and genetic relationship that matter.    And we know that they indicate common descent, since we can check that with organisms of known descent.

Genetic information does indeed indicate relationships.   Would you like to learn how we know?

Someone's misled you about that.   The degree of genetic identity has been demonstated to show relatedness.

It's far more than mere genetic similarity.   That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more.    Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes.    It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together.    And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.



That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.

By the time I was an undergraduate, in the 1960s, there were already articles showing that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") had other functions than protein synthesis.   

There is a lot of non-coding DNA that seems to have no function.    The GULO gene in humans, for example, is the remains of a gene that makes vitamin C in other organisms.   But since primates were fruit-eating, they got plenty of vitamin C from their diet, and there was no need for it.   So a random mutation inactivated it early in primate evolution.   

One researcher showed that huge amounts of non-coding DNA could be removed from a genome with no noticeable change in an organism:

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 yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041018/full/news041018-7.html

These mice lost about 3% of their genome, with no effects.    So yeah, a lot of it is junk.   But a lot of it also has been adapted to other purposes.

I think you got that one garbled.   It there were not two strands, replication would be impossible.   It has to be that way.


GULO gene in primates.   Does nothing whatever.   Random removal of 3% of the non-coding DNA of mice had no discernable effect on them.   So your assumption is wrong.

See above.  You've been misled on that.

For example, the timing of gene expression.   Humans mature much more slowly than other apes, and never fully mature compared to them.   We look like immature apes.  But the growth of our skulls continue longer, and the size our our teeth and jaws is relatively smaller.   So a little difference can mean a lot.   

All coding DNA is like that.  That's what "coding" means.

See above.   You've been misled.   I've spent a lifetime learning about biology, and you really don't understand what this is about.



Happens all the time.   You have dozens of changes in your genes that were not present in either parent.

Speciation is an observed fact.   Even creationist organizations admit that it is.


The universe originated from intelligence.   However living things came about from that initial creation, as God tells us.

God said it did.   You should believe Him.

Back to the issue of faith over and over and over again. Similarities prove absolutely nothing. They can just as easily be the result of similarity in design in rapid creation, as they can be the result of similarity in design due to evolution. The only difference is regarding what or who one chooses to believe. Humanity will either choose faith in God's word, or faith in their own words and understanding. That is all. That choice reveals who our God really is.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Aug 19, 2017 - 20:13:03
It's far more than mere genetic similarity.   That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more.    Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes.    It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together.    And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.



That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.

I don't take that as stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.

Though, I can take that as a stunning confirmation that we all came from the same lump of clay. And also as a stunning confirmation that we were all created by one  Creator and a Creator with extremely unimaginable creativity and of infinite amount and of the highest degree of intelligence.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 09:34:59
Right back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed. You choose to believe instead that these soft tissues can and have lasted millions of years, though observable science highly suggests otherwise.

The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Aug 17, 2017 - 12:21:52
Barbarian said....

QuoteMatter formed and some of it condensed into stars and galaxies.  Some stars were so large that they burned out quickly, and exploded.   The shockwave collapsed clouds of gas and formed new stars, one of which was our sun.   And from that collapse, the world formed.

Michael said....

QuoteSo, after many many things, which you apparently have said nothing about yet, went on of light, matter was formed, some condensing into stars and galaxies, and there was some explosions of stars, and so the story goes, until the sun was formed and so too is the world formed. Again, some story you have there.

Yes it is.  The magnitude of it and the glory to God of it all is overwhelming to any who would bother to consider just how much evidence there is to support it.

So, you believe the story, the story of the wise ~ the wisdom of this world.

And this is even while scriptures does not even give the slightest hint of creation by evolution. The concept of evolution is nowhere found in scriptures.

Evolutionary thought has roots in antiquity - in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science.

At the time of the apostles, here's what Paul said of the wisdom of the world and of Greeks, who at that time were considered the wise of the times. 

1 Corinthians 1:19-21
19 For it is written:"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their own craftiness"; 20 and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."

QuoteRight back to the faith issue. Your faith in fallen humanities observations will not allow you to consider that soft tissues are an indication that fossils are not as old as once supposed.

Your faith in fallen humanity's reinterpretation of scripture will not allow you to consider the evidence showing that biological molecules (not soft tissue; so far, no one has been able to show intact cells that old, much less tissue) can survive for millions of years under the right conditions.   Chemists are quite aware of this, showing that under ideal conditions, certain biological molecules have breakdown rate in millions of years.

QuoteYou choose to believe instead that these soft tissues

Organic molecules.  Tissues are groups of cells organized for a particular function.   No one has demonstrated those in dino remains.

I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science.    It's your choice.   But it obviously isn't God's word, and that is what counts.

QuoteIf we evolved, how and when did we fall.

According to God, the first two people disobeyed Him.   Another aspect of scripture your faith requires doesn't not simply mean what it says.    Instead, you want to set aside Christian faith and revise it to be a literal history.   It just doesn't work.

Quotewould you be kind enough to answer this question for me please. How and when did humanity fall according to your theory of evolution?

Evolutionary theory isn't about God or our relationship with Him.    So you'll have to set YE creationism aside and just take Genesis as it is.    Or you can accept the modern revison of YE creationism.   Your choice.   And it won't cause you to risk your salvation, unless you raise your new doctrine to the point that you insist it's a necessary doctrine for salvation.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14

The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.

One can posit that soft tissue can surivive for millions of years.  One can have tons of evidence and show it likely to be true.  It cannot be considered fact.  It simply cannot be proven.

QuoteOne can posit that soft tissue can surivive for millions of years.  One can have tons of evidence and show it likely to be true.  It cannot be considered fact.  It simply cannot be proven.

Science never "proves" anything.    Science is primarily inductive, which means we never get the rules by which we can deduce the particulars like how many millions of years some organic molecules can exist.   We can only look at the particulars and infer the rules from that.    So any scientific understanding is simply the result of gathering sufficient evidence to make it foolish to deny what is found.

In this case, data from chemistry, paleontology, physics and other sciences make it pointless to deny that organic molecules can survive for many millions of years in certain conditions.    It's just too wildly improbable, given the facts.   

Quote from: Alan on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14

The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.

It is not observed and it is most definitely not a fact.
I have read the links you posted and they are nothing more but assumptions that perhaps a preservation method that supports a millions-years preservation will be discovered.

Reality is that tissue disintegrates over time. Even if the tissue would be kept in a preservative fluid, the fluid itself will deteriorate, after which the tissue follows. Besides that the tissue would contain traces of the preservative it was in.
Even if the tissue would have been hermetically packed in plastic, plastic itself disintegrates within a 1000 years or so, after which the tissue would follow.
There is no biological or chemical explanation for tissue to survive for millions of years even in the most preservative environment.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 14:24:44

I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science.

That's a remarkable statement. Over the last hundreds of years much evidence has been and had to be re-interpreted.
If indeed any such interpretation or re-interpretation is fallible, then the same goes for the evolution theory.

Barbarian observes:
I understand you prefer to take man's fallible re-interpretation over the evidence of science.
     

QuoteThat's a remarkable statement.

And an accurate one.

QuoteOver the last hundreds of years much evidence has been and had to be re-interpreted.

Science has known that some organic molecules can last for many millions of years on the right environment.   So it's no surprise that we can sometimes find traces of heme or collagen in ancient fossils.   As you learned, there has been no recovery of cells, much less tissues in fossils.

QuoteIf indeed any such interpretation or re-interpretation is fallible

Obviously, the reinterpretation of Genesis by YE creationists, cannot be true, since much of it is directly contrary to Genesis.

Quotethen the same goes for the evolution theory.

Evolutionary theory has been expanded and corrected over the years.   For example, Mendel's discovery of Genetics led to major changes in evolutionary theory.    That's how science works.    However, major revisions to God's word, like YE creationism, is not the way faith works.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 21:53:21

As you learned, there has been no recovery of cells, much less tissues in fossils.

I am not sure where you have been for the last few years:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved.

Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls "round microstructures" in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.


A careful observer immediately notices that the article spends much time to ridicule the support claimed by YE creationists. The reference to creationism is totally irrelevant to the story, the scientific data and observation would have been exactly the same if no reference was made to creationism.
But there is of course a reason for this because this finding does not support the age of the fossil...it does support YE creationism.

So what we have here is soft tissue and red blood cells, which according to science could not have been preserved for 68 million years.
Yet it was found is a fossil bed that according to science is 68 million years old.

Lets see what science is prepared to say about the find of blood cells (this is really ridiculous).
https://www.theverge.com/2015/6/9/8751897/dinosaur-cells-tissue-bones-75-million-years-old

Bertazzo says; contamination from other animals can't be ruled out. "Even if it is quite unlikely that someone or some bird cut themselves and bled on the fossil at any point in time and right on the spot we took the smaller bit off, this is always a possibility."

See, since science says that dinosaurs evolved from birds, it obviously must have been a bird that cut itself on a dinosaur bone.
Totally preposterous.

And if things aren't bad enough, the discovery of soft tissue has not stopped. Seems like they even found soft tissue in a 195 million year old fossil.

So we have these impossible things happening and science is scrambling to come up with an explanation (such as a bird cutting itself on a bone).
The only thing science refuses to do it ask the question: Maybe the fossil is not as old as we think it is..because whatever you dare to say as a scientist, never ever say anything that may possibly shed doubt on the theory of evolution.

QuoteI am not sure where you have been for the last few years:

Debunking myths about "tissue."

Schweitzer never claimed to have found tissue.   Here's a write-up from Science, a scientific journal:

Scientists retrieve 80-million-year-old dinosaur protein in 'milestone' paper

By Robert F. ServiceJan. 31, 2017 , 11:00 AM
It's not quite Jurassic Park: No one has revived long-extinct dinosaurs. But two new studies suggest that it is possible to isolate protein fragments from dino­saurs much further back in time than ever thought possible. One study, led by Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University in Raleigh who has chased dinosaur proteins for de­cades, confirms her highly controversial claim to have recovered 80-million-year-old dinosaur collagen. The other paper suggests that protein may even have sur­vived in a 195-million-year-old dino fossil.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper
(bolding is mine)

As you see, no tissue.   Not even intact cells.    But some fragments of molecules did survive.   Heme has been found as well as collagen.

The cool part was when the heme was tested, it was (as predicted by evolutionary theory) closest to that of birds, rather than to modern reptiles.   

So what we have here are fragments of organic molecules.    And it's a surprise since it had previously only been known from amber and marine invertebrates that old.     

QuoteBertazzo says; contamination from other animals can't be ruled out. "Even if it is quite unlikely that someone or some bird cut themselves and bled on the fossil at any point in time and right on the spot we took the smaller bit off, this is always a possibility."

Here, he's being very careful about the finding that confirms birds and dinosaurs are closely related.   Since the heme turned out to be very much like that of modern birds, but not so much like modern reptiles, it's powerful confirmation of evolutionary theory.   And extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary care to clear.

So as you see, no tissue was found.   Schweitzer never claimed to have found tissue.    It's fragments of organic molecules.    Heme is a fragment of hemoglobin, BTW.   The discovery that the recovered was most like that of birds, is yet another confirmation of evolutionary theory.

Edit; Perhaps you don't know what "tissue" means.    I think I provided you with a definition, but "tissue" is a group of cells organized to one or more functions.    So far, no one has even found intact cells, much less entire tissues, in ancient fossils.

Contrary to what you've been told, there's nothing in science that says that would be impossible.   But it seems to be so unlikely that it's probably never going to be found.

Quote from: AVZ on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 23:54:02
.... whatever you dare to say as a scientist, never ever say anything that may possibly shed doubt on the theory of evolution.

Why do you suppose that? Wouldn't any scientist love to be the first to break new ground? That is a scientist's primary quest, to make new discoveries rather than spend a lifetime confirming what others have already found. This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 09:54:29

Why do you suppose that? Wouldn't any scientist love to be the first to break new ground? That is a scientist's primary quest, to make new discoveries rather than spend a lifetime confirming what others have already found. This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.

My quest for the proof of age of skillions and skillions of years will not happen either.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 09:54:29
....This relates directly back to my quest for a scientist to make claims to the earth being 6000 years old, but that's not gonna happen.

Why such a quest?

There is agreement among Christians that God created man.

But then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes. And this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality. So real, as to him, it is the truth. He goes on to convincing the world, even the Christian, saying, if there should be a Creator God, then He created man by the process of evolution. So, you see, evolution is not in conflict with what your God says. 

What must the Christian do?

The Christian of course must begin with God. He believes that truth, and all truth is what God says. With that, he must turn to God, see what God, in His words in scriptures, if any concerning this matter, tells him. In the book where God speaks of His creation of man, we have:

Genesis 1:26 Then 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." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 

Genesis 2:7 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.

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

The truth that the Christian gets from God concerning the creation of man is this, and the scientist may observe:

1. Man was formed by God of the dust of the ground.
2. God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
3. God created man in His own image.
4. Woman was formed by God from out of the man's rib.

On the matter of what the scientist say, that man is an animal, as he so concludes that man is an ape, would the Christian find this as true? Let's consider what God said of the animals:

Genesis 1:20 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. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 Then 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. 25 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.

We see that God created other life forms which called living creatures, and the scientist called animals. Now, the first of the living creatures God created were those of the water and the winged creatures. Then He commanded the earth to bring forth other living creatures. And so, they are of the earth. Now among these living creatures, the animals, there is not the human. It was only when God created Adam that the human came to being. And to emphasize that the human is different from the other living creatures that God have created, God said that man is in His image and likeness. So, except that man was likewise of the earth like the other living creatures He created, man is a totally different creature. He is not an animal or an ape at that. The man and ape may be 95% genetically similar in their physical make up, but that does not mean that man necessarily have descended from apes.

Animals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man. Or man may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as animals, but we are not animals. Besides, even with regards the flesh of man and animals, even while scientists point to the almost like genetic make up of man and the ape, here's what scriptures have to say:

1 Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.

Did God create a lifeless thing in the beginning, such as light, that will in time randomly evolve into all sorts of things and later evolved into different random wild lifeforms? And so the Christian scientist says, God did, based on scientific observations. And then among the lifeforms that have evolved, God have chosen from among the animals, the ape to further evolve the animal creature into what man is today, and make him to be in his likeness and image. Can the Christian scientist tell when God have completed the evolution of the ape into the first humans, so that then was when God have made what He says is in His image and likeness? Now, one is quick to point out that such likeness is not physical. Then it should be spiritual, or something to do with something else but the physical. Knowing the time, when in the evolution timeline of the scientist, did the ape evolved to be man, is relevant and important for the Christian to consider, as this will give him some idea as to the behavior of what may be to him is Adam of the Bible, him whom God made to have dominion over the other living creatures and take care of the garden of Eden.   

Now, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it. Can scientists bring us ahead to the future? Where will evolution take man? Does evolution have an end? When will it end? Will it ever end?

I think we ought to know our boundaries regarding the matter of how God created and made things. It is something God have not intended for us to know. Why not? The obvious is, it will do us more harm than good.

Quote from: Alan on Sun Aug 20, 2017 - 12:47:14

The links I provided give evidence to how soft tissue survives over millions of years, it is observed and also considered a fact.

It absolutely is not observed. It cannot be observed short of being around millions of years to confirm such. All theories regarding such can only remain exactly that short of the above. Tissue decay on the other hand absolutely is observable and has been observed. All of which strongly suggest it is highly unlikely that tissues could still be around millions, even hundreds of millions of years according to known observable rates of decay.

It is not and cannot be observed, and it is only considered a fact by those who strongly wish it to be so. If in fact any wish it to be considered more than theory, then at the very least they need to try to reproduce the decaying effect of hundreds of millions of years upon tissues, and then show that they actually survived after dong so. Even this would still leave such more in the realm of theory though than observable fact, having all been done in a controlled environment with exact purpose and intent. Far to many scientists today are ready and willing to pass off their theories as established observable fact when they most certainly are not. It is just another sign of the times.

2 Tim 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 10:06:49
My quest for the proof of age of skillions and skillions of years will not happen either.

Ah yes, you can disregard the research and data that has been gathered over the years and deem it insufficient but at the same time have nothing to replace those rejected theories with. It would seem logical that man must believe in something and give some reasoning to his belief. If a man says to me that "I don't believe in evolution or an old earth because that just isn't the way that I believe God set things in motion." I would respect that 100%, there is much about God and His creation that we cannot explain, but attempts to debunk scientific evidence with pseudo science is ludicrous beyond reason.


IOW, you are entitled to reject science but the only alternative to science would be faith that God did it His way, there is no reasonable alternative to scientific theories.

Quote from: Michael2012 on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 10:16:37
Why such a quest?

Surely if the earth is indeed 6000 years old at least some scientists should be supporting the concept with research and evidence, other than those that have a religious agenda.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 17:00:02

Surely if the earth is indeed 6000 years old at least some scientists should be supporting the concept with research and evidence, other than those that have a religious agenda.

