Christian Forums

Quote from: Amo on Tue Dec 16, 2025 - 09:35:58Do you not see the problem and or blatant contradiction between the following verses of Holy Scripture and the theory of deep time evolutionary scenarios?

No I do not.

The real problem I see is your trying to make your interpretation of such verses be the central means for conducting scientific studies and investigations.

It is much the same as the Roman Catholic Church trying to establish the earth-centric functioning of universe through their interpretation of scripture. Your train runs today on the same track as the RCC once did in the realm of science.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 17, 2025 - 08:31:37No I do not.

The real problem I see is your trying to make your interpretation of such verses be the central means for conducting scientific studies and investigations.

It is much the same as the Roman Catholic Church trying to establish the earth-centric functioning of universe through their interpretation of scripture. Your train runs today on the same track as the RCC once did in the realm of science.

That is a cyclical argument, which can be applied to any interpretation of scripture one might choose and apply. As well as your own. Unless you are saying you have no faith at all in scriptural testimony cornering creation at all. Therefore choosing to believe humanities best guesses first and foremost. In which case of course, my belief that your theory of evolution is faith based is spot on. Which as I have already stated many times, I'm quite sure it is.

That doesn't seem to be the case with what you believe though. Since you believe God was involved with, or directed, or started the evolutionary processes I suppose. Neither of which is found or addressed in scripture at all, but by way of making certain scriptures mean or say that which they simply do not state at all. Unless I missed something. Can you provide scripture at all, which seems to even suggest what you believe is actually what happened? I'm all ears, or eyes as it were. 

Catholics have moved on from the earth-centric model for good reason. YEC's and deep time evolutionists still have too much inventory of evidence they see as supportive of their faiths, to do so. The following links are to some interesting videos regarding evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0InjvwBXTg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EseE_awrof8

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 18, 2025 - 08:13:18That is a cyclical argument, which can be applied to any interpretation of scripture one might choose and apply.

Not at all.  Scripture does not really ever address the theories of scientific issues; even so, too many try to impose their interpretations of scripture into the science of God's natural law.  I see that in you.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 18, 2025 - 08:13:18Catholics have moved on from the earth-centric model for good reason.

Why do you think that is? Did the word of God change?

Can you provide scripture at all, which seems to even suggest what you believe is actually what happenes?

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Dec 18, 2025 - 11:04:11Not at all.  Scripture does not really ever address the theories of scientific issues; even so, too many try to impose their interpretations of scripture into the science of God's natural law.  I see that in you.

I simply believe what every single bible translator has faithfully recorded as far as I know, concerning the creation account and many other scriptures which support that basic and simple statement. I am imposing nothing, which is not simply stated or written for all to see. Why would I have to impose my understanding upon that which says exactly what I believe, exactly because that is just what it says?

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Dec 18, 2025 - 11:12:34Why do you think that is? Did the word of God change?

Can you provide scripture at all, which seems to even suggest what you believe is actually what happenes?

No, the word of God has not changed. Nor did it ever teach that the sun and all the heavens revolve around the earth. If your second question is in relation to the creation of earth then yes of course, as I already have. If it is in relation to our heliocentric solar system, then no, the scriptures do not address that particular. Saving that this was part of the six day creation account of Genesis of course.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 18, 2025 - 19:58:17No, the word of God has not changed. Nor did it ever teach that the sun and all the heavens revolve around the earth. If your second question is in relation to the creation of earth then yes of course, as I already have. If it is in relation to our heliocentric solar system, then no, the scriptures do not address that particular. Saving that this was part of the six day creation account of Genesis of course.

But the Church at one time, up until the 1600's, thought that scripture taught the geocentric nature of the earth.  That was their interpretation of various passages concerning the motion of the sun in relation to the earth.  That of course was wrong. 

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Dec 19, 2025 - 06:26:03But the Church at one time, up until the 1600's, thought that scripture taught the geocentric nature of the earth.  That was their interpretation of various passages concerning the motion of the sun in relation to the earth.  That of course was wrong. 

What church exactly do you mean when you say the church? In any case, they did not get ideas of geocentrism from biblical teaching or doctrine, but by presumptions perhaps concerning statements in scripture they stretched at best to be instructive toward such an end. Nevertheless, a bible believing, Christian, YEC leaning, Protestant, scientist more firmly established the heliocentric model most accept today.

https://creationanswers.net/biographies/JKepler.htm

Quotes from article below are from link above, where this interesting  article may be read in its entirety.

QuoteJohannes Kepler - Great Scientist and Great Christian

From the September 2014 issue of Creation Answers
by Wayne Spencer

  Just twenty-five years after the death of Martin Luther, in the year 1571, Johannes Kepler was born in Germany.  (To say Germany is simplifying a complex political history.)  Many have heard of Kepler but don't know what he did.  People with a background in Physics or Astronomy know he came up with three laws of planetary motion.  There is much more to Kepler's story though.  Johannes Kepler had a most interesting life.  In this article we will take a look at his accomplishments, his Christian faith, his family and the dramatic events that happened in Europe at the time.  Kepler was caught up in the Christian Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation in Germany and surrounding areas.  This meant he and his family were very much affected by the conflicts between Catholics and Protestants of the early 1600's. Kepler was a teacher, a mathematician, a writer of calendar books, an astronomer, and an astrologer.  Yes, I did say astrologer.  This is an interesting aspect of his life.  How can a scientist be an astrologer?  Keep reading to find out.  He was married twice and had children but he had several children that died in childhood.  He also had physical handicaps which he lived with all his life.  Kepler's mother was accused of witchcraft but she was not tortured to death because Kepler organized a legal defense for her.  I believe his mother was actually a protestant Christian.

  Kepler was a protestant Christian of strong convictions.  He was influenced much by Martin Luther.  Also, there is documentation that he believed the Earth was just 6,000 years old and he believed God created from nothing.  He spent much time and effort thinking about what we would call intelligent design - what was God's design of the universe?  He also used convex lenses to make an improvement on Galileo's telescope design.  He lived at the same time as Galileo and corresponded with him some.  He published a significant number of books and papers (in Latin usually), and even wrote a sort of science fiction story about what it would be like to go to the Moon and watch the Earth.  Kepler lived in the middle of two major controversies, one was the Ptolemaic view of the solar system versus the Copernican view.  This was over whether the Sun and planets orbited Earth (meaning Earth did not move), or the Earth and planets orbited the Sun (which was the Copernican idea).  The second major controversy was the doctrinal and church conflicts associated with Catholicism and Protestantism.       

    Johannes was born in a town called Weil der Stadt in 1571.  His grandfather, Sebald Kepler, was mayor of the town when Johannes was very young.  This meant that the Kepler family had some money but it did not last.  Johannes had two brothers and one sister.  His father, Heinrich, worked off and on as a mercenary and was not very responsible.  He was often away for long periods and was somewhat abusive to his wife.  He left the family for the last time when Johannes was 5 years old.  Kepler's mother's name was Katharina.  She was a sort of herbalist, trying to find or make substances that would heal various ailments.  Understand that at this time there was little that doctors could do.  Katharina had an aunt who had been burned at the stake as a witch, but Katharina herself was not a witch by all accounts.  I will return to Kepler's mother later.  When Johannes was just 3 years old he became very sick with small pox.  Small pox had no treatment and it was common for some children to die from it.  Johannes eventually recovered but not until it had permanently damaged his left eye and his fingers.  Johannes was apparently somewhat neglected by his mother but his grandfather seems to have been a good man.  It seems clear that most of Johannes' family were Lutherans and sincere protestants, with his father very likely being a glaring exception.

    Johannes was a small thin boy but was very bright.  When he was just 6 years old (1577) there was a very notable comet that appeared.  His mother showed him the comet. This must have fed the boy's inquisitive nature.  In the educational system there a child was sent to school in one of two tracks very early, based on whether it was believed they could do well in academics.  So after some unknown period in grammar school as a child, at age 7 he was sent to a Lutheran Latin School.  This was a protestant Christian school aimed at preparing children for the ministry or academics.  At age 11 Kepler took an important test to determine what educational track he could take next.  He scored very high and thus was given a 100% scholarship from the Duke of Wurtemberg.  This meant he was on a track that would be for men who were preparing for ministry in the Lutheran Church, or perhaps for Law or some other academic career.  Kepler continued to excel in his years at what was called the Lower Seminary and the Upper Seminary, or the Stiftshule.  This was roughly the equivalent of high school.  After this he continued on to the University of Tubingen.  He received a B.A. degree in 1588 and a M.A. degree in 1591.  Then he studied theology for three additional years.  But Johannes' teachers and professors came to have concerns about him that lead to them taking action to change his career direction.

    Johannes Kepler learned Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, in addition to his native language of German.  He studied theology, literature, mathematics, rhetoric, philosophy, and astronomy.  His intention was to go into ministry in the Lutheran Church. But as a young man he was rather brash and sometimes very blunt.  He came to be thought of as a good teacher but he also had a tendancy to switch subjects more quickly than his students could keep up.  It was common in these Lutheran schools for young adult students to do presentations and debates which were attended by the public.  On a couple of these occasions Kepler defended the Copernican view of the solar system.  The Copernican idea was very controversial and was still considered too radical, or maybe even heretical, by some.  There were astronomers at the University who taught Kepler.  They sometimes believed Copernicus but taught Ptolemy (that Earth did not move) so they would not get into trouble.  But supporting Copernicus was not all that made young Kepler's professors uncomfortable.

    By attending the Stift or Seminary under a full scholarship this meant that Kepler was under obligation to serve the Duke of Wurtemberg in his career.  After the Seminary and University a path into ministry or a pastorate would have been logical for young Kepler except for a doctrinal issue.  The Lutheran Church at the time held to a view of communion that Kepler did not agree with.  There was significant animosity also at the time between Lutherans and Calvinists.  The Calvinists had a view of communion more like we protestants do today.  So Kepler apparently went along with the Calvinist ideas on communion but went along with Lutheran ideas on most other issues.  However, he had trouble with accepting the concept of predestination. 

    Kepler was appauled at some of the vicious insults thrown back and forth between Catholics and Protestants.  Kepler was clearly not Catholic but he was more respectful and conciliatory toward Catholic views sometimes than his Lutheran colleagues wanted him to be.  So for instance, when the Gregorian Calendar was invented and put forward as the new standard by a Papal Bull from Pope Gregory, Kepler agreed with it.  Kepler went along with it and encouraged others to accept it because it truly was a better calendar.  Calendars were something Kepler understood well.  The world still follows the Gregorian calendar today.  Kepler was a practical man who was guided by reason and by the fact that he examined the Scriptures himself in the original languages.  Protestants often resisted the Gregorian calendar just because it came from the Pope.  There was a growing religious tension that affected Germany, Austria, Bohemia and other areas. There had been battles between Catholics and Protestants prior to Kepler's birth also.  The resolution of those fights was for city and government leaders (usually kings) to choose for the people in their area whether they would be catholic or protestant.  If the king chose catholicism, then it was illegal to be protestant.  So some areas were officially protestant and some were officially catholic.  However sometimes there was little enforcement.   

In Graz

    Thus because of Kepler's tendancy to accept certain controversial ideas in the eyes of his Lutheran professors, there was a sort of plot to keep him out of the ministry.  Professors arranged for him to be offered a teaching position instead of going into the ministry.  This put him teaching in a school in Graz, Styria and in addition he had a part-time position as district mathematician.  This would have been the equivalent of teaching high school students.  His teaching duties included a class on the poetry of Virgil, as well as ethics, history, and some  mathematics and astronomy.

    One of his primary duties as district mathematician was to prepare calendars and publish them in books.  These were not merely calendars as we think of today.  They also included various advice that made prognostications about what would happen in the coming year and how to plan for it.  Thus these books were mixed with some astrology.  It seems very hard to imagine today but at that time there was not a clear separation in people's minds between astronomy and astrology.  Astronomers of the time felt uncomfortable making these astrological predictions.  Kepler apparently was astute in considering many things about what was happening at the time, political events, and weather.  So Kepler never relied really on astrology.  But astrological predictions were just expected of astronomers.  Kepler developed a reputation among the public as making very good predictions.  So astronomers (including Galileo also) made astrological predictions because they had to to keep their positions, not because they really trusted in it.  I think Kepler felt that he wanted to steer people more toward reason and to not rely on astrology.  One interesting comment Kepler made about astrology is below.  This was after publishing a book with astrological predictions and advice, but this was in a letter to his former astronomy professor: 

  "Truly in all my knowledge of astrology, I know not enough with certainty that I should dare to predict with confidence any specific thing.  Astrology is the foolish little daughter of mother astronomy." 

    In Genesis 1 it says God made the Sun, Moon, and stars to mark seasons and days and years.  This was sort of extrapolated by some Christians at the time into supporting astrological ideas somewhat.  It was a concept that God used the heavens to shape and govern the lives of men.  But Christians who went along with astrology, such as certain Lutheran leaders, did not believe that future events could be reliably predicted using it.  Kepler also made a statement that he disliked "nourishing the superstition of fatheads" referring to astrology.   

    While in Graz two important things happened in Kepler's life, both in 1597.  The first was the publication of his first book.  The book had a long Latin title, but the short version of the title was Mysterium Cosmographicum.  This would translate roughly as "The Cosmic Mystery" or "The Secret of the Universe."  I'll say more about this book below.  The second important thing in Graz was Kepler's marriage (at age 24) to a young woman named Barbara Muller.  Barbara Muller, though only 23, had been married twice before to husbands that both died and she had one daughter.  Johannes and Barbara had a son (Heinrich) and then later a daughter named Susanna but both these children died. Political events also turned against them.

    A new ruler of inner Austria came to power, Ferdinand II.  He was educated by Catholic Jesuits and commenced a process of trying to force his territory back to catholicism.  This led to various unfair mistreatment of protestants and many protestants had to leave the region.  Protestant schools were closed.  Protestant parents had to have their children baptized by catholic priests.  Burials also were to be done by catholic priests.  The Kepler's daughter Susanna only lived about one month.  Kepler refused the catholic burial of his daughter and was heavily fined.  He also lost his teaching position.  In this series of events protestants did a number of actions that provoked the catholics.  This prompted the burning of many protestant books and banishment of many protestants from the region.  Kepler would not have done disrespectful actions like this, but he was told to become catholic or leave.  Johannes Kepler left with his wife and her daughter Regina.  His wife had inherited land which they also lost.  But he made an appeal and was allowed to return due to his position as mathematician.  Kepler developed somewhat of a reputation with some important catholic leaders as being almost theologically neutral because of being a mathematician.  There were also some catholic astronomers who respected Kepler and they may have been of some influence at times.........................

Quote from: Amo on Fri Dec 19, 2025 - 18:14:17What church exactly do you mean when you say the church? In any case, they did not get ideas of geocentrism from biblical teaching or doctrine, but by presumptions perhaps concerning statements in scripture they stretched at best to be instructive toward such an end. Nevertheless, a bible believing, Christian, YEC leaning, Protestant, scientist more firmly established the heliocentric model most accept today.

The "church" at that time was mostly the Roman Catholic Church.  And of course, they got the idea of geocentricism from their official interpretation of various passages in the Bible. I can provide some of those if you need or you can look them up online.  Obviously, even the RCC corrected that faulty interpretation eventually, but nevertheless, at the time of Galilee Galileo, the early 1600s, the RCC declared the concept of geocentricism to be biblical doctrine. It was a couple of centuries before the RCC officially recanted the doctrine.

Personally, I have never considered the Roman Church to be authentic biblical Christianity, but rather imperially established "Christianity". There have always been many Christians apart from her fold, which is why I asked what church you were speaking of. Of course our understanding of many things not specifically addressed in scripture has rightly changed according to the observable and testable sciences. Though a great deal still remains more faith based regarding the unobservable historical sciences which must rely upon certain assumptions concerning the theories proposed.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 21, 2025 - 11:00:42Personally, I have never considered the Roman Church to be authentic biblical Christianity, but rather imperially established "Christianity". There have always been many Christians apart from her fold, which is why I asked what church you were speaking of. Of course our understanding of many things not specifically addressed in scripture has rightly changed according to the observable and testable sciences. Though a great deal still remains more faith based regarding the unobservable historical sciences which must rely upon certain assumptions concerning the theories proposed.

What unobservable historical sciences are you referring to?

Those sciences which produce theories about the unobservable past, which necessitate certain presumptions about it, which cannot be avoided. Thereby demonstrating faith that their presumptions are correct. YEC's presume that what Holy Scripture simply states about six day creation, a global flood , and differing conditions before the flood, are the truth by faith in God's word. Deep time evolutionists either believe there is no God, think the creation and flood accounts are just myth, or do not mean what they appear to simply state. They place their faith in different presumptions. Though they try to call many of them facts. 

But we can see a lot of the past.  When you look at the sun, you see what happened on the sun about 8 minutes ago.  When You look at the center of the Milky Way. you see what happened there about 25,000 years ago. We can and have looked at what happened almost 13 billion years ago which was about 400,000 years after the Big Bang.

Now that is what the Natural Law of God is telling us.  God doesn't lie.  God hasn't deceived us with His Natural Law. And that is but one demonstration why your YEC interpretation of the Genesis creation account is wrong.

The greater part of what you referred to is in fact presumption. You, and we, do not know these things, but according to theories and presumptions regarding the present and past. Deep time evolutionary theories of origin are humanities best efforts and guesses to explain how it all came about without faith or belief that God did it as simply stated in Holy scripture. Built upon one of the scenarios I already outlined in one of my previous posts. Though they are not God, and were not there, and did not bring anything about, they presume they know without any doubt how it happened. Then pass their conjectures on as established facts, standing behind them as the progenitors of truth, though they continuously prove themselves wrong in their ever evolving deep time evolutionary theories.

So be it. The day is coming when all theories will be established or torn down by the one who does know the end from the beginning. Who brought all things into existence, and laughs at the supposed wisdom of fallen humanity.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

The natural man, and by extension those who say everything can only and must be explained by natural processes, are thereby confined to the wisdom of this world. Which according to Holy scripture is vanity.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 07:53:45The greater part of what you referred to is in fact presumption. You, and we, do not know these things, but according to theories and presumptions regarding the present and past. Deep time evolutionary theories of origin are humanities best efforts and guesses to explain how it all came about without faith or belief that God did it as simply stated in Holy scripture. Built upon one of the scenarios I already outlined in one of my previous posts. Though they are not God, and were not there, and did not bring anything about, they presume they know without any doubt how it happened. Then pass their conjectures on as established facts, standing behind them as the progenitors of truth, though they continuously prove themselves wrong in their ever evolving deep time evolutionary theories.

So be it. The day is coming when all theories will be established or torn down by the one who does know the end from the beginning. Who brought all things into existence, and laughs at the supposed wisdom of fallen humanity.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

The natural man, and by extension those who say everything can only and must be explained by natural processes, are thereby confined to the wisdom of this world. Which according to Holy scripture is vanity.

So according to you God's natural law is simply a set of man-derived theories.  I don't believe that but obviously you do.  Sad, terribly sad, given that they can be no other than God-established law.  Fundamental particles, Protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules and the laws that govern them are not mere man-invented concepts; they are real. The intellect that discovers them is God-derived and given to man.  But you continue to disparage all aspects of such intellect that does not follow your seriously flawed interpretation of His word and his unwritten teaching.

I personally think the fundamental YEC doctrine to be a serious detriment to the spreading and carrying through of a belief in the gospel of God, the power of God for salvation to the believer.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 07:53:45So be it. The day is coming when all theories will be established or torn down by the one who does know the end from the beginning. Who brought all things into existence, and laughs at the supposed wisdom of fallen humanity.

1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

The natural man, and by extension those who say everything can only and must be explained by natural processes, are thereby confined to the wisdom of this world. Which according to Holy scripture is vanity.

None of that which you quoted from 1 Corinthians has anything to do with knowledge and wisdom of the things of the natural world. That you try to assign them to such knowledge and wisdom is almost, of not actual, heresy. 

Now if you would like to enter into a discussion of the real meaning of those two passages I would welcome that, because clearly you at a loss to understand much if anything about it at all.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 09:04:35None of that which you quoted from 1 Corinthians has anything to do with knowledge and wisdom of the things of the natural world. That you try to assign them to such knowledge and wisdom is almost, of not actual, heresy.

Now if you would like to enter into a discussion of the real meaning of those two passages I would welcome that, because clearly you at a loss to understand much if anything about it at all.

I'm right here, along with any others interested. Tell us the real meaning, and exactly why it cannot be applied as I have.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 10:40:27I'm right here, along with any others interested. Tell us the real meaning, and exactly why it cannot be applied as I have.

God's word about creation does not contradict God's actions in creation.  His actions in creation are pretty well documented in the present conditions of His creation; not totally but getting better all the time.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 10:40:27I'm right here, along with any others interested. Tell us the real meaning, and exactly why it cannot be applied as I have.

With respect to 1 Corinthians 2, that entire chapter is Paul's statement and defense of his and the other apostles and prophets divinely inspired revelation. He differentiates between the natural man and the spiritual man.  Paul is the spiritual person.  You are the natural person. The revelation from Paul was divinely inspired.  None of your revelation, nor mine, is divinely inspired.

It is utterly foolish for you to think that you have the mind of Christ.

With respect to 1 Corinthians 3, that which is deemed there to be the foolishness of wisdom of this world deals with the subject of religion. God does not reject man's intelligence and wisdom in the fields of the natural functioning of the universe.  He gave man the ability to discover and use it.  The reason He demeans man's thinking and wisdom in the subject of religion because it cannot be discovered; rather, it can only be revealed by God.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 18:05:40God's word about creation does not contradict God's actions in creation.  His actions in creation are pretty well documented in the present conditions of His creation; not totally but getting better all the time.

His actions in creation are also documented in Holy Scripture, and He was and is capable of doing what it says, just like it simply states. You simply choose to look elsewhere.

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying,......
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.

What is it that you choose not believe, that God said the above words, or that He meant what they simply state?

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 24, 2025 - 18:28:50With respect to 1 Corinthians 2, that entire chapter is Paul's statement and defense of his and the other apostles and prophets divinely inspired revelation. He differentiates between the natural man and the spiritual man.  Paul is the spiritual person.  You are the natural person. The revelation from Paul was divinely inspired.  None of your revelation, nor mine, is divinely inspired.

It is utterly foolish for you to think that you have the mind of Christ.

With respect to 1 Corinthians 3, that which is deemed there to be the foolishness of wisdom of this world deals with the subject of religion. God does not reject man's intelligence and wisdom in the fields of the natural functioning of the universe.  He gave man the ability to discover and use it.  The reason He demeans man's thinking and wisdom in the subject of religion because it cannot be discovered; rather, it can only be revealed by God.

You do err. Pauls testimony contradicts your above reasoning.

Rom 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

God's law and commandments are holy and spiritual, we are not. I am not telling you what I think as a natural man, I am telling you and others what God's law and fourth commandment conclusively state. Which Paul himself declared are spiritual, and rightly so, since they proceeded out of the mouth of God who is spirit. You deny that which God spoke out of his own mouth, and Paul testified was of the spirit, in favor of that which you choose by observing the natural world and universe. Calling this spiritual I suppose, while denying the Spiritualness of God's very word.

Jhn 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.


The word, law, and commandments of God who is a Spirit, are the truth.

Jhn 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying,......
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.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Dec 25, 2025 - 20:16:41You do err. Pauls testimony contradicts your above reasoning.

None of that has anything to do with 1 Corinthians 2 and 3.

And as far as the rest of your post it is, once again, not what God said about creation, but rather your interpretation of what God said about creation.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Dec 26, 2025 - 04:55:28None of that has anything to do with 1 Corinthians 2 and 3.

And as far as the rest of your post it is, once again, not what God said about creation, but rather your interpretation of what God said about creation.

It is exactly what 1 Cor. 2 is all about. The wisdom of God which is revealed by the Holy Spirit of God by way of the Holy Scriptures of God, in contrast to the wisdom of humanity apart from God and His word. What you believe is based upon the supposed wisdom of humanity completely apart and separate from any testimony in the word of God or his law, which are without question of the Spirit of God. Concerning things of the unobservable deep past, which no scripture addresses but to a contrary nature regarding such. It therefore can only be of the wisdom of this world, having no support or even suggestion from Holy Scripture.

Meanwhile, you deny that God did not simply state what Scripture declares He specifically and audibly spoke to all of Israel, and wrote for them in tables of stone twice. That He created the world and all in it, in six days. As though this simple statement which backs up the literal application of the six day creation account in Genesis, should be interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what it simply states. In that which has been concluded by the supposed scientific observations or wisdom of this world, claiming deep time scenarios in direct contradiction to rapid six day creation.

What you believe is the very definition of what Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3. The supposed wisdom of sinful humanity in relation and or contradiction to the revelations of the Spirit of God in Holy scripture.

1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

Deep time evolutionary scenarios contradict the very foundations of Holy Scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Rejecting the biblical teaching that God created everything good, and finished, without need of constant evolving to something better. Also rejecting the very reason we all need salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. In that death was the result of sin, as taught throughout the entirety of Holy Scripture. It was not and is not part of that which God designed or intended by way of countless deaths in the processes of evolution, taught by the supposed wisdom of the deceived "scientists" of this world.

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Dec 28, 2025 - 10:56:06It is exactly what 1 Cor. 2 is all about. The wisdom of God which is revealed by the Holy Spirit of God by way of the Holy Scriptures of God, in contrast to the wisdom of humanity apart from God and His word. What you believe is based upon the supposed wisdom of humanity completely apart and separate from any testimony in the word of God or his law, which are without question of the Spirit of God. Concerning things of the unobservable deep past, which no scripture addresses but to a contrary nature regarding such. It therefore can only be of the wisdom of this world, having no support or even suggestion from Holy Scripture.

I wonder what you think about electromagnetism.  I have searched the scriptures for any support or even a suggestion about that, but I haven't found any. So, according to you that must be based upon the supposed wisdom of humanity completely apart and separate from any testimony in the word of God or his law, which are without question of the Spirit of God. Obviously, it must just plain wrong.

What a complete joke.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Dec 28, 2025 - 14:02:50I wonder what you think about electromagnetism.  I have searched the scriptures for any support or even a suggestion about that, but I haven't found any. So, according to you that must be based upon the supposed wisdom of humanity completely apart and separate from any testimony in the word of God or his law, which are without question of the Spirit of God. Obviously, it must just plain wrong.

What a complete joke.

A perfect example of the games mostly Christian evolutionists play. As though YEC's would or do deny observable, tested, and proved scientific data, because they deny purely theoretical science based upon that which has not and cannot bro observed. Your above point addresses nothing, being built upon an imaginary premise. Just like evolutionary theory regarding unobservable events and conditions of the deep past, which are also built upon imaginary and as YEC's see it, faulty premise'.

Just because there are scientific realities which the bible does not address, doesn't mean what scripture plainly states about that which is presently unobservable, is wrong or must only be of symbolic or allegorical significance. Needing fully human interpretation according to what we may only, naturally observe. Which as we have gone over continuously already, requires a great deal of presumption regarding the unobservable past. No such joke as you suggest exists anywhere but in your own closed mind. So be it.

Quote from: Amo on Tue Dec 30, 2025 - 11:28:02A perfect example of the games mostly Christian evolutionists play. As though YEC's would or do deny observable, tested, and proved scientific data, because they deny purely theoretical science based upon that which has not and cannot bro observed. Your above point addresses nothing, being built upon an imaginary premise. Just like evolutionary theory regarding unobservable events and conditions of the deep past, which are also built upon imaginary and as YEC's see it, faulty premise'.

Just because there are scientific realities which the bible does not address, doesn't mean what scripture plainly states about that which is presently unobservable, is wrong or must only be of symbolic or allegorical significance. Needing fully human interpretation according to what we may only, naturally observe. Which as we have gone over continuously already, requires a great deal of presumption regarding the unobservable past. No such joke as you suggest exists anywhere but in your own closed mind. So be it.

Light emitted from the sun eight minutes ago is observable.  Light emitted from the center of the Milky Way 25,000 years ago is observable.  Light emitted from the universe 13+ billion years ago is observable.  The current expanding of the universe is observable. The speed of light is observable. The decay rates of radioactive elements are observable. The constancy of God's natural law is observable. On and on and on.  Those are not simply purely theoretical science.  They are "observable, tested, and proved scientific data" that the YEC deny.

And that because of the refusal to accept the Hebrew word "yom" to mean something other than a 24-hour period of time or the Hebrew word "erets" to mean something other than the entire planet earth.

And it is even worse.  It is a refusal to accept what God has revealed from heaven.  Paul said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:19-20). Now Paul said that of ungodly and unrighteous men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, but it is no less so to even believers who suppress the truth demonstrated by God that is revealed from the heavens, which God said, "declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa 19:1).

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Dec 31, 2025 - 05:50:11Light emitted from the sun eight minutes ago is observable.  Light emitted from the center of the Milky Way 25,000 years ago is observable.  Light emitted from the universe 13+ billion years ago is observable.  The current expanding of the universe is observable. The speed of light is observable. The decay rates of radioactive elements are observable. The constancy of God's natural law is observable. On and on and on.  Those are not simply purely theoretical science.  They are "observable, tested, and proved scientific data" that the YEC deny.

And that because of the refusal to accept the Hebrew word "yom" to mean something other than a 24-hour period of time or the Hebrew word "erets" to mean something other than the entire planet earth.

And it is even worse.  It is a refusal to accept what God has revealed from heaven.  Paul said, "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Rom 1:19-20). Now Paul said that of ungodly and unrighteous men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, but it is no less so to even believers who suppress the truth demonstrated by God that is revealed from the heavens, which God said, "declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa 19:1).

No YEC's deny the observations about light you stated above. We simply do not believe that God is or was restricted by the laws of nature and universe which we now observe. And correspondingly, His creation of the universe and or world, need not have taken the deep time scenarios such suggest to those of us trapped within the box of God's laws for the world and universe. Deep time Christian evolutionists choose to believe that He was, and therefore must come up with theories restricting His creation to deep time scenarios. Again, it is a matter of faith.

God has stressed the point of His six day creation in Holy scripture about as much as could be expected pertaining to truth. Establishing it in Genesis and memorializing it by the sanctification of the seventh day. Then confirming the six literal day creation for His chosen people again when speaking and writing the Ten Commandments for His people. Then stressing it again and again for them, and even punishing them for not observing it. Then teaching its proper observance and declaring Himself Lord of the Sabbath through Christ Jesus our Lord when here as one of us. I'm not sure what more He could do to prove His self declared point of a six day creation.

Now regarding the decay rates of radio active elements, perhaps you would find the articles at the following links of interest.

https://www.icr.org/content/radiohalos-natures-tiny-mysteries

https://www.robertvgentry.com/reports/rcn-1977-mystery-of-the-radiohalos.pdf

Of course as usual, certain faith based presumptions regarding conditions and time scenarios must be made by either side of the issues involved in all scientific theorizing in relation to the unobservable past.

As far as your quotes from Romans and Psalms, YEC's are not the ones disconnecting those quotes from the conclusive statement of the fourth commandment of God. Or other scripture backing this commandment spoken by the mouth of God himself to humanity, and written with his own finger twice in tables of stone. As deep time evolutionary theory most obviously must. 

Quote from: Amo on Wed Dec 31, 2025 - 10:21:00No YEC's deny the observations about light you stated above. We simply do not believe that God is or was restricted by the laws of nature and universe which we now observe. And correspondingly, His creation of the universe and or world, need not have taken the deep time scenarios such suggest to those of us trapped within the box of God's laws for the world and universe. Deep time Christian evolutionists choose to believe that He was, and therefore must come up with theories restricting His creation to deep time scenarios. Again, it is a matter of faith.

God has stressed the point of His six day creation in Holy scripture about as much as could be expected pertaining to truth. Establishing it in Genesis and memorializing it by the sanctification of the seventh day. Then confirming the six literal day creation for His chosen people again when speaking and writing the Ten Commandments for His people. Then stressing it again and again for them, and even punishing them for not observing it. Then teaching its proper observance and declaring Himself Lord of the Sabbath through Christ Jesus our Lord when here as one of us. I'm not sure what more He could do to prove His self declared point of a six day creation.

Now regarding the decay rates of radio active elements, perhaps you would find the articles at the following links of interest.

https://www.icr.org/content/radiohalos-natures-tiny-mysteries

https://www.robertvgentry.com/reports/rcn-1977-mystery-of-the-radiohalos.pdf

Of course as usual, certain faith based presumptions regarding conditions and time scenarios must be made by either side of the issues involved in all scientific theorizing in relation to the unobservable past.

As far as your quotes from Romans and Psalms, YEC's are not the ones disconnecting those quotes from the conclusive statement of the fourth commandment of God. Or other scripture backing this commandment spoken by the mouth of God himself to humanity, and written with his own finger twice in tables of stone. As deep time evolutionary theory most obviously must. 

So now, should I post all the articles (and books) on the subject of radioactive decay and dating methods using radioactive decay?  Here again, for every "expert" you can produce to argue against radiometric dating methods, I can produce twenty, thirty, or a hundred experts to argue for it.  I think I know which of all those you will bother to read.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Jan 01, 2026 - 04:42:22So now, should I post all the articles (and books) on the subject of radioactive decay and dating methods using radioactive decay?  Here again, for every "expert" you can produce to argue against radiometric dating methods, I can produce twenty, thirty, or a hundred experts to argue for it.  I think I know which of all those you will bother to read.

It doesn't matter if you post a million of them, since they will all likely have to make the same presumptions regarding the unobserved past ages. None of which no doubt, take into account the major changes both Holy Scripture and even certain observable evidences suggest have taken place.

https://www.danielarter.com/blog/assumptions-of-science

Article below from link above.

QuoteAssumptions of Science

The majority of modern scientists unapologetically champion a worldview in which they claim to perform scientific experimentation without the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views. This worldview is termed naturalism and carries the connotation of being a methodology of science that is only empirical and rejects supernaturalism. However, despite the claim of naturalism being only empirical and free from the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views, there are several presuppositions that are assumed by naturalistic scientists and are needed for naturalists to do any sort of scientific endeavor; and these presuppositions essentially constitute a semblance of faith. Because of the presuppositions associated with naturalism, it is better to treat naturalism not as an objective science, but rather as a worldview through which science is done. Naturalism is simply another worldview, which influences the scientific endeavors that an adherent participates in, just like any other worldview.

Philosophical Assumptions of Science

When dealing with scientific endeavors, naturalistic scientists assume their methodology is based on only empiricism, but even in making the assumption that their methodology is based on only empiricism requires making epistemological assertions that cannot be proven empirically. For instance, the naturalist assumes that it is possible to obtain knowledge empirically or through human senses and experiences. The issue is that this assumption cannot be proven through any empirical or naturalistic means, but rather relies on the presupposition that humans can obtain knowledge through empirical means or through human senses and experiences. Logically, the argument is nonsensical—science relies on empirical and naturalistic assumptions proven through experience; however, there's no empirical or naturalistic way of proving the validity of human experience for knowledge.

Likewise, while making the assumption that naturalism is the proper worldview for science there is a correlating assumption that every human sense or experience is completely reliable for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Just like the primary assumption of empiricism being sufficient for the gaining of knowledge through experience or human sense, the assumption that human senses and experiences are reliable cannot be empirically or even philosophically proven. Even when considering a survey of western philosophical ideas, it is evident that the reliability of human senses has been doubted throughout its history, which makes the foundations of naturalistic science suspect. If the validity of human senses and empirical knowledge is in and of itself unreliable or questionable then anything derived exclusively from empirical study is logically just as unreliable or questionable.

Ontologically, naturalism makes an assumption dealing with the nature of being that ties in with naturalism's epistemological assertions, particularly in the area of theories concerning origins. Naturalism assumes that matter has always been the way that it is experienced today. All naturalists assume that the general nature of being today is how matter and life has always been, but since there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this claim it again casts doubt on the naturalistic worldview, which emphasizes the ability to make determinations based on empirical methodology or human senses. In addition, from an ontological perspective, naturalism assumes and asserts the independence of the universe that essentially exists for no teleological purpose. Not only does naturalism assume that the matter of all being is consistent from before recorded history, but all matter in a naturalistic worldview gives the appearance of the surrounding universe existing without any sort of force or being holding all things together.

An Evaluation of Naturalism's Assumptions

With some understanding of the presuppositions and assumptions used by naturalistic scientists, it is clear that the naturalistic worldview is not consistent within itself. A naturalist cannot assert to believe in a worldview in which only particles and energy exist and then make the epistemological and ontological claims that a naturalistic worldview needs in and of itself to exist. The moment that the naturalistic worldview appeals to the ability to trust human senses or to make determinations based on human reason is the moment that the naturalist steps away from being purely empirical to placing their trust in faith or a faith-like substance. The moment that naturalism makes assumptions based on assertions not visible or able to be sensed empirically, it loses to ability to state that it is a worldview that seeks knowledge only in what is sensed.

In addition, naturalists lose the ability to make statements concerning ontological issues because of the inability to empirically prove or validate the statements at hand. Since the ability to observe matter over significant amounts of time is impossible, it is impossible to assert with confidence that matter has stayed the same since before recorded history. Likewise, there is no empirical way to determine whether all matter is held together simply on its own volition or if matter is held together through a different means, or by a different means. Both ideas require a faith-like substance if it does not constitute faith in and of itself.

While the inconsistency of the naturalistic worldview is not an argument to completely disregard naturalism, it does provide sufficient proof as to naturalism's inability to be completely objective in matters of scientific discovery. Since naturalism asserts its ability to be objective as its primary reason for its usage in scientific discovery, the fact that it does rely on faith or some faith-like substance calls into question the objectivity of anyone who adheres to or affirms naturalism as their primary worldview.

From a biblical worldview perspective, the philosophical presuppositions or assumptions of naturalism inherently contradict Scripture. Concerning naturalistic epistemology, the Bible as special revelation from an unseen being who interacts with the seen world is already contrary to a purely naturalistic and empirical worldview. Likewise, the ability to gain wisdom from a God who gives generously to anyone who asks assumes the ability to gain knowledge beyond the means of human means or reason (Jas 1:5). In addition, concerning the clear teaching of the depravity of man throughout Scripture and common experience concerning the unreliability of human senses, it seems to reason that the empirical senses of man could be tricked into thinking or feeling something that simply is not true. Concerning naturalistic ontology, the Bible is clear that everything became something from nothing by the very Word of God (Gen 1-2), which clearly contradicts the most common naturalistic theory for the origin of all things—the evolutionary theory. The creation of all matter ex nihilo shows that matter has not always been in the same manner of existence as it is now, nor has it existed in and of itself.

Conclusion

Considering the clear contrasts between a naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview, one would be hard-pressed to see any legitimate reasons to combine both worldviews. Rather, the clear differences ought to cause a Christian to be wary of naturalism's clearly anti-Christian ideology while still being able to interact with the theories of naturalism in an intellectual manner. The reality is that many unbelievers and some Christians are already so influenced by naturalism and its assertion to be only empirical despite the clear faith needed to believe naturalistic ideas, which makes naturalism no more than another mere worldview, which influences scientific endeavors and other issues concerning epistemology and ontology.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 02, 2026 - 19:38:28https://www.danielarter.com/blog/assumptions-of-science

Article below from link above.

None of that is dealing with God's natural law on the functioning of the universe He created.  Instead, it is addressing the author's version of some naturalistic worldview which may have little to do with God's natural law or any current scientific thinking.

The author's opening statement, "The majority of modern scientists unapologetically champion a worldview in which they claim to perform scientific experimentation without the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views" is patently false. Scientific experimentation is almost always planned and conducted according to preconceived notions to either confirm or deny a specific theory; that is the purpose.

What we have in that article is one more writer, like you, who fails to understand that any and all supernaturalism is completely outside of the realm of the physical sciences.  It cannot be formulated, tested, or evaluated. 

Even so, it is obviously the author's intentions of insinuating his own religious ideology and philosophical views into a scientific discussion, a flagrant violation of any scientific endeavor.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 02, 2026 - 19:24:17It doesn't matter if you post a million of them, since they will all likely have to make the same presumptions regarding the unobserved past ages.

Unobserved past ages? Amo, are you really that dense?  In the study, for example, of ice cores in Greenland, it is past ages that is being observed.   True, it isn't watching the snow falling in past ages that produced the ice layers, but it is the viewing results of past ages. In the study of the fossilized remains of past plants and animals, it is past ages that is being observed. Again, it isn't watching the plants or animals becoming imbedded in the substance they are found and watching the process of fossilization happen, but it is observing the past.

When I walk into the kitchen and find broken bits of a glass on the floor, I don't need to have seen it happen to know that someone or something caused the glass to fall to the floor and break.  I would not usually assume that someone spread pieces of a broken glass on my floor.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jan 03, 2026 - 06:51:01None of that is dealing with God's natural law on the functioning of the universe He created.  Instead, it is addressing the author's version of some naturalistic worldview which may have little to do with God's natural law or any current scientific thinking.

The author's opening statement, "The majority of modern scientists unapologetically champion a worldview in which they claim to perform scientific experimentation without the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views" is patently false. Scientific experimentation is almost always planned and conducted according to preconceived notions to either confirm or deny a specific theory; that is the purpose.

What we have in that article is one more writer, like you, who fails to understand that any and all supernaturalism is completely outside of the realm of the physical sciences.  It cannot be formulated, tested, or evaluated. 

Even so, it is obviously the author's intentions of insinuating his own religious ideology and philosophical views into a scientific discussion, a flagrant violation of any scientific endeavor.

Not everything I post is addressing you and or your personal views. Which views leave quite a bit unexplained concerning God's actual involvement or not.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jan 03, 2026 - 07:09:41Unobserved past ages? Amo, are you really that dense?  In the study, for example, of ice cores in Greenland, it is past ages that is being observed.  True, it isn't watching the snow falling in past ages that produced the ice layers, but it is the viewing results of past ages. In the study of the fossilized remains of past plants and animals, it is past ages that is being observed. Again, it isn't watching the plants or animals becoming imbedded in the substance they are found and watching the process of fossilization happen, but it is observing the past.

When I walk into the kitchen and find broken bits of a glass on the floor, I don't need to have seen it happen to know that someone or something caused the glass to fall to the floor and break.  I would not usually assume that someone spread pieces of a broken glass on my floor.

I know you do and will of course continue to ignore the assumptions which have already been addressed concerning both ice cores and fossils on this thread over the years. That does not mean that they do not exist, but within your own mind. Both ice cores and fossils can and have been easily attributed to young earth scenarios by simply applying different assumptions to their formations and existence. As faith itself is the core issue between us, as I have and will continue to point out.

You could of course give your best guesses as to how the glass on your floor ended up there. Nevertheless, assuming how it got there is just that, assuming. Apparently in this scenario, you are already assuming that a bunch of preexisting complex and designed realities are already in place. With the designers of such, involved in what caused the evidence you are examining. Just like YEC's view the creation and flood events, as scripture simply states them. Things created and designed by God, exhibiting masses of evidence pointing toward global catastrophism, according as scripture teaches regarding the creation and flood events.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jan 04, 2026 - 08:25:53I know you do and will of course continue to ignore the assumptions which have already been addressed concerning both ice cores and fossils on this thread over the years.

I haven't ignored those assumptions any more than the assumptions that you, the YEC, have made concerning ice cores and fossils.  I have simply weighed both and decided that the assumptions made by the YEC are not realistic by any measure of what is known.  The only defense of such assumptions is that they agree with your faulty interpretation(s) of a couple of words in Genesis.