Creation scientists

[DaveW]

I was under the impression they didn't even obey IMperfectly. Obey just means obey. And God would bless them. They didn't obey perfectly or imperfectly. I don't see anything but obedience required. God did not expect perfection out of them just obedience. Nothing in the big 10 about perfect obedience. Don't murder, don't steal, etc. God knew they were "capable" of obedience or he gave them an impossible option. With no possibility of blessing them in their obedience.

+1

Deuteronomy 30:10-14
10 if you obey the Lord your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and soul.  11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.

[Amo]

The statement of his....

To the contrary, there were other beings and worlds involved in a conflict already, which spread to this world through the father of lies not long after its creation.

Is no where to be found in my Holy Bible..

That is an alarming thing to say and likely can be found in Ellen Whites writings.....

At least other worlds she visited with perfect people are mentioned here

https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2017/03/29/adventism-and-ellen-whites-unfallen-worlds/

Interesting perspective of hers...

https://www.ellenwhite.info/universal-war-2.htm

And @Amo... you accused me....

While your very own Ellen White

Ellen White's Bible Omissions

https://www.nonegw.org/egw91.shtml

Be careful of your accusations.... though I shall leave you as #13 for your beliefs of me.

Seriously? Do you not believe scriptural testimony concerning the "ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands" of angels which exist and existed before us? Who were the sons of God mentioned in the book of Job several times? What of the other living beings spoken of and even described in scripture including the seraphim and even God's Throne described by Ezekiel which he saw in vision, which is apparently a living throne.

Do you not understand that God is the eternal self existing One, without beginning or end? Look as far back as one possibly can even comprehend, and God always was before then. As far forward as one can, and God is endlessly beyond such. Yet you think what, angels and humans are all He ever created during the infinite past before us? You think I can only conclude that there is and has been life on other planets and elsewhere because EGW believed so, I think fallen human pride alone would presume such a silly self exalting notion concerning our eternal God.

Scripture testifies that Satan is a fallen angel, and the father of lies. There was war in heaven, and Satan and his angels were cast down to earth. The war which began in heaven among beings who existed before us, spread to this planet when our first parents fell prey to the devils lies. This is all scriptural. Do you not believe these things?

[Rella]

I do not call heaven another world....

and even if you do you said  worlds.

You specifically said other beings and worlds involved in a conflict already.........

Ellen White also talked of plural other worlds..
"The Lord has given me a view of other worlds."

https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2017/03/29/adventism-and-ellen-whites-unfallen-worlds/

On February 22, 2017, NASA announced the discovery of seven rocky exoplanets orbiting around a red dwarf star called Trappist-1. On March 22, the Adventist Review ran an article by Clifford Goldstein, the editor of the Adult Bible Study Guide, more commonly known as the Sabbath School Quarterly. In this article, Goldstein recounts his conversion from atheism to Seventh-day Adventism and his discovery of Ellen White's vision describing "other worlds" where sin had not defiled the people living there.

Goldstein explains that NASA's report made him think about Ellen White's vision and reveals his belief that the recent discovery "adds credence" not only to Ellen White's descriptions of other inhabited planets where the people have not succumbed to the temptation of their trees of knowledge and good and evil but also to EGW's whole great controversy paradigm[/color].

As to the angels and Satan and all ... certainly I believe, but that is not what you appeared to be saying because you were not.

[Amo]

I do not call heaven another world....

and even if you do you said  worlds.

You specifically said other beings and worlds involved in a conflict already.........

Ellen White also talked of plural other worlds..
"The Lord has given me a view of other worlds."

https://blog.lifeassuranceministries.org/2017/03/29/adventism-and-ellen-whites-unfallen-worlds/
As to the angels and Satan and all ... certainly I believe, but that is not what you appeared to be saying because you were not.

I do and did mean worlds, along with other unseen dimensions which obviously exist if scriptural testimony regarding good and evil angels is true. We will just have to disagree upon this point. The idea just seems silly to me, that our eternal God who has existed forever, has only created one world with living beings on it, and angels. Looking out at night at countless stars, solar systems, and galaxies, just doesn't register in my mind as endless dead space, created and left that way by my living God. And this only pertains to the few puny dimensions we see and experience. I really don't think so. Nor do I need the writings of EGW to come to this as I see it, most obvious conclusion.

Eze 1:4 And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. 5 Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man. 6 And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings. 7 And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf's foot: and they sparkled like the colour of burnished brass. 8 And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings. 9 Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward. 10 As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. 11 Thus were their faces: and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies. 12 And they went every one straight forward: whither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went. 13 As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning. 14 And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning. 15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. 16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel. 17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went. 18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four. 19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up. 20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. 22 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels. 22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. 23 And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies. 24 And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of an host: when they stood, they let down their wings. 25 And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.

Even God's throne is alive. Our God is the God of the living, not dead empty space. I will be very surprised in the end, to find that God has only created angels and humanity throughout the endless ages of the past.

[DaveW]

NASA announced the discovery of seven rocky exoplanets orbiting around a red dwarf star called Trappist-1.

Do they have Monasteries? With Trappist monks?

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9CGoBWXmyY

It has been quite some time ago now, that I posted many articles concerning the giant plants and animals of this planets past, which I presume are pre-flood creatures. Which of course suggest de-evolution for our world, rather than evolution. The above video link though, addresses one I'm pretty sure I missed. We can apparently now add giant 50 foot long snakes to that list. We are not superior to the original life God created on this planet, we are inferior to it. De-evolution is the reality, not evolution.

[Born.Again888]

Yes that's true, the de evolution also has happened because of the charge in the earths oxygen content.The link between dinosaurs that had nostrils small like a horse and they died because after the flood the water canopy above the earth fell to the earth and this changed the atmospheric pressure and the oxygen content, now dinosaurs are small like lizards

[The Barbarian]

Yes that's true, the de evolution also has happened because of the charge in the earths oxygen content.The link between dinosaurs that had nostrils small like a horse and they died because after the flood the water canopy above the earth fell to the earth and this changed the atmospheric pressure and the oxygen content, now dinosaurs are small like lizards

Actually, the oxygen content of the atmosphere is higher now than it was in the Triassic and Jurassic.   
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/wolfe/eprints/Tappert_GCA_2013.pdf

So how did those big dinosaurs exist?    Well, it turns out that many dinosaurs (or maybe all of them) had a much more efficient respiratory system than we do.    The dinosaurs still living, retain that system.   It's why geese (one of the surviving dinosaur species) can fly comfortably over Mt. Everest, where humans struggle to merely survive.

Lizards are not close relatives of dinosaurs, but ostriches and emus are essentially dinosaurs, as all birds are.   So they can get pretty big.

To say whether modern mammals and dinosaurs are better or worse than those in the Mesozoic is beside the point.    It's like asking whether a dump truck or a Ferrari is better.    Depends on the circumstances.

[Amo]

Actually, the oxygen content of the atmosphere is higher now than it was in the Triassic and Jurassic.   
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/wolfe/eprints/Tappert_GCA_2013.pdf

So how did those big dinosaurs exist?    Well, it turns out that many dinosaurs (or maybe all of them) had a much more efficient respiratory system than we do.    The dinosaurs still living, retain that system.   It's why geese (one of the surviving dinosaur species) can fly comfortably over Mt. Everest, where humans struggle to merely survive.

Lizards are not close relatives of dinosaurs, but ostriches and emus are essentially dinosaurs, as all birds are.   So they can get pretty big.

To say whether modern mammals and dinosaurs are better or worse than those in the Mesozoic is beside the point.    It's like asking whether a dump truck or a Ferrari is better.    Depends on the circumstances.

Like almost everything else, scientists have gone back and forth with their views regarding less or more oxygen in the past. There probably still is not agreement upon the issue. Nor do scientists have any idea whether Dino's had more efficient respiratory systems. Without any of those systems left to examine, all such is speculation. Although, it just may be that they will find a preserved respiratory system, as it appears they continue to find soft tissue and such, that most certainly should no longer be around if Dino's are as old as they claim. Such of course would be more of a problem to the theory of evolution, than any benefit to it. Birds are not evolved dino's, nor do similarities among created creatures point to evolution, but rather a common designer. Nevertheless, we are all free to choose our own faiths.

[Born.Again888]

That is simply not true, oxygen levels now around 21% before 28 to 30% as the evidence shows.You can go to drdino.com and see more resources there

[DaveW]

Lizards are not close relatives of dinosaurs, but ostriches and emus are essentially dinosaurs, as all birds are.   

Eh -  I really don't buy into the idea that dinosaurs were actually birds. 

[4WD]

The bird-dinosaur scenario is one are that I think I disagree with the usual description from science.  The typical description is that birds descended from dinosaurs.  I tend to think it was the the reverse. And part of the reason that I believe that is Genesis 1:20-23. Sea creatures and flying creatures on day five; the rest of the animal kingdom on day six.  I think that perhaps the reason science presents it otherwise is because there are so few bird fossils.  But that, I think, is because birds were never in the situations that gave rise to conditions leading to fossilization. I am not adamant about that, just my musings.

[The Barbarian]

The bird-dinosaur scenario is one are that I think I disagree with the usual description from science.

There is some dissent by scientists.  Al Feduccia, a very well-respected ornithologist, and his associate Stors Olsen, think that birds and dinosaurs evolved from a common thecodont ancestor.    It comes down to a very technical bit of detail concerning which digits were lost in birds that are present in dinosaurs.

Fossil evidence documenting the evolutionary transition from theropod dinosaurs to birds indicates unambiguously that the digits of the wing of birds are digits 1, 2, and 3. However, some embryological evidence suggests that these digits are 2, 3, and 4. This apparent lack of correspondence has been described as the greatest challenge to the widely accepted theropod-bird link (Zhou 2004. Naturwissenschaften 91:455-471). Here we review the pertinent literature regarding the debate on the origin of birds and wing digital identity and the evidence in favor of a 1, 2, 3 identity of the wing digits. Recent molecular evidence shows that the expression of Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 in the developing wing supports the theropod-bird link. In the chicken foot and in the mouse hand and foot, digit 1 is the only digit to combine the expression of Hoxd13 with the absence of expression of Hoxd12. The same is observed in the anterior digit of the wing, suggesting it is a digit 1, as expected for a theropod. Nevertheless, Galis et al. (2005. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) in press), argue that Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 expression patterns in mutant limbs do not allow distinguishing the most anterior digit in the bird wing from digit 2. They also argue that constraints to the evolution of limb development support the 2, 3, 4 identity of the wing digits.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15880771/

The typical description is that birds descended from dinosaurs.  I tend to think it was the the reverse. And part of the reason that I believe that is Genesis 1:20-23. Sea creatures and flying creatures on day five; the rest of the animal kingdom on day six.  I think that perhaps the reason science presents it otherwise is because there are so few bird fossils.

You might want to read Feduccia's The Evolution of Birds.   There are more fossil birds in evidence now than we had even a few years ago.   Worth reading.    I have a very lavishly illustrated soft-cover version, but if you're interested in the issue, it's worth getting his input.   For what it's worth, I disagree with Feduccia, but he makes his case based on evidence.     For me, the homeobox gene data settles it in favor of a dinosaur ancestry.   

But that, I think, is because birds were never in the situations that gave rise to conditions leading to fossilization. I am not adamant about that, just my musings.

And birds are light-boned and fragile.  And as in the case of Archaeopteryx, it was originally classified as a rather ordinary dinosaur, because there were no feather impressions on the first one located.   Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur because it lacks certain avian apomorphic characters, but it is very, very close to the line that led to birds.   

[DaveW]

You might want to read Feduccia's The Evolution of Birds.   

Except I do not believe evolution.

[Rella]

  For what it's worth, I disagree with Feduccia, but he makes his case based on evidence.      

And thus the nail is hit squarely on the head.

You DONT believe evidence. 

[Alan]

And thus the nail is hit squarely on the head.

You DONT believe evidence. 

Nah, you miss the nail when you twist someone's words

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmb3CGH0pcc

A good video addressing the polystrate fossils which are found the world over. They simply do not fit into the deep time scenarios of striation evolutionists claim. They of course should not be ignored, as numerous as they are. We also know by literal observation, not theory, that this process can and has taken place rapidly before our very eyes. So what conclusions should be drawn from their existence the world over? 

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAOK81-rTCQ

Interesting video addressing the problems for evolution the very numerous dinosaur footprints cause.

[Amo]

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

Good video about epigenetics. Change and adaption, not mutation driven evolution. Devolution, not evolution is the norm.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB29y_r6NJs

Good video addressing mysteries of ancient rock cutting, and confirming the "backward" evidence revealing higher tech civilizations of the past being built upon by lower tech civilizations later. None of which of course supports the prevalent narratives of the day. The biblical flood scenario of course, which supplies an easy explanation for such, is not considered.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVOhwlUpK8

Another video casting serious doubts upon present historical narratives.

[The Barbarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmb3CGH0pcc

A good video addressing the polystrate fossils which are found the world over. They simply do not fit into the deep time scenarios of striation evolutionists claim.

There are some forming a few miles from my home.    A lake, formed by a dam, drowned a grove of trees.   The trunks are still standing, and being slowly covered by layer after layer of sediment.   If this continues, and the sediment remains undisturbed, it will form polystrate fossils of trees.    No paleontologist is puzzled by this.   

They of course should not be ignored, as numerous as they are. We also know by literal observation, not theory, that this process can and has taken place rapidly before our very eyes. So what conclusions should be drawn from their existence the world over?

That polystrate fossils are common and are not a mystery to anyone who thinks about it for a bit.

[Amo]

There are some forming a few miles from my home.    A lake, formed by a dam, drowned a grove of trees.   The trunks are still standing, and being slowly covered by layer after layer of sediment.   If this continues, and the sediment remains undisturbed, it will form polystrate fossils of trees.    No paleontologist is puzzled by this.   

That polystrate fossils are common and are not a mystery to anyone who thinks about it for a bit.

https://www.icr.org/article/classic-polystrate-fossil/

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

A Classic Polystrate Fossil

Years ago, National Geographic published a remarkable photograph of a polystrate fossil, a fossilized tree that extended stratigraphically upward through several layers of rock in Tennessee. Its roots were in a coal seam, and the overlying deposits included bedded shale and thin carbon-rich layers. An advocate of any form of uniformitarianism would believe that it took many, many years to deposit this sequence of layers (much longer than it takes for a tree to grow and eventually die and decay), yet one vertical fossil extends through them all. This one fossilized tree offered a direct contradiction to the evolutionary mantra that "the present is the key to the past."

The specific strata surrounding the fossil provided a history. According to uniformitarianism, many years are required for a thick layer of peat to accumulate in a swampy environment. This type of location is quite different from the marine environment in which tiny shale-sized particles are deposited. Over "millions and millions of years" of heat and pressure generated by the subsequently deposited overlying marine sediments, the peat is thought to have metamorphosed into coal.

The tree was a mature tree, yet could not have grown in the location where the surrounding shale was deposited, since trees don't live long under the sea. Furthermore, the time required for shaley sediments to accumulate must be added to the tree's lifespan, as must the time to deeply bury the coal precursor and create the pressure to generate enough heat to alter the peat into coal. No scenario possible today could account for this sequence of events if evolution's interpretation of earth history is true.

Creationists immediately recognized the educational value of this remarkable fossil, but evolutionists routinely ignore it. The name polystrate ("many layers") is used only by creationists. You will seldom find it in the standard literature, even though the related concepts are easily grasped. Unfortunately, National Geographic requires a not-insignificant fee for the use of its photographs, and only on occasion was this one used by creationists. The fossil looked rather fragile, and since many polystrates are known, we never tried to go to the site and relocate this particular one.

Recently, however, creationist Ian Juby decided to try and track it down. Much to his surprise, it was still there, looking even better than ever. But there's more--the fossilized tree stood in the neighborhood of numerous other trees. It suggests a significant dynamic event that uprooted, transported, and buried many trees in an upright position.

Just such an event happened at Mount St. Helens in 1980, when an eruption toppled a standing forest. The tree trunks were deposited in Spirit Lake. After a few years of waterlogging, the trunks sunk roots down, in life's position but not life's location. Today there are tens of thousands of upright trees standing on the bottom of the lake. They are being engulfed by fine particles of volcanic ash and clay, and if the underlying organic layer of bark were heated by a future eruption, it would likely metamorphose into coal and duplicate the scenario revealed in the photo.

The eruption at Mount St. Helens taught us much about the effects of dynamic processes. It provided a model for deciphering unseen past geologic cataclysms, and produced effects which before had puzzled us. Our understanding of possible events during the great Flood of Noah's day was substantially expanded, including that rapid deposition of sediments and burial of fossils could be expected during such a deluge. The more evidence that science uncovers, the more it supports the biblical account of earth's history.

[DaveW]

I never knew you could make fossils from polystyrene.         

[Amo]

I never knew you could make fossils from polystyrene.         

https://apnews.com/press-release/business-wire/science-business-fossils-94f38abc63f1451ab1d5b1a098f983a3

Quote below from link above, emphasis is mine.

Trinseo Broadens Portfolio with Bio-attributed Polystyrene, ABS, and SAN

BERWYN, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec 13, 2021--

Trinseo (NYSE: TSE), a global materials solutions provider and manufacturer of plastics and latex binders, announced that its flagship STYRON™ Polystyrene Resins, MAGNUM™ ABS Resins, and TYRIL™ SAN Resins now are available with renewable content. These materials combine fossil-based polymers with renewable raw materials according to a mass balance process, resulting in a bio-attributed composition from 80 to 95 percent.

STYRON™ CO 2 RE™ BIO Polystyrene, MAGNUM™ CO 2 RE™ BIO ABS, and TYRIL™ CO 2 RE™ BIO SAN offer a drop-in solution to customers who seek to further their sustainability efforts. The materials are an equivalent replacement to their fossil-based counterparts and offer both identical performance properties and processability. The CO 2 RE™ designation indicates a measurable product carbon footprint (PCF) reduction when compared to Trinseo's fossil-based products.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8bvGw1OUuY

Making fossilized rock wall panel with Polystyrene.

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0WtPaBvf2g

Interesting video about the different parts and their functions within a cell. I wonder how such information would have effected Darwins views regarding simple to complex evolution, if he knew just how complex even a single cell is?

[Amo]

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

Another of many excellent videos by Dr. Kurt Wise examining scientific evidence in favor of design and creationism. I advise all to take advantage of this man's scientific knowledge and gift of explanation, through the many videos he has made concerning the same. This one explains the complexities of metabolism which exists in all creatures down to the microscopic level. The development of which, naturalism is hard pressed to explain.

[4WD]

This one explains the complexities of metabolism which exists in all creatures down to the microscopic level. The development of which, naturalism is hard pressed to explain.

Who says? You?

[Amo]

Who says? You?

Yes. By my faith in God's word, and common sense as I see it. I understand your differing view based upon your faith in Darwin and miraculously awesome feats of random chance repeated countless billions of times over and over again. I simply see no truth or common sense in this chosen faith.

[4WD]

Where in God's word do you read anything about the metabolism that was dealt with in the video?  As for common sense, there is next to nothing in your explanation of these things that could be said to be common sense. Let's face it, the need for God's special revelation is because most of what He tells us there is not common sense.

[Amo]

Where in God's word do you read anything about the metabolism that was dealt with in the video?  As for common sense, there is next to nothing in your explanation of these things that could be said to be common sense. Let's face it, the need for God's special revelation is because most of what He tells us there is not common sense.

To the contrary, everything God speaks is truth, and therefore the very standard of common sense. This fallen world stands alone, in that the vast majority do not accept God's word as basic truth and real common sense. The evil one, who was a liar from the beginning, has poisoned the well of this planet. Therefore can we not see the truth and common sense of God's word and testimony in the scriptures, without His gift of the Holy Spirit unto proper understanding and true common sense.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

God's word declares that He created this world and everything in it in six days, which truth it repeats several times over in a clear, concise, and conclusive manner. His testimony treats this subject as basic common sense and even suggest one's salvation may depend upon accepting this basic scriptural foundation.

Evolutionists deny this as common sense, and declare the clear, concise, and conclusive statements of scripture to represent something even they cannot figure out or explain. Then they declare that such is really common sense. That God gave this testimony, which was really never meant to even be understood for what it actually says at all. Then they tell us, that all life which we now understand to be of a complexity beyond our scope of understanding even at the microscopic level, just happened through natural random chance processes. A single cell is far more complex than anything thinking reasoning beings with actual purpose and intent to create and build, have ever accomplished. None of which any of us would beleive could ever just happen. Yet countless people actually believe the claims of this false faith, that random chance processes produced the unapproachable complexity we continue to find in all creation, and they declare this to be truth and common sense. BALONEY!

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.

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. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Now tell us if you will, how all of the above testimony, and the creation account in Genesis, and the fourth commandment, and all the other scriptures plainly stating creation by God with no hint of evolution at all, really mean deep time random chance progressive evolution. Unto a complexity of interacting individual organisms and mechanisms of existence the globe over which is yet far beyond our understanding, which organisms themselves are all beyond our scope of knowledge and understanding, to this very day. Tell us now, how it is that you actually do already fully understand all these things, and therefore can tell us all that the creation spoken of in the bible many times over simply does not mean what it plainly states.

Even if you could actually do so, will you really hold it against those of us who rather think you are just one of the proud and boastful mentioned in the above scriptures, because you actually do think you know better than those inspired by God to write the testimony of scriptures quoted above and then some?

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. 10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

If in fact humanity cannot even understand and explain what the opening foundational chapters of the bible plainly state, upon which so much of the rest is built, how can the above testimony from scripture be true? How can scripture ever be used for doctrine, reproof, correction, or instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, if we can't even really properly understand and explain its opening and foundational chapters? If right from the very beginning, its words actually mean something it does not address at all, or even hint at in any way shape or form, how can we then believe the above testimony of the second book of Timothy? Truly then, we are left with noting but whatever wisdom may be conjured up from the fallen depths of this world. Which the evil one himself will gladly and freely offer.

To the contrary though, we have the Holy Spirit of God to guide us unto all the truth contained in the scriptures, given to all who ask of it from our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. 21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Do you not love the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you not therefore have access to the Holy Spirit of God unto truth? I ask you then yet again, for I have asked this of the evolutionists on these boards many times over without ever an answer, please do expound upon and explain how the creation testimony of scripture actually means and represents deep time random chance evolution. Are not the scriptures good for doctrine, reproof, correction, and so on and so forth? Please do use them, and show me the teaching of this evolutionary truth which you have embraced and claim God's word supports. You do claim God's word supports this truth, do you not? If not, how is it that you are so certain of it?

Here we are, please pray for the Holy Spirit of God to enlighten your mind enough to explain these things to me, in light of and by the holy scriptures of God. You do believe they are holy and truth, do you not? Thank you.

[4WD]

It is such a shame that you Young Earth Creationists do not believe that God has the power to create life with the ability, the capability and the tendency for the evolution that is indicated by the data available.  It is you Young Earth Creationists that place limits on God's creative abilities.  God's word tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa19:1); but you Young Earth Creationists reject that out of hand and trade it all for your own particular translation/interpretation of one Hebrew word in the Genesis creation account. 
Y
ou said,

God's word declares that He created this world and everything in it in six days.....

But God's word doesn't say that He created everything in it.  For example, it doesn't say that He created light. Rather it says that "God separated the light from the darkness" (Gen 1:4), but here again, you reject what God's word actually says and insist in your own silly interpretation. But, of course, that is what you do.

You quoted Hebrews 11:1 and Romans 1:18-31 and yet your understanding of both is almost totally lacklng. You said,

Now tell us if you will, how all of the above testimony, and the creation account in Genesis, and the fourth commandment, and all the other scriptures plainly stating creation by God with no hint of evolution at all, really mean deep time random chance progressive evolution.

While all of that speaks of God's creation and His creating, there is not one word about any process in it, you have inserted your own interpretation of process into the account.  But again, that is what you do. If that is what you want to believe, I really don't have a problem with that.  I do have a problem with your demeaning of anyone that doesn't accept your reading between the lines of Scripture.  But again, that is who you are and what you do.

There is a guy here in town with the message that all things associated with the NASA moon landing are fake painted all over his pickup.  Every time I see it, I think of you, Amo.

[Amo]

It is such a shame that you Young Earth Creationists do not believe that God has the power to create life with the ability, the capability and the tendency for the evolution that is indicated by the data available.  It is you Young Earth Creationists that place limits on God's creative abilities.  God's word tells us that "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork" (Psa19:1); but you Young Earth Creationists reject that out of hand and trade it all for your own particular translation/interpretation of one Hebrew word in the Genesis creation account.

Why will you lie even to yourself, with word games? You know very well that creationists not only allow for change, but know God provided for such in His creations, and that a whole lot of change or adaption has and does continue to take place. You also know that evolution implies much more than change, but rather a deep time process of progressive change from simple to complex, which has serious problems concerning the complexity issues. If you don't know this, you simply haven't been reading or actually listening to the very many posts and videos supplied on this thread and others over many years now. If these adaptions or changes can lead to new species, the evidence of such is slim to none, and highly debated even among staunch evolutionists. They would obviously not represent the norm, but even if the evidence was everywhere and evolution most obviously did take place, this would not negate the creation account and or God's ability to bring this world and everything in it about, exactly as stated in scripture. Nor was it beyond God's ability at all to explain evolution rather than the creation account as the mechanism of our existence. Simple to complex deep time progressive change and improvement is not a rocket science concept. Yes, God could do it, and if He did He would have no need to make up a different story because He couldn't explain such a simple concept to thinking reasoning humanity which He created.

But God's word doesn't say that He created everything in it.  For example, it doesn't say that He created light. Rather it says that "God separated the light from the darkness" (Gen 1:4), but here again, you reject what God's word actually says and insist in your own silly interpretation. But, of course, that is what you do.

Again, why do you lie to yourself, and us? Do you think we cannot read? Just because you choose to ignore scriptures you do not like or want to acknowledge, does not mean they don't exist. Observe.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

God spoke and it was done. This is the testimony of scripture which you reject, and or apparently ignore. This was the same process described in the rest of the creation account. He spoke and it was done, as scripture testifies.

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.

Go to, close your eyes, stop your ears, it will change nothing. God's word stands forever, ours will perish with us if or when we contradict His testimony.

While all of that speaks of God's creation and His creating, there is not one word about any process in it, you have inserted your own interpretation of process into the account.  But again, that is what you do. If that is what you want to believe, I really don't have a problem with that.  I do have a problem with your demeaning of anyone that doesn't accept your reading between the lines of Scripture.  But again, that is who you are and what you do.

There is a guy here in town with the message that all things associated with the NASA moon landing are fake painted all over his pickup.  Every time I see it, I think of you, Amo.

I understand your need to digress to insults 4WD, your arguments are piss poor. As I knew, you can offer no scriptural explanation or even hint of evolution. I am sorry you feel demeaned, when I point out the truth that scripture simply does not support your chosen faith in the theory of evolution at all. None of us like to be wrong, Cain killed Abel because Abel was right and Cain was wrong. This kind of mentality and even murder has been going on in this world ever since. Think what you will, my defense of the holy scriptures testimony of what I deem a rejection of the same in the theory of evolution has nothing to do with demeaning anyone, but rather exalting God and His word. If my purpose is just to demean and justify myself in winning an argument, then there is certainly a place for me in the lake of fire right along with countless others, unfortunately. So be it, as God determines. Believe it or not, I am actually concerned for your salvation. Rejecting truth, is the basis of all deception, and possibly the loss of salvation as well.

Your attempt to pin your own actions and beliefs upon me above, are most obvious. I am not the one inserting any process into God's word, I simply take it, just for what it says. You are the one who has chosen faith in a theory not even hinted at in scripture anywhere concerning the actual processes of creation. One that has been constantly worked on, morphed, changed, adapted, and debated for close to two centuries now. All done with no basis in or of scripture at all. Yet here you are, par for the course, accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing. Please do expound upon the points I make which are adding processes to scripture. Thank you.

[4WD]

Again, why do you lie to yourself, and us? Do you think we cannot read? Just because you choose to ignore scriptures you do not like or want to acknowledge, does not mean they don't exist. Observe.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

So it is your position that when it says that " And God said, Let there be light: and there was light", that really means that God created light. It doesn't say that, but you don't care.  You need it to mean that God created light even it that is not what it says.

And that of course is exactly the way you read and interpret everything in the Bible. For you it says and means whatever you need it to say and mean.

And you accuse me of lying to myself.  What a joke.

Nor was it beyond God's ability at all to explain evolution rather than the creation account as the mechanism of our existence.

It is quite obvious from past posts by you that you, even in this modern area of scientific knowledge, do not understand what evolution is and you expect that God would have the author of Genesis describe it to the ancient Hebrew?

Again, what a joke.

For what it is worth, I seriously doubt that you have any real understanding of what light even is. So that with respect to what is described as happening on the first versus what happened on the fourth day is no doubt a bit perplexing for you. I have read opinions from some Young Earth Creationists about that and quite frankly it was hilarious.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

I wonder how such information would have affected Darwins views regarding simple to complex evolution, if he knew just how complex even a single cell is?

The binocular microscope was invented when Charles Darwin was 41 years old.  He lived into his seventies, so he probably had a good idea.

That notwithstanding, Darwin's Origin of Species is as much political as it is scientific.  Without getting too far into that, let's just say that I doubt very much whether Chucky D would have let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a good story.

Jarrod