Young Earth Creation as opposed to Old Earth Creation (aka evolution lite)

[NGC 6712]

In looking over the research that has so far been tabulated about being 'born again', we find that most polls place that number at roughly 1/3 of those who associate themselves as christans also further define themselves a 'born again'.

In the US perhaps - worldwide the number drops precipitously. I'd be shocked if it is over 5%.

 

[Metal Minister]

In the US perhaps - worldwide the number drops precipitously. I'd be shocked if it is over 5%.

I would have to agree, the number of born again Christians worldwide is very small, and their constant persecution drives people away in fear of being killed. I pray daily that God keeps his hand on these brave souls and keeps them safe. There's is a greater testimony than almost anyone else I can think of to a love for Christ.

 

[NGC 6712]

I would have to agree, the number of born again Christians worldwide is very small, and their constant persecution drives people away in fear of being killed. I pray daily that God keeps his hand on these brave souls and keeps them safe. There's is a greater testimony than almost anyone else I can think of to a love for Christ.

More to do with the rejection of the born again fervour I think. Persecution affects all Christians, born again(ism) just turns many Christians of the more mature denominations off. To many Christians outside the US (and quite a few within), the born again phenomena comes across as post 1950's cultism.

 

[Metal Minister]

More to do with the rejection of the born again fervour I think. Persecution affects all Christians, born again(ism) just turns many Christians of the more mature denominations off. To many Christians outside the US (and quite a few within), the born again phenomena comes across as post 1950's cultism.

I'm speaking more of those in places like China or Iran where even mentioning your a Christian can get you killed. I think those of us in the western world tend to take for granted our freedom to profess and share our faith.
And as for the back handed insult, doesn't Christ tell us we must be born again? What is "immature" about professing that? Is being born again in Jesus a cult now? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but isn't the entire point of being a Christian to bring others to that same saving knowledge?

 

[NGC 6712]

And as for the back handed insult, doesn't Christ tell us we must be born again? What is "immature" about professing that? Is being born again in Jesus a cult now? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding but isn't the entire point of being a Christian to bring others to that same saving knowledge?

Does he tell us that? I can find many arguments against running amok with a scriptural line as I can for - a line that is not exactly prominent in the scriptures I might add. There are many arguments that the phrase is a mistranslation or that it was directed at only Nicodemus. All I know is that it is tough to find born agains in Catholicism, Orthodox or Anglican churches which compose a large majority of Christianity.

Personally I do find the modern day born again movement to be a little cultist and certainly often attracts those who want to claim to be "more Christian" than others. And the "I am more Christian than you" phenomenon is especially prevalent on this forum.

 

[Metal Minister]

Does he tell us that? I can find many arguments against running amok with a scriptural line as I can for - a line that is not exactly prominent in the scriptures I might add. There are many arguments that the phrase is a mistranslation or that it was directed at only Nicodemus. All I know is that it is tough to find born agains in Catholicism, Orthodox or Anglican churches which compose a large majority of Christianity.

Personally I do find the modern day born again movement to be a little cultist and certainly often attracts those who want to claim to be "more Christian" than others. And the "I am more Christian than you" phenomenon is especially prevalent on this forum.

Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicode'mus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

What part of that doesn't connect? It's quite cut and dry. And as for holier than thou attitudes, I grew up in a catholic home, and I got more of that at St. Michael's than I ever did in a Baptist church. My point is that you can find that on any denomination. Is it possible you misunderstand the fervor as you call it for the holier attitudes? Many of us who call ourselves born again simply tend to have an over abundance of excitement and joy, and wish to share it with everyone.
On the other hand, it almost seems that you're upset to be a Christian. I deeply hope I'm wrong on this, bit in the short time I've been here I don't think I've seen you encourage a fellow Christian or defend your faith, though I've seen you defend your thoughts on science with great tenacity. Now please don't misunderstand, I'm in no way judging or attacking your faith. I'm simply passing on an observation from my limited knowledge of and interactions with you. I mean no disrespect or insult. Please believe my only intention is to understand, and spread Christ's love.
May God richly bless you. MM

 

[miamited]

hi ngc,

Good morning. You responded to my post: In the US perhaps - worldwide the number drops precipitously. I'd be shocked if it is over 5%.

You may well be correct, but keep in mind that Jesus told Nicodemus, "You should not be surprised that I tell you, you must be born again."

"I tell you the truth! No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"I tell you the truth! No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and Spirit."

So, while your numbers may be correct, I'd sure be striving to be in that number.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Metal Minister]

http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html

 

[Papias]

MM, that site uses many of the same lies and hoaxes that I've pointed out to you (with references) to be false earlier, yet you still are fooled by them? Not to mention that in any discussion forum, actual discussion is the whole point, and just posting a bare website is both cowardly and lazy.

Plus, you still haven't responded to my points in our discussion as laid out in post #93.

Welcome back, if you'd like to actually have a discussion instead of posting bare and debunked websites.

Papias

 

[Metal Minister]

MM, that site uses many of the same lies and hoaxes that I've pointed out to you (with references) to be false earlier, yet you still are fooled by them? Not to mention that in any discussion forum, actual discussion is the whole point, and just posting a bare website is both cowardly and lazy.

Plus, you still haven't responded to my points in our discussion as laid out in post #93.

Welcome back, if you'd like to actually have a discussion instead of posting bare and debunked websites.

Papias

Actually that was only a post to more or less see if anyone was even still interested in the thread or if I would simply abandon it. Your response is forth coming...

 

[Metal Minister]

I'LL BE USING CAPS TO IDENTIFY MY NEW POINTS, AS THERE IS TOO MUCH TO TRY TO USE THE QUOTE BUTTON FOR:

Papias wrote: Amazing. MM, did you actually read my post? Did you check on the reference I gave?I ask because my references are not only made up of real, peer-reviewed scientists who've published in actual journals, but the whole site I listed as a reference (talkorigins.org) is also endorsed by the National Academies of Sciece, the Smithsonian, the Geological Society of America, and more. If that's not using "actual fact", then please inform me what is. I will start here. talkorigins.org is an evolutionists site. I've been there several times. Also, the places you've mentioned as "reputable" are organizations bent on proving evolution. Um, they are bent on finding the truth, based on actual science. You just claimed that practically all of science is unreliable and biased. Do you even know what the National Acaedemies of Science is?
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/17/the-atheistdominated-national-academy-of-sciences/ (AS A MATTER OF FACT, YEAH I DO)
As a matter of fact, the smithsonian has been duped twice with fake fossils from China supposedly proving the dino/bird link. ....I'm sorry but groups of fallible people bent to disprove God do not garner any weight with me .

OK, so you are saying that because the Smithsonian was duped with two samples, out of the thousands they work with, that they are unreliable? Let's see, that means they have a success rate of better than 99.9%, and even with those, they removed them as soon as the error was detected.
http://www.extinctions.com/ THIS IS WHERE THE SMITHSONIAN GETS IT'S FOSSILS. BUT ON ANOTHER NOTE, IT ONLY TOOK A YEAR BEFORE THEY DECIDED TO ACTUALLY CHECK THE FOSSILS FOR AUTHENTICITY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERE DOUBTS

Now, please compare that with the list of hoaxes you posted earlier as "evidence" for young earth creationism. That list not only contained a number of hoaxes, but YECs are still touting the hoaxes after they've been exposed!
WHICH ONE ARE HOAXES? YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WITHOUT SAYING WHICH ONES ARE...

So that's 99.9% success, with errors corrected as soon as discovered for the Smithsonian, vs. YEC's with mostly hoaxes, with errors clung to even after being exposed.
AGAIN, IT TOOK OVER A YEAR AND YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO SAY WHICH ARE SUPPOSEDLY HOAXES.

And so you put weight in the frauds, and reject the 99% success? Ouch.

*********

Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.
COMPARED WITH WHO? CHARLES DARWIN? WHO ALSO HAD ZERO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING AND NUMEROUS ERRORS THAT HAVE YET TO BE CORRECTED?
While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even morfe well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison. Wow, MM, just wow. Do you even know the story behind Kent Hovind's "conviction"?

Hey, you even topped what you did before. To think that you would go on to try to defend Kent Hovind!

Yes, I know his story. He was convicted by an impartial jury on all counts of fraