Creation vs. Evolution II
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
6days
New member
PJ's comment about the Bible being facts and details would be confirmation basis on the same level as you saying that you air to survive. Its based on facts.
Hedshaker
New member
Sure <rolleyes> my favourite bible fact is the one about the talking snake. Shake the other leg, it rattles
6days
New member
If physical death and suffering is not a result of a literal 'first Adam's' sin; then the purpose of 'Last's Adam's' suffering and death become meaningless. How is it that atheists often understand this; yet Christians are so willing to compromise?
The Gospel message... our need of salvation depends on a real first man, and a real original sin.
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come....." Rom. 5:12 +
"But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive...." 1Cor. 15:20+
Atheists often understand...if they can get people to reject Adam, they have successfully destroyed the gospel...From atheists.org/atheism"if Adam and Eve and the Talking Snake are myths, then Original Sin is also a myth, right? Well, think about it.
"Jesus’ major purpose was to save mankind from Original Sin. Original Sin makes believers unworthy of salvation, but you get it anyway, so you should be grateful for being saved (from that which does not exist)Without Original Sin, the marketing that all people are sinners and therefore need to accept Jesus falls moot.
"All we are asking is that you take what you know into serious consideration, even if it means taking a hard look at all you’ve been taught for your whole life. No Adam and Eve means no need for a savior. It also means that the Bible cannot be trusted as a source of unambiguous, literal truth. It is completely unreliable, because it all begins with a myth, and builds on that as a basis. No Fall of Man means no need for atonement and no need for a redeemer. You know it." (Quote is from 'evangelical' atheist... trying to persuade Christians to compromise)
6days
New member
Correct..... Science does not concern itself with faith and magic. Perhaps that is why science has proven so many evolutionists beliefs to be false.
BTW..... 'Germ Theory' was developed by a fellow who gave praise to the Creator, and saw science as a form of worship.
That's a common selling point, but its really just using a weasel word to try sell the belief system
If 'evolution' means things like selection, adaptation, mutation rate, genetic shuffling etc..... then that is empirical science which contributes to new technologies and medical advancements.
If 'evolution' means common ancestry beliefs, then that is more like a religious belief that has only hindered science, when scientists have started work with faulty conclusions.
Henry F. Schaefer, Graham-Purdue Prof. and head of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia says "Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism." (from his book 'Science and Christianity: Conflict or coherence?')
Dr. Ben Carson, professor of neurology and head of Pediatric Neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins, said “Evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”
Hedshaker
New member
Oh but science does concern itself with the Theory of Evolution, as well you know. You just don't like it and you think these pathetic sound bites you're famous for alters the reality of it. It doesn't. Evolutionary Theory is recognised and upheld by the vast majority of the science community. Whereas creationism is nothing more than religious belief and magic
But that's not the issue being pointed out, is it? Evolutionary theory is as much a scientific theory as is Germ Theory or the Theory of Gravity, so calling Evolutionary Theory "just a Theory" doesn't wash. You just don't like it. Well tough!
Snip the usual clap trap..... you may get a kick out of writing the same nonsense over and over but I can assure you having to read it all again is mind numbingly tedious. Instead of this failed attempt to discredit Evolution why don't you present some evidence for these Bible "facts" you clam are real. You could start with talking snake Theory - move onto the Theory of a dead guy coming back to life after being clinically dead for three days - and then end up with the Theory of gravity defying walking on water. There's much more, of course but that will do for a start. In your own time
6days
New member
Jesus rising from the grave is not a theory. It's a belief about the past based on the evidence of the absolute truth of God's Word.
He who spoke creation into existence is the same one who went to Calvary suffering death...acting as my mediator. As surely as He is the Author of Life, He also defeated death.
Heb.9:15 That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant.
gcthomas
New member
Well, that's the common selling point …
But it is belief based on another belief.
So tell me, how do your claimed radiodating errors turn out to be the same in different parts of the Earth with different conditions? And the same as meteorites, which haven't experienced any leaching from water, or any differentiation due to gravity and high temperatures? And the same for samples of Mars, that have experienced no tectonic activity?
You haven't spelled out ANY source of error that would be the same in such a variety of situations, as all your suggestions have been environmental factors. Ante up, 6Days, what could possibly affect ALL these situations just the same?
Hedshaker
New member
But I didn't ask about what you believe. I know what you believe. I suggested you took a break from disparaging the scientific Theory of Evolution and spent some time presenting evidence for these Bible facts you've bought into. But never mind. Your beliefs are far more important than actual truth so there's little point.
6days
New member
Radiodating is sometimes nothing more than an agreement amongst evolutionists what the correct date must be. Here is an example of changing the date by a couple hundred million years so that it fit with evolutionary beliefs.
Richarad Leakey*discovered*modern looking skull KNM-ER1470*in 1972.* He declared the skull was 2.9MYO.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/knm-er-1470
Geologist (paleocologist) *Kay Behrensmeyer was there with Leakey. "She discovered a cluster of stone tools eroding out of a volcanic tuff, an ash layer from an ancient eruption that filled a small paleochannel. The site was named in her honor and the layer was named the Kay Behrensmeyer Site Tuff or KBS Tuff. .....The dating of the site was controversial, as it contradicted other paleobiological evidence.* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Behrensmeyer
In 1969 Leakey (BEFORE discovery of 1470) had sent samples of the tuff to F.J.Fitch U. *of London and J.A.Miller Cambridge University. Dates provided were 212 to 230 million years old. (Potassium /argon)*However the associated fossils (Both above and below the tuff) determined the acceptable range for the radiometric dating. Because Australopithecine and other mammal fossils were found below the tuff, the date was determined to be 5 million year max... This was not based on any science, but only on evolutionary beliefs. Without the fossils, evolutionary geologists would simply accept the hundreds of millions of years as correct. *
Because Leaky found the skull after the the tuff had been dated at more than 212 million years old, Fitch and Miller had to come up with new a different number. Using a different method, they now reported the Tuff was 2.61 million years old.
NEXT...
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, other scientists had found other fossils in the area and used different dating methods, but came up with numbers in the acceptable range.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v247/n5442/abs/247520a0.html
(Pigs and elephant... 1.3 to 4.5MY)
In 1974, paleomagnetism (Article published in Nature) seemed to give a bullseye to the dating, in the area saying it was between 2.7 and 3.0MY.
HOWEVER.... Skull 1470 appeared too modern to be 2.9 MYO (Leakeys preferred date) according to current evolutionary stories.* In 1975 a younger date of 1.82 MY was given
*on the strata.* The current date given to skull 1470, assigned by consensus, is 1.9 MY. *
https://www.researchgate.net/public...in_the_Koobi_Fora_Formation_East_Rudolf_Kenya
One thing in common was the various studies was mentioning the difficulty in obtaining good samples. IOW... A good sample is one that*provides a date consistent*with evolutionary expectations.* IOW.... Circular reasoning is used to obtain a date that fits with the just so stories.
Numerous other examples can be given where dates are adjusted up or down to fit the story. *J.M.Bowler in Journal of Human Evolution; in a article interestingly titled "REDATING Australias oldest Human Remains" says "For this complex laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence".
And..... Its sort of sad...sort of funny, that evolutionists can read a statement like that and not burst out laughing.
6days
New member
You didn't...You referred to it as a theory. Christ rising from the dead is not a theory. Its a belief based on evidence.
And I explained that there is a difference between what is empirical science and common ancestry beliefs.
Not sure what it is you are looking for? Is there one thing you think can be proven wrong? (Name one only and lets discuss it...not a list) There is lots we can prove is correct.
For ex...Dr Luke (Gospel of Luke) was perhaps the world's greatest historian. The research Luke did is reflected in the accuracy of his account.
The Gospel of Luke besides numerous mentions of things with historical and archaeological significance also mentions;
32 countries
54 cities
9 islands.
Because of the numerous mention to countries and cities, Sir William Ramsay thought that this book would be the easiest one to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"
Ramsey wrote:"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians."
http://www.bibleevidences.com/archeology.htm
Interesting how so many people say the Bible is filled with errors. Yet for many who are willing to study it with an open mind, such as Sir William Ramsay, it is inerrant
6days
New member
So you want us to give you laws which govern our 'fine tuned' universe, then you can invent stories from that point on?
One of the many evidences of God, and the truth of His Word is what us known as the 'finely tuned' argument. It is fascinating how designed planet earth is to support life. Robin Collins who has PhD in Philosophy and degrees in mathematics and physics says " the structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life. The coincidences says are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance."
For example Collins mentions the fine tuning of gravity. He says to imagine a measuring tape divided into one inch increments stretched a cross the entire visible university. There would be billions upon billions upon billions of increments representing the range of possible gravitation. Imagine a dial is set to the point representing our gravity... DON'T TOUCH that dial. If it is moved just 1 mere inch, the results would be catastrophic! People and animals would be crushed. Insects would need much thicker legs to support themselves.
Gravity is just one of about 30 things that show that life is "balance on a razor's edge"... evidence of an intelligent creator. Another factor that Collins discusses is whats called the 'cosmological Constant', the energy density in empty space. He compares the likelihood of the cosmological constant being balance just right is about the same as throwing at dart from space hitting a target on earth that is less than the size of an atom.
For these two factors alone (Two factors out of 30), the "fine tuning would be to a precision of one part in a hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Collins says he finds wonder and awe "not just in fine tuning, but in lots of areas like quantum mechanics... the deeper we dig we see that God is more ingenious and more creative than we ever thought possible"
(from the book 'Case for a Creator')
Even many secular scientists admit the universe is fine tuned for life... seemingly designed for life. statements from astronomers, physicists and cosmologists admit things such as "the facts suggest a super intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as the chemistry and biology" (Sir Fred Hoyle)
Jose Fly
New member
You just can't stop lying, while simultaneously claiming to be on the side of God.
I wonder if you appreciate just how that reflects on your religion.
Hedshaker
New member
Here's what I originally suggested:
Talking about the dead coming back to life as a theory is obviously hyperbole.
What you explain is neither here or there. You're obviously no scientist and you have been thoroughly discredited already so pardon me if I take what you explain with a pinch of salt. Evolution is recognised as a genuine scientific theory by all but a tiny number of religious crackpots in the science community. What you believe about it is irrelevant.
No, you're not going to switch the burden. It's not about what I can prove wrong but what you can prove true. You've been given several points where the Bible is wrong on the face of it..... unless you have sound, testable, falsifiable evidence that shows otherwise. Got any?
Bible verses, preaching and spouting what you believe is not evidence.
gcthomas
New member
6Days, I asked specific questions, each of which you have ignored in order to attack a process that is unrelated. I expected as much, but I'm still disappointed with you.
gcthomas
New member
You are a deceitful person, 6Days.When you brought this up in February, I checked your theologian/philosopher source, and pointed out the nonsense of it: Your one-inch movement along the 'tape measure', according to your source, corresponds to a factor one million increase in gravitational strengths.
So to rephrase your statement with this clarifications:
DON'T TOUCH that dial. If gravity were increased by just a factor of a million, the results would be catastrophic! People and animals would be crushed.
Well, yes. Well done. Gravity is not nearly as fine tuned as you seem to think - a wide variety for G would still produce stars and habitable planets. A factor of A THOUSAND would be OK.
You just keep regurgitating the same old guff, again and again. You never learn, you never even improve your claims. You are static, and unable to develop your arguments.
6days
New member
The sea floor does not erode. A study on the erosion rate of earth indicates that the continents would be completely eroded away 70 times over if the earth was really 3.5 billion years old. Erosion rates help us confirm the truth of God's Word when we see things like the Dover cliffs.
This study says that drainage basins erode 18 times faster than outcrops. The outcrops erode at a rate of 40feet per million years.(Chalk cliffs eroding much faster than that) The continents are an average of 2000feet above sea level so would erode away in 50 million years.
My initial thought on reading this was that people who do believe the earth to be billions of years old, would say we still have continents because of uplift from below. However a Loma Linda University geologist, Ariel Roth says "It has been suggested that mountains still exist because they are constantly being renewed by uplift from below. However, this process of uplift could not go through even one complete cycle of erosion and uplift without eradicating the layers of the geologic column found in them. Present erosion rates would tend to rapidly eradicate evidence of older sediments; yet these sediments are still very well-represented, both in mountains and elsewhere."
http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/21/8/abstract/i1052-5173-21-8-4.htm
6days
New member
So...??? You think hyperbole helps sell your beliefs? It was you who said "Theory of a dead guy coming back to life after being clinically dead for three days ...." Once again...Christ rising from the grave is a belief based on the evidence of inerrant truth in God's Word.
I think we are agreeing.... Beliefs about the past are not science.
If you are saying that "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules."...Then that is a definition consistent with beliefs of Biblical creationists. Changes in characteristics is determined by PRE_EXISTING genetic information and processes.
No...you mentioned things from the past, that you don't believe because it's inconsistent with the present. Confirmation bias is when you start with your conclusion(Rejecting the Creator), and then interpret evidence to fit those preexisting beliefs
So... be consistent with your own arguments and deny that life came from non life.
gcthomas
New member
Roth is misleading you. The fact that sediments have built up on continents shows that there cannot be a simple one easy erosion happening. Roth is wrong that older sediments are well represented around the works - there are discontinuities all power the place where large sections of the geologic column have been eroded away, only to be reburied when conditions change.
Have you got anywhere wirth the mechanism that would affect the dating of the earth, masts and meteorites by the same amounts, despite the thoroughly different conditions they experience?
6days
New member
The important point is how the strength of gravity compares with the strength of the electrostatic force. This is the force that operates between things that have electric charges. It holds electrons in their orbits in atoms, and it is responsible for the chemical bonds between atoms.
The electrostatic force is a billion billion billion billion times stronger than the force of gravity (1036 times stronger). http://focus.org.uk/gravity.php
Or from a secularist...
"The moment of the universe’s birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart – and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.
It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in on themselves and each other. What’s more, the gravitational distortion of space-time would have folded up the universe in a big crunch. Our cosmic history could have been over by now."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227123-000-gravity-mysteries-why-is-gravity-fine-tuned/