And there you have it again, the complete illogical demand that this kind of research and evidence is welcome, as long as the scientist is not a Christian.
It is the typical ad-hominem reception so many Christian scientists receive from their peers: You are a Christian so we don't accept your research.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 16:57:49

Ah yes, you can disregard the research and data that has been gathered over the years and deem it insufficient but at the same time have nothing to replace those rejected theories with. It would seem logical that man must believe in something and give some reasoning to his belief. If a man says to me that "I don't believe in evolution or an old earth because that just isn't the way that I believe God set things in motion." I would respect that 100%, there is much about God and His creation that we cannot explain, but attempts to debunk scientific evidence with pseudo science is ludicrous beyond reason.


IOW, you are entitled to reject science but the only alternative to science would be faith that God did it His way, there is no reasonable alternative to scientific theories.

Who disregarded or rejected science?  I am putting it in a proper context.  I have not even brought any "pseudo science" into the discussion.  But when words like "facts" and "proven" are used incorrectly, I will interject.  No one can prove 6000 years, and no one can prove billions.  And even with science, one must believe, even those who understand and are doing the research must make assumptions to continue research.  In 100 years, most of what Barbarian and others are calling "fact" and "proven" may well look infantile.

QuoteThere is agreement among Christians that God created man.

And among many non-Christians.   When I was doing post-graduate work in biology, there were Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scientists who recognize that God created man.

QuoteBut then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes.

Yes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be.   But we can learn about His creation by observing it.

QuoteAnd this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality.

Directly observed.    Hard to deny that.

QuoteSo, you see, evolution is not in conflict with what your God says.

How could it be?   Nature is His creation, and it works as He intended.

QuoteWhat must the Christian do?

Accept the truth.    You should never be afraid of the truth.   God is truth.

QuoteGenesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;

Because Jesus tells us that God is a spirit, with no body, the "image" cannot be a physical one.   God doesn't have knees and a nose.     The image is in his spirit.
 

QuoteAnimals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man.

Because animals are merely their bodies.  We are souls who have a body.  Hence, we were created as the other animals were, but then God directly gives us a soul.   As He says, before we were formed in the womb, He knew us. 

QuoteNow, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it.

If your argument is that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe, then you're wrong.   Forensic, fire investigation, astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences show that we can indeed learn about these things.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 19:00:58

Yes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be.   But we can learn about His creation by observing it.

Issue #1
God DID tell us the details of the creation of both man's body and man's spirit. You have just chosen not to take these details on face value.
In your opinion it is evolution that provides you the undeniable proof that the accounts in Genesis cannot be understood in a literal setting.

Issue #2
The fact is that you are not observing creation, you are observing natural processes which are the result of creation.
You call that evolution, but the whole point of the evolution theory is that it is unguided. It is a process that came about by chance and is subject to random processes.
And there is the big misalignment with theistic evolution, because the inference of a creator by definition excludes the possibility of an unguided process.
You cannot subscribe to evolution as an unguided process by chance, and make the claim God interfered with it by for example giving man a spirit that classifies him as a different species.
The moment God interferes in the process, it becomes guided.


So what are you? Are you an evolutionist, or are you a creationist?
And if you are an "in-betweener", then can you share with me how many times you think God interfered with the evolution process?

Finally, when God created the universe, did God have a plan in mind? Was there a goal and a purpose for creation?
And if there was a goal and purpose, how did God reach that goal and purpose if what you say He chose to do is leave it up to chance?

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 18:38:06
And there you have it again, the complete illogical demand that this kind of research and evidence is welcome, as long as the scientist is not a Christian.
It is the typical ad-hominem reception so many Christian scientists receive from their peers: You are a Christian so we don't accept your research.

It's perfectly logical. A tiny percentage of scientists are YE christians. Of all scientists today NONE of them are insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, unless of course they are stretching the truth to fit their religion.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 18:57:08
Who disregarded or rejected science?  I am putting it in a proper context.  I have not even brought any "pseudo science" into the discussion.  But when words like "facts" and "proven" are used incorrectly, I will interject.  No one can prove 6000 years, and no one can prove billions.  And even with science, one must believe, even those who understand and are doing the research must make assumptions to continue research.  In 100 years, most of what Barbarian and others are calling "fact" and "proven" may well look infantile.

By saying that you won't find proof for skillions and skillions of years sounds like you don't agree, or IOW "reject" scientific claims, but anyway, I wasn't necessarily directing the "pseudo science" statement toward you, I was just expounding on the initial point. I'm pretty sure I know where you stand on this topic and respect you for that.

Quote from: Alan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 21:52:06

It's perfectly logical. A tiny percentage of scientists are YE christians. Of all scientists today NONE of them are insisting that the earth is only 6000 years old, unless of course they are stretching the truth to fit their religion.

Whether a scientist is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnost or Atheist has nothing to do with science. Scientific data should be able to uphold itself.
Every scientist in search of a method starts with a premise and whether you like it or not, that premise always originates from an assumption.
The basis of this assumption is totally irrelevant as far as science is concerned.

You are the posterboy for the present scientific census. The consideration is that since a scientist is a YE creationist, he therefore stretches the truth to fit his convictions.
The YE creationist just by posing a perfectly valid premise is being demonized because of his believes.
On the other hand people like Hawkins are welcomed with open arms if they do exactly the same.
There is an enormous bias in the scientific community today that simply has the goal to exclude religion, and particular Christians, from the scene.

The reality however is that where stretching the truth is concerned, the examples of such are not found in the camp of creationists...on the contrary.
Over and over again are we confronted with evolutionist data that turns out to be exaggerated or bluntly falsified.
Ever heard of Haekel's Embryo's? Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Beringer Frauds, Archaeoraptor just to name a few.

In short, the evolutionist scene today is driven by interior motives as much as those on the creationist scene. Unfortunately those who hold the majority can decide which theories and observations are allowed to be published and which are not.

To speak with the words of Richard Lewontin:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Michael:

QuoteBut then came the scientist. He says that man is an animal and have evolved from apes.

Barbarian:

QuoteYes, God did not tell us the details of how man's body came to be. But we can learn about His creation by observing it.

How, by observing creation have you come to know how God made man from the dust of the earth? Have you really actually observe how light evolved into matter, and matter evolving into many many things, and into many many lifeforms, and into the ape, and into man? And I doubt if you can observe what will man evolve into. All were just theories man made, not really of wanting to know how God made things, but of various other reasons I don't know. I think one concerns the ego.     

Michael:

QuoteAnd this he supports, pointing to fossil evidences and genetics. To him evolution is undeniable reality.

Barbarian:

QuoteDirectly observed.    Hard to deny that.

Perhaps for those directly observable. But not what scientist say of the evolution of man, evolution of light into matter, and into the universe, and into lifeforms. These can just not directly be observed.   

Michael:

QuoteWhat must the Christian do?

Barbarian:

QuoteAccept the truth.    You should never be afraid of the truth.   God is truth.

Yes, if truth it is. But, since it's not coming from Scriptures but coming from man, I have posted what I think the Christian should do concerning the teachings of man that somehow relates to God. The Christian of course must begin with God. He believes that truth, and all truth is what God says. With that, he must turn to God, see what God, in His words in scriptures, if any concerning this matter, tells him. And I have shown what God said about the man and the animal in Genesis. (see reply #576).

Michael:

QuoteAnimals may be said to be made up of basically the same dust as man, but they are not man.

Barbarian:

QuoteBecause animals are merely their bodies.  We are souls who have a body.  Hence, we were created as the other animals were, but then God directly gives us a soul.   As He says, before we were formed in the womb, He knew us. 

So what are you saying of man? That he is a soul with an animal (ape-like) body? Tell me, what is the soul that God have given, if in fact it was given? And to whom did God gave the soul? To the man or to the animal with the ape-like body? This brings us to Gen. 2:7.

Genesis 2:7 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.

Genesis 2:7 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.   

What God have formed of the dust, before God made him a living being/soul, is man, not animal, not an ape at that. Now what do you say is the "breath of life" did God gave what he formed of the dust that he became a living being/soul? 

Michael:

QuoteNow, scientists can't observe what is not yet there to observe. But have not scientists went back in time with evolution? In past time which they have not observed? But they somehow come up with scientific theories to tell us of the past and believe that they are right about it.

Barbarian:

QuoteIf your argument is that we can't know anything we didn't directly observe, then you're wrong.   Forensic, fire investigation, astronomy, geology, and a host of other sciences show that we can indeed learn about these things.

We can learn, that's right. But even in wikipedia we have this said:

A scientific theory is empirical[p][86] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[r] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[87]:4

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[1][2]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

There is simply no way for the scientist to test its theory on the evolution of the universe and man, even from an initial creation of light. And what can't be tested can't just be part of science, if I may say so.

The dictionary defines science as follows: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

From a website: https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/science/en/

Science is . . .Observing the world. Watching and listening. Observing and recording.


So, science is basically observation of nature. Without observation, that science won't be science any more.  What can't be observed is out of science's territory, if I may say then.

Quote from: AVZ on Mon Aug 21, 2017 - 23:51:18
Whether a scientist is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Agnost or Atheist has nothing to do with science. Scientific data should be able to uphold itself.
Every scientist in search of a method starts with a premise and whether you like it or not, that premise always originates from an assumption.
The basis of this assumption is totally irrelevant as far as science is concerned.

You are the posterboy for the present scientific census. The consideration is that since a scientist is a YE creationist, he therefore stretches the truth to fit his convictions.
The YE creationist just by posing a perfectly valid premise is being demonized because of his believes.
On the other hand people like Hawkins are welcomed with open arms if they do exactly the same.
There is an enormous bias in the scientific community today that simply has the goal to exclude religion, and particular Christians, from the scene.

The reality however is that where stretching the truth is concerned, the examples of such are not found in the camp of creationists...on the contrary.
Over and over again are we confronted with evolutionist data that turns out to be exaggerated or bluntly falsified.
Ever heard of Haekel's Embryo's? Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Peking Man, Beringer Frauds, Archaeoraptor just to name a few.

In short, the evolutionist scene today is driven by interior motives as much as those on the creationist scene. Unfortunately those who hold the majority can decide which theories and observations are allowed to be published and which are not.

To speak with the words of Richard Lewontin:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Your logic continues to be faulty, you make it seem as though all scientists have an anti-christian agenda to fill when the truth of the matter is they're simply observing and collecting data, the origins of which is unknown. The majority of scientists are working toward "discovery" rather than confirmation, religion has little meaning behind their work.

Quote from: Alan on Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 04:30:11

Your logic continues to be faulty, you make it seem as though all scientists have an anti-christian agenda to fill when the truth of the matter is they're simply observing and collecting data, the origins of which is unknown. The majority of scientists are working toward "discovery" rather than confirmation, religion has little meaning behind their work.

If that is indeed the case, then why do you insist that the only evidence you are willing to accept must come from someone with no religious affiliations.
And I just wonder why that is, are you afraid the creationists will deceive you? And what makes you think you are not being deceived by the evolutionists?

I don't think at all that all scientists have an anti-Christian agenda, but what I do know is that the scientific census makes it almost impossible for a Christian scientist to be heard.
The reason for this you displayed yourself by demanding that evidence is OK, as long as it is not provided by someone why professes the Bible.

If you are still in doubt, I request you to carefully look at the quote from Richard Lewontin again and realize that this is the common line of thought in the scientific community.
Of course this status will remain as long as there are people like you who dismiss scientific evidence based on bias rather than merit.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 05:50:07
If that is indeed the case, then why do you insist that the only evidence you are willing to accept must come from someone with no religious affiliations.

Why do you insist that anyone, including Christians, who does not believe as you do on this subject has no religious affiliations?

Quote from: Alan on Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 04:30:11 religion has little meaning behind their work.

Greetings Alan~would you please explain this statement. I've been out of the loop, so it not easy to jump right back in without going over the many posts which I may, or may not do. Time is so precious to me at the moment. I have to pick my battles wisely, and this one is not at the top of my list, other than seeing what other professors believe or do not believe regarding creation based upon the scriptures, which is our ONLY true source of truth. As you know, I care little about science so-called.

Thank you for your time and answer in advance.

The Scriptures are indeed our source of truth, particularly about God.  But the Scriptures are not our only source of truth.  The ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is PI [π].  That is an absolute truth, but you will not find that anywhere in Scripture.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 07:47:21
Why do you insist that anyone, including Christians, who does not believe as you do on this subject has no religious affiliations?

Please substantiate your claim and show where I did make such a statement.

Quote from: AVZ on Tue Aug 22, 2017 - 08:27:33
Please substantiate your claim and show where I did make such a statement.

Is it not true?