• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Answering any questions on Evolution

G

good brother

Guest
Straw-man arguments. Nobody claimed that Adam was a child when he married.

Nobody claimed Adam was a young child when he named the animals.

Nobody claimed that there was not a passage of time.

.
So...... do you believe that God made Adam as a child, then left him alone for years and years, only to come back to him as he was an adult to make a suitable helper for him and have him name the animals?

We can easily understand from the context that there was little time between God making man and woman, and the time from which they were expelled from the Garden. We know this because God had commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it" yet they did not fulfil this simple and enjoyable command. They were banished from the Garden before they could even start filling the Earth! We know this for sure because the Bible says that there was only One who was born without sin, and that is Jesus Christ. Every other person that has ever been born has been born into sin with the exception of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is no reason to inject the notion that some great amounts of time passed between the creation of man and the Fall.

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Insult noted.You asked where Adam came from. I answered your question. And when you indicated you didn't know where the Bible described Adam coming from the dust of the ground, I provided Genesis 2:7.If you reject what the Bible says and reject what God's creation says, I don't think any answer is going to satisfy you.

.

None intended. Think context.


7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.



We can "see" that passage of time here.
1 God forms man.
2 God plants a Garden.
3 God creates food for the man from the Garden.
The passage of time between when Man is formed, the garden is planted, and food is provided is a matter of pure, complete speculation.
How long before a man gets hungry? It's totally up in the air, how long this took before man had to eat. No numbers are provided at all. We should check the fossil record I guess.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The compounds that formed life came together because of their properties.

For example the phospholipid bilayer that forms a membrane around cells. The head of the lipid is hydrophilic but the tail is hydrophobic, this allows an fluid arrangement of the compounds which acts a barrier and holds form due to it's hydrophobicity in a solution.

In general terms chemicals react because inorder to lower there energy states and become more stable. The more unstable a atom/molecule, the more likely it is to spontaneously react with another atom/molecule.

This is very well shown in DNA and RNA. RNA is a highly unstable molecule, but reacts very easily and therefore is a good catalyst. Whereas DNA is very stable and does not react with ease.

If that were the case, we could recreate life. Or we could see new life springing forth under every rock.
New life would occur all the time out of sterile environments.
And there would be a natural law written that explains what life is founded on.
And some segment of society would worship this and call it "God".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟16,047.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
To (thompson24) I disagree; human knowledge of chemistry soundly denies what you espouse as an explanation…

“What if life is one of the rules of chemistry?”

This proposition was once proposed formally in a book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman but Dean Kenyon recanted the formal proposition (may not be a formal Hypothesis) in 1976 reportedly from a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith. This proposition was not consistent with the findings of that the co N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix where non-covalent.

The compounds that formed life came together because of their properties.

For example the phospholipid bilayer that forms a membrane around cells. The head of the lipid is hydrophilic but the tail is hydrophobic, this allows an fluid arrangement of the compounds which acts a barrier and holds form due to it's hydrophobicity in a solution.

In general terms chemicals react because inorder to lower there energy states and become more stable. The more unstable a atom/molecule, the more likely it is to spontaneously react with another atom/molecule.

This is very well shown in DNA and RNA. RNA is a highly unstable molecule, but reacts very easily and therefore is a good catalyst. Whereas DNA is very stable and does not react with ease.

These are old myths revived repeatedly… If you need particulars, we can discuss this further. Life can not arise from natural chemistry.
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟17,147.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
To (thompson24) I disagree; human knowledge of chemistry soundly denies what you espouse as an explanation…

“What if life is one of the rules of chemistry?”

This proposition was once proposed formally in a book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman but Dean Kenyon recanted the formal proposition (may not be a formal Hypothesis) in 1976 reportedly from a book by A.E. Wilder-Smith. This proposition was not consistent with the findings of that the co N-glycosidic bonding between nucleobases in the Double Helix where non-covalent.



These are old myths revived repeatedly… If you need particulars, we can discuss this further. Life can not arise from natural chemistry.
You assert with total confidence that an improbable event simply could not happen.
Life really is chemistry - that alone is enough to suggest that, given favourable conditions, that life really can start from non-life.

Scientists have found a possible set of circumstances that allow for the natural self-production of biochemical compounds - which have even been found in space.

Your whole stand is just a 'god-of-the-gaps' argument; because where science has incomplete answers you see no natural way to acheive these answers.

But, and let us never forget this point, even if you really are correct and life cannot start itself, it needs a creator, evolution is still a fact.

It is a fact that we all share a common ancestor with worms, wasps and wombats, onions, olives and oranutans.
 
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟16,047.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Scientists have found a possible set of circumstances that allow for the natural self-production of biochemical compounds - which have even been found in space.

Please mention this “set of circumstances” because all I have ever seen is speculation on the matter.

It is a fact that we all share a common ancestor with worms, wasps and wombats, onions, olives and oranutans.

Common ancestry of humans and chimps is not even sustainable in terms of scientific evidence so common ancestry in general is just a paradigm of speculation.

I stand by my last statements…
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You assert with total confidence that an improbable event simply could not happen.
Life really is chemistry - that alone is enough to suggest that, given favourable conditions, that life really can start from non-life.

Oh, it's a valid hypotheses. We can watch Frankenstein movies over and over to see how it could work. But that's the entertaining part. Even if we could, possibly make it happen, we'd only be proving that it takes intelligent life to make life.

Because it's not happening by itself. If so, (if the theory of evolution of life in the universe were correct) you'd have tens of millions of examples.
So the evidence is, it never did.
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
Life really is chemistry - that alone is enough to suggest that, given favourable conditions, that life really can start from non-life.
Then we should have no grave yards. If life is merely chemistry in concert, and under favorable conditions that life could start from non life, why do we have so many dead people? The chemistry is there, and in perfect order (it worked great for that person all through their life). The only thing that is missing (according to a naturalistic viewpoint) is energy in the system. We should be able to tote around a couple of batteries and live forever (or at least a lot longer). But you and I both know it doesn't work that way.

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0
We can easily understand from the context that there was little time between God making man and woman, and the time from which they were expelled from the Garden. We know this because God had commanded them to "be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it" yet they did not fulfil this simple and enjoyable command.

Lets take a look at this. In Gen 1:26 we read: "1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth," In Vs 27 we read "God created man in his own image,"

God created a "male and a female" then He told them to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion " There has been a lot of discussion about just the word "replenish". Also we have words like: "make" (asah), "image" (tselem ), "likeness" (twot), "dominion" (radah), "created", (bara) "subdue it" (kabash), "dominion" (radash) That we need to understand their meaning. THEN the real zinger comes in: Gen 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

Se we can see on the sixth day God saw that "it was very good". We can NOT go onto Ch 2 vs 1: "2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished," What part of FINISHED are we having a problem with? Then God rested on the seventh day: 2:2 And on the seventhdayGodended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventhday.

Next we read: "2:4 These are the generations". Does anyone know what the word generations means??? Generations means "common ancestor" & "descent with modification". Do you have any problem with that definition Dr Verysincere? Do you have a better definition you would like to give us for the word: generations (to-led-aw')?

Ok what do we read next??? "2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." No man to "till the ground"? What does this "before it was in the earth" mean? What does this "plant of the field" mean? What is a field? What is a "man to till the ground"?

In Chapter one we are told to be fruitful, muliply, fill the earth. Have dominion over the fish in the sea. Are their fish in the field that man is now told to till? It sure looks to me like we are no longer on day 5 we are now on day 8 and man is no longer a hunter gather man is now a food producer.

2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
What are these NEW words: "dust of the ground". What is dust? What is ground? Breathed into his nostrils? What is breated, what is nostrils? The "breath of life"? What is the breath of like, what is man now? WHAT IS A LIVING SOUL??? Gee I do not remember any of this back on day five. Before God rested, before God said "the Heavens and the Earth were finsished"

2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
Again, what happened to: "be fruitful, muliply, fill the earth." that we read about back on day five? What does it mean the God "put" man in the garden? What does "garden" mean? What does "formed" mean.

I got a LOT of questions here that we need to talk about before we even begin to think about the "tree of knowledge of good and evil. " What is that all about? Did God make the "tree of knowledge" on the eighth day when "He put man whom He had formed"?

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I got a LOT of questions here and NOT ONE seems to be paying any attention at all to what they are reading. Could someone at least tell me what these words mean? Even if they do not want to explain what the whole sentence means.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Maybe the BIG question is the word "took" what does that mean:

"1) to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away" Because we are told that: 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

Again for the third time, because the third time is a charm. This is different from "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea," That we read about in chapter one on day six. Because then God rested on the seventh day. Adam then shows up in The Garden of Eden on the eighth day in the year 4004 BC.

Does anyone read this book? There are two very short chapters here and no one seems to be paying any attention at all to what the first two chapters in the Bible says. How can we have discussions on evolution and creationism until we at least decide what these words in Ch 1 and Ch 2 mean in the Hebrew language. What are there 25 of them that we need to figure out? Is that so difficult to figure out and understand what 25 simple primitive Hebrew words mean? It's called expository.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
Jazer, the word "replenish" from the older translations of the Bible does not have the same meaning as we think of today. The archaic meaning meant simply "to fill". We think of "refill" but that was not it's intended definition at the time of the translation. The passage in Genesis truly just means that Adam and Eve were commanded "to fill" the Earth, not refill it as after some catastrphe like Noah and his family were to do after the flood.

I would comment on the rest, but there is just so much there to digest. If you and I could concentrate on a more specific part at a time, I would be more than happy to help if I can.

God bless.

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟25,646.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Then we should have no grave yards. If life is merely chemistry in concert, and under favorable conditions that life could start from non life, why do we have so many dead people? The chemistry is there, and in perfect order (it worked great for that person all through their life). The only thing that is missing (according to a naturalistic viewpoint) is energy in the system. We should be able to tote around a couple of batteries and live forever (or at least a lot longer). But you and I both know it doesn't work that way.


I'm speechless.


.
 
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,896
17,798
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟461,856.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Then we should have no grave yards. If life is merely chemistry in concert, and under favorable conditions that life could start from non life, why do we have so many dead people? The chemistry is there, and in perfect order (it worked great for that person all through their life). The only thing that is missing (according to a naturalistic viewpoint) is energy in the system. We should be able to tote around a couple of batteries and live forever (or at least a lot longer). But you and I both know it doesn't work that way.

In Christ, GB

Please tell me you're joking.
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
Please tell me you're joking.
Tell me what's wrong with the logic trail there. Evolutionists constantly fall back on the Urey Miller experiment as proof that the necessary ingredients for life can arise, that all they need to do is arrange themselves in a life sustaining/replicating order, and add a shot of "energy" (whether it's electrical or some other form), and viola! Life! If we were to take a dead human, all the information is right there. It's in perfect order as it had to be for that person to survive for a moment, let alone a lifetime. Everything is there for life, minus the "energy".

So where am I mistaken?

In Christ, GB
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Life really is chemistry - that alone is enough to suggest that, given favourable conditions, that life really can start from non-life.

PERFECTLY legit hypothesis.

Experiment - Fail.
Observe and document examples - Fail.
Check all known compounds on earth - fail
Check all planets - fail
Check the stars for signs of life - fail.
 
Upvote 0

Zaius137

Real science and faith are compatible.
Sep 17, 2011
862
8
✟16,047.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Intersting! Do you recommend American Scientific Affiliation to learn about Christian views on science? :)

Not really…

I admit radioactive decay rates have been one of greatest challenges to the young earth postulate. One reason for that obstacle was the lack of any evidence that radioactive decay rates varied at all. I found the following statement from the article….

“Also unlike the hourglass, there is no way to change the rate at which radioactive atoms decay in rocks. If you shake the hourglass, twirl it, or put it in a rapidly accelerating vehicle, the time it takes the sand to fall will change. But the radioactive atoms used in dating techniques have been subjected to heat, cold, pressure, vacuum, acceleration, and strong chemical reactions to the extent that would be experienced by rocks or magma in the mantle, crust, or surface of the Earth or other planets without any significant change in their decay rate

“There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.”

Radiometric Dating


This in fact (as much as you disagree on this point) may no longer be true and is truly dated. Aside from this possibility, there are several possible bad assumptions about dating can be made: the local observer as presented in Special Relativity, the gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the RATE proposition of accelerated decay rates during creation and the flood or even the Omphalos hypothesis. Besides these, there are assumptions made in dating materials such as initial daughter concentrations…

“However, there is one complication. One cannot always assume that there were no daughter atoms to begin with.”

Assumptions are even in Isochrons: whole rock and mineral Isochrons; the whole rock being the less accurate assumption. Initial points in the Isochron starting points are assumed the same when in fact that very assumption has caused very dissimilar results and is inherent to the whole rock isochron (such as the Rubidium Strontium isochron).

“All lines drawn through the data points at any later time will intersect the horizontal line (constant strontium-87/strontium-86 ratio) at the same point in the lower left-hand corner. This point, where rubidium-87/strontium-86 = 0 tells the original strontium-87/strontium-86 ratio. From that we can determine the original daughter strontium-87 in each mineral, which is just what we need to know to determine the correct age.”

Big Problem…

“For a system with a very long half-life like rubidium-strontium, the actual numerical value of the slope will always be quite small. To give an example for the above equation, if the slope of a line in a plot similar to Fig. 4 is m = 0.05110 (strontium isotope ratios are usually measured very accurately--to about one part in ten thousand),”

This puts a fine point on my previous statement…

“Several things can on rare occasions cause problems for the rubidium-strontium dating method. One possible source of problems is if a rock contains some minerals that are older than the main part of the rock.”

“Another difficulty can arise if a rock has undergone metamorphism, that is, if the rock got very hot, but not hot enough to completely re-melt the rock. In these cases, the dates look confused, and do not lie along a line.”

(but since the slope is so slight they are usually just assumed to line up) Furthermore mixing is given as a problem.

Most of the time the old dates are accepted because they fit the paradigm whereas younger dates are aberrant and discarded. The old earth paradigm to be real and be explainable in science must line up with all scientific disciplines.


I finished reviewing the article and noted one of the closing statements:

“Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating). Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true”

The author does speculate that the effect noted above would only cause minor observable anomalies in dating. I believe a statement to that effect is only guesswork.

The author then goes on to hold and defend the old age paradigm in that same old tap dance of uniformitarianism that has griped the sciences for over 200 years.

Unfortunately, scientific conclusions reinforced by many disciplines of science are more acceptable. I give as example the old earth idea enforced by not only geology but also astrophysics and to date there are major observational problems with star and planet formation. These are not just trivial problems to be resolved later; they actually defy our basic understanding of physics.


“Four questions, in particular, trouble astronomers. First, if the dense cores are the eggs of stars, where are the cosmic chickens? The clouds must themselves come from somewhere, and their formation is not well understood. Second, what causes the core to begin collapsing? Whatever the initiation mechanism is, it determines the rate of star formation and the final masses of stars.
Third, how do embryonic stars affect one another? The standard theory describes individual stars in isolation; it does not say what happens when they form in close proximity, as most stars do. Recent findings suggest that our own sun was born in a cluster, which has since dispersed [see “The Long-Lost Siblings of the Sun,” by Simon F. Portegies Zwart; Scientific American, November 2009]. How does growing up in a crowded nursery differ from being an only child?
Fourth, how do very massive stars manage to form at all? The standard theory works well for building up stars of as much as 20 times the mass of the sun but breaks down for bigger ones, whose tremendous luminosity should blow away the cloud before the nascent star can accumulate the requisite mass.”

Mysteries of How a Star Is Born: Scientific American

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.” Abram Loeb, as cited by Marcus Chown, “Let there be Light,” New Scientist, (vol. 157, February 7, 1998) p.30


Without a scientific explanation of how the isotopes got there in the first place scientists must acknowledge that, the old earth evidence is only speculation.



My firm belief and that backed up by current science is “God’s Word is the final authority”













 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My firm belief and that backed up by current science is “God’s Word is the final authority”

But as you can read, "the scientist" examining the evidence is going to draw incorrect conclusions, and not back up God's actions:


7 Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim.
8 Then he told them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet.”They did so,
9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside
10 and said, “Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.
 
Upvote 0