Christian Forums

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Jan 04, 2026 - 12:43:55I 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.

While dating ice cores requires a certain amount of assumption on the part of both YEC's and deep time evolutionists, certain observable facts about fossils and fossil formation do not. Fossils are formed by rapid events of preservation. Most often under catastrophic conditions either on a very large scale, or possibly very small and or even individual scale for the creature being fossilized. No deep time scenarios therefore, are necessary to the processes of fossil formation. To the contrary, slower processes of fossilization as described in the past, are far less likely to occur due to natural processes of decay and consumption.

This is not necessarily a problem for deep timers who simply defer to a great many such catastrophic events along the way of their deep time assumptions. Nor is it a problem for YEC's as rapid formation fits our assumptions very well. Mass extinction level fossil graveyards on the other hand, and a great many there are, of course lend very good credence to YEC theories. So also does the fact that most fossils are observably formed in watery or muddy conditions, and or pyroclastic flows, both of which were phenomenon associated with the global flood of scripture.

The best conditions for fossilization are not assumptions but observable and testable science. The cause of the innumerable fossils which exist, is where assumptions according to one's faith are made. It is hard to imagine the formation of the extraordinarily large chalk or coal deposits we find, coming about from anything but a global catastrophe.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jan 04, 2026 - 17:45:18While dating ice cores requires a certain amount of assumption on the part of both YEC's and deep time evolutionists, certain observable facts about fossils and fossil formation do not. Fossils are formed by rapid events of preservation. Most often under catastrophic conditions either on a very large scale, or possibly very small and or even individual scale for the creature being fossilized. No deep time scenarios therefore, are necessary to the processes of fossil formation. To the contrary, slower processes of fossilization as described in the past, are far less likely to occur due to natural processes of decay and consumption.

This is not necessarily a problem for deep timers who simply defer to a great many such catastrophic events along the way of their deep time assumptions. Nor is it a problem for YEC's as rapid formation fits our assumptions very well. Mass extinction level fossil graveyards on the other hand, and a great many there are, of course lend very good credence to YEC theories. So also does the fact that most fossils are observably formed in watery or muddy conditions, and or pyroclastic flows, both of which were phenomenon associated with the global flood of scripture.

The best conditions for fossilization are not assumptions but observable and testable science. The cause of the innumerable fossils which exist, is where assumptions according to one's faith are made.

The problem here is that YEC's don't have any method for the dating of fossil remains.  They simply proclaim their belief in a 6000-year-old universe and then declare that any fossils must be of plants or animals that lived sometime since then. It is actually worse than that since, the YEC invariably assign all fossilization to be the result in one way or another to the flood of Noah which occurred about 4500 years ago.

None of their discussions have anything really to do with the dating of anything. None of their discussions have anything to do with science in any sense whatever in spite of their using the word. Every article on fossils by a YEC is a ruse, including your response here.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Jan 04, 2026 - 17:45:18It is hard to imagine the formation of the extraordinarily large chalk or coal deposits we find, coming about from anything but a global catastrophe.

It is not hard at all.  The explanation of the process of the formation of coal is a straightforward and logical explanation using well understood and demonstrated science.

Ah, now we have arrived back to your default position. Scientific theories and observations may only correctly be applied to presumed deep time scenarios according to deep time evolutionary world view and faith. And certainly is above questioning and or critical examination by those who would approach science from different perspectives. As though real science should be above scrutiny unto being proved, kind of like a religious faith more than established facts, as it were.

You may choose to ignore very real problems and presumptions easily observed and observable to all who care to acknowledge such regarding the dating methods applied by deep timers, none of the rest of us though, are bound by such self imposed blinders. And as a matter of observable fact, no one has observed or demonstrated any kind of logical process of slow deep time accumulations of coal or chalk the sheer depth and size of which we can and do all observe. If we simply care to do so. Theories regarding such, are at best far less likely scenarios than that such huge uninterrupted or eroded deposits were formed rapidly.

https://www.evolutionisamyth.com/dating-methods/rapid-carbonization-indicate-coal-deposits-may-have-formed-very-quickly/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteRAPID CARBONIZATION INDICATE COAL DEPOSITS MAY HAVE FORMED VERY QUICKLY

Rapid carbonization challenges evolutionary time scales regarding the formation of coal. Coal is found sandwiched between rock layers thought to be millions of years old yet it maybe quite young.

Carbonization is a process where an organic substance such as bread, a leaf, an insect, or even an animal is destructively distilled into a carbonized image, through a process called pyrolysis. This process is considered the most important step in the coal making process of all fossil fuels under the earth. These processes have been shown to occur rapidly.  Such rapid carbonization radically challenges the modern position that fossil fuels are all tens of thousands to millions of years old.

https://sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/carbonization

The observed makeup of the world's immense coal beds does not fit the millions-of-years peat swamp model.  Instead it points to rapid accumulation of plant debris through catastrophic global water deposition.  Experiments demonstrate it takes as little as a few days to turn buried plant debris into coal, and produce oil from coal and organic debris. "

https://answersingenesis.org/store/product/recent-rapid-formation-coal-oil/?sku=30-9-674

If we accepted the traditional view of coal formation, we wouldn't be able to see the tree rings in a lump of coal...

"Even in bituminous coal, we can still see the basic heterogeneous structure of plant cells.  Random polycondensation does not occur, but rather selective preservation of the original structure."

One problem with studying how wood converts to coal is that the reactions take place over an extremely long period," said Hatcher, who is an associate professor of fuel science and geosciences at Penn State. When trying to duplicate those chemical reactions in the laboratories, he added, "We are faced with comparing something that occurs over a billion years with something modern."

"Researchers used to believe that the lignin molecule synthesized in the laboratory by a random polymerization was the same as that occurring in nature, but this may not be true," said Hatcher. "If we use a different model for lignin, one that is more ordered in the form of a helical structure, we may have to modify how we think of the chemical composition of coal."

PennState University "Changing Wood into Coal", Sally Kuzemchak https://news.psu.edu/story/140956/1994/06/01/research/changing-wood-coal

From several hundred fossil trees, the 53 best-preserved specimens were selected and investigated in detail by measuring 2,081 tree rings in individual sequences of up to 77 rings.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031018217300974

https://answersresearchjournal.org/chalk-upper-cretaceous-deposits-flood/

Quote below is from link above, where the entire article may be viewed.

QuoteAbstract

Thick chalk deposits exist in several parts of the world, including Europe, Australia, and the USA. The bulk of this chalk is considered to belong to what is referred to as the "Upper Cretaceous" period.

Geologists working within a framework of uniformitarianism (or actualism) claim that they result from millions of years of accumulation of coccoliths. If we are to take the new understanding of the age of the earth from RATE studies seriously, then it is necessary to explain the chalk by mechanisms which do not involve such long timescales. Snelling (1994) attempted to explain the chalk deposits within a timescale of a few days, so that chalk could be considered as part of the visible evidence for the Noachian Flood. Tyler (1996) then tried to show that the model proposed by Snelling was not tenable and described how chalk had to be interpreted as a post-Flood deposit, but within a short timescale.

This document shows two things. First, that the certain features of the "Upper Cretaceous" period correspond closely with the biblical account of the Noachian Flood around day 150. Second, that uniformitarian explanations for "chalk" are inadequate to explain their deposition, reworking, and geomorphology and that only by considering the rapid events in the middle of the Noachian Flood can their deposition and characteristics be explained. En passant we make two additional discoveries, viz (i) that the concept of the geological column is not robust over small distances, and (ii) that there is independent support to the RATE studies that show that the earth is young.

A consequence of this geoscientific study is that geology is a powerful visible witness to the testimony of the Bible, and such facts should therefore be used in evangelism. Specifically, the real fossil record, rather than the constructed geological column, disproves evolution. The geoscience also shows that active promotion of what was commonly known as the European Recolonization Model (or its variants where the bulk of the strata are judged to be "post-Flood") to explain geology was ill-founded.

You may of course continue to believe that science is limited to your and others narrow definitions, which supports only their views. None of the rest of us are subject to such high mindedness though, but within the minds of those composing such limited views themselves.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 08:53:27The observed makeup of the world's immense coal beds does not fit the millions-of-years peat swamp model.  Instead it points to rapid accumulation of plant debris through catastrophic global water deposition.  Experiments demonstrate it takes as little as a few days to turn buried plant debris into coal, and produce oil from coal and organic debris. "

Just how much coal has been found after any observed flood in record history? 

Actually there are no laboratory experiments that even point to a catastrophic global water deposition, let alone the formation of coal from such a deposition.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 11:23:36Just how much coal has been found after any observed flood in record history? 

Actually there are no laboratory experiments that even point to a catastrophic global water deposition, let alone the formation of coal from such a deposition.

You are correct about no recent flood events observed to form coal deposits. Since neither the floods we can and or have observed demonstrate such, nor do the suggested slow processes of deep timers on any such scale as we see at all. A logical conclusion therefore, involves catastrophism on levels we have never seen. Such as of course, the global flood, and the massive burial and redistribution of plant and animal life we see all over the planet. By the consequent break up and redistribution of the surface of this earth. Laying down also the very even sediment layers we see across entire continents and even oceans.

To the contrary of your above claims regarding coal formation, we can and have created coal under the exact conditions of extreme heat, pressure, and water a global flood would have created. Not only coal, but we can also create oil and even diamonds in similar manner. This is apart from the fact that we observe rapid formation of oil right now, in deep areas of the ocean where volcanic lava flow, vegetation, and the intense pressure of countless tons of water are producing it.

It is the same story with very many things deep timers insist took ages and ages to produce. They have been proved to be produced rapidly under the right conditions. All of which conditions would have been provided in an event of global flood such as that described in Holy Scripture. Choosing to ignore these testable and or observable facts because they do not fit the narrative of one's own theory, is certainly not good unbiased scientific practice. And of course, casts serious doubts upon the minds of those who are not willing to just take another's word for what actually is or is not scientific fact.

The bottom line is simple. Deep time scenarios simply are not necessary to the existence of what we presently observe. Especially when faith in a Creator and intelligent design are considered. Or the global flood the Holy Scriptures describe, which would have created the very conditions which have been scientifically proved could easily bring about much of what we observe. Including the very things we are discussing. Which you simply choose to deny. 

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03You are correct about no recent flood events observed to form coal deposits. Since neither the floods we can and or have observed demonstrate such, nor do the suggested slow processes of deep timers on any such scale as we see at all. A logical conclusion therefore, involves catastrophism on levels we have never seen. Such as of course, the global flood, and the massive burial and redistribution of plant and animal life we see all over the planet. By the consequent break up and redistribution of the surface of this earth. Laying down also the very even sediment layers we see across entire continents and even oceans.

And you accuse me of assumptions to support my version of things.  Do you not realize the massive assumptions needed to support your YEC version of things, starting with a global flood.  And adding to that is the assumption that such a non-observed flood even could produce layer after layer of the necessary material deposits. And the that doesn't even begin to reach the ridiculousness in the assumption of massive plate tectonics occurring as a result of that imagined flood just 4500 years. There is no rational scientific evidence of any of that.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03To the contrary of your above claims regarding coal formation, we can and have simulated coal under conditions of extreme heat, pressure and water a global flood would have created. Not only coal, but we can also create oil and even diamonds in similar manner. This is apart from the fact that we observe rapid formation of oil right now, in deep areas of the ocean where volcanic lava flow, vegetation, and the intense pressure of countless tons of water are producing it.

Of course the are laboratory simulations that can produce such things as coal, oil, and diamonds in the lab. We can produce oil from CO₂ and H₂.  The Germans produced oil from Coal in WWII.  How would you suggest we get that buried under the surface of the earth at depths to 5000 feet or more?  Laboratory simulations of such processes are not representative of what happened naturally.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03It is the same story with very many things deep timers insist took ages and ages to produce. They have been proved to be produced rapidly under the right conditions. All of which conditions would have been provided in an event of global flood such as that described in Holy Scripture. Choosing to ignore these testable and or observable facts because they do not fit the narrative of one's own theory, is certainly not good unbiased scientific practice. And of course, casts serious doubts upon the minds of those who are not willing to just take another's word for what actually is or is not scientific fact.

First, neither you nor anyone else has the slightest idea of what your imagined global flood would produce.  There is not a single actual observation of anything close to a global flood. So all you have is pure conjecture of results of a purely conjectured flood. Moreover, that conjectured flood would not have produced the temperatures necessary.  Probably just the opposite.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03The bottom line is simple. Deep time scenarios simply are not necessary to the existence of what we presently observe.

The deep time scenarios are indeed necessary to produce the conditions in nature that are simulated in the laboratory.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03Especially when faith in a Creator and intelligent design are considered.

There is no requirement for faith in a creator to produce the laboratory simulations that you are talking about.  And the designer in such instances are the lab technicians.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 12:47:03Or the global flood the Holy Scriptures describe, which would have created the very conditions which have been scientifically proved could easily bring about much of what we observe. Including the very things we are discussing. Which you simply choose to deny.

Neither the absolute massive quantity of starting material nor the conditions required to produce the temperatures would be available from a flood 45oo years ago.

Amo, as I have stated elsewhere and probably here sometime in the past.  I don't object to anything that you want to believe. Whether right or wrong, it will not affect the opportunity given by God for salvation.  You can teach and preach whatever religious beliefs you wish with YEC compatriots.  I don't care.  I do care when you try to suggest such religious belief is science and try to get it taught in educational institutions as science.  It is not science.  It is religion, in fact, a particular form of religion.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 11:23:36Just how much coal has been found after any observed flood in record history? 

Actually there are no laboratory experiments that even point to a catastrophic global water deposition, let alone the formation of coal from such a deposition.

How many world-wide floods have we had since the one Moses experienced? 

Science as posited by mankind never has the answers completely figured out so blind faith in dating methods is just that, blind.  And it always means, no matter what the adherents of it say when using it to determine their position that they eschew the Word of God and replace it with their own thinking.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Wed Jan 07, 2026 - 23:03:13How many world-wide floods have we had since the one Moses experienced? 

Science as posited by mankind never has the answers completely figured out so blind faith in dating methods is just that, blind.  And it always means, no matter what the adherents of it say when using it to determine their position that they eschew the Word of God and replace it with their own thinking.

Moses didn't experience any world-wide flood. And I would argue no one else, including Noah, hasn't experience any world-wide flood either.

Science isn't posited by mankind. Science is discovered by mankind.  What is discovered is the natural law established by God in creation.  God is the one who established the speed of light and all that results from that.  God is the one who established the decay rates of the unstable atomic nuclei of the various materials. That is not posited by mankind.  That is discovered by mankind.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Jan 08, 2026 - 02:53:44Moses didn't experience any world-wide flood. And I would argue no one else, including Noah, hasn't experience any world-wide flood either.

Science isn't posited by mankind. Science is discovered by mankind.  What is discovered is the natural law established by God in creation.  God is the one who established the speed of light and all that results from that.  God is the one who established the decay rates of the unstable atomic nuclei of the various materials. That is not posited by mankind.  That is discovered by mankind.

The mistake of deep time evolutionists is in thinking that God is bound by the natural laws He put in place, within which only, we live and are restricted. As Holy Scripture testifies over and over and over again. Regarding one miraculous supernatural event after another and another. Making it therefore illogical for professed bible believers to insist that God could not have, or did not work outside of the bounds we presently observe, and therefore incorrectly extrapolate and theorize under faulty pretense from the get go. Many choosing to ignore even very pointed and specific testimony in Holy Scripture concerning this exact problem.

2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 16:19:40And you accuse me of assumptions to support my version of things.  Do you not realize the massive assumptions needed to support your YEC version of things, starting with a global flood.  And adding to that is the assumption that such a non-observed flood even could produce layer after layer of the necessary material deposits. And the that doesn't even begin to reach the ridiculousness in the assumption of massive plate tectonics occurring as a result of that imagined flood just 4500 years. There is no rational scientific evidence of any of that.
Of course the are laboratory simulations that can produce such things as coal, oil, and diamonds in the lab. We can produce oil from CO₂ and H₂.  The Germans produced oil from Coal in WWII.  How would you suggest we get that buried under the surface of the earth at depths to 5000 feet or more?  Laboratory simulations of such processes are not representative of what happened naturally.

YEC's are not the ones saying any of the things you are describing above happened naturally. Deep time evolutionists are the ones stuck in the, it had to happen naturally mode. The larger part of these things developed under catastrophic conditions and events, you simply reject the plain statements of Holy Scripture which testify that God Himself supernaturally caused these events. We do not observe, nor have we ever observed catastrophic events of a magnitude to create the intercontinental layering of sediment and or massive burials of plant, animal, or ocean life we presently observe. You simply reject all models of such provided by YEC's in accordance with biblical testimony because they will not fit your natural only worldly stance. Even though catastrophism itself is ever more acknowledged and accepted even among deep time evolutionists today. As the evidence according to the greater knowledge we now  have, disqualifies older slow processes forming such as we see, promulgated by deep timers of the past. This is your choice. 

QuoteFirst, neither you nor anyone else has the slightest idea of what your imagined global flood would produce.  There is not a single actual observation of anything close to a global flood. So all you have is pure conjecture of results of a purely conjectured flood. Moreover, that conjectured flood would not have produced the temperatures necessary.  Probably just the opposite.

I call bull*%#$!. What other event would create greater heat, pressure, burial, and watery muddy conditions the world over? Which were most obviously involved in the formation of most of what we are discussing. Of course it is my faith in exactly what Holy Scripture simply states which I build upon. Just like it is your faith in what deep time evolutionary scientists write and simply state, which you choose to build upon. Neither of us have or could have observed any of the things we are discussing, as they are both faith based. Though you continuously deny that your faith is just that.

QuoteThe deep time scenarios are indeed necessary to produce the conditions in nature that are simulated in the laboratory.
There is no requirement for faith in a creator to produce the laboratory simulations that you are talking about.  And the designer in such instances are the lab technicians.
Neither the absolute massive quantity of starting material nor the conditions required to produce the temperatures would be available from a flood 45oo years ago.

There you go again, demonstrating unbounded hubris. As though you know what could or could not be possible during a massive upheaval of the entire planet, completely transforming it into another state altogether from within and without. Get a grip man. Your lab technician arguments of course go both ways. YEC's believe God was directly responsible for the conditions which brought about that which we can presently observe, Evolutionists believe deep time, natural laws, and some catastrophism did so. The lab techs of each working to prove their own world views, or faiths.

QuoteAmo, as I have stated elsewhere and probably here sometime in the past.  I don't object to anything that you want to believe. Whether right or wrong, it will not affect the opportunity given by God for salvation.  You can teach and preach whatever religious beliefs you wish with YEC compatriots.  I don't care.  I do care when you try to suggest such religious belief is science and try to get it taught in educational institutions as science.  It is not science.  It is religion, in fact, a particular form of religion.

Everything you just said above, is just as applicable to your religious faith concerning the unobservable deep time evolutionary historical theories regarding the unseen past. You just refuse to accept the proper amount of faith your own have, regarding theses issues as well. So be it.

Quote from: Amo on Mon Jan 12, 2026 - 09:34:56YEC's are not the ones saying any of the things you are describing above happened naturally. Deep time evolutionists are the ones stuck in the, it had to happen naturally mode. The larger part of these things developed under catastrophic conditions and events, you simply reject the plain statements of Holy Scripture which testify that God Himself supernaturally caused these events.

There is absolutely no indication that any such catastrophic event as a global flood even happened.  The plain statement of Holy Scripture is that it rained forty days and forty nights.  I believe and accept that the rain in that case was supernatural.  There is really no indication that it was a global condition.

Quote from: AmoWe do not observe, nor have we ever observed catastrophic events of a magnitude to create the intercontinental layering of sediment and or massive burials of plant, animal, or ocean life we presently observe.

We have perfectly good explanations of what has occurred without any appeal to the catastrophic event of a global flood that the YEC have conjured up.

Quote from: AmoYou simply reject all models of such provided by YEC's in accordance with biblical testimony because they will not fit your natural only worldly stance. Even though catastrophism itself is ever more acknowledged and accepted even among deep time evolutionists today. As the evidence according to the greater knowledge we now  have, disqualifies older slow processes forming such as we see, promulgated by deep timers of the past. This is your choice.

I have not read of any non-YEC type who has acknowledged and/or accepted anything even approaching a global flood.

Quote from: AmoI call bull*%#$!. What other event would create greater heat, pressure, burial, and watery muddy conditions the world over? Which were most obviously involved in the formation of most of what we are discussing. [/quote[
Call it what you wish.  But floods do not generate heat.  Even the bottom of the oceans is cold except at specific locations where heat is coming from deep within the earth; that is, it is a direct heat that melts rock into magma comes from Earth's hot interior.

Quote from: AmoOf course it is my faith in exactly what Holy Scripture simply states which I build upon.

All of that is based upon the faulty translation/interpretation of the Hebrew word erets which can mean country, earth, field, ground, land, nations, way, wilderness, world.

Quote from: AmoJust like it is your faith in what deep time evolutionary scientists write and simply state, which you choose to build upon. Neither of us have or could have observed any of the things we are discussing, as they are both faith based. Though you continuously deny that your faith is just that.

Scientists do not simply state anything.  The study of geology is quite extensive and is the work of thousands of men and women who have made it their life's work.  And you are right, I certainly do not have a geological expertise, but I do have enough scientific background to be able to read and comprehend a lot of what they publish and present.

Quote from: AmoThere you go again, demonstrating unbounded hubris. As though you know what could or could not be possible during a massive upheaval of the entire planet, completely transforming it into another state altogether from within and without. Get a grip man.

Right again.  I do not know what could or could not be possible during a massive upheaval of the entire planet. And neither do you.  But I am convinced in what little I have read that there is no real evidence of any massive upheaval of the entire planet that you profess to have happened. There are, on the other hand, a massive amount of information and data to substantiate the explanation given by the community of geologic scientists.

Quote from: AmoYour lab technician arguments of course go both ways. YEC's believe God was directly responsible for the conditions which brought about that which we can presently observe, Evolutionists believe deep time, natural laws, and some catastrophism did so. The lab techs of each working to prove their own world views, or faiths.

The laboratory of most geologists is the world itself.

Quote from: AmoEverything you just said above, is just as applicable to your religious faith concerning the unobservable deep time evolutionary historical theories regarding the unseen past. You just refuse to accept the proper amount of faith your own have, regarding theses issues as well. So be it.

Nothing that I have posted in these arguments has anything to do with any religious faith. I do have a deep-seated trust in God's natural law which is at the very source of the geological science upon which it is based. It is too bad that you refuse to accept what God shows us in and with His natural law.

https://www.popsci.com/science/new-evolution-theory/

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis in article is mine.

QuoteStudy claims life tried to evolve 1.5 billion years earlier than we thought

The controversial paper suggests a proto-slime made its (failed) debut 2.1 billion years ago.

Most experts believe complex life on Earth can be traced back roughly 635-to-800 million years ago to the Cambrian Period—but some researchers say they now possess evidence that dramatically rewrites the evolutionary narrative. According to an international group led by Cardiff University's Ernest Chi Fru, the planet's very first (yet ultimately unsuccessful) simple single-celled organisms arrived 2.1 billion years ago, a full 1.5 billion years earlier than the current prevailing theory. Unsurprisingly, however, such a major assertion is already being met by skeptics.

Evidence of the planet's first microbial life is dated 3.7 billion years ago, but it took at least another 1.3 billion years for oxygen-based cyanobacteria to arrive. Current fossil records indicate some of the earliest forms of animal life, like sea sponges, showed up around 800 million years ago. Meanwhile, researchers understand the Cambrian Period's increase in marine phosphorus and seawater oxygen levels 635 million years ago spurred the evolutionary track leading to today's biodiversity. But Chi Fru's team now argues that at least one other attempt at life occurred in the distant past. The theory, presented in a study published July 25 in the journal Precambrian Research, points to alleged fossils and rock formations located in present-day Gabon as proof.

"The availability of phosphorus in the environment is thought to be a key component in the evolution of life on Earth, especially in the transition from simple single cell organisms to complex organisms like animals and plants," Chi Fru said in an accompanying statement on July 29.

According to Chi Fru, these necessary phosphorus and oxygen levels arose from rare underwater volcanic activity that followed the collision and suturing of the Congo and São Francisco cratons into a single body. A subsequently created, shallow inland sea then provided a nutrient-rich testing environment for the earliest trials in complex biological evolution.

"This created a localized environment where cyanobacterial photosynthesis was abundant for an extended period of time, leading to the oxygenation of local seawater and the generation of a large food resource," Chi Fru argued. "This would have provided sufficient energy to promote an increase in body size and greater complex behavior observed in primitive simple animal-like life forms such as those found in the fossils from this period."

But don't expect complexity from the two-billion-year-old deep sea evolutionary experiments—according to the team, these life forms resembled slimy, single-cell mold cultures that reproduced with spores. And while these brainless organisms were allegedly capable of small movements, in the end the inland water body's isolation and resultant nutrient deficiency ensured the proto-slime's eventual extinction.

Such a bold claim is not without its skeptics. As the BBC noted on July 28, many experts don't think the alleged "fossils" cited by Chi Fru's team are actually fossils at all, but simply masses of (albeit still-unexplained) geological formations. Others, meanwhile, aren't opposed to the possibility that instances of higher nutrient levels occasionally occurred as far back as 2.1 billion years ago, but remain unconvinced it was enough to begin complex life.

Either way, critics say much more evidence will be needed before they shift their evolutionary timelines back 1.5 billion years.

The first problem and or presumption of the above article is found in the title itself. As though non life or conditions which do not support any life, could actually try to evolve life, let alone anything. Nevertheless, all religious faiths are built upon certain assumptions. Why would the religions of Secular Humanism or Atheistic deep time random chance simple to complex evolution be any different?

Next problem would of course be the presumption that there was at one time a form of simple life, which led to more complex life. We have not and do not observe any simple forms of life. Though original Darwinian Evolutionists thought cells were fairly simple at one time, we know today that they are extremely complex. It seems evolutionary scientists should actually demonstrate or prove the existence of truly simple forms of life, if they wish to continue using that term so frequently or matter of factly.

This is of course not to address the issue brought forth on this topic many times over, of the continuous observations regarding complexity further and further back in time. Such being highly suggestive of complexity from the beginning by obvious design. As we continue to find now regarding even the entire universe. As our ability to observe the universe suggestedly further and further back in time has demonstrated. Regardless of the truthfulness or not of the claims of this article.   

https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/theory-of-increasing-complexity-fails-the-test-of-science/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteTheory of Increasing Complexity Fails the Test of Science

The history of life on Earth shows a trend towards greater complexity, functionality, and diversity, in stark contrast to the general trend of nature. What are evolutionists to do when their theory runs afoul of the laws of nature? Why, propose a bold new law of nature! Trouble lies in store, however, for their brave venture.

Science writer Philip Ball summarizes a new research idea in his article for Quanta Magazine, "Why Everything in the Universe Turns More Complex."

A fundamental flaw in reasoning seems to have led the researchers to a fundamentally flawed proposal. A worldview or philosophical basis can be judged based on how well or how poorly its axioms correspond with reality. The presuppositions leading to this proposed new law are voiced by one researcher, a mineralogist:

"I concluded that talking about life versus nonlife is a false dichotomy," [Robert] Hazen said. "I felt there had to be some kind of continuum — there has to be something that's driving this process from simpler to more complex systems."

A Fundamental Difference

If a student of nature fails to discern a fundamental difference between living organisms and non-living matter, it follows that he might be likely to propose ideas that run counter to established science.

An interdisciplinary team of researchers "have proposed nothing less than a new law of nature, according to which the complexity of entities in the universe increases over time with an inexorability comparable to the second law of thermodynamics."

It's ironic that they liken the effect of their proposed new law to the "inexorability" of the second law of thermodynamics, since this law shipwrecks their bold notion before it even gets off the ground. Other scientists have also questioned the proposal.

[The new] hypothesis, formulated by ... Hazen and the astrobiologist Michael Wong of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C., along with a team of others, has provoked intense debate.

And well it ought to! Their hypothesis attempts to steer a course of nature in opposition to the second law. If any law of physics is regarded as inviolable and fundamental to our universe, it is the law of increasing entropy described as the second law of thermodynamics. The prominent 20th-century British astronomer and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington has remarked:

If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

A Classic Case

Hazen and Wong claim their new proposal for the "inexorable" increase of functional complexity finds a way around the second law. Says Hazen:

"But it seems like there's a much more idiosyncratic pathway that the universe takes. We think it's because of selection for function — a very orderly process that leads to ordered states."

They seem to have stumbled into a classic case of confusion between case in point and case under investigation. Rather than realizing the implausibility of sudden natural increases in the functional complexity of living systems, as seen in the historical appearance of eukaryotic cells and the Cambrian explosion, they point to these as "Exhibit A" in support of their new theory.

However, the second law can't be circumvented by any arrangement of intermediate steps, nor by the invention of a new law of nature. The unmentioned but devastating problem with their proposal is just that the second law prohibits the outcome that their proposal requires — functionally complex systems. Neither evolution, nor their proposed new law can generate information-rich functionality, and they can't select what doesn't exist.

Vain and Naïve

To champion this proposal with the jibe that "the basic laws of physics are not 'complete'" is a vain and naïve hope. The naïveté lies in mistaking the incompleteness of our physical understanding of every aspect of nature (a valid statement) to mean that nature can violate its laws in ways that are already understood (a mistaken notion of nature).

To make my point clearer, consider two examples from discoveries in physics over the last century. The first relates to the introduction of Einstein's special theory of relativity in 1905. His new theory predicted several remarkable phenomena that substantially departed from classical Newtonian physics, which had guided our understanding of mechanics for more than two centuries.

Another example arose from the theory of quantum mechanics, developed in the first few decades of the 20th century. Quantum theory completely overturned the concept of a fundamental particle, such as an electron, being a small, solid bit of matter. Particles actually behave like waves and not just lumps of mass. Energy and momentum states of confined particles exhibit quantization or discrete values, rather than the classically expected continuum of possible values.

A Surface Acquaintance

A person having a surface acquaintance with science might use these examples to bolster the notion that scientific "truths" are mere placeholders until the next bright idea comes along. But that's not the way it actually works. Any new proposal for a law of physics cannot contradict previously established laws in their realms of tested applicability.

Einstein's theory of relativity only noticeably modified Newton's laws of motion in the extreme instance of a relative velocity approaching the speed of light, for example, in high-energy particle accelerators. Every new formula in Einstein's theory that modifies familiar physics concepts, like the kinetic energy of a moving object, mathematically reduces to the old Newtonian formula when the velocity is small compared to the speed of light.
 
Einstein's new formulae are superfluous for the motion of everyday objects. Even the fastest space probe ever made moves so slowly compared to light that relativistic effects for its motion amount to less than one part in a million. So, it's no wonder that Newton's laws of motion are still applicable for all but the most exacting calculations of macroscopic motion.

Similarly, the radical quantum behavior of fundamental particles only manifests in the realm of the extremely small. Quantum effects in the macroscopic realm where we live are utterly unnoticeable. So, neither relativity nor quantum theory proved Newton "wrong." These theories of modern physics only addressed new phenomena that show up in the "frontier land" beyond the limits of everyday observations. One could use relativistic mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a satellite in orbit around the Earth, but it would be unnecessary and mathematically cumbersome, and it would only yield solutions that are practically indistinguishable from "good old" Newtonian mechanics.

A Careless Misunderstanding

The proposal of a law of increasing functional complexity as a universal law of nature doesn't just modify the fundamental second law of thermodynamics in some unexplored niche of extreme parameter space. It purports to upend the essential dictates of mainstream science. Rather than deserving applause as a brave new proposal in support of evolutionary theory, such an idea serves only as an example of a careless misunderstanding of reality and the nature of the scientific enterprise.

The one notable contribution these researchers make, however, is to draw attention to the fact that living systems represent quantum jumps in the increase of functional complexity. Science has already shown that nature is incapable of bringing this about without an intelligent mind serving as the source of the information associated with increasing specified complexity. A straightforward application of logic suggests that if nature can't produce life, and yet life abounds on Earth, then a source transcending nature produced the proliferation of life we uniquely find on Earth. And there's a proposal that doesn't conflict with any established law of physics.

Looks like this article properly addresses another leap of faith some evolutionists are ready to make, in order to defend apparent problems with their theory. In creating a new apparently unobservable law, to explain unobserved simple to complex claims of the theory of evolution.

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

Yet another good and informative video from Answers In Genesis Canada.

Quote from: 4WD on Mon Jan 05, 2026 - 04:58:58The problem here is that YEC's don't have any method for the dating of fossil remains.  They simply proclaim their belief in a 6000-year-old universe and then declare that any fossils must be of plants or animals that lived sometime since then. It is actually worse than that since, the YEC invariably assign all fossilization to be the result in one way or another to the flood of Noah which occurred about 4500 years ago.

None of their discussions have anything really to do with the dating of anything. None of their discussions have anything to do with science in any sense whatever in spite of their using the word. Every article on fossils by a YEC is a ruse, including your response here.
It is not hard at all.  The explanation of the process of the formation of coal is a straightforward and logical explanation using well understood and demonstrated science.

The Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles all instructed that a person is to place their belief and trust in faith in Christ.  Not a flawed scientific theory or methododology.  I'm not going to use the Deep Time vs. YEC dichotomy that you and Amo seem to wield like a cudgel in an attempt to invalidate the others beliefs but it is both amusing and sad to see repeated, over and over, ad nauseam.  The simple fact is you place your faith in the word of God or you place it in some human-contrived thing that is going to take you down the garden path.  It is as simple as that.  I don't need carbon dating and allegory and Big Bang theory to take God at His word.  And no one else should need those things either, or rely heavily on them.

Quote from: Cobalt1959 on Fri Jan 16, 2026 - 23:39:10The Prophets, Jesus and the Apostles all instructed that a person is to place their belief and trust in faith in Christ.  Not a flawed scientific theory or methododology.  I'm not going to use the Deep Time vs. YEC dichotomy that you and Amo seem to wield like a cudgel in an attempt to invalidate the others beliefs but it is both amusing and sad to see repeated, over and over, ad nauseam.  The simple fact is you place your faith in the word of God or you place it in some human-contrived thing that is going to take you down the garden path.  It is as simple as that.  I don't need carbon dating and allegory and Big Bang theory to take God at His word.  And no one else should need those things either, or rely heavily on them.

Do you believe in the "human-contrived" electromagnetic theory that powers the computer you used to produce that post?  I assume that you do.  If so, does that take away from your faith in the word of God?  I don't believe it does and I don't think you believe it does.  You have presented a false choice.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 16, 2026 - 14:30:21https://scienceandculture.com/2025/04/theory-of-increasing-complexity-fails-the-test-of-science/

Quoted article below from link above.

Looks like this article properly addresses another leap of faith some evolutionists are ready to make, in order to defend apparent problems with their theory. In creating a new apparently unobservable law, to explain unobserved simple to complex claims of the theory of evolution.

Looks like the author of this article doesn't really understand thermodynamics. His assessment of a Theory of Increasing Complexity is truly screwed up.

The hydrogen in the sun when converted to Helium through nuclear fusion becomes more complex. That is perfectly in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a theory of increasing complexity. Of course, entropy is increased as well, but there is nothing wrong with that; it is all quite consistent with God's thermodynamics.

Clearly, that author failed any attempt to pass his beginning course in thermo.

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jan 17, 2026 - 04:22:41Looks like the author of this article doesn't really understand thermodynamics. His assessment of a Theory of Increasing Complexity is truly screwed up.

The hydrogen in the sun when converted to Helium through nuclear fusion becomes more complex. That is perfectly in line with the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a theory of increasing complexity. Of course, entropy is increased as well, but there is nothing wrong with that; it is all quite consistent with God's thermodynamics.

Clearly, that author failed any attempt to pass his beginning course in thermo.

https://reasons.org/team/eric-hedin

Quoted bio below from link above.

QuoteEric Hedin

Eric Hedin earned his doctorate in physics from the University of Washington and conducted post-doctoral research in experimental plasma physics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. He has taught physics and astronomy at Taylor University and Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana, and at Biola University in Southern California. Dr. Hedin currently travels and speaks with Dr. Rice Broocks (author of the book God's Not Dead) at God's Not Dead outreach events at universities around the country.

Biography

Dr. Eric Hedin is professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana. His research interests focused on computational nanoelectronics and higher-dimensional physics. Hedin developed and taught the Boundaries of Science course for six years at BSU's Honors College. In 2013, his course came under attack by a national atheist organization for allowing student discussions in class to consider evidence that nature is not all there is and that our lives have eternal meaning and value within a universe crafted with biocentric design. Based on Hedin's experience with this course, he wrote the recently published book, Canceled Science: What Some Atheists Don't Want You to See, highlighting scientific evidence that points to design.

Hedin served as professor of physics and chaired the department of chemistry, physics, and engineering at Biola University from 2019–2021. He now speaks at universities around the country at God's Not Dead Events, led by Dr. Rice Broocks. These evangelistic outreaches present evidence from science, philosophy, and history for God as Creator.

Hedin writes articles that highlight intelligent design for the Discovery Institute website, Science and Culture Today.

Clearly you could not be more wrong about the man's credentials, qualifications, and abilities. Does your reaction mean that you are a subscriber to the proposed new law of nature, to support the theory of evolution?

Quote from: Amo on Sat Jan 17, 2026 - 18:44:16https://reasons.org/team/eric-hedin

Quoted bio below from link above.

Clearly you could not be more wrong about the man's credentials, qualifications, and abilities. Does your reaction mean that you are a subscriber to the proposed new law of nature, to support the theory of evolution?

I stand by what I said. The sun at this very minute is tending toward increasing complexity.  It is also tending toward increasing entropy. That is fact. And it is not a new law of nature.  The entire universe has been tending toward increasing complexity.  It has also been tending toward increasing entropy.

A seed in the ground that grows into a tree has tended toward increasing complexity.  It has also tended toward increasing entropy. 

Quote from: 4WD on Sat Jan 17, 2026 - 18:54:41I stand by what I said. The sun at this very minute is tending toward increasing complexity.  It is also tending toward increasing entropy. That is fact. And it is not a new law of nature.  The entire universe has been tending toward increasing complexity.  It has also been tending toward increasing entropy.

A seed in the ground that grows into a tree has tended toward increasing complexity.  It has also tended toward increasing entropy.

Increasing chaos, and increasing complexity, are two very different things. Especially regarding increased functionality and or specified beneficial "evolutionary" development as the theory of, suggests. Surely increased complexity or chaos concurrent to increased entropy, deep time slow simple to complex evolutionary development, does not equal. As such of course is a self defeating process. Which as a matter of fact I do believe, would require highly complex and interacting systems from the beginning, to occur at all. Let alone increasingly over unfathomable deep time scenarios.

Perhaps you could provide a scenario in which increasing complexity and entropy could equal evolution from simple to complex over deep time unto the magnitude of that which we presently do observe.

Quote from: Amo on Tue Jan 20, 2026 - 10:12:36Increasing chaos, and increasing complexity, are two very different things. Especially regarding increased functionality and or specified beneficial "evolutionary" development as the theory of, suggests. Surely increased complexity or chaos concurrent to increased entropy, deep time slow simple to complex evolutionary development, does not equal. As such of course is a self defeating process. Which as a matter of fact I do believe, would require highly complex and interacting systems from the beginning, to occur at all. Let alone increasingly over unfathomable deep time scenarios.

Perhaps you could provide a scenario in which increasing complexity and entropy could equal evolution from simple to complex over deep time unto the magnitude of that which we presently do observe.

Evolution from simple to complex is increasing complexity.

The basic problem with the YEC view is that it places limits on God in denying God the ability to create a system which functions in any evolutionary manner. In doing so, the YEC, claiming to venerate and honor God end up doing just the opposite.  And that based upon bad interpretation of what God has said.

The pot calling the kettle black. We are both saying God did not do it the way each other thinks He did. YEC's just happen to agree with what Holy Scripture simply states regarding the matter. While evolutionists seek out their own understanding built upon their own theories regarding the evidence they can observe, and or theories they may extrapolate from said presently observed evidence, regarding such in relation to the unobservable past.

Continuously evolving their theory over time as they discover their previous theories which they often claim as facts were wrong. Or having to make adjustments according to new information which makes their older theories obsolete due to in sufficient information. As YEC's also make said adjustments when necessary.

I would be interested to know in what manner the sun is suggested to be becoming more complex. Can you recommend an article or link to such information.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Jan 21, 2026 - 09:06:45The pot calling the kettle black. We are both saying God did not do it the way each other thinks He did. YEC's just happen to agree with what Holy Scripture simply states regarding the matter. While evolutionists seek out their own understanding built upon their own theories regarding the evidence they can observe, and or theories they may extrapolate from said presently observed evidence, regarding such in relation to the unobservable past.

Continuously evolving their theory over time as they discover their previous theories which they often claim as facts were wrong. Or having to make adjustments according to new information which makes their older theories obsolete due to in sufficient information. As YEC's also make said adjustments when necessary.

What you fail [refuse] to understand is that if you would abandon your false interpretation that the day in Genesis is a 24-hour period in time, and instead treat it as indicated by the data and information provided by God, Himself, in His general revelation, the sequence of events established through science is in excellent agreement with God's description in Genesis.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Jan 21, 2026 - 09:06:45I would be interested to know in what manner the sun is suggested to be becoming more complex. Can you recommend an article or link to such information.

Do you seriously need an article to tell you that Helium, the end product of the fusion of Hydrogen in the sun, is more complex than Hydrogen? I would really hope that your knowledge of science is not that weak and limited.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Jan 21, 2026 - 09:39:48What you fail [refuse] to understand is that if you would abandon your false interpretation that the day in Genesis is a 24-hour period in time, and instead treat it as indicated by the data and information provided by God, Himself, in His general revelation, the sequence of events established through science is in excellent agreement with God's description in Genesis.

Yea I know. Never mind what God spoke as plain as day out of His own mouth to an entire nation, and wrote in tables of stone twice. Secular, atheistic, and deep time evolutionary minded professed Christians, will tell us all what God really meant with their divine insight as it were, about how it all came about and how long it took. Regurgitating this line of cr#&@% over and over again will not make it true or negate the plain and simple testimony of God Himself regarding the matter.

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.

Will you try to tell everyone that the word day or days wasn't meant to be taken literally in the above commandment spoken by God Himself? Or do you simply not believe His testimony above?

QuoteDo you seriously need an article to tell you that Helium, the end product of the fusion of Hydrogen in the sun, is more complex than Hydrogen? I would really hope that your knowledge of science is not that weak and limited.

Do you seriously believe that one incident produced by already extremely complex mechanisms in place, equals a new law that everything just naturally gets increasingly complex over time? If we can just all pull new natural laws out of our hats whenever necessary to save our pet theories, a lot more chaos is about to ensue. 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40408411/

Quoted material below from link above it.

QuoteComplexity myths and the misappropriation of evolutionary theory

Abstract

Recent papers by physicists, chemists, and geologists lay claim to the discovery of new principles of evolution that have somehow eluded over a century of work by evolutionary biologists, going so far as to elevate their ideas to the same stature as the fundamental laws of physics. These claims have been made in the apparent absence of any awareness of the theoretical framework of evolutionary biology that has existed for decades. The numerical indices being promoted suffer from numerous conceptual and quantitative problems, to the point of being devoid of meaning, with the authors even failing to recognize the distinction between mutation and selection. Moreover, the promulgators of these new laws base their arguments on the idea that natural selection is in relentless pursuit of increasing organismal complexity, despite the absence of any evidence in support of this and plenty pointing in the opposite direction. Evolutionary biology embraces interdisciplinary thinking, but there is no fundamental reason why the field of evolution should be subject to levels of unsubstantiated speculation that would be unacceptable in any other area of science.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 23, 2026 - 13:28:02Exo 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.

Will you try to tell everyone that the word day or days wasn't meant to be taken literally in the above commandment spoken by God Himself? Or do you simply not believe His testimony above?

That God designated the seventh 24-hour day for us as the sabbath day, a day of rest, does not restrict the "days" of His creation to be 24-hours.  The type/antitype relationship still holds even if the six creation days are billions of years as we measure time.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 23, 2026 - 13:28:02Do you seriously believe that one incident produced by already extremely complex mechanisms in place, equals a new law that everything just naturally gets increasingly complex over time? If we can just all pull new natural laws out of our hats whenever necessary to save our pet theories, a lot more chaos is about to ensue.

What in the world are you talking about.  Hydrogen was the first chemical, the first solid material, to appear in the cooling after the big bang.

Quote from: Amo on Fri Jan 23, 2026 - 13:28:02https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40408411/

Quoted material below from link above it.

I don't know what that article is actually talking about and I strongly suspect that you don't either.  But I suspect that most of it has to do with a scientific struggle of explaining how life originated.  And of course, since the origin of life is necessarily a creation it is quite beyond any scientific description.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jan 23, 2026 - 14:09:32That God designated the seventh 24-hour day for us as the sabbath day, a day of rest, does not restrict the "days" of His creation to be 24-hours.  The type/antitype relationship still holds even if the six creation days are billions of years as we measure time.

Such a presumption however, is just that. There being no indication anywhere in Holy Scripture at all, suggesting and or indicating that such a private interpretation is warranted. As though for some reason, what is simply stated absolutely cannot be true. As though God Himself was and or is not capable of creating in the manner He simply states and expresses to humanity which He created with intelligence and reasoning powers fully able to comprehend either concept. That is to say rapid literal six day creation, or slow deep time evolutionary creation. Evolutionists assume it could not have been done as simply stated and or that humanity was too dim to comprehend a very easily comprehendible mode of evolutionary deep time creation.

Neither of which is even suggested anywhere in Holy Scripture at all. To the contrary regarding humanity specifically, the creation account testifies that we were made in the image of God. Which it does not say about the rest of creation. Are we to ignore this distinction and assume that God was ever at any point like the creatures which have no reasoning powers? Again , this also would be pure presumption, with no bases or foundation in Holy Scripture at all. Blasphemy really.

QuoteWhat in the world are you talking about.  Hydrogen was the first chemical, the first solid material, to appear in the cooling after the big bang.

Once again, pure presumption and the natural hubris of fallen humanity. None of us, including yourself of course, knows or can know anything you just stated with any kind of certainty but one built upon hubris alone. Exactly the kind which Holy Scripture directly addresses.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

QuoteI don't know what that article is actually talking about and I strongly suspect that you don't either.  But I suspect that most of it has to do with a scientific struggle of explaining how life originated.  And of course, since the origin of life is necessarily a creation it is quite beyond any scientific description.

Yet this is exactly what the theory of evolution has always attempted to do. That is explain the creation of what we presently observe by slow deep time processes of development from simple to complex. Do you now deny that this is what the theory of evolution has claimed and or attempts to explain?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11348299/

Quoted article below from link above.

QuoteEvolution is not driven by and toward increasing information and complexity

Wong et al. (1) present a general theory of evolution that assumes that evolution is progress, via selection for increasing complexity.

The authors' undisguised anthropocentrism leads them to believe that humans are more complex, successful, and indicative of the general trends of evolution than any other example. Indisputably, the diversification of life includes major trends of cumulative integration and additive niche creation (e.g., refs. 2–4). However, there is no evidence that biotic evolution is progressive or globally directional or that relative simplicity is disadvantaged. "Simple" species such as bacteria are among the most "successful" (long-lasting lineages, largest share of biomass). "Complex" (multicellular, large, evolutionarily derived) species emerge and then regularly disappear in mass extinction events. There are many examples of ecosystems that do not maximize productivity, diversity, or other potential measures of complexity (temperate forests), as well as natural processes such as retrogressive succession that lead to reductions in all such measures.

The authors ignore low-complexity's pervasive distribution, arguing that absent selection for complexity it may locally decrease, though information should still increase. Most fundamentally, their underlying assumption that there is such a thing as "selection for" violates valid reasoning in evolutionary biology.

Wong et al. also propose "There exist selection pressures favoring systems...for novelty generation"; "The functional information of a system will increase.. if.. the system [is] subjected to selection for one or more functions"; "..possible configurations of the system are subjected to selection for the function of absorbing H2..." Evolutionary biologists understand "selection" as referring to the post hoc interpretation of a process that is nonagentive, non-goal-oriented, diffuse, and occurs via nonuniform nonsurvival/nonreproduction. Selection for, used literally as it is here, indicates that there are some agents who drive nature toward a goal. The authors claim that this agent is information, which drives evolution and selection for functions.

I posit that the evolution of complexity is not different from the evolution of any given trait or species. To argue otherwise is to claim that there are two different mechanisms of evolution. The emergence of, say, a particular beak shape is not environmentally predefined or preordained; it is not "selected for". In the same selective environment, two different beak shapes, corresponding to different local peaks of adaptation, can emerge in different lineages, from combinations of mechanisms including differential survival of more-adaptive variants, drift, and interactions such as modularity or plasticity constraining the direction of adaptive walks (5–9). Wong et al. may indeed reply that beak shapes cannot be selected for because they are too specific, whereas complexity, as an abstract property with myriad physical instantiations, is different. It should have been incumbent on them to clarify where, why, and how the mysterious transition between evolution as non-goal-oriented selection, and as goal-oriented selection, supposedly exists.

However, I understand the authors to be arguing for one unified evolutionary process, rather than two fundamentally different ones. I am sympathetic to Hazen's work on mineral evolution (10), but Wong et al. do not clarify a general understanding of evolution.

Amo, Is there a difference between God creating something and God making something? And when it says, God said "let there be", is that different from God creating or God making?

I am just curious what your thinking is about such things.

Quote from: 4WD on Tue Jan 27, 2026 - 05:30:20Amo, Is there a difference between God creating something and God making something? And when it says, God said "let there be", is that different from God creating or God making?

I am just curious what your thinking is about such things.

I don't know. It would seem so, from the account of creation, concerning the difference describing a more personal touch regarding humanity. Nevertheless, how He creates or makes something is what is beyond us, and of course should not be compared and or comprehended in comparison to how we make to create anything. Nor our extremely limited knowledge of how anything might be or have been brought about, compared to God's.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Quote from: Amo on Wed Jan 28, 2026 - 08:56:47I don't know. It would seem so, from the account of creation, concerning the difference describing a more personal touch regarding humanity. Nevertheless, how He creates or makes something is what is beyond us, and of course should not be compared and or comprehended in comparison to how we make to create anything. Nor our extremely limited knowledge of how anything might be or have been brought about, compared to God's.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So did God "create" light? Or did God "make" light out of electromagnetic radiation? 

What is the difference between God "making" man in Genesis 1:26 and God "creating" man in Genesis 1:27?

What does it mean in Genesis 3:19 where it says "you are dust and to dust you shall return", but Eve was made out of bone?  Did God literally make Adam out of dust? What does that literally mean?  Did God make a part of man and create another part?

You claim to accept the Genesis account as being a literal description.  But I don't know what that really means and I am not sure you do either.

And with that I think I will bow out of this discussion.  It is going nowhere and probably isn't of any interest to anyone else.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Jan 29, 2026 - 06:39:25So did God "create" light? Or did God "make" light out of electromagnetic radiation? 

What is the difference between God "making" man in Genesis 1:26 and God "creating" man in Genesis 1:27?

What does it mean in Genesis 3:19 where it says "you are dust and to dust you shall return", but Eve was made out of bone?  Did God literally make Adam out of dust? What does that literally mean?  Did God make a part of man and create another part?

You claim to accept the Genesis account as being a literal description.  But I don't know what that really means and I am not sure you do either.

And with that I think I will bow out of this discussion.  It is going nowhere and probably isn't of any interest to anyone else.

Again, as many times over, YEC's are not the ones trying to explain exactly how God did what He has stated He did, within the time frame He claims that He did it. This is the extremely speculative and theoretical work of deep time evolutionists. Which the word of God likens to vain imaginings of those who think they can figure out exactly how an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and all powerful God brought everything about. If they believe He did at all. This from the extremely limited knowledge we have concerning only that which we can see and or perceive, from within the box we have been placed within since the fall. YEC's believe some things must simply be believed by faith, concerning that which God has not yet chosen to fully reveal.

True enough, we do not seem to have convinced either of our own views for many years now. Though I did not start this thread just to argue with you or any other. But moreover, to provide a place to introduce people to the scientific views and very real questions and problems many including YEC's of course, have with the deep time scientific theory of evolution. Which is passed off by many as established fact. The views of those who are not supported by huge government grants, mainstream media, education, secular humanism, and or atheism, as evolutionists are.

God bless. 

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

Another good one from Answers in Genesis Canada.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Jan 29, 2026 - 09:44:26Again, as many times over, YEC's are not the ones trying to explain exactly how God did what He has stated He did, within the time frame He claims that He did it.

The YEC ignore what God shows us through His general revelation.  And in doing so, distort what God gives us in His special written revelation.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Jan 29, 2026 - 09:44:26True enough, we do not seem to have convinced either of our own views for many years now. Though I did not start this thread just to argue with you or any other. But moreover, to provide a place to introduce people to the scientific views and very real questions and problems many including YEC's of course, have with the deep time scientific theory of evolution.

You are not providing a place to introduce people to the scientific views.  If you did, you would provide all aspects.  As it is, you only provide a very limited view from a very few and a very narrow view and one that stands in contrast to the generally accepted scientific view.  In almost every aspect, for each one who holds to the YEC view, there are thousands upon thousands who reject that view.

Quote from: Amo on Thu Jan 29, 2026 - 09:44:26Again, as many times over, YEC's are not the ones trying to explain exactly how God did what He has stated He did, within the time frame He claims that He did it. This is the extremely speculative and theoretical work of deep time evolutionists. Which the word of God likens to vain imaginings of those who think they can figure out exactly how an infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and all powerful God brought everything about. If they believe He did at all. This from the extremely limited knowledge we have concerning only that which we can see and or perceive, from within the box we have been placed within since the fall. YEC's believe some things must simply be believed by faith, concerning that which God has not yet chosen to fully reveal.

True enough, we do not seem to have convinced either of our own views for many years now. Though I did not start this thread just to argue with you or any other. But moreover, to provide a place to introduce people to the scientific views and very real questions and problems many including YEC's of course, have with the deep time scientific theory of evolution. Which is passed off by many as established fact. The views of those who are not supported by huge government grants, mainstream media, education, secular humanism, and or atheism, as evolutionists are.

God bless.

WHY does evolution have to be named in the mix.

You were the one who posted this and it is good  food for thought.

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

I personally do not see the earth as 4.5 billion years old

but I can see the universe(s) being that old.

But certainly not any form of life.... because I do not believe in their explanation of various testing methods....

Quote from: Rella on Fri Jan 30, 2026 - 07:48:30WHY does evolution have to be named in the mix.

You were the one who posted this and it is good  food for thought.

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

I personally do not see the earth as 4.5 billion years old

but I can see the universe(s) being that old.

But certainly not any form of life.... because I do not believe in their explanation of various testing methods....

I am not sure the creation account is about the entire universe, or just our galaxy either. I lean toward galaxy, as there are so very many, which I presume support other life forms created by God as well. This is opinion though, not established by scripture.

Evolution is in the mix, because it is so predominant and basically forced upon everyone through pubic educational systems and other government institutions. As the most prominent suggested theory, it should of course be closely examined, tested, and even scrutinized, according to good scientific practice and policy.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri Jan 30, 2026 - 05:07:28The YEC ignore what God shows us through His general revelation.  And in doing so, distort what God gives us in His special written revelation.

Examples of what is ignored please. Disagreeing with evolutionary theories and or projections does not equal ignoring them.
 

QuoteYou are not providing a place to introduce people to the scientific views.  If you did, you would provide all aspects.  As it is, you only provide a very limited view from a very few and a very narrow view and one that stands in contrast to the generally accepted scientific view.  In almost every aspect, for each one who holds to the YEC view, there are thousands upon thousands who reject that view.

I call bull%*#@!. Only applicable when certain "sciences" so called are limited to the false parameters which many create to support their own views. Nor does popular belief or consensus, ever equal truth. According to scripture itself, the vast majority of humanity have been, are, and will continue to be deceived. Nevertheless, what scientific views exactly are YEC's neglecting?

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: