Christian Forums

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Sun Jun 11, 2023 - 00:16:03
You will also find a plethora of material that says God does not exist. 

In science, you will find no such thing, perhaps in the philosophy/religion sections, but I would expect there to be quite a bit more material explaining the origins of all religions and their gods.

Quote from: Cobalt1959
Since you, nor I, nor anyone else actually know the exact age of the Earth, anything that is written about it is a best guess. 

Seriously? Have you spent even 10 minutes studying this topic? If you had, you would know it's anything but a "guess".

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Jun 11, 2023 - 03:54:55
It's not that hard to date Adam.  Archaeology tells us the kingdom of Edom begins the 14th or 13th century BC.  The city of Admah near the shores of the Dead Sea dates to Early Bronze Age III... the same period.

So... a lot less than 6000 years old.  Also, not the beginning of all mankind.

Also, not the beginning of all mankind.     +1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDK0r88Y70M

Another good video regarding the global flood, and creationist views regarding the scientific evidence supporting and or indicating that such a flood did take place.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/06/220601111749.htm

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteStudy suggests that most of our evolutionary trees could be wrong

Scientists say convergent evolution is much more common than previously thought

New research led by scientists at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath suggests that determining evolutionary trees of organisms by comparing anatomy rather than gene sequences is misleading. The study, published in Communications Biology, shows that we often need to overturn centuries of scholarly work that classified living things according to how they look.

Since Darwin and his contemporaries in the 19th Century, biologists have been trying to reconstruct the "family trees" of animals by carefully examining differences in their anatomy and structure (morphology).

However, with the development of rapid genetic sequencing techniques, biologists are now able to use genetic (molecular) data to help piece together evolutionary relationships for species very quickly and cheaply, often proving that organisms we once thought were closely related actually belong in completely different branches of the tree.

For the first time, scientists at Bath compared evolutionary trees based on morphology with those based on molecular data, and mapped them according to geographical location.

They found that the animals grouped together by molecular trees lived more closely together geographically than the animals grouped using the morphological trees.

Matthew Wills, Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath, said: "It turns out that we've got lots of our evolutionary trees wrong.

"For over a hundred years, we've been classifying organisms according to how they look and are put together anatomically, but molecular data often tells us a rather different story.

"Our study proves statistically that if you build an evolutionary tree of animals based on their molecular data, it often fits much better with their geographical distribution.

"Where things live -- their biogeography -- is an important source of evolutionary evidence that was familiar to Darwin and his contemporaries.

"For example, tiny elephant shrews, aardvarks, elephants, golden moles and swimming manatees have all come from the same big branch of mammal evolution -- despite the fact that they look completely different from one another (and live in very different ways).

"Molecular trees have put them all together in a group called Afrotheria, so-called because they all come from the African continent, so the group matches the biogeography."

The study found that convergent evolution -- when a characteristic evolves separately in two genetically unrelated groups of organisms -- is much more common than biologists previously thought.

Professor Wills said: "We already have lots of famous examples of convergent evolution, such as flight evolving separately in birds, bats and insects, or complex camera eyes evolving separately in squid and humans.

"But now with molecular data, we can see that convergent evolution happens all the time -- things we thought were closely related often turn out to be far apart on the tree of life.

"People who make a living as lookalikes aren't usually related to the celebrity they're impersonating, and individuals within a family don't always look similar -- it's the same with evolutionary trees too.

"It proves that evolution just keeps on re-inventing things, coming up with a similar solution each time the problem is encountered in a different branch of the evolutionary tree.

"It means that convergent evolution has been fooling us -- even the cleverest evolutionary biologists and anatomists -- for over 100 years!"

Dr Jack Oyston, Research Associate and first author of the paper, said: "The idea that biogeography can reflect evolutionary history was a large part of what prompted Darwin to develop his theory of evolution through natural selection, so it's pretty surprising that it hadn't really been considered directly as a way of testing the accuracy of evolutionary trees in this way before now.

"What's most exciting is that we find strong statistical proof of molecular trees fitting better not just in groups like Afrotheria, but across the tree of life in birds, reptiles, insects and plants too.

"It being such a widespread pattern makes it much more potentially useful as a general test of different evolutionary trees, but it also shows just how pervasive convergent evolution has been when it comes to misleading us."

Wrong again! Countless millions in schools and institutions being taught misguided and or prematurely peer reviewed and approved theories as basically established facts, for at least a hundred years. No problem, just move on, nothing to see here.

Of course the article does not even address, the issue of increased statistical probabilities stacked against undirected, random chance, biological evolution, suggested by these new findings. In that such findings indicate a large expansion of separated incidences of positively progressive evolution. These freak accidents of positively progressive mutation as it were, didn't just happen countless billions of times over to arrive at where we are today, they did so increasingly independent of each other regarding geographical location and or similar functionality. Not at all the slow progressive and interconnected picture painted once upon a time, to the enthralled masses for over a hundred years. To the contrary, such is more suggestive of special creation and or intelligent design, than ever expanding incidents of random chance positively progressive mutative change. 

The theory of evolution is all about death. Things living, mutating, changing, dying, and being replaced by other things ad nauseam. The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about special creation, and eternal life.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 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. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 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. 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. 20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come. 21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. 22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. 23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment. 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. 28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them. 29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned. 30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days. 31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace. 32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: 33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. 35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: 36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: 37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; 38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. 

It is all about faith in God's word.

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.

https://time.com/6279551/largest-cosmic-explosion-explained/

QuoteAstronomers Explain What Caused the Largest Cosmic Explosion Ever Seen

It was only last October that telescopes spotted a gamma ray burst—caused by the collapse of a black hole—that was so powerful astronomers quickly dubbed it BOAT, for "Brightest of all Time." That was a fair enough nickname for such a sensational emission—for a little while anyway. But BOAT has just been busted to second most powerful.

According to a new study published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society there is a new champion out there: a cosmic explosion known as AT2021lwx. The explosion, located 8 billion light years from Earth, has been erupting for three years now, emitting two trillion times the light of our sun and 10 times the energy of the brightest supernova ever observed.

The very existence of such a formation—never before observed by astronomers—is further proof that there are whole new species of astronomical phenomena yet to be discovered. Where there is one AT2021lwx, there could be others—and still more objects not yet imagined, much less seen.

"AT2021lwx is an extraordinary event that does not fit into any common class of transient [or stellar eruptions]," the research team wrote. "Further follow-up and modeling of AT2021lwx is necessary to reveal more about the scenario that caused the flare."

The eruption was initially spotted by telescopes at the Caltech-operated Zwicky Transient Facility in 2020, and at first, astronomers thought they might be witnessing a quasar, an eruption that occurs when gas and dust fall into a supermassive black hole. But quasars tend to fluctuate in energy and brightness, while AT2021lwx flicked on its high beams and has kept them burning at a steady luminosity ever since its discovery.

"With a quasar, we see the brightness flickering up and down over time," said Professor Mark Sullivan, of the University of Southampton, a co-author of the paper, in a Royal Astronomical Society statement. "But looking back over a decade there was no detection of AT2021lwx, then it suddenly appeared as one of the most luminous things in the universe, which is unprecedented."

The next best guess was a supernova, but the light from such stellar explosions typically lasts for months, not years. Further observations were conducted by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS) in Hawaii, which typically scans the skies for dangerous near-Earth objects but can also make distant observations, joining the Zwicky facility in trying to puzzle out what the astronomers were seeing.

With a quasar and a supernova ruled out, the authors of the paper, led by astronomer Philip Wiseman at Southampton University, looked to what is known as a tidal disruption event. That's when a star is pulled into the maw of a black hole and shredded in the process. But AT2021lwx had that beat too, shedding three times more light than any tidal disruption ever observed, and lasting much longer as well.

"We came upon this by chance, as it was flagged by our search algorithm when we were searching for a type of supernova," said Wiseman, in the statement. "Most supernovae and tidal disruption events only last for a couple of months before fading away. For something to be bright for two plus years was immediately very unusual."

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, 2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 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.

Sounds more like Astronomers giving their best guesses, than explaining reality. From what I gather from online searches, they are all declaring this an explosion, though we did not observe the actual explosion. Just detected a bright light leading to an investigation. I imagine, that if God so chooses to return in such manner, humanity will most certainly detect the brightness of His coming as well. They will form their theories and speculations, and relate similar opinions to that of the above. But when they realize that the brightness is actually on the move and heading our way, the greatest paradigm shift ever, will occur within humanity on an immediate and global scale. That is if our "leaders" would even allow us to know such an event was taking place. Not that they could hide such for long. I suggest we keep a close eye upon this event, and make sure it never appears to be one on the move. On the other hand, perhaps God will just appear without any signs or warning. Warnings from space in any case. God's own are and have been giving warning concerning this ultimately climactic event, since our Lord predicted it.

Rev 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. 13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast. 14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. 17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. 18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Something happens in the above scenario which causes a major paradigm shift. First the ten kings give all of their power to the beast for apparently a short time. After which they turn completely against the whore who rides the beast, to destroy her. Something, some event, drastically changes their view and understanding of the beast and whore which rides it. I think it will be the reality, that those giving the warning about God's imminent return were right, and they come to realize this. Only to late unfortunately. God will allow them though, to exercise their own judgment upon the beast and whore who deceived them, before executing His own and final judgment. Time will certainly tell.

QuoteIt was only last October that telescopes spotted a gamma ray burst—caused by the collapse of a black hole—that was so powerful astronomers quickly dubbed it BOAT, for "Brightest of all Time." That was a fair enough nickname for such a sensational emission—for a little while anyway. But BOAT has just been busted to second most powerful.

Awwwww - somebody sunk their boat. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu0Ou8EKH3E


Good video. These guys put out a lot of fairly short and to the point videos addressing the issue of this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiRRMDV_nQ

Another good one from the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn2g64-gvWM

One more.

The truly sad part is that creationists assume God is not capable of creating the evolutionary process.

Howdy 4WD. Of course He could have used evolutionary processes, we just don't think He did. He did however most obviously, design mechanisms of change or adaption within His creations. Knowing no doubt, that they would need such abilities.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Nov 24, 2023 - 20:54:56Howdy 4WD. Of course He could have used evolutionary processes, we just don't "think" He did.

And that is the main point. You just don't think He did. As far as I am concerned, that is fine. There is far more information and data do say that He did than say He didn't.  Almost the entire argument against His creating the necessary evolutionary processes resides in a rather poor translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom".

For me, the really terrible result of the Young Earther position is that it makes God a deceiver in terms of the information and data that is derived from his general revelation coming from His natural laws of creation.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Nov 25, 2023 - 04:14:28And that is the main point. You just don't think He did. As far as I am concerned, that is fine. There is far more information and data do say that He did than say He didn't.  Almost the entire argument against His creating the necessary evolutionary processes resides in a rather poor translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word "yom".

For me, the really terrible result of the Young Earther position is that it makes God a deceiver in terms of the information and data that is derived from his general revelation coming from His natural laws of creation.

Yes, we have been over this point many times, and are not likely to ever agree. You think the evidence is on your side according to your world view, and YEC's think the evidence is on their side according to our world view. Which world view also affects how we use, see, understand, and or interpret scripture as well. This one, like so many other issues, awaits God's final resolution.

As long as we allow for the freedom of others to choose for themselves which is right, we reflect God's obvious intent for humanity. When we try to take that choice away from others, is when we become the true enemies of God and humanity. May the tree of liberty withstand the ever increasing assaults upon it.     

https://www.livescience.com/why-no-more-giant-animals

Article below from link above. Emphasis is mine. My comments in blue.

Why don't we have many giant animals anymore?

Prehistoric giants used to populate the Earth. These behemoths included mighty dinosaurs, airplane-size pterosaurs, massive crocodiles and snakes, and even armadillos the size of cars. But today, there are just a few big animals on our planet.

What happened? Why aren't there many giants left anymore?

First of all, there's plenty of fossil evidence that the ancient past really did have larger animals — beasts that were humongous but also larger, on average, than today's creatures, Greg Erickson, a vertebrate paleobiologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee who specializes in ancient reptiles, told Live Science. Ever since scientists unearthed the first known stash of dinosaur bones, in the 19th century, researchers have put forth ideas to explain why giants were common millions of years ago but less so today. But no one can point to one definitive answer, Erickson said. "It's so multifactorial."

Several major differences between dinosaurs and today's largest animals, the mammals, may help explain the loss of behemoths, however. Along with other giant reptiles, dinosaurs could adapt to different niches as they grew bigger over life, hunting smaller prey as juveniles and larger victims as adults. In part, they could do this because they swapped out sets of teeth over a lifetime. "They replace their teeth constantly, just like sharks do. But along the way they could change the type of teeth," Erickson said. Crocodiles, for instance, go from "needle-like teeth to more robust teeth. Mammals don't have that luxury."

Put another way, as some reptilian youngsters ballooned into hulking adults, they traded their relatively puny juvenile teeth for bigger weapons, allowing them, in turn, to hunt bigger meals to fuel their larger bodies.

In dinosaurs, too, air sacs likely extended from their lungs to their bones, creating sturdy but light scaffolding, Edinburgh University paleontologist Steve Brusatte told Scientific American. That gave dinosaurs skeletons that were "still strong and still flexible, but lightweight. That helped them get bigger and bigger and bigger," Brusatte said. "The same way that skyscrapers are getting bigger and bigger and bigger because of the internal support structures." (Of course, though air sacs helped make for strong, lightweight bones, no animal could actually get as big as a skyscraper. That's because body weight grows much faster than bone strength as animals increase in size, as physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has explained.)

Mammals lack such air sacs, though, "that can invade the bone and lighten up the bone," Brusatte said, "So elephant size or a little bit bigger, that might be the limit as to where mammals, at least on land" can get. ... You can't really get mammals, it doesn't seem, to be the size of dinosaurs."

As warm-blooded, or endothermic creatures, mammals also need a lot of fuel. "Elephants are full endotherms, and the dinosaurs, at least the herbivorous dinosaurs, probably mostly were not," Geerat Vermeij, a professor of geobiology and paleobiology at the University of California, Davis, told Live Science. "So the food requirement for, say, a gigantic elephant would be ... perhaps 5 times greater than that of even the very largest dinosaurs."

Paleontologists have debated whether dinosaurs were cold- or warm-blooded. But current science places many animal species on a gradient between cold- and warm-bloodedness, and dinosaurs were probably "on the low end of the warm-blooded range," Erickson said. That made a large body less energetically expensive for dinos.

Huge size also requires the right environment. In a 2016 study published in the journal PLOS One, Vermeij concluded that giantism depends mostly on sufficient resources produced and recycled by "highly developed ecological infrastructure." In other words, the ecology needs to produce sufficient oxygen, food and habitat to grow a truly giant creature. Such ecologies had seen great development by the middle Triassic period, near the beginning of the age of dinosaurs, Vermeij wrote.

In one potentially important environmental change, ancient atmospheres had higher concentrations of oxygen. This may have played a role in gigantism, particularly among insects. Wingspans among prehistory's biggest bugs tracked ancient increases in oxygen concentration, a 2012 study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reported.

Brewers of gigantism shouldn't forget the crucial ingredient of time, either. Though animal lineages tend to get larger over the generations, it takes a vast amount of evolutionary time to reach giant sizes, Erickson said. And mass extinction events tend to wipe out larger creatures, Vermeij said, so these events can leave giant-animal slots unfilled for tens or hundreds of millions of years. "It took about 25 million years for the first mammals to reach a ton in weight," he said. In the case of woolly mammoths, decimated by climate change and human hunters just 10,000 years ago, it may not be a coincidence that we modern humans don't see such huge creatures: Our own ancestors helped kill them off not so long ago.

For Vermeij, the most comprehensive explanation for decreasing size comes not from physiology or environment, but from social structure. "The evolution of ... organized social behavior, not just herds but really organized hunting" in mammals introduced a new form of dominance, he said. "Group hunting by relatively small predators makes even very large prey vulnerable. Individual gigantism has in effect been replaced on land by gigantism at the group level," he wrote in the 2016 study. That is, smaller individuals working together, as happens with wolves and hyenas for example, may constitute a more effective way of getting big than building a huge body. As a result, "gigantism lost its luster on land," Vermeij wrote.

Social organization may also help explain a rather, ahem, giant exception to the timeline traced here: In the ocean, the biggest animals to ever live still exist today: blue whales. Sea life, Vermeij said, makes long-distance communication more difficult, hindering the development of complex hunting groups. The evolution of such groups "has happened on land much more than, at least until recently, that has happened in the ocean," such as with killer whales, he said.

For YEC's of course, the highlighted portions of the above article support our own understanding well. We believe the global flood was the mechanism of major environmental changes, which as scripture records, seriously altered all life on the planet. Changing the physical size and life span of many if not all or most creatures. The issue of time in relation to the size of creatures, is important to our understanding as well.
 
Death was not a part of the original plan according to scripture. Creatures therefore who lived much longer than today, in an environment better suited toward what we today refer to as gigantism, naturally grew much larger than they do now.

The above observations concerning packs of carnivores wiping out larger prey, could just as easily be the result of the changed environment after the flood. Rather than slow development over deep time, such could easily be due to rapid adaption for survival after major environmental changes necessitated such. As more modern science has observed the ability of rapid adaption in animals today, and already applies changed theories regarding such observed phenomenon.

This is not to mention our continued trend of observing that complexity seems to have developed further and further back in time. Which obviously does not support the general idea of deep time slow development. Removing the need for deep time regarding the "evolution" of hunting packs as well, as the article suggests. All of these observations themselves, denoting design as it were concerning these developments, over slow random chance developments dependent upon deep time.

The above observations of course, according to the mindset of this YEC. 

Quote from: Amo on Sun Nov 26, 2023 - 07:41:17Yes, we have been over this point many times, and are not likely to ever agree.

True enough.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Nov 26, 2023 - 07:41:17You think the evidence is on your side according to your world view, and YEC's think the evidence is on their side according to our world view.

It has nothing to do with a world view.  It has to  do with the ponderance of the evidence. For every piece of evidence supporting your view, there are literally thousands that stand against your view.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Nov 24, 2023 - 16:27:58The truly sad part is that creationists assume God is not capable of creating the evolutionary process.

Certainly He is capable, but did he, is the question?

I blame it all on Genesis. The way it is written truly is, in a way
subjective to the reader.... and perhaps, or more probably so, subjective to the authors recounting of things.

I have begun a little side homework on this just for general info.

There are more articles and books for a lifetime to read and I am not going to spend my final years in a deep search.

But I found this one to have some very interesting comments so thought I would share.

I know that many will jump down my throat on this.... based on the title.
(Which to me is accurate) if one takes the time to come up with a reason why... but here is a little light reading for you all.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/What-Do-Those-First-Few-Chapters-of-Genesis-Really-Say

Adam Was Not the First Human, for the Bible Tells Us So

JEREMY CHRISTIANUPDATED:NOV 19, 2023 9:32 PM EST

With interesting commentary on

What Came First: Sumerian Tablets or the Bible?

The Sumerian and Akkadian tablets, where these first Sumerian stories are recorded, predate the oldest books of the Bible by over a thousand years, according to the best scholarly estimations.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Nov 26, 2023 - 17:30:02True enough.
It has nothing to do with a world view.  It has to  do with the ponderance of the evidence. For every piece of evidence supporting your view, there are literally thousands that stand against your view.

I call bull*/!~`. Present some of them, and let see just exactly what such supposed evidence is really based upon.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 03, 2023 - 20:43:25I call bull*/!~`. Present some of them, and let see just exactly what such supposed evidence is really based upon.

Seriously? Just walk into any Library and you can find information on the age of the universe, age of the earth, and evolution, but I highly doubt you'll find anything supporting a 6000 YO universe or publications that challenge evolution.  

Quote from: Alan on Sun Dec 03, 2023 - 21:04:59Seriously? Just walk into any Library and you can find information on the age of the universe, age of the earth, and evolution, but I highly doubt you'll find anything supporting a 6000 YO universe or publications that challenge evolution. 

   

I'm sure one can find something on Intelligent design and or Creation science. Not that such would mean anything, since I could no doubt find gobs on LGBTQ...... fake so called science, or fake Climate Change so called science, or fake Covid 19 so called science, and so on and so on. Not to mention gobs of science and theories which have already been proved wrong or highly inaccurate due to more recently discovered information. Government approved public "science" in public libraries, truth does not equal. To the contrary, we have many examples of government supporting straight up lies as factual science in the past.

As a bible believer, I see no scripture which recommends seeking the truth at government facilitated public libraries. The scriptures make it clear what our primary source of truth should be. That which should be the base and foundation of our beliefs, which truths are not the emphasis of public libraries.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Go to, look for the truth in your public libraries, and among the wisdom of men. I will stick to the scriptures as my foundation. You are of course free to reveal the theory of evolution within the scriptures to me if you wish or can.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 08, 2023 - 12:53:232Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

And you have misapplied 2 Timothy 3:15 just as you have applied so many others.  That passage is not about your aversion to science and things scientific.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Dec 09, 2023 - 04:52:37And you have misapplied 2 Timothy 3:15 just as you have applied so many others.  That passage is not about your aversion to science and things scientific.

No, I haven't misapplied anything. I just don't limit the scriptures according to a misplaced faith in science, but rather understand one statement of scripture in connection with many others. Having a faith built upon the scriptures themselves over and above supposed or so called "science" built upon human wisdom.

Faith in Jesus Christ is faith in the Creator.

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

Col 1:13  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were 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: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has everything to do with faith in the Creator of this world, and the creation account of the holy scriptures. Which faith the theory of evolution completely undermines, in that it makes death and misery God's intention from the beginning, not as a result of the sin which Jesus came to save us from. Faith in the theory of evolution is a wholly extra biblical experience, which seeks to maintain a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 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.

2Ti 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. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0CvDO-nGH4

Another good short video by Answers in Genesis Canada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FxhF6HREEw

Good video by Creation Ministries interviewing a flood expert and scientist who was converted by the major evidence supporting a global flood.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 08, 2023 - 12:53:23I'm sure one can find something on Intelligent design and or Creation science. Not that such would mean anything, since I could no doubt find gobs on LGBTQ...... fake so called science, or fake Climate Change so called science, or fake Covid 19 so called science, and so on and so on. Not to mention gobs of science and theories which have already been proved wrong or highly inaccurate due to more recently discovered information. Government approved public "science" in public libraries, truth does not equal. To the contrary, we have many examples of government supporting straight up lies as factual science in the past.

As a bible believer, I see no scripture which recommends seeking the truth at government facilitated public libraries. The scriptures make it clear what our primary source of truth should be. That which should be the base and foundation of our beliefs, which truths are not the emphasis of public libraries.

Nice bit of deflection, but no one is buying into your logic. 

Quote from: Alan on Thu Dec 14, 2023 - 09:28:10Nice bit of deflection, but no one is buying into your logic.

No sense in buying something that is free for all who care to search it out. People may try to buy or sell the truth, but all sincere searchers may simply ask God for it, and He will freely reveal it to them.

No deflection in stating the fact that science so called has been wrong over and over again, as I have addressed many times on this very thread. I don't even need to go to the library to find outdated and wrong scientific observations, including ones regarding the evolutionary faith. I can just pull a book or two right off of my own shelves for that. A very simple task indeed.

Nor is it deflection in any way, shape, or form, to declare and or direct people to the Holy Scriptures as the source of truth.  Why would you refer to any of the above as tactics of deflection? Please do expound.

https://www.icr.org/article/vanishing-case-for-evolution/

Article below from link above, where references may be viewed. Though the article is a bit dated, the point is spot on.

The Vanishing Case for Evolution

Dr. Henry M. Morris, father of the modern creation science movement, devoted his life to upholding the accuracy and authority of God's Word. Combining scientific knowledge with a thorough understanding of Scripture, he clearly and succinctly combated the errors of evolution. In the article below, Dr. Morris highlights evolution's false claims, using the words of evolutionists themselves. His words are as true today as when they were first written.

Evolutionary belief is a remarkable and largely unexplained phenomenon. It is a belief held by most intellectuals all over the world, despite the fact that there is no real scientific evidence for it at all. Evolutionists allege that evolution is a proved scientific fact, based on a multitude of scientific proofs, but they are unable to document even one of these supposed proofs! This curious situation is illustrated below in quotations from several leading evolutionary scientists.

THE ALTOGETHER MISSING EVIDENCE

No Evolution at Present

The lack of a case for evolution is most clearly recognized by the fact that no one has ever seen it happen.

Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.1

"Horizontal variations" (e.g., the different varieties of dogs) are not real evolution, of course, nor are "mutations," which are always either neutral or harmful, as far as all known mutations are concerned. A process which has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

No New Species

Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, observed:

Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species.2

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.

No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it.3

No Known Mechanism of Evolution

It is also a very curious fact that no one understands how evolution works. Evolutionists commonly protest that they know evolution is true, but they can't seem to determine its mechanism.

Evolution is...troubled from within by the troubling complexities of genetic and developmental mechanisms and new questions about the central mystery--speciation itself.4

One would think that in the 100+ years following Darwin, with thousands of trained biologists studying the problem and using millions of dollars worth of complex lab equipment, they would have worked it out by now, but the mechanism which originates new species is still "the central mystery."

No Fossil Evidence

It used to be claimed that the best evidence for evolution was the fossil record, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils have not yet yielded a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition.5

This ubiquitous absence of intermediate forms is true not only for "major morphologic transitions," but even for most species.

As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record, persist for some millions of years virtually unchanged, only to disappear abruptly.6

As a result, many modern evolutionists agree with the following assessment:

In any case, no real evolutionist...uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.7

No Order in the Fossils

Not only are there no true transitional forms in the fossils; there is not even any general evidence of evolutionary progression in the actual fossil sequences.

The fossil record of evolution is amenable to a wide variety of models ranging from completely deterministic to completely stochastic.8

I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record....we have sought to impose a pattern that we hoped to find on a world that does not really display it.9

The superficial appearance of an evolutionary pattern in the fossil record has actually been imposed on it by the fact that the rocks containing the fossils have themselves been "dated" by their fossils.

And this poses something of a problem: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?10

A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?11

No Evidence That Evolution Is Possible

The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question.12

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!

