Creation scientists

[4WD]

There, the above is what I beleive for just what it says. How about you?

That is what I believe also for just what it says. Ant that makes me a creationist.

[4WD]

To the contrary, If I am wrong, I will most certainly be judged accordingly, by Christ's word. Just as each and everyone of us will. Of course I do not think I am the one who is wrong, nor do most think they are. Nevertheless, as scripture testifies, unfortunately most have been and are wrong. There is absolutely a standard of truth, by which all will be judged. As God's word itself points out repeatedly, that all in this world, even those professing to be His own, will be judged by that standard. Which standard is what we are presently examining and debating in relation to other views created and presented by humanity. Which exist nowhere in God's written word.

But you only post such passages when someone disagrees with you.  I have never seen such a post in response to someone that agrees with you.  Therefore, the obvious intent is to flag the one disagreeing with you as the intention of the post. But, as I noted earlier, you are not alone in such accusations.

[Alan]

I am not sure crapping on existing scientific theories is the best approach. Perhaps questioning, testing, and modifying appropriately is a better one.There is obviously much that we do not currently know of the universe; however, there is a lot that we do know about it. And what we do know may not be wrong even if in its infancy and incomplete.

Exactly, we're on the right track even if some existing theories are updated due to new data. The majority of scientific theory in existence today will never be whitewashed and replaced with an altogether new and different theory, it's just sad that some of the weird views held by YECs demand that a theory be validated by "proof", they obviously know nothing of science yet insist on debating it. 

[Texas Conservative]

Exactly, we're on the right track even if some existing theories are updated due to new data. The majority of scientific theory in existence today will never be whitewashed and replaced with an altogether new and different theory, it's just sad that some of the weird views held by YECs demand that a theory be validated by "proof", they obviously know nothing of science yet insist on debating it. 

Most of the people that believe the scientific theories today, believe it as dogma.  They don't understand science anymore than the YECs you mention.

[4WD]

Most of the people that believe the scientific theories today, believe it as dogma.  They don't understand science anymore than the YECs you mention.

That is true for every area of specialization which cannot be known through everyday common personal experience; even so in many areas that are not necessarily areas of specialization.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Crapping on existing scientific theories isn't in and of itself bad.  It is inherent to science.

I don't buy the current theories wholesale.  I think our current knowledge of the universe is in its infancy with our current knowledge.

Criticizing existing theories is productive when it's accompanied by an alternate hypothesis. 

That isn't what's happening here, though.

[DaveW]

Most of the people that believe the scientific theories today, believe it as dogma.  They don't understand science anymore than the YECs you mention.

That is true for every area of specialization which cannot be known through everyday common personal experience; even so in many areas that are not necessarily areas of specialization.

Very true.  With an engineering degree I had to learn the science method. 

And yet I am a soft core YEC.

I do not try to whitewash it in pseudo science. When you have an intelligent and all powerful Creator who will not be nailed down in a lab, the science approach goes out the window.  In fact, I find those who try to explain away the miracles in the bible with "scientific" explanations to be quite annoying.

[4WD]

I do not try to whitewash it in pseudo science. When you have an intelligent and all powerful Creator who will not be nailed down in a lab, the science approach goes out the window.  In fact, I find those who try to explain away the miracles in the bible with "scientific" explanations to be quite annoying.

First, such miracles that you are referring to were very, very few and far between. Nothing about the scientific method precludes such actions by God.  And generally. I agree with you about trying to explain away such events. Second, such miracles were clearly events deviating from the normal operational features of nature which follow the well established and describable features of nature as instituted by God.  As such, creation doesn't really fall into that category of events. And in considering creation it is important to differentiate between God's acts of creation and those normal operational features of nature which result from God's acts of creation but are not themselves acts of creation.  Procreation in the biological realm is a perfect example of that.

[Texas Conservative]

Criticizing existing theories is productive when it's accompanied by an alternate hypothesis. 

That isn't what's happening here, though.

You don't need an alternative hypothesis to criticize.  Pushing pseudo-science as a science based alternative is a problem.

[Texas Conservative]

There was a guy here ages ago that was super hung up on the MMLJ theory.  If I remember correctly it was Richard Fentiman.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You don't need an alternative hypothesis to criticize.  Pushing pseudo-science as a science based alternative is a problem.

Yeah, you do.  Don't bring me problems without bringing me solutions.

[Texas Conservative]

Yeah, you do.  Don't bring me problems without bringing me solutions.

No you don't.  In the science-y work that I do, you do not need to know the answer right away to know something is done wrong.  In doing quality checks on studies, I have found issues in the work that I know was wrong, and I didn't need to have a solution to know the current answer was not right.

You can ask intelligent questions and point out issues from a scientific background without having a solution.

[Alan]

Yeah, there are many instances where the parameters of a test can be laid out and under more careful examination, know that it won't work.

[4WD]

No you don't.  In the science-y work that I do, you do not need to know the answer right away to know something is done wrong.  In doing quality checks on studies, I have found issues in the work that I know was wrong, and I didn't need to have a solution to know the current answer was not right.

You can ask intelligent questions and point out issues from a scientific background without having a solution.

I could be wrong but I think you are talking more about engineering than about science.  There is a difference between using science to accomplish something and developing the science to explain the workings or behavior of something.  Have you really ever come across a situation in what you are involved with in which the science was wrong? I have been involved with situations in which I knew the "science" was limited and not universally applicable. Now if you are going to try to actually use the science beyond its range of applicability, you have better have a solution in mind.

[Texas Conservative]

I think you are talking more about engineering than about science.  There is a difference between using science to accomplish something and developing the science to explain the workings or behavior of something.

It holds for both.  And in the case of some of the studies done in engineering, you may be developing the science to explain the workings or behavior of something.

[4WD]

Can you give me an example of the latter?

[DaveW]

First, such miracles that you are referring to were very, very few and far between. Nothing about the scientific method precludes such actions by God.  And generally. I agree with you about trying to explain away such events. Second, such miracles were clearly events deviating from the normal operational features of nature which follow the well established and describable features of nature as instituted by God.  As such, creation doesn't really fall into that category of events. And in considering creation it is important to differentiate between God's acts of creation and those normal operational features of nature which result from God's acts of creation but are not themselves acts of creation.  Procreation in the biological realm is a perfect example of that.

I was specifically thinking about the idea that the plagues in Egypt during the Exodus was the act of a volcano.  Or the Sunday School lesson I had in grade school (Church of the Nazarene) that taught the 3 hours of darkness when our Lord was crucified was actually a solar eclipse.

That kind of thing.

[Amo]

But you only post such passages when someone disagrees with you.  I have never seen such a post in response to someone that agrees with you.  Therefore, the obvious intent is to flag the one disagreeing with you as the intention of the post. But, as I noted earlier, you are not alone in such accusations.

And soooooo? Do you preach or teach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Does it not entail that a rejection of it is a rejection of the truth? Will such a rejection lead one to the same place I am claiming rejection of another biblical truth can lead? Or are you an everyone will be saved proponent? I can see your point if that is what you are. If not, we are just haggling over whether or not the creation account is part of the everlasting gospel, or not. And or by extension, all biblical doctrine. Either the following verses are true, or they are not.

2Ti 3:14 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.

I say again, if the creation account actually means deep time evolution, then the above cannot be true. In that God's very own had it wrong throughout most of the entire history of this world. If they couldn't even get this basic foundation right for that long, how can any of us judge that anyone else is wrong about anything else in scripture? Certainly everyone should be saved, if such ignorance concerning the truths of God's word are and have been hidden for such a very long time. There has not really been any understood standard in the world, and likely of course there still is not. Is this what you suggest?

The bible is filled from one end to the other, with people, prophets, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ warning this world of the dire results of rejecting the truths of God's word and prophetic utterance. Do you think doing such was and is wrong?

[Amo]

Yeah, you do.  Don't bring me problems without bringing me solutions.

Exactly! The testimony of God's word concerning creation, is not a solution to you. It is not the answer to your questions. You look elsewhere. To the observations and conclusions of fallen humanity. Including a great many atheists which back the theory of evolution up, and believe it leads to a rejection of not only the creation account, but God altogether. Fruits which are not produced by the truths of God's word.

Or do you preach some form of God directed evolution? Even if so, how do you make such jive with the biblical teaching that death is the result of sin, which Christ came to save us from?

[Amo]

https://creation.com/another-living-fossil-tree

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Another 'living fossil' tree

When the Wollemi Pine was discovered to be living in a remote canyon in Australia in 1994, it was nicknamed the 'dinosaur tree' as it had previously been known only from fossils 'dated' at around 150 million years old (Creation 17(2):13; 19(3):7; 23(1):6). Now another new species of Australian tree has been found further north—also previously unknown except for a fossilized nut found in 1875 and 'dated' at 15–20 million years old.

Not yet given a botanical name (though its finder has dubbed it the 'Nightcap Oak'), the newly-discovered 'living fossil' species is apparently confined to a single stand of 23 adult trees. As with the Wollemi Pine, the exact location of these 'primitive' trees is being kept a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile, authorities are endeavouring to multiply large numbers of these trees from cuttings.

As with all 'living fossils', the discovery of the Nightcap Oak defies evolutionists' expectations—but is right in accord with the biblical account.

Firstly, there has been no evolutionary change (ruling out any notion of 'primitive' vs 'modern').

Secondly, since the time of catastrophic fossilization (the Flood) was thousands of years ago, not millions—it is not surprising at all that some species previously thought to be extinct turn out to be still living. (The intervening layers of rock do not represent vast ages, but layers of sediment deposited rapidly during the Flood and its aftermath.)

As with the Wollemi Pine, no doubt there will be those eager to capitalize on the mystical appeal of having a 'prehistoric' tree growing in one's own garden. Christians need to be ready to remind people that these trees are very much from the present, not the past, as by definition, no living tree can be 'prehistoric'.

[Amo]

https://crev.info/2019/01/another-living-fossil-challenges-darwinian-explanations/

Quotes below from link above.

Another Living Fossil Challenges Darwinian Explanations

The excuses that Darwinists make up for evidence against their theory need to be exposed and shamed.

Some rare beetles have been found in Burmese amber 99 million Darwin Years old, according to Phys.org. The Chinese discoverers are calling them "living fossils" — organisms that show no evolution over vast stretches of time. Any living fossil should be an embarrassment to Darwinians, but masters of storytelling that they are, they know how to convince the unsuspecting populace into thinking that living fossils actually support Darwinian evolution. It's up to perceptive readers to not let them get away with it.

The Data

Here are the facts:  In Burmese amber, two specimens of Clambidae beetles have been found. They belong to a small order of polyphagan beetles consisting of two families that live in isolated parts of Indonesia, Australia and South America. The beetles are preserved in exquisite detail down to the tiny leg hairs. Measuring only 0.7 to 2.0 millimeters in length, these beetles typically live in leaf litter and rotting wood.

The Confessions

Here are the indications that these fossils should be problematic for Darwinian beliefs:

There is no evolution in spite of the vast time period alleged.

The fossil specimens are identical to living species, in spite of being dated at 99 million years old.

"Both species are extremely morphologically close to their living counterparts, and can be placed in extant genera."

"The discovery of two Cretaceous species from northern Myanmar indicates that both genera had lengthy evolutionary histories, originating at least by the earliest Cenomanian, and were probably more widespread than at present."

The Spin

Given these problems, Darwinians should have their work cut out for them explaining the stasis in these fossils. How do they mask the blushing on their faces? They use Darwin-Brand Theater Makeup, clear their throats, and proclaim, "Two tiny beetle fossils offer evolution and biogeography clues." Whatever the clues (even if the Darwinians are clueless), they are evolutionary—always evolutionary. But no evolution occurred! Watch the masters of disaster at work with their slick chicanery:

It is well-known that living fossils exhibit stasis over geologically long time scales. Examples are the panda and ginkgo. Now, two tiny beetles trapped in 99-million-year-old amber may join this group.

Passive voice is the last refuge of scoundrels. "Is is well-known" — by whom? You and me? This semantic trick allows them to sweep everyone into their web of belief where every falsifying anomaly can be explained away by simple assertion. They have just turned a well-known fact against Darwinism into a claim for Darwinism! How brash can one get? Think about this. If Darwinian evolution is some inexorable process that changes everything over time, and has the power to turn bacteria into biologists, why is it "well-known" that "living fossils exhibit stasis?"

The origin and early evolutionary history of polyphagan beetles have been largely based on evidence from the derived and diverse core polyphaga, whereas little is known about the species-poor basal polyphagan lineages, which include Clambidae and four other extant families.

It's never just history. It's always "evolutionary history." Same with origin; it's always evolutionary origin. But there was no evolution! These fossil beetles look identical to living ones.

They are important for understanding the early evolution and biogeography of the family and even for polyphagan beetles.

Who wants to understand early evolution? Do you? The statement implies that they certainly don't. The evidence implies that they don't, either. Propagandists can sweeten their lies by adding words like "biogeography" to the difficult words like "evolution." Everybody likes biogeography. A teaspoon of biogeography makes the evolution go down.

The discovery of two Cretaceous species from northern Myanmar indicates that both genera had lengthy evolutionary histories, originating at least by the earliest Cenomanian, and were probably more widespread than at present.

Circular reasoning here: using evolution belief to assert evolutionary belief. There are no "lengthy evolutionary histories" indicated by these fossils. They just appear in a piece of amber from the ground. The evolutionist picks up the amber from the ground in 2019, not millions of years ago. He uses it like a divination tool, imagining a long-lost history he never saw. He sees two bugs in a piece of hardened sap in his hand, and divines that they "were probably more widespread than at present." On what basis?

Remarkable morphological similarities between fossil and living species suggest that both genera changed little over long periods of geological time, which is usually considered to be a feature of living fossils.

One redeeming feature of this article is its illustration of how to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. No evolution is evident. Isn't that a problem? No; that's simply a "feature of living fossils," he announces. Like software salesmen say, 'It's not a bug; it's a feature.' Well, yes, but he should be crying about that, not celebrating it. Note also that it is "usually considered" that way – more passive voice trickery.

The long-term persistence of similar mesic microhabitats such as leaf litter may account for the 99-million-year morphological stasis in Acalyptomerus and Sphaerothorax.

Here they offer an explanation that should, in principle, be testable: all living fossils should live in similar microhabitats, so that they can escape evolving. This sounds reasonable when you don't think about it. It fails as an excuse, though. (1) Living fossils inhabit all possible habitats. (2) Everything is supposed to evolve in its habitat anyway, not stay the same. (3) Other organisms live in leaf litter that did not become living fossils.

Here's the upshot: evolutionists cannot abide their own theory. Things should change over time, especially over millions of years, but these beetles did not. Stasis is not a prediction of Darwinism. It is falsification of Darwinism. So rather than admit their theory is false, they spin-doctor everything to make out sound like this is not a bug; it's a feature. If people catch on to what is going on in biological science these days, all the king's hordes and all the king's yes-men won't be able to put Humpty Darwin back together again.

[Amo]

https://www.icr.org/article/12519

Quoted article below, from link above.

The Fossils Still Say No: The Cambrian Explosion

The modern theory of evolution has its roots in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species, in which he proposed the fundamental conjecture that "all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form."1 In the extrapolation of this concept, millions of progressive life forms should have developed in an evolutionary continuum along all the different branches of life leading up to the huge diversity of plants and animals that are alive today. Many current biology textbooks depict this universal common ancestry as a "tree of life" similar to the analogy that Darwin first proposed over 160 years ago.

This evolutionary tree of life Darwin got going has many problems explaining both living organisms and the fossil record. Chief among them is the lack of transitional forms. Not only do we not see one fundamental type of creature evolving into another today, we see no evidence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Renowned evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould admitted this embarrassing fact:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.2

Darwin's Dilemma

In Darwin's day the fossil record was much less documented than it is today, but one of its most embarrassing enigmas deeply troubled him—the Cambrian Explosion. Its glaring contradiction of evolutionary expectations still remains. In the Cambrian Explosion, numerous forms of highly complex animal life appeared suddenly in the rock record with absolutely no evolutionary precursors.

At the time Darwin's Origin was published in the 1800s, the lowest-most fossiliferous rock layer where complex life first appears—what we now call the Cambrian—was then known as the Silurian. Concerning this explosion of life and the problem it posed for his theory, Darwin stated:

Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer....But the difficulty of understanding the absence of vast piles of fossiliferous strata, which on my theory no doubt were somewhere accumulated before the Silurian epoch, is very great.1

Sudden Appearance of Complex Animal Life

Evolutionists claim the Cambrian rock layers were first laid down about 540 million years ago. Highly complex multicellular creatures known as metazoans and a plethora of hard-shelled creatures suddenly appear in these sedimentary strata. Examples include clams, snails, horseshoe crabs, trilobites, sponges, brachiopods, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, starfish, brittle stars, sea lilies, and other complex invertebrates.

Making this mystery even more evolution-defying is the fact that the rock layers below the Cambrian are devoid of invertebrates. While this was known in Darwin's day, the mystery has never been resolved, and a 2018 study reported that a thorough re-analysis of the Precambrian Ediacaran sediments showed they are completely empty of evolutionary ancestors. The researchers stated, "The lack of euarthropod body fossils in the Ediacaran biota is mirrored in all other preservational regimes in the Precambrian, including BSTs [Burgess Shale type deposits], phosphatised microfossils, and chert deposits."3 They also found that the ancestors to the Cambrian creatures were "strikingly absent" in the Ediacaran period.

Living Fossils of the Cambrian

The Cambrian strata are rich with fossils of creatures whose counterparts can still be found alive today essentially looking the same as their predecessors buried supposedly hundreds of millions of years ago. In other words, these so-called living fossils have not evolved at all, a phenomenon evolutionists call stasis. Not only do these creatures show no sign of evolutionary change, but many also disappear in rock layers above the Cambrian only to reappear as modern living creatures. While evolutionists have no good explanation why such creatures would abruptly appear hundreds of millions of years ago and then disappear for millions of years only to reappear and now be happily alive, a biblical Flood-based interpretation perfectly explains the data. Creationists know from both the rock record and the Scriptures that the Genesis Flood was a progressive year-long global event. The succession of fossils in the rock strata largely represents the progressive burial of ecological zones characterized by the plants and animals they contained. Thus, the Cambrian strata contain ocean-dwelling animals that would have been the first creatures to be killed and buried in Flood sediments.

An excellent example of a living fossil from the Cambrian is the brachiopod. It has a hard shell like a clam, only in a different configuration. The term "brachiopod" is derived from the Greek words brachion (arm) and podos (foot), which refers to the long pedicle that protrudes from a foramen (opening) in the shell that affixes the marine creature to the base of its burrow in the ocean floor.

Another example of a Cambrian living fossil is the amazing horseshoe crab. This curious complex arthropod with 10 eyes plays an important role in the ocean's ecosystem. Because horseshoe crabs come up onto the shorelines and beaches to reproduce, they are commonly observed around the world.

Yet another living fossil from the Cambrian is the brittle star, which is found in many ocean ecosystems in a huge diversity of species. Brittle stars are similar to starfish but have much longer snake-like arms that protrude from a central disc. They can reproduce sexually as well as through fission where the central disc divides in two and the newly created discs grow arms.

Exceptional Cambrian Soft-Bodied Imprints

Extraordinary soft-bodied fossil preservation is known as Lagerstätte (German lager "storage/lair" and stätte "place"). Cambrian Lagerstättes provide spectacular examples of fossils of soft-bodied creatures with exceptionally preserved details. These fossils speak of a rapid cataclysmic burial in fine sediments in the very recent past. Some of the best examples of this near-perfect fossilization can be found in the Cambrian Maotianshan shales, Burgess Shale, and the recently exploited Qingjiang biota (supposedly ~518 million years old) that is chock-full of complex creatures.4 One group of soft-bodied creatures found in a large diversity of body plans are cnidarians, which contain many creature types that are still alive today and are therefore classified as living fossils. Cnidarians include a variety of stationary types (sea anemones, corals, sea pens) and swimming varieties (jellyfish, box jellies). Cambrian ctenophore fossils are also found in abundance in a wide variety of body plans, and many types of ctenophores are also still alive today.

In addition to the huge array of soft-bodied creatures, Cambrian deposits contain many different types of complex creatures with a chitinous skin or exoskeleton (shell). One amazing example of a Cambrian invertebrate alive today is the Kinorhyncha (mud dragon), a common small marine invertebrate that lives in mud and sand. Another excellent example would be a group of unsegmented marine worms called priapulids that are also alive today. Only a rapid catastrophic burial such as that recorded in Genesis could account for this exceptional preservation. And the fact that these soft-bodied creatures appear suddenly with no evolutionary precursors with many still alive today totally refutes evolution.

Precambrian Tube Worm Soft Tissue Preservation

The incredible preservation of soft tissue impressions combined with an explosion of animal life in virtually every conceivable body plan with no evolutionary precursors utterly defies all naturalistic explanations—as does the fact that fossils from these rock layers contain soft tissues. The presence of actual undecayed tissues in fossils found at virtually every level of the geologic column completely undermines evolution's deep-time paradigm.

Secular researchers have published at least 113 different technical papers describing the presence of soft tissues and biomolecules in fossils supposedly millions of years old.5 Examples include mummified dinosaur skin, dinosaur blood hemoglobin, and dried-up eyeball retinas from a mosasaur.6-7 The problem is that the science of tissue decay doesn't permit millions of years. This evolutionarily inconvenient fact makes a 2014 soft tissue discovery one of the most spectacular—original pliable marine worm tube tissue found just below the bottom-most layer of the Cambrian.8-9

Publishing in the Journal of Paleontology, researchers detailed delicate fossil casings manufactured by beard worms in a rock layer just below the Cambrian dated at 551 million years. The buried fossils had chitin-containing worm tubes that look exactly the same as those made by living tube worms. In fact, the complex and intricate structural cross-layering of the fibers is still visible.

One of the most confounding anti-evolutionary features of these fossil worm casings was that they were not mineralized at all. Permineralization is a fossil-forming process in which mineral deposits form internal casts of organisms by filling the spaces within tissue. In the case of these tube worm casings, the researchers ruled out preservation by different forms of mineralization. They stated, "Minerals have not replicated any part of the soft tissue and the carbonaceous material of the wall is primary [not replaced], preserving the original layering of the wall, its texture, and fabrics."9 The paper included electron micrographs of some of those fabrics' fossilized fibers. In fact, it described the worm casings as still "flexible, as shown by its soft deformation." And affirming that original biomolecules were still intact, the authors stated, "The body wall of S. cambriensis [fossil worm] comprises a chitin-structural protein composite."9 The notion that chitin or any intact biological material like soft tissue can last longer than a million years has no experimental support. The only valid explanation of these fossils is that the tube worms, which we know from living specimens lived at depths of 100 to 10,000 meters in the ocean, obviously would have been amongst the first creatures buried in the global Flood.

Conclusion

The Cambrian Explosion is a complete evolutionary enigma for a number of important reasons. First, incredibly complex animal life appeared suddenly and without any sign of preceding evolutionary ancestors. Second, many creatures that appeared in the Cambrian layers have living counterparts today that show no sign of evolution—a paradox evolutionists label living fossils. Third, tube worms (another living fossil) have been found in rocks just below the Cambrian, and their fossils yielded soft, pliable tissue. The fact that their tissue, along with many other examples, is still soft and undecayed indicates they were buried only thousands of years ago in the global Flood described in Genesis.

Thus, according to a model of progressive burial by ecological zonation, we see that the Cambrian layers were the first to be deposited near the beginning of the global Flood in the sedimentary rock strata known by geologists as the Sauk Megasequence.10 The evidence provided by Cambrian fossils continues to say "no" to evolutionary expectations.

[4WD]

The bible is filled from one end to the other, with people, prophets, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ warning this world of the dire results of rejecting the truths of God's word and prophetic utterance. Do you think doing such was and is wrong?

You really do not understand.  Do I think doing such was and is wrong?  Of course, that is why I try very hard not to do it.  I do reject some of what you think are the truths of God's word and prophetic utterances.  And that is what puts the burr under your saddle.  You remind me of those who condemn musical instruments in worship, or those condemning anyone who consumes alcohol, on and on and on.  They truly believe that rejecting their beliefs is rejecting the truths of God's word and prophetic utterance  --  just like you. And they are wrong  --  just like you.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

No you don't.  In the science-y work that I do, you do not need to know the answer right away to know something is done wrong.  In doing quality checks on studies, I have found issues in the work that I know was wrong, and I didn't need to have a solution to know the current answer was not right.

You can ask intelligent questions and point out issues from a scientific background without having a solution.

Anyone is welcome to point out flaws, but if you don't have a better answer, or at least another answer, then you have contributed nothing to the discussion, which means you will likely be ignored.

This may just be a difference in our life experiences. 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Exactly! The testimony of God's word concerning creation, is not a solution to you. It is not the answer to your questions. You look elsewhere. To the observations and conclusions of fallen humanity. Including a great many atheists which back the theory of evolution up, and believe it leads to a rejection of not only the creation account, but God altogether. Fruits which are not produced by the truths of God's word.

False.  Genesis 1 does indeed give us some answers about creation.  It's your interpretation that is faulty. 

The teachings of Genesis 1 are that God is a god of order, it is Him who sets up the laws of nature, He works within those laws, and He is patient to form His creations over time, bringing them from a state of disorder to the state of perfection that He envisioned for each.

The insistence of YEC bozos that the chapter is a series of inexplicable miracles shortcutting the process is a direct contradiction to the point being made.

Or do you preach some form of God directed evolution? Even if so, how do you make such jive with the biblical teaching that death is the result of sin, which Christ came to save us from?

I do not preach scientific theories.  Those are the domain of scientists, and I am not a scientist.  Theologians masquerading as scientists is actually a pet peeve of mine. 

My concern is for what the Bible actually says.  It doesn't say that God acts like Aladdin's genie, poofing things into existence, subverting the laws of nature at a whim.  God is portrayed as immutable, unchanging, the One who establishes the laws of nature, and will wait for the eventual fruition of His long-term plans.

Jarrod

[The Barbarian]

I'm quite sure that Charles Darwin would be encouraged by the understanding that the mechanism of inheritance and cell reproduction is entirely natural, not some magical process as it was assumed by people of his time.    The realization that the vast complexity of the cell operates by very simple and understandable mechanisms (which is why biochemistry is a science and vitalism is a religious belief) caused a revolution in biology.    It was possible in the 1800s and well into the 1900s to be a biologist with little understanding of math and physics.   No longer.

As he almost always did, Darwin had it right about this.

[The Barbarian]

The Cambrian Explosion is a complete evolutionary enigma for a number of important reasons.

I thought the ICR had taken this down, after they conceded that much of it was wrong.   Apparently, it's back up.   Let's take a look at it...

First, incredibly complex animal life appeared suddenly and without any sign of preceding evolutionary ancestors.

Completely wrong.   First, prokaryotes (like bacteria) existed over a billion years before more complex eukaryotes.    Further, complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian were preceded by complex animals in the Ediacaran, including many forms that persisted into the Cambrian.

Second, many creatures that appeared in the Cambrian layers have living counterparts today that show no sign of evolution—a paradox evolutionists label living fossils.

They don't give you any specific examples, because there aren't any.   So far, no species living to day has been found in the Cambrian.   But they "kinda look the same, so the differences don't really matter" according to the ICR.

Third, tube worms (another living fossil) have been found in rocks just below the Cambrian, and their fossils yielded soft, pliable tissue. The fact that their tissue, along with many other examples, is still soft and undecayed indicates they were buried only thousands of years ago in the global Flood described in Genesis.

They assume that organic molecules (they aren't tissue; tissue means a collection of cells organized for a function) can't survive for many millions of years.   But there are numerous examples.   Ediacaran organisms are now known to be animals, because traces of cholesterol remains in some of the fossils.    Chemically there's no reason that such material can't be preserved for extremely long times. 

Thus, according to a model of progressive burial by ecological zonation, we see that the Cambrian layers were the first to be deposited near the beginning of the global Flood in the sedimentary rock strata known by geologists as the Sauk Megasequence.

Here, the ICR just adjusted scripture to fit their assumptions.    No wonder the ICR has continuously lost followers to other creationist groups.   They're locked into doctrines that even most creationists realize cannot be true.

[Amo]

That is what I believe also for just what it says. Ant that makes me a creationist.

Then you are lying to yourself. The most dangerous form of deception there is. You refuse to see what is right in front of your face, claiming it says something that it does not address in any way, shape, or form. There simply is no deep time evolution found in any of the scriptures I quoted, yet you believe in deep time evolution, and claim to believe these scriptures as well.

You claim to believe it for just what it says, but you will never, never, even attempt to explain how deep time evolution fits into what it says. As I have asked over, and over, and over again, I do now again provide you with the opportunity to show us how this is. You will not, because you cannot explain what does not exist. How can or do the scriptures you read and claim to believe for just what they say, not contradict the deep time scenario of slow progressive from simple to complex the theory of evolution requires.

Why have you, and do you absolutely refuse to answer or address this question? Is it not because there is no answer? Does this not point out the obvious truth, that the theory of evolution and the creation account are two very different things? Yes it does, whether you care to accept such or not. In this thing you are just like the far left. Never mind the facts of what we see right in front of us, that the theory of evolution and the creation account are two very different things, just believe what you say because you said it. NO!

[4WD]

I'm quite sure that Charles Darwin would be encouraged by the understanding that the mechanism of inheritance and cell reproduction is entirely natural, not some magical process as it was assumed by people of his time.    The realization that the vast complexity of the cell operates by very simple and understandable mechanisms (which is why biochemistry is a science and vitalism is a religious belief) caused a revolution in biology.    It was possible in the 1800s and well into the 1900s to be a biologist with little understanding of math and physics.   No longer.

As he almost always did, Darwin had it right about this.

Good to see you here again, Barbarian.  I have missed your contributions.  I don't always agree with you on everything, but I do appreciate your knowledgeable biological point of view since biology is one of my weaker areas of things scientific.

[Amo]

But you only post such passages when someone disagrees with you.  I have never seen such a post in response to someone that agrees with you.  Therefore, the obvious intent is to flag the one disagreeing with you as the intention of the post. But, as I noted earlier, you are not alone in such accusations.

Yes, you repeated yourself again, I could do the same I suppose. Of course I think I'm right, who chooses to beleive what they think is wrong, but the lost who choose to beleive lies. I don't think I am right, I know that I am right. There is no theory of evolution found in the biblical account of creation or scripture anywhere at all. And I am warning you, that choosing to believe this is so, or something which contradicts the testimony of scripture, endangers one's soul. Yes, your soul is in danger for choosing to beleive that which contradicts the testimony of scripture. As the theory of evolution does, regardless of what you think. You simply refuse to see or acknowledge the biblical account of creation as truth. This is dangerous to one's soul, regardless of how unpopular such a stance is.

[Rella]

My concern is for what the Bible actually says.  It doesn't say that God acts like Aladdin's genie, poofing things into existence, subverting the laws of nature at a whim. 

As you read the quasi-accurate translation that King Jimmy had written it is very suggestive of exactly that.

Gen 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Gen 5 ........ And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen 6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Gen 7  .......  and it was so.

Gen 8  .......And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Gen 9    And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and  it was so.

NOW, for the sake of time I shall stop posting the verses. You can clearly see that these are highly suggestive of an "instant pot" suggestion as to the actual creation of the way God worked. He said and poof... it was done.


God is portrayed as immutable, unchanging, the One who establishes the laws of nature, and will wait for the eventual fruition of His long-term plans.

Your statement is true. Bt it is also true if God had wanted it done instantly it would have been. We have all been conditioned to believe the bible was God inspired, therefore accurate. So if the suggestion in the bible is that it was instant, can you not see why many, if not most would see it to mean what it says?

Jarrod

[4WD]

There simply is no deep time evolution found in any of the scriptures I quoted, yet you believe in deep time evolution, and claim to believe these scriptures as well.

But it is there if you accept the premise that "day" in the Genesis account need not imply a 24-hour period of time as we view it today from our perspective. And it clearly doesn't in Genesis 2:4.

You claim to believe it for just what it says, but you will never, never, even attempt to explain how deep time evolution fits into what it says. As I have asked over, and over, and over again, I do now again provide you with the opportunity to show us how this is. You will not, because you cannot explain what does not exist. How can or do the scriptures you read and claim to believe for just what they say, not contradict the deep time scenario of slow progressive from simple to complex the theory of evolution requires.

I have explained it over and over again in this forum.  I have referenced articles which explain it very nicely.  But I suspect your didn't bother to read it.  Or if you did read it, it was over your head and you were lost in your own confusion.

Here, again, is one for your benefit:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx?msclkid=58e7f85cad0c11ecbc01916ea1a3b6d9

I like this one from Schroeder because he is both an MIT Physics Ph.D. and a bit of a Hebrew scholar as well.  He has written further on the subject providing greater detail on much of what he presents in the article. You are free to pursue that as well if you like.

[Amo]

You really do not understand.  Do I think doing such was and is wrong?  Of course, that is why I try very hard not to do it.  I do reject some of what you think are the truths of God's word and prophetic utterances.  And that is what puts the burr under your saddle.  You remind me of those who condemn musical instruments in worship, or those condemning anyone who consumes alcohol, on and on and on.  They truly believe that rejecting their beliefs is rejecting the truths of God's word and prophetic utterance  --  just like you. And they are wrong  --  just like you.

I'm not sure you understand my question, so let me zero in on it again. Do you think the prophets of God of old, and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ were and are wrong in warning he world of the dangers of rejecting the truths they proclaimed? If so, you are again simply wrong. And again denying exactly what scripture emphatically states many times over. This world will be lost because they reject the truths of God's word. There absolutely is a warning to be given to this world by God's people who believe His word. That warning includes His the execution of His judgments upon those who have rejected the truths of His word. Do you believe this, or not?

God will judge between you and I, whether it was His Holy Spirit that convicts me to address false doctrines, or selfish pride in simply attacking those who disagree with my views. He will judge in this evolution verses creation issue, as He will concerning all others. Regardless of what you think or declare, I am not defending my own views in this debate, but just exactly what God's word states and declares. God's word says nothing that I know of about no musical instruments in worship. It does address the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption, and many believe it should be avoided altogether since it slows down the thought processes which help us guard against sin and deception. Which I tend to agree with, though I do have one beer with some of my meals, and or a near beer.

I do truly believe that those who believe the deep time theory of evolution do reject the plain testimony of scripture. And are therefore in danger of losing their souls, as so very many already have as a result of the fruits of this extra biblical teaching.

[Amo]

But it is there if you accept the premise that "day" in the Genesis account need not imply a 24-hour period of time as we view it today from our perspective. And it clearly doesn't in Genesis 2:4.I have explained it over and over again in this forum.  I have referenced articles which explain it very nicely.  But I suspect your didn't bother to read it.  Or if you did read it, it was over your head and you were lost in your own confusion.

Here, again, is one for your benefit:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/AgeUniverse.aspx?msclkid=58e7f85cad0c11ecbc01916ea1a3b6d9

I like this one from Schroeder because he is both an MIT Physics Ph.D. and a bit of a Hebrew scholar as well.  He has written further on the subject providing greater detail on much of what he presents in the article. You are free to pursue that as well if you like.

That is a big fat negative. Even if your preferred interpretation of a day was correct, which according to scripture itself it is not, this would not make the theory of evolution true. A symbolic day instead of a literal one in the creation account, does not equal the theory of evolution is true, accepting in the minds of those who would desire it to be so. What, God could not have taken more time and created the world slower than six days if He wanted, without needing evolution to form complex creatures from the get go? Of course He could have. He did not though, as He Himself testified audibly with His own mouth to the entire nation of Israel, and wrote with His own finger in tables of stone. Still you reject this testimony by God Himself, concerning the creation account. So be it. Therefore do I warn you of the danger of doing so.

Exo 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled. 17 And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. 18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. 19 And when the voice of the trumpet sounded long, and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice.....................................

Exo 20:1  And God spake all these words, saying,....................................
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it....................................................
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. 20 And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not. 21 And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

Is Gos short sighted? Did He not know that false religions and false theories would arise contesting His six day creation of the world? No, He is not. His fourth commandment serves the exact purpose of identifying exactly who He is, and why the authority of His word is above all others. It was commanded also, exactly to address and nullify all false religions and theories that would arise contradicting this testimony. Which would include the theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it is certainly not all the testimony form scripture which we have, given specifically to address the false theory of evolution.

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.

Are you not willingly ignorant of the same, denying said testimony because it will not fit along with the theory of evolution? You reject both the testimonies of the fourth commandment of God spoken by His own mouth and written with His own finger, and the testimony of the apostle Peter above, because they destroy the theory of evolution. So be it.

[4WD]

I'm not sure you understand my question, so let me zero in on it again.

I understand your question perfectly.  I answered your question.

And again denying exactly what scripture emphatically states many times over.

I haven't denied anything the scripture emphatically states; I have only denied your interpretation of some such scriptures.

This world will be lost because they reject the truths of God's word. There absolutely is a warning to be given to this world by God's people who believe His word. That warning includes His the execution of His judgments upon those who have rejected the truths of His word. Do you believe this, or not?

Of course I believe it.

Regardless of what you think or declare, I am not defending my own views in this debate, but just exactly what God's word states and declares.

It is a real pity that you do not even understand that it is your own views in this debate that you are defending. Your view, apart from just exactly what God's word states and declares, is based upon your interpretation of what the Hebrew word "yom" intends in the Genesis creation account. Your view is that Genesis 1:5 says, "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first 24-hour period of time".  You think that is just exactly what God's word states and declares.  It does not.

God's word says nothing that I know of about no musical instruments in worship.

But Amo, your argument, at least in part, is that since God's word says nothing about evolution then evolution must not be real or correct.  As some would suggest, that since, in the NT at least, they see nothing in God's word about musical instruments in worship, it must wrong and unacceptable. You are employing the same false argument.

It does address the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption, and many believe it should be avoided altogether since it slows down the thought processes which help us guard against sin and deception. Which I tend to agree with, though I do have one beer with some of my meals, and or a near beer.

Have you not read of so many who try to argue that every time that the Bible speaks of the acceptability of God's people drinking wine, it must be unfermented wine, i.e., grape juice? They do to the word "wine" exactly what you do to the word "day".

I do truly believe that those who believe the deep time theory of evolution do reject the plain testimony of scripture. And are therefore in danger of losing their souls, as so very many already have as a result of the fruits of this extra biblical teaching.

I think you truly do believe that.  That doesn't make you right.