Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

Are you aware there are many (Although a small percentage) of geologists, geneticists, physicists, atrophysicists, microbiologists, astronomers etc who say the evidence from science best fits the Biblical model and a young universe?

No. I am aware that many scientists say that evidence from science fits the Biblical model of the sequence of animal and human life appearing on the earth, but responsible Science never says that the earth is young

What you seem to be saying is that it does not matter to you what Biblical scientists say, (or the Bible)....that scientists are only "responsible" if they believe in an old earth like yourself?

I would like your references for that statement by scientists.

Ok... here is a small sampling.
GEOLOGY
Prof. John Morris PhD geology, I am equally certain, after lengthy study of and research in the facts, theories, and methods of geology, a reasonable familiarity with the data and methods of radiometric decay, etc., that there is no geological or physical evidence that demands an old earth. There are many interpretations of certain geologic data which propose an old earth, but there is always another, usually better, interpretation of the same data which points to a young earth
GENETICS
Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson
"Previous studies of the human mitochondrial DNA mutation rate suggested the existence of a molecular “clock” that measured time consistent with the young-earth timescale, but these studies were limited to the D-loop (~7% of the mitochondrial DNA genome). Several recent studies measured the mutation rate in the entire mitochondrial DNA genome. I demonstrate that these new data agree with the expectations from D-loop results, further confirming the origin of the human race within the last 6000 years and strongly rejecting the evolutionary and old-earth creation timescales."
PHYSICS
Prof. Keith H. Wanser
"explanation of the planetary magnetic fields is in surprising agreement with the creationist theory and there is no evolutionary counterpart to it. Similarly, the predictions of rapid geomagnetic reversals have been verified by analysis of lava flows in Steen’s Mountain in Oregon, which indicate geomagnetic polarity reversals occurring in a matter of a few weeks, much to the bewilderment and surprise of evolutionary scientists."
ASTROPHYSICS
Dr. Jason Lisle, astrophysicist
"The belief in billions of years has a stranglehold on our culture today—even within the church. Many professing Christians have been taken in by the fallacious distant starlight argument or other eisegetical claims involving anti-biblical assumptions. As a result, many Christians have compromised; they have attempted to “add” the billions of years to the Bible....
"Even now, the scientific evidence is very consistent with what the Bible teaches about the age of the universe."
MICROBIOLOGY
"Scientists were surprised to find that DNA was still intact after a supposed 250 million years. ('Ancient' bacteria)

In 2000, scientists claimed to have “resurrected” bacteria, named Lazarus bacteria, discovered in a salt crystal...
"If the Lazarus bacteria are only about 4,500 years old (the approximate number of years that have passed since the worldwide flood), their DNA is more likely to be intact and similar to modern bacteria.
ASTRONOMY
D. Russel Humphreys, PhD
Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old."http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
Hey Kingdom...I hope you are open to what these and other scientists say, in that science helps support Biblical creation, without compromising and adding time and death into God's Word.

As I have explained, and you appear to agree, the Bible, when taken IN CONTEXT, does not always say that 24-hour days are necessary to understand a "day." Joshua marched around Jericho so many times from sun up to sun down (not cognizant of 24-hour days, but only the movement of the sun), which to US would approximately coincide with 24 hours. In THAT context we could accept the 24-hour idea. But in Genesis the context strongly indicates that the "days" were not 24-hours in length.

*
Kingdom Rose.....it seems obvious you are adding 'sun up and sun down' to the account of Joshua to justify your addition of vast periods of time into Genesis. (There was also sun up and sun down in several of the creation days, but those words are not used) The language in Gen. 1 and Joshua 6 is similar. God tells him to 'do this for six days'. *Joshua woke in the "morning" and returned to camp at "night" . Then there was a "second day". They marched for "six days", and on the "seventh day"....
Genesis 1 defines the creation days as a period of evening and morning, day 1. *The context of the word 'day' does not allow for anything other than the normal days we now experience, both in Gen.1 and Joshua 6. I provided you a number of ways from Hebrew grammar we know the days in Genesis are no different than Joshua's days. Hebrew scholars at every major university say the language of Genesis 1 is referring to a day that we now call '24 hour'. .

 

[6days]

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview. When the results are unfavorable, they are dismissed as contaminated, or as an anomaly, or as an outlier, or as a poor sample.

... You just don't even have the foggiest idea of how radiometric dating works, or why certain isotopes like C-14 can't be used past a certain point.

Greg... you seem so desperate to try prove a creationist wrong, that you sometimes end up chasing your own tail.*
Your claim was "C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years".
Soft dino *tissue C14 dates less than 40,000 years. * So, are you now going to argue that a date of 40,000 (or 28,000) is correct?