[T]he quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.13

Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.14

Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!

No Evidence from Similarities

The existence of similarities between organisms--whether in external morphology or internal biochemistry--is easily explained as the Creator's design of similar systems for similar functions, but such similarities are not explicable by common evolutionary descent.

It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced.15

The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series.16

No Recapitulation or Vestigial Organs

The old arguments for evolution based on the recapitulation theory (the idea that embryonic development in the womb recapitulates the evolution of the species) and vestigial organs ("useless" organs believed to have been useful in an earlier stage of evolution) have long been discredited.

[T]he theory of recapitulation...should be defunct today.17

An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures...leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.18

THE RESIDUAL CASE FOR EVOLUTION

In spite of these admissions, all the scientists quoted above continued to believe in evolution. Limited space precludes giving the full context of each quotation, but each point noted is fully warranted in context, and could be further documented from other authorities also.19

What, then, remains of the case for evolution? Stephen Gould falls back on what he believes are "imperfections" in nature.

If there were no imperfections, there would be no evidence to favor evolution by natural selection over creation.20

But this is essentially the same as the old discredited argument from vestigial organs, and merely assumes our present ignorance to be knowledge. Even if there are imperfections in nature (as well as harmful mutations, vestigial organs, extinctions, etc.) such trends are opposite to any imaginary evolutionary progress, so can hardly prove evolution.

There is one final argument, however: Gould's fellow atheist and Marxist at Harvard, geneticist Richard Lewontin, said:

No one has ever found an organism that is known not to have parents, or a parent. This is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution.21

That is, if one denies a Creator, the existence of life proves evolution!

But apart from its necessity as a support for atheism or pantheism, there is clearly no scientific evidence for evolution.

The absence of evidence for evolution does not, by itself, prove creation, of course; nevertheless, special creation is clearly the only alternative to evolution.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.22

While we admittedly cannot prove creation, it is important to note that all the above facts offered as evidence against evolution (gaps between kinds, no evolutionary mechanism, increasing entropy, etc.) are actual predictions from the creation "model"!

Creationists prefer the reasonable faith of creationism, which is supported by all the real scientific evidence, to the credulous faith of evolutionism, which is supported by no real scientific evidence. The question remains unanswered (scientifically, at least) as to why evolutionists prefer to believe in evolution.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 16, 2023 - 13:09:33Nor is it deflection in any way, shape, or form, to declare and or direct people to the Holy Scriptures as the source of truth.  Why would you refer to any of the above as tactics of deflection? Please do expound.

Please, from the Holy Scriptures, how far is it from here to the center of the Milky Way? Or to the Sun, for that matter.  Also from the scriptures, what holds up the earth and keeps the water from flowing off of the edge?

Perhaps something a little easier.  From the Holy Scriptures, what is the chromosomal difference between a man and a woman. That should be a piece of cake for one with so great a connection and understanding of creation from the Holy Scriptures.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Dec 16, 2023 - 14:32:01https://www.icr.org/article/vanishing-case-for-evolution/


The basic reason why there is no scientific evidence of evolution in either the present or the past is that the law of increasing entropy, or the second law of thermodynamics, contradicts the very premise of evolution. The evolutionist assumes that the whole universe has evolved upward from a single primeval particle to human beings, but the second law (one of the best-proved laws of science) says that the whole universe is running down into complete disorder.

How can the forces of biological development and the forces of physical degeneration be operating at cross purposes? It would take, of course, a far greater mind than mine even to attempt to penetrate this riddle. I can only pose the question.

Evolutionists commonly attempt to sidestep this question by asserting that the second law applies only to isolated systems. But this is wrong!

[T]he quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not.

Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.14

Entropy can be forced to decrease in an open system, if enough organizing energy and information is applied to it from outside the system. This externally introduced complexity would have to be adequate to overcome the normal internal increase in entropy when raw energy is added from outside. However, no such external source of organized and energized information is available to the supposed evolutionary process. Raw solar energy is not organized information!

As one pretty well versed in thermodynamics, I can tell you that all of this is from ignorance.  Either Morris doesn't know that he is ignorant about such things or he is just so completely biased that he is perfectly willing to lie about it.  So what else is there that Morris talks about that falls into this same arena?  Probably a lot.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 17, 2023 - 04:33:38Please, from the Holy Scriptures, how far is it from here to the center of the Milky Way? Or to the Sun, for that matter.  Also from the scriptures, what holds up the earth and keeps the water from flowing off of the edge?

Perhaps something a little easier.  From the Holy Scriptures, what is the chromosomal difference between a man and a woman. That should be a piece of cake for one with so great a connection and understanding of creation from the Holy Scriptures.

I said the Holy scriptures are the source of truth, not encyclopedic truth concerning every possible subject. So called scientific truths, which blatantly contradict its testimony, are very likely the vain imaginings of fallen humanity.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 17, 2023 - 16:27:12I said the Holy scriptures are the source of truth, not encyclopedic truth concerning every possible subject. So called scientific truths, which blatantly contradict its testimony, are very likely the vain imaginings of fallen humanity.

Amo, you just keep jabbering about things that you really know nothing about.  You are like the Muslim jabbering against the Bible.

This post is post number 1886. I have posted article after article after article, and videos after video on this thread for years now. Even if these were all I have ever read or watched concerning the topic at hand, I would be more knowledgable than the vast majority who concern themselves little with the subject at hand. Others have put far far more time and effort into this subject than probably any on these boards, and still do not agree among themselves. There are a whole lot of people who disagree with you 4WD, that are not anywhere near as ignorant as you accuse them of being, simply because they do not agree with you.

The concepts, topics, theories, and evidences regarding evolution, design, and or creation, are not the rocket science you apparently think they are. They are not at all beyond the scope of the average person to comprehend and or pursue greater knowledge of. Nor is anyone ignorant because they do not agree with your faith in the theory of evolution, choosing another faith just as easily based upon the same evidence all are examining.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 22, 2023 - 12:05:09This post is post number 1886. I have posted article after article after article, and videos after video on this thread for years now. Even if these were all I have ever read or watched concerning the topic at hand, I would be more knowledgable than the vast majority who concern themselves little with the subject at hand. Others have put far far more time and effort into this subject than probably any on these boards, and still do not agree among themselves. There are a whole lot of people who disagree with you 4WD, that are not anywhere near as ignorant as you accuse them of being, simply because they do not agree with you.

The concepts, topics, theories, and evidences regarding evolution, design, and or creation, are not the rocket science you apparently think they are. They are not at all beyond the scope of the average person to comprehend and or pursue greater knowledge of. Nor is anyone ignorant because they do not agree with your faith in the theory of evolution, choosing another faith just as easily based upon the same evidence all are examining.

The information you posted in post number 1881 is wrong on the topic of the second law of thermodynamics.  As I noted, I am well versed in that subject, although I have to admit that I have forgotten a lot of the finer points. Morris is totally ignorant on that subject. And if you agree with him on it, that makes you very much the same.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 22, 2023 - 12:05:09This post is post number 1886. I have posted article after article after article, and videos after video on this thread for years now. Even if these were all I have ever read or watched concerning the topic at hand, I would be more knowledgable than the vast majority who concern themselves little with the subject at hand. Others have put far far more time and effort into this subject than probably any on these boards, and still do not agree among themselves. There are a whole lot of people who disagree with you 4WD, that are not anywhere near as ignorant as you accuse them of being, simply because they do not agree with you.

The concepts, topics, theories, and evidences regarding evolution, design, and or creation, are not the rocket science you apparently think they are. They are not at all beyond the scope of the average person to comprehend and or pursue greater knowledge of. Nor is anyone ignorant because they do not agree with your faith in the theory of evolution, choosing another faith just as easily based upon the same evidence all are examining.

I highly doubt you actually know anything about the subjects you are refuting. You are simply running a narrative that coincides with your beliefs. The articles you post are not worth the space they consume on the internet, and FWIW, I doubt even YOU believe them to be true, but there must be some amount of enjoyment in clinging to the conspiracy theory that "everything you've been taught is wrong". The flearthers love to recite that one. 

Quote from: Alan on Fri Dec 22, 2023 - 23:59:52I highly doubt you actually know anything about the subjects you are refuting. You are simply running a narrative that coincides with your beliefs. The articles you post are not worth the space they consume on the internet, and FWIW, I doubt even YOU believe them to be true, but there must be some amount of enjoyment in clinging to the conspiracy theory that "everything you've been taught is wrong". The flearthers love to recite that one.

That's pretty twisted Alan. I don't believe anywhere near anything like "everything you've been taught is wrong". Neither do the people who wrote most of the articles you refer to as worthless, no doubt. Many of whom are no doubt more highly educated "scientists", than yourself. Once again however, personal insults and or self declarations of superiority, do not a good argument make. You are however of course, free to rely upon whatever you wish, regarding the defense of your own understanding.