Creation scientists

[Amo]

Right.   It wasn't God who invented the doctrine of YE creationism.    That is a man-made example.

We see it happening everywhere.   As I mentioned earlier, if you knew what biological evolution is, you'd be more effective here.

Which of Mendel's principles do you think has been falsified?  Creationists are very confident in their abilities to tell us things God has not.

Well, yes.

Same old crap from you Barb, quoting single or half sentences for you to respond with the same junk already proved wrong several times over.

Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 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. 12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. 18 And all the people saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking: and when the people saw it, they removed, and stood afar off. 19 And they said unto Moses, Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die

God is the original YE creationist Barb, you simply deny His word, deal with it. Believe me, you will one day stand before Him to explain why you spent so much of your life denying His own spoken word and testimony recorded for us in His holy scriptures. Repent brother, or it will not be well with you on that day.

[Alan]

Believe me, you will one day stand before Him to explain why you spent so much of your life denying His own spoken word and testimony recorded for us in His holy scriptures. Repent brother, or it will not be well with you on that day.

Maybe one day it will be YOU that stands before Him explaining why you spent so much of your life preaching scripture of the Amo translation. Repent and deal with the fact that many do not agree with your dogma.

[The Barbarian]

God is the original YE creationist Barb,

He's the original evolutionist.    The evolution you see going on today, that's His creation.   YE is man's creation.

Believe me, you will one day stand before Him to explain why you spent so much of your life denying His own spoken word and testimony recorded for us in His holy scriptures. Repent brother, or it will not be well with you on that day.

That's an error, and one that hides the good news for you.   He doesn't care what you think of evolution.   Your salvation will depend on other things.   Jesus makes this very clear in Matthew 25.   Trust him, not man's doctrines.

Theology won't save you or condemn you.    An open heart to God and your fellow man will save you, if you act on it.   That's all that counts, when He separates the sheep from the goats.

[4WD]

Yes the scriptures do detail a global flood as I have conclusively demonstrated, though the term global flood itself is not found in scripture.

Not only does the Scriptures not use the term global flood, not even the concept of a global earth is found in scripture.  We have a pretty good picture of what was the ancients' view of the universe, including the earth, and that view is not really contradicted in the Scriptures; and it is certainly not a global earth traveling through space.

[Amo]

Maybe one day it will be YOU that stands before Him explaining why you spent so much of your life preaching scripture of the Amo translation. Repent and deal with the fact that many do not agree with your dogma.

I'll meet you there. God's word is not dogma, it is truth. If God will punish me for believing just what His word states, then He is not my God. If He gave us the Genesis account, and it really meant deep time simple to complex evolution  with an endless trail of death behind our development and creation, then He is not my God and I will gladly accept His disapproval. If He told us stories that are not true, then made a commandment to exalt that story and make us remember it, punishing many people for not observing that commandment, then He is not my God.

But no, His prophets and apostles did speak the truth, and His word is truth.

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.

The above words are God's words, they are simple and easy to understand. There is no Amo translation about them. No one who rejects the above simple and straight forward testimony is rejecting an Amo translation, they are rejecting the word of God.


Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. 49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Rev 14:6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, 7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

[Amo]

He's the original evolutionist.    The evolution you see going on today, that's His creation.   YE is man's creation.

That's an error, and one that hides the good news for you.   He doesn't care what you think of evolution.   Your salvation will depend on other things.   Jesus makes this very clear in Matthew 25.   Trust him, not man's doctrines.

Theology won't save you or condemn you.    An open heart to God and your fellow man will save you, if you act on it.   That's all that counts, when He separates the sheep from the goats.

God's commandments and word are not theology. Rejecting the truth of them will condemn all who do so. They will be left with nothing but strong delusion, which God Himself will send them.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Do you really think that you can create God in your own image by calling Him the original evolutionist. Repent, or you may very well burn in the lake of fire.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Psa 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Why will you, the creature, try to make your creator in your own image? There is no testimony in scripture anywhere concerning anything even remotely like evolution, only testimony which directly contradicts it. Yet here you are calling God the original evolutionist with not one word of scripture to back any such thing up, but simply because you desire it to be so. Do you really think that God will stand for His created beings just turning Him into whatever they wish against the testimony of His chosen prophets and apostles? Think again.

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.

Why will you perish in fire, for rejecting the plain testimony of the prophets, apostles, Peter above, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Repent, turn from man made fables and trust in the word of God.

[Amo]

Not only does the Scriptures not use the term global flood, not even the concept of a global earth is found in scripture.  We have a pretty good picture of what was the ancients' view of the universe, including the earth, and that view is not really contradicted in the Scriptures; and it is certainly not a global earth traveling through space.

Dodge and evade, you simply do not want to see, what you do not want to see. Nevertheless, scriptural testimony is quite clear. It will not change for you, or I, or anyone else. We will change our erroneous views regarding it, and or submit to its truths, or we will perish.

[Cobalt1959]

Not only does the Scriptures not use the term global flood, not even the concept of a global earth is found in scripture.  We have a pretty good picture of what was the ancients' view of the universe, including the earth, and that view is not really contradicted in the Scriptures; and it is certainly not a global earth traveling through space.

Then you aren't reading the right Bible:

Genesis 7:17-24  17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.  18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water.  19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.  20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.,  21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished--birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.  22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.  23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.  24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

I laugh every time some New Ager says it wasn't a flood of the entire Earth when the Bible quite clearly says it was.  You even go one step beyond that and introduce the false dichotomy that we are required to translate scripture according to early mankind's perceived knowledge rather that by what God was dictating to them.  That is, unless you believe the Bible isn't actually divinely inspired, which you would almost have to to take the road you are walking down.

[Alan]

I laugh every time some New Ager says it wasn't a flood of the entire Earth when the Bible quite clearly says it was.

We can all laugh if that's what you think creates truth. Did Joseph truly feed people from the entire world? I would assume it would have been quite the journey for inhabitants of South America.

"And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world."

[Jaime]

If all the high mountains even in the middle east were covered, it would be a far greater event than an isolated regional flood say in the Black Sea.

[Texas Conservative]

By faith some believe that the entire earth was flooded.  Others believe by faith that a retarded fish frog gave way to a monkey that gave way to humans.

[Amo]

By faith some believe that the entire earth was flooded.  Others believe by faith that a retarded fish frog gave way to a monkey that gave way to humans.

TC has such a way with words.

[Amo]

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/dinosaurs-flesh-wound-preserved-in-fossil-record

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Dinosaur's Flesh Wound Preserved in Fossil Record

Hadrosaur bones, courtesy U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Fossils, as we typically think of them, tell us about the death of an animal. The teeth, bones, shells, fragmented pseudopods and other weird and wonderful bits of carcass all only ever reflect one thing: a permanent geological limbo. These types of fossil are known as body fossils. The other major group of fossils, that are generally less common, less researched, less known about, but arguably more important for guiding our understanding of the history of life on Earth, are trace fossils. The study of trace fossils is called ichnology, and the fossils don't represent death; they represent life, behavior, activity. Often trace fossils are actually found in or on body fossils---anything from boring holes from bivalves on other bivalves, to bite marks on bones detailing a poor creature's last painful seconds as a living animal. Or, in this case, an ancient injury preserved on a dinosaur's skin. Dinosaur skin is one of the rarest treasures the paleontological record can reveal to us. We now have a pretty good idea about the texture and nature of dinosaur skin, thanks to a couple of exceptional "dinosaur mummies" and the occasional fragments of skin preserved not as a mold of skin impressed on the surrounding sediment but of the actual fleshy flesh. But even rarer than these spectacular glimpses are bits of dinosaur skin with trace fossils on them. In fact the history of the study of traces on dinosaur skin only goes back to 2008, when it was first noticed that a ceratopsian dinosaur, Psittacosaurus, had fossilized skin that showed signs of substantial trauma; that is, getting nommed on by a meat-eating dinosaur during predation. The study, however, missed half the story; there was no demonstration that the dinosaur was alive at the time of trauma, so it could have been a scavenging trace.

A patch of fossil skin showing a 1.3-inch long oblong area of healed skin trauma. Now evidence of trauma followed by healing has emerged, published in Cretaceous Research. This fossilized skin of the skull of hadrosaur Edmontosaurus annectens is more convincing evidence for a predator attack which the prey dinosaur survived. What the trace fossil reveals to us, then, is the story of a failed predation attempt on a dinosaur! Given the time and place (latest Cretaceous, Hell Creek Formation [formations are a type of geological unit], USA), the only likely candidate, based on the spacing of the tooth-induced traumas, would be the notorious Tyrannosaurus rex! Maybe big old T. rex wasn't such a badass hunting machine after all if it sometimes couldn't even take down a wimpy little hadrosaur. The scale-like structures you see on dinosaur skin are known as called tubercles, and resemble the polygonal desiccation cracks that you might see on a dried up mud flat (because we all investigate sedimentary structures when we're out, right..?) On one particular specimen though, this normal pattern has been disrupted by penetration marks and replaced with tissue where the skin has healed itself over time before fossilisation. Woah. There are two macro-structural indicators that this is a healed flesh wound. Firstly, there are a whole bunch of wrinkles radiating out from the amorphous center of impact. Secondly, the surrounding tubercles to the impact scar are smaller than the others, and arranged in a more chaotic manner, reflecting the odd way in which the skin healed itself. Both of these are characteristic features of healing in modern reptile skin, which is known to heal at a slower rate than mammals' skin. As such, these structures are strongly suggestive of a failed predation attempt, in which the lucky hadrosaur has managed to scuttle away to live another day. This study is actually a pretty cool one in illustrating both the scientific and communicative value of trace fossils. If this were just plain old boring (cough) dinosaur skin, we'd be able to tell, well, about dinosaur skin. Instead, due to the traces of dinosaur behavior present, we're able to conjure up the image of a T. rex and Edmontosaurus having a playground scrap, and then for some reason (speculate away!), the Edmontosaurus manages to leave with just a slight scratch and go back to spending all day eating---and poor T. rex is forced to either go hungry or vegetarian.

[Amo]

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Very interesting site regarding dinosaur tissue, carbon dating, and such.

[Amo]

Dated but interesting article concerning scientific censorship.

https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaur-dna-research-tale-wagging/

Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?

by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.*

Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community, however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior to publication--and thus be effectively censored from public access.

Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,1 dinosaur DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research) continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.

Dino DNA

An article published in Science in 1993 illustrates how and why dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored. "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype" by Virginia Morell stated that "several groups are racing to get the first DNA out of dinosaur bones, but other researchers say their efforts are taking attention away from the real scientific value of ancient DNA."

This article referenced then-recent findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:

Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone...when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"2

Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation? Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."

However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

Research Censorship

Evolutionary "damage control" is observed in the form of "chilling" (i.e., coerced) censorship of research, with severe consequences to those who "buck the system." Consider the research flow chart pictured below describing the process of extracting dinosaur DNA. Note steps 7 and especially 8. Why must the research results be dismissed if the DNA extract doesn't look like birds or crocodiles? The answer is evolutionary gatekeeping:

To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been contaminated.

That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know when they're on the right track, given that there are no living dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.4

In other words, only DNA research that provides dinosaur DNA sequences similar to those of birds and crocodiles is allowed. As the flowchart indicates, all other results are deemed anomalies that should be rejected as though they were known contaminants, like fungal genes. This approach is not observation-directed empirical research; this is assumption-driven, theory-dictated censorship--"science" falsely so-called.5

Coerced Spoliation of Evidence

This purposeful pattern of coerced concealment of the nonconforming DNA data from unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled "an anomaly" on the chart) involves what courtroom lawyers and judges call "chilling" coercion and "spoliation of evidence"--inducing the concealment (and eventual destruction) of embarrassing information in order to prevent one's opponent from using it at trial.

Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions the spoliators' motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence suggests that the spoliators' argument or theory would be weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of presumptive inference in law courts. In other words, if someone hides evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.6

A kindred rule to the foregoing...is that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the cause of the spoliator....The deliberate destruction of evidence gives rise to the presumption that the matter destroyed is not favorable to the spoliator.7

This shows that the civil law courts understand the importance of evidence spoliation--it points to a willingness to conceal or otherwise suppress truth in order to advance a specific cause. The name Arthur Andersen comes to mind, as this accounting firm's shredding of Enron documents hindered SEC investigators.8

Follow the Procedure, or Else

In suppressed dinosaur DNA research--which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed, dinosaur soft tissue discoveries--the same issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why? Because today's dinosaur DNA controversy in particular, and today's dinosaur "connective tissue" controversy in general, directly puts at issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live millions of years ago, or in much more recent history on an earth inhabited by humans--descendants of Adam and Eve?9

How will anyone really know what dinosaur DNA sequences look like until uncensored data from dinosaur bones are published for public scrutiny? And how will such data be published at all if "embarrassing" research results are routinely discarded as anomalous, simply because they didn't "look like chicken"? One way to acquire more reliable data in this case would be to repeat the DNA research across multiple labs, until consistent results emerge.

In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.

These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).

Interestingly, Schweitzer has never published any of her purported DNA research on dinosaur tissue, although she has published on tissue analyses and, recently, data on protein sequence. While the tissue analyses reported over the past decade are nearly impossible to dispute, this recently published dinosaur protein sequence from a T. rex came under extreme criticism and the data were highly questioned by peers as having been manipulated to produce close similarities with chicken and ostrich protein.11 Was this done as per the "paleontological theory and protocol" described in 1993?

Conclusion

The gatekeeping approach to ancient DNA research established as a protocol in 1993 is a product of dogmatic evolutionary theory. The 1994 results put the dogma to the test, with the result that:

Ancient DNA, known to be unstable, was extracted from "80 million-year-old" bone.
The sequence, though it showed evidence of decay, was no more bird-like than it was mammal-like.
The coerced suppression of the results by the evolutionary scientific community has dissuaded anyone else from publishing dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship "chills" empirical research, which prevents the public reporting of observable DNA sequences in order to insulate the larger story of particles-to-people evolution from cross-examination.

Where are the real scientists in dinosaur DNA research who refuse to kowtow to evolution's gatekeepers?

[DaveW]

That sort of scientific community "dogma" has been the bane of true science progress for the past several centuries.  When explorers first brought several Duckbill Platypus creatures from Australia, the scientists tried to forcibly rip the bill off to prove they were faked. Such an animal was not possible according to their dogma.

[Amo]

That sort of scientific community "dogma" has been the bane of true science progress for the past several centuries.  When explorers first brought several Duckbill Platypus creatures from Australia, the scientists tried to forcibly rip the bill off to prove they were faked. Such an animal was not possible according to their dogma.

I guess it is human nature to avoid topics which lead where we do not want to go. The Duckbill Platypus is quite the evolutionist nightmare. The number of discoveries casting serious doubts upon evolutions deep time simple to complex scenario, is ever on the rise. Continuing to be an evolutionist as knowledge continues to increase, means just not going to more and more places because of where all this new information leads. So be it.

[Amo]

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/study-ancient-tree-most-complicated-growth-mechanism-ever/

Study: Ancient Tree with "Most Complicated" Growth Mechanism Ever

The basic evolutionary story is straightforward: life evolves from simple to complex. But the fossil record increasingly does not support this simplistic view of earth's history. Complex organisms appear throughout the fossil record, often bursting onto the scene with no discernable ancestors in the rocks below. And a recent study of an ancient tree with a very complex and utterly unique growth pattern adds to this evolutionary puzzle.1

Meet the Cladoxylopsids

These now-extinct trees are called cladoxylopsids and are found in Devonian rock layers conventionally dated at 393–372 million years ago. Growing up to 39 feet (12 meters) tall, these trees sported a clump of branches at the top (a bit like a palm tree, although the branches stood upright). The base of this slim tree has a distinct bulbous shape. These trees are considered, in an evolutionary timeframe, to be the earliest trees.

Most specimens that have been discovered were preserved in sand "offering only tantalising clues about their anatomy,"2 but fossils found in northwest China were buried by volcanic sediments. The glassy silica preserved the trees so well researchers could "observe every single cell of the plant." This allowed them to make an astonishing discovery—cladoxylopsids don't grow like other trees.

A Tree That Grows by Ripping Its Skeleton Apart

Extant tree trunks are made of a single cylindrical shaft composed of hundreds of woody bundles called xylem. These conduct water from the roots throughout the tree, to the branches and leaves. New xylem grows in rings, giving trees the familiar ring pattern we see in a cross-section of a tree trunk. Not so with the cladoxylopsids.

These trees had multiple vertical xylem columns, connected by crisscrossing strands and separated by soft tissue, spaced around a hollow trunk. New growth formed in rings around these xylem columns and new soft tissue growth forced the columns to spread out from one another. This widened the trunk, allowing the tree to grow taller.

Coauthor of the study, Dr. Chris Berry, from Cardiff University, said,

"There is no other tree that I know of in the history of the Earth that has ever done anything as complicated as this. The tree simultaneously ripped its skeleton apart and collapsed under its own weight while staying alive and growing upwards and outwards to become the dominant plant of its day.

By studying these extremely rare fossils, we've gained an unprecedented insight into the anatomy of our earliest trees and the complex growth mechanisms that they employed.

This raises a provoking question: why are the very oldest trees the most complicated?"

Why Are the Oldest Trees the Most Complicated?

Dr. Berry's question is a good one. Why are the oldest trees, in an evolutionary timeframe, the most complicated and unlike anything surviving today? Perhaps the answer lies in looking at these unique trees starting with a different worldview.

A biblical model of origins starts with God's Word. The Bible teaches that God created plants, fully formed and functioning, on Day Three of Creation Week. We know from creation there is an incredible amount of variety within the plant kingdom from deciduous trees to conifers to trees that flower and grow fruit to trees that drop nuts to delicate grasses to sweet-smelling wildflowers. The variety in creation—just within this one kingdom—is astounding.

We don't expect to find simpler life deeper in the fossil record. God is the author of all life, and life—no matter where it's found—is more stunning and complex than we could have originally imagined. The growth structure of this tree is an incredible discovery and adds to our knowledge of the beauty and variety of God's original creation, but it is hardly perplexing. It fits with a biblical worldview.

Buried During the Flood

This tree was buried by a catastrophe, likely a volcanic one, as a result of the global Flood of Noah's Day. The rock layers are filled with volcanic sediments pointing toward massive volcanic activity as the floodwaters were rising (as well as post-Flood volcanic activity). These trees were buried in some of that silica, preserving them for us to observe today.

Cladoxylopsids weren't the dominant tree of a past eon, gradually taken over by more modern tree species. They represent part of an ecosystem that did not survive the Flood or was unable to reestablish a viable population in the radically different post-Flood world. Sadly, these trees are just another example of a part of God's original creation that is now lost.

This new discovery should cause us to stop and praise the one who, with infinite variety and creativity, has fashioned such an amazing world for us to live in. What a marvelous Creator we serve!

[DaveW]

I guess it is human nature to avoid topics which lead where we do not want to go. The Duckbill Platypus is quite the evolutionist nightmare.

I never was an "evolutionist" so I do not think in such terms, but I suppose you are right.  It would be a nightmare.   

A mammal with a bird beak.
That lays eggs. 
That has poisonous spines. 

For me, I just marvel at how creative our Father is.

[Amo]

https://answersingenesis.org/evolution/famous-ape-man-diagram-wrong/

Quoted article below from link above.

Famous Ape-to-Man Diagram "So Wrong"?

We've all seen it—the apelike-creature-to-man diagram. It shows a supposed line of progression from an ape (or ape-like ancestor, which evolutionists picture as an ape), to a slightly more bipedal ape, to a more human-like ape, eventually culminating in modern man. This progression has long been presented as fact in most textbooks, museums, and in the media. But is that idea "so wrong"?

Well, some evolutionists are saying that the famous image is wrong because it gives the impression that evolution has a direction. A recent article quotes an evolutionist saying that image should be "expunged from the record of everything."

Dr. Adam Rutherford explains:

"[That image] points to the idea that evolution has a direction . . . It suggests that there are ape-like ancestors and they begin to walk upright and eventually become us and it goes in a very nice, neat line.

This isn't how evolution works at all. We evolve to occupy whatever environmental niche we're in at that time . . .

We quite easily in the future could evolve into a completely different shape or go back to being quadrupedal [walking on all fours]. That's just how evolution works. The idea that evolution 'improves' is not correct."

So, evolution is directionless and humans could even evolve back to walking on all fours? Now that seems to suggest evolution does have a direction . . . in that case, going from walking on four limbs to walking on two limbs, to walking on four limbs, whatever is most advantageous. Confused?

Also, if evolution is directionless, how did man evolve? Really, what they believe is that by directionless chance random processes, all life somehow evolved and eventually man evolved, and we know it happened, they argue, because man and animals exist, therefore evolution is fact. Yep, that's the story (fairytale) of evolution.

I'm reminded of this verse:

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. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

Also, Dr. Rutherford says mankind should never be looked on as a "pinnacle of evolution," as was once taught. Actually, the whole idea of mankind as a "pinnacle" is itself borrowed from the Christian worldview because man is the pinnacle of creation. We alone are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), different from animals. So this evolutionist is trying to be consistent with his atheistic evolutionary view by not making man the pinnacle . . . or higher than the apes.

Directionless evolution is actually man's religion to try to explain life without God. Yes, evolution is a religion. Even ardent evolutionist Michael Ruse admitted this:

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint . . .the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today."

Yes, evolution is a religion!

[Rella]

I well remember that diagram from 4th grade. It made no more sense back then when it was being discussed then it does today with no proof.

This man though.... an admitted ex-Christian is one who is simply an idiot.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YcK1ug4bs

Fairly recent video on dinosaur soft tissue, and some continuing the work of finding and examining the same.

[Amo]

I well remember that diagram from 4th grade. It made no more sense back then when it was being discussed then it does today with no proof.

This man though.... an admitted ex-Christian is one who is simply an idiot.

I would say that he is under the category of those ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. Having rejected the basis of all truth, holy scripture, he wanders aimlessly through "scientific" observations bent only toward his own chosen narrative which he esteems above the word of God.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug4Hd4QPMIc

Another video by the same organization.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe1ImTqHR0

Good video about Biomatrix.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzU_Mz6bMk

Another very good video addressing the order in which we find fossils. I think there may be more to these observations considering the biblical testimony that there was no rain prior to the flood, but that the world was watered by a mist which came up from the ground. Perhaps there was far more water much closer to the surface than even the Hydro-plate theory determines. In any case, a very interesting video and perspective.

[Rella]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfzU_Mz6bMk

Another very good video addressing the order in which we find fossils. I think there may be more to these observations considering the biblical testimony that there was no rain prior to the flood, but that the world was watered by a mist which came up from the ground. Perhaps there was far more water much closer to the surface than even the Hydro-plate theory determines. In any case, a very interesting video and perspective.

Chapter and verse please.

My bible reads: NIV Genesis 2:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

From Adam to the flood:

In all, from Adam's creation until the great Flood, there were 1,656 years

http://www.amunrud.com/noah/noahyears.html

From everyone that we had recorded in the the bible up to the flood... zero mention of the earth being self watering.

This is a concept I cannot accept.

[Amo]

Chapter and verse please.

My bible reads: NIV Genesis 2:

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

From Adam to the flood:

In all, from Adam's creation until the great Flood, there were 1,656 years

http://www.amunrud.com/noah/noahyears.html

From everyone that we had recorded in the the bible up to the flood... zero mention of the earth being self watering.

This is a concept I cannot accept.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.(KJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.(NKJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.(NASB)

Gen 2:4 This is the history of [the origin of] the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [that is, days of creation] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— 5 no shrub or plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground, 6 but a mist (fog, dew, vapor) used to rise from the land and water the entire surface of the ground.(AMP)

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day, that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, neither was there a man to till the ground, 6 But a mist went up from the earth, and watered all the earth.(GNV)

Gen 2:4 These be the generations of heaven and of earth, in the day wherein the Lord God made heaven and earth, (These be the generations, or the creation, of the heavens and the earth, in the days when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,) 5 and each little tree of [the] earth before that it sprang out in [the] earth; and he made each herb of the field before that it burgeoned. For the Lord God had not (yet) rained on the earth, and no man there was that wrought the earth (and there was no man yet to work the earth); 6 but a well went out of [the] earth, and moisted all the higher part of the earth. (but a well, or a mist, went up out of the ground, and watered all the earth's surface.)(WYC)

[Rella]

quote author=Amo link=topic=104473.msg1055187369#msg1055187369 date=1629304533]
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.(KJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.(NKJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.(NASB)

Gen 2:4 This is the history of [the origin of] the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [that is, days of creation] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— 5, 6 but a mist (fog, dew, vapor) used to rise from the land and water the entire surface of the ground.(AMP)

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day, that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, neither was there a man to till the ground, 6 But a mist went up from the earth, and watered all the earth.(GNV)

Gen 2:4 These be the generations of heaven and of earth, in the day wherein the Lord God made heaven and earth, (These be the generations, or the creation, of the heavens and the earth, in the days when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,) 5 and each little tree of [the] earth before that it sprang out in [the] earth; and he made each herb of the field before that it burgeoned. For the Lord God had not (yet) rained on the earth, and no man there was that wrought the earth (and there was no man yet to work the earth); 6 but a well went out of [the] earth, and moisted all the higher part of the earth. (but a well, or a mist, went up out of the ground, and watered all the earth's surface.)(WYC)
[/quote]

But there is no mention what happened after man was created.........

no shrub or plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground

My point is... with 1,656 years from the creation of man to the flood there is nary a mention that a mist watering system continued.

You cannot , as no one can, make a case that it never rained until after the flood.

[Amo]

quote author=Amo link=topic=104473.msg1055187369#msg1055187369 date=1629304533]
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.(KJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the [a]history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.(NKJV)

Gen 2:4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.(NASB)

Gen 2:4 This is the history of [the origin of] the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day [that is, days of creation] that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens— 5, 6 but a mist (fog, dew, vapor) used to rise from the land and water the entire surface of the ground.(AMP)

Gen 2:4 ¶ These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were created, in the day, that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field, before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field, before it grew, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, neither was there a man to till the ground, 6 But a mist went up from the earth, and watered all the earth.(GNV)

Gen 2:4 These be the generations of heaven and of earth, in the day wherein the Lord God made heaven and earth, (These be the generations, or the creation, of the heavens and the earth, in the days when the Lord God made the heavens and the earth,) 5 and each little tree of [the] earth before that it sprang out in [the] earth; and he made each herb of the field before that it burgeoned. For the Lord God had not (yet) rained on the earth, and no man there was that wrought the earth (and there was no man yet to work the earth); 6 but a well went out of [the] earth, and moisted all the higher part of the earth. (but a well, or a mist, went up out of the ground, and watered all the earth's surface.)(WYC)


But there is no mention what happened after man was created.........

no shrub or plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground

My point is... with 1,656 years from the creation of man to the flood there is nary a mention that a mist watering system continued.

You cannot , as no one can, make a case that it never rained until after the flood.

Neither therefore, can anyone make the case that it did.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Vegetation was created on the third day, man on the sixth.

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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.

The above verses are not saying that God had not created shrubs or herbs yet, that would contradict the testimony of the previous chapter. It is just further explaining

the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

. Some more detail, that is all, not another account of creation which contradicts the first one. 

[Cobalt1959]

We can all laugh if that's what you think creates truth. Did Joseph truly feed people from the entire world? I would assume it would have been quite the journey for inhabitants of South America.

"And all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the world."

It would be a great deal simpler, save you time typing, and save everyone reading time to simply say "I don't believe what the Bible says on this issue."  Because that is what you are saying.  The text is plain, it is impossible to misunderstand what it says, but you claim it does not mean what it says because it does not fit with your Liberal worldview.  And you typed that sentence out, mocking and condemning people who don't believe in your secular view of creation, while also trying to forward Christian thought.  If that is not hypocrisy, I don't know what is.  Since I don't know you from a box of Post Toasties, that fact that you laugh at me for believing in a literal 6 day creation affects me not at all.  Up until the poison of the Enlightenment began to seep into the Church and people began trying to re-mold the Bible to accept evolution, the entire church believed the Biblical account.  You actually had the temerity to tell Amo he would be condemned for this belief.  He gets some things wrong, but he will in no way be condemned for this particular belief.  It's the people who think fitting in with the secular world so they don't look so backward to it that will have some uncomfortable moments because they didn't have enough of a spine to stand up for the truth.  Are you going to tell Jesus that the Bible wasn't created the way God said it was?

[4WD]

Your response was to Alan and I suppose I should let him respond first; but I think he was following up on something that I posted.  You said

The text is plain, it is impossible to misunderstand what it says, but you claim it does not mean what it says because it does not fit with your Liberal worldview.

The plain text says,
(KJVGen 41:56  And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57  And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

(ESV)Gen 41:56  So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57  Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

I can only assume that you believe that all the countries on the face of the earth, i.e., the entire global world, came to Egypt to buy grain. 

That is an interesting comment.  I would really like to see you give us some detailed account of just how that could possibly have happened.

Remember, that is the plain text.

[Rella]

 

[Amo]

Your response was to Alan and I suppose I should let him respond first; but I think he was following up on something that I posted.  You said The plain text says,
(KJVGen 41:56  And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57  And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

(ESV)Gen 41:56  So when the famine had spread over all the land, Joseph opened all the storehouses and sold to the Egyptians, for the famine was severe in the land of Egypt.
Gen 41:57  Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

I can only assume that you believe that all the countries on the face of the earth, i.e., the entire global world, came to Egypt to buy grain. 

That is an interesting comment.  I would really like to see you give us some detailed account of just how that could possibly have happened.

Remember, that is the plain text.

Faiths in different narratives of course lead to different conclusions. Those believing in the biblical narratives of creation and the global flood, apparently come to different conclusions than those who of the evolutionary faith, who also reject the biblical testimony of a global flood.

Being of the faith of biblical narrative, I believe the verses you quoted above do mean exactly what they state.

And the famine was over all the face of the earth

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.

So when the famine had spread over all the land

Moreover, all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth.

Much like the flood account, the above detail concerning all the earth is mentioned several times over. In this particular instance though, I am not convinced that this must mean the entire globe, but rather the entire inhabited globe. That is, all existing nations of this earth at the time as the scriptures themselves also repeat. As one who believes in the global flood, I understand that the repopulation and dispersion of peoples into nations at this time in history, may not have been nearly as global as at present. It could be a reference to the famine effecting all nations to the extent alone, to which they had grown and dispersed up to that time. Nevertheless, a global famine is not beyond comprehension either.

One of the evolutionary faith, who rejects the global flood, would naturally come to different conclusions regarding this same event. Just another example of how one's world view, effects all areas of our lives.

[DaveW]

In my opinion:

Trying to reconcile the Biblical story of creation and science is a fool's errand.

We are (supposed to be) people of Faith.  Our God is the one who created the laws of physics and time and can do with them as He wants.  We need to understand that Our God is NOT ruled by those laws, not even the rules of logic that science is based on.

After all, is there any logical or scientific way a person can come back to life, in full health, 3 days after being severely brutalized and killed?  NO.  And yet if we claim to be Christians, that is exactly what we MUST believe.