Archaeopteryx is essentially a tiny bird with teeth and half claws. That could certainly go unnoticed by a biblical author.*

*
Likewise with the or bats; they could go unnoticed. Or, archaeopteryx may have already been long extinct.....it may not have been a local bird.*

But a pterosaur with a 40 foot wingspan (many different species of pterosaur had 20+ foot wingspans) is literally an airplane. You can't miss that.

It would have been cool to see one. A flying creature that large launching into flight would be quite the engineering feat. But again, pterosaurs may have already been long extinct.....it may not have been a local creature. Greg....sometimes you seem a little too anxious trying to find a argument that might discredit the Bible. Arguing that God should have mentioned this creature seems ....silly.*

 

[6days]

Evolutionists accept the results...except when it contradicts their worldview. When the results are unfavorable, they are dismissed as contaminated, or as an anomaly, or as an outlier, or as a poor sample.

... You just don't even have the foggiest idea of how radiometric dating works, or why certain isotopes like C-14 can't be used past a certain point.

Greg... you seem so desperate to try prove a creationist wrong, that you sometimes end up chasing your own tail.*
Your claim was "C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years".
Soft dino *tissue C14 dates less than 40,000 years. *

Archaeopteryx is essentially a tiny bird with teeth and half claws. That could certainly go unnoticed by a biblical author.*

*
Likewise with the or bats; they could go unnoticed. Or, archaeopteryx may have already been long extinct.....it may not have been a local bird.*

But a pterosaur with a 40 foot wingspan (many different species of pterosaur had 20+ foot wingspans) is literally an airplane. You can't miss that.

It would have been cool to see one. A flying creature that large launching into flight would be quite the engineering feat. But again, pterosaurs may have already been long extinct.....or, it may not have been a local creature. Greg....sometimes you seem a little too anxious trying to find a argument that might discredit the Bible. Arguing that God should have mentioned this creature seems ....silly.*

 

[Greg Jennings]

Greg... you seem so desperate to try prove a creationist wrong, that you sometimes end up chasing your own tail.*
Your claim was "C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years".
Soft dino *tissue C14 dates less than 40,000 years. * So, are you now going to argue that a date of 40,000 (or 28,000) is correct?
*

Please provide the name of the paper/journal article that dated soft dinosaur tissue consistently to the dates you say, and I will look it up. If it says as you do, then that's something maybe in your favor. But you'll have to show that such a study actually exists.

I don't think you understand what is meant by "soft tissue." That doesn't mean that it is soft and squishy to the touch. That means that a few cells of soft tissue were found.

Likewise with the or bats; they could go unnoticed. Or, archaeopteryx may have already been long extinct.....it may not have been a local bird.*

Ok I don't think we disagree here.

It would have been cool to see one. A flying creature that large launching into flight would be quite the engineering feat. But again, pterosaurs may have already been long extinct.....it may not have been a local creature. Greg....sometimes you seem a little too anxious trying to find a argument that might discredit the Bible. Arguing that God should have mentioned this creature seems ....silly.*

That's ridiculous. How could all of these creatures have died out within 2000 years of the bible being written and not even be mentioned? How did they go extinct? Has your bible science squad verified that yet?
Even if recently extinct, their bones would be EVERYWHERE, and stories about them would be passed down long after the creatures themselves disappeared. What you are suggesting is absurd. It's illogical. You have to completely suspend any notion of reality to twist the way your mind does to make this "work"

 

[Stuu]

But a pterosaur with a 40 foot wingspan (many different species of pterosaur had 20+ foot wingspans) is literally an airplane. You can't miss that. They didn't even resemble birds: they lacked feathers, could grow to an enormous size, and had bat-like wings with digits. When mentioning things that fly, that would be the FIRST thing on anyone's list, and certainly wouldn't not be left out altogether.

You're telling me that biblical authors just forgot about these tens of species of monstrous flying animals when compiling their owph list?

Maybe the Jewish god is fine with people eating Pterosaur.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

Wrong. Only your personal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with evolution. I tried to tell you before, your personal interpretation of the Bible and the Bible itself are two different things.


No they are not.

Dear CC,

Think about it. Doesn't it say in the Bible that "There were giants in the Earth in those days; and also after that..." {See Gen. 6:4KJV}. So don't think that there were no giant birds at that time. But they died in the Flood because God did not bring them into the ark. All of the giant animals died in the Flood, except the elephants and crocodiles. There were too many giant animals to include in the ark. The dinosaurs mainly died in the Flood. And the giants didn't make it into the Ark. I have to get some technical service for this slow computer.

God's Best For You!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Don't know about Michael but you sound too rational to me to buy the utter nonsense that is theism. But then, very little on this forum can be described as rational I guess.

Dear Hedshaker,

Good to have you back!! I missed you!! Hey, Michael is just fine and has a bright future ahead of him. Don't say this Thread is not rational. Hedshaker, I don't know what to tell you anymore. Don't you realize that I'm right about things. I've made a couple mistakes, but I have a good record regardless. There is a God and there is a Jesus. Jesus is returning soon with the clouds of Heaven. I know what I'm talking about and all of us Christians and Catholics know that He will return also. You're going to just have egg on your face multiplied by 3.5 billion times. It's a lot of eggs. Good luck! I pray that God will call you also, if it is His Will. It's up to you to make the next step. He's made enough steps already.

Jesus Saves!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

And just because you claim he did something that we have no evidence of doesn't mean that he did

Dear Greg,

You have evidence from all of the salt remaining where Sodom and Gomorrah used to be. And why is the Dead Sea such a salty lake?

Michael

 

[Greg Jennings]

Dear Greg,

You have evidence from all of the salt remaining where Sodom and Gomorrah used to be. And why is the Dead Sea such a salty lake?

Michael

I'm afraid no supernatural explanation is necessary here. The Dead Sea is the saltiest body of water on Earth because at an elevation of 1410 feet below sea level, it is the lowest point on Earth. It is not an ocean, but a giant salt lake. The water from the surrounding area has no outlet to the ocean, so all of the dissolved salts in the rivers/runoff get dumped into the Dead Sea.

That is why it is so salty. The Caspian Sea (also not a sea) in Eastern Europe is getting progressively saltier due to very similar circumstances

 

[6days]

Please provide the name of the paper/journal article that dated soft dinosaur tissue consistently to the dates you say, and I will look it up. If it says as you do, then that's something maybe in your favor. But you'll have to show that such a study actually exists.

Ýou don't *need a 'study'... you need lab results. *Anyways.... here is one article. www.sciencevsevolution.org/

I don't think you understand what is meant by "soft tissue."

And I know that once again, google could sure help you. You seem so anxious to affirm / assert *what you believe, that you often make silly statements.*

*That doesn't mean that it is soft and squishy to the touch. That means that a few cells of soft tissue were found.

The cells are "flexible and resilient and when stretched returns to its original shape" (NewScientist, Mar. 24, 2005). And, "The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear" . *(smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/#pL8ak2shgs9k3XGg.99)

Even if recently extinct, their bones would be EVERYWHERE

Google... and a little logic could help you with this. What happens to a dead duck? Or cows, whales, deer, and albatros? *Their bones are eaten by scavengers and broken down by bacteria, and decompose by oxidation.*

 

[6days]

Do you think Christianity would still be among the two biggest religions if it still insisted that the Sun orbits the Earth?*

You misrepresnt things. Christianty never insisted any such thing, and neither does the Bible. Who insisted the sun orbits the earth was popular opinion at that time. An arrogant Pope had bought into secular ideas.*

The church learned from their mistake....

I don't think many 'churches' did learn anything from the Galileo incident. They continue buying into secular ideas. Fortunately in Galileos time, and still today, there are people unwilling to compromise God's Word to fit the flavor of the day.*

 

[6days]

So the Nazis accepted Darwinism....by banning the works of Darwin. Is that the sort of logic that only creationists can understand?*

Banning Darwinism in *Nazi Germany is a myth perpetuated by evolutionists who try distance themselves from the harm Darwinism has caused.*
"Where, then, did this myth of the Nazis banning Darwin arise? As with many myths, there is a small element of truth, but it was wrenched from its context and blown out of proportion. In 1935 a minor official overseeing the libraries of Saxony published an article in a journal for librarians, in which he recommended banning certain categories of books. One category was: "Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating him, as well as Ostwald)." Note that the target was "primitive Darwinism and monism," not Darwinism per se. Also, the only two authors mentioned were Ernst Haeckel and Wilhelm Ostwald, not Darwin nor any of the myriad of other Darwinists who continued to publish pro-Darwinian science books and articles throughout the Nazi period.

"Worse yet for those who base their argument on this supposed "ban," there is no evidence that this ban ever took place, despite this one article (by a low-level functionary in a relatively obscure journal). Indeed, other articles published later in the same journal approvingly reviewed books with heavy doses of Darwinism, so clearly Darwinism was not banned."http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/11/was_darwinism_b103304.html

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

Good to have you back!! I missed you!! Hey, Michael is just fine and has a bright future ahead of him. Don't say this Thread is not rational. Hedshaker, I don't know what to tell you anymore. Don't you realize that I'm right about things. I've made a couple mistakes, but I have a good record regardless. There is a God and there is a Jesus. Jesus is returning soon with the clouds of Heaven. I know what I'm talking about and all of us Christians and Catholics know that He will return also. You're going to just have egg on your face multiplied by 3.5 billion times. It's a lot of eggs. Good luck! I pray that God will call you also, if it is His Will. It's up to you to make the first step. He's made enough steps already.

Jesus Saves!!

Michael

I sometimes need to take breaks from the board because too much cloud cuckoo land hurts my brain,

Trouble is Michael you've been saying "soon" now for over three years. What does soon mean to you? A year? 3 years? A century? A thousand years? The one time you dared to hazarded an approximate time you got it exactly 100% wrong, which we all knew you would be because the whole thing is all in your head. And yes, I know what you're going to say now: It'll be soon, wait and see... if only you had the sense to realise how daft that is.... it's like me saying: at some point in the future you're going to slip and fall into a bath of custard. Just you wait and see. It'll be really soon and you'll be covered in hot stick custard, just wait and see! It's meaningless Michael! Do you not see that?

So no, I'm sorry but you are not right about these things, you never have been and you don't actually know what you're talking about. Claiming to know something will happen soon is not the same as actually knowing it, no matter how many times you make the claim or how soon you think it will be, nor does guessing a few inches of snow mean anything.

Don't get me wrong Michael, you have a good heart and I suspect you really do believe you have been visited by angles and what not. You are fully entitled to believe what ever you wish. But a claim is just a claim, nothing more. I don't believe a word of it but I except that you do.

 

[Hedshaker]

I'm open-minded. I'm not willing to discount any possibility of a creator, be that God or something else

Me too, given sound testable evidence, same with pixies and fairies Haven't seen any yet but you never know.

 

[Stuu]

the harm Darwinism has caused.

Do tell.

Stuart

 

[MichaelCadry]

I sometimes need to take breaks from the board because too much cloud cuckoo land hurts my brain,

Trouble is Michael you've been saying "soon" now for over three years. What does soon mean to you? A year? 3 years? A century? A thousand years? The one time you dared to hazarded an approximate time you got it exactly 100% wrong, which we all knew you would be because the whole thing is all in your head. And yes, I know what you're going to say now: It'll be soon, wait and see... if only you had the sense to realise how daft that is.... it's like me saying: at some point in the future you're going to slip and fall into a bath of custard. Just you wait and see. It'll be really soon and you'll be covered in hot stick custard, just wait and see! It's meaningless Michael! Do you not see that?

So no, I'm sorry but you are not right about these things, you never have been and you don't actually know what you're talking about. Claiming to know something will happen soon is not the same as actually knowing it, no matter how many times you make the claim or how soon you think it will be, nor does guessing a few inches of snow mean anything.

Don't get me wrong Michael, you have a good heart and I suspect you really do believe you have been visited by angles and what not. You are fully entitled to believe what ever you wish. But a claim is just a claim, nothing more. I don't believe a word of it but I except that you do.

Dear Hedshaker,

We all make mistakes, buddy. Like you ended your post with "except" that you do when it should be I "expect" that you do. We make mistakes. You should also have "angels" instead of "angles." That doesn't mean the whole batch of strawberries is bad or wrong.

What I mean by soon, is up to a few decades or so. That does not mean it will not be sooner. So now, you know. I've got to tell you that you comparing God to fairies is ridiculous. It's hardly the same. Yes, the snow did matter. You can't write someone and say it will surely snow within 48 hours for 7" deep. It was a sheer miracle. Go ahead, you try it out.

Warmest Regards To You!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I guess all of the scientists alive are gullible idiots.

Michael, C-14 dating (as well as ALL radiometric methods) are 99.5% foolproof as long as proper procedure is followed, which it is. For there are issues with contamination, the sample is thrown out.

What you don't seem to understand is that these methods each have a time limitation: C-14 is only a reliable year up to 75,000 years because that's when the amount measurable gets too small to supply reliable information. For U-Pb, the range is 4+ billion years. If you don't trust science, you're only cheating yourself here.


If this makes you unconfortable then just ignore it. Ignorance is bliss, as they say

Dear Greg,

For me to believe that your radiometric dating is valid would mean that they can date something 4+ billion years old, I'd say you know where you can get off. I don't believe your Lead and Uranium elements make that possible. Your dating methods are unusual.

Michael

 

[6days]

Do tell.(harm Darwinism has caused)

Increased racism, genocide, holocaust.

 

[Stuu]

Increased racism, genocide, holocaust.

Evidence please.

Stuart

 

[6days]

Evidence please.(That Darwinism increased racism, genocide, holocaust)

Evidence is in the history books.
Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist said "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
As to the holocaust... Again, history shows the Nazi's used Darwinism to justify their hatred of disabled people and certain ethnic groups. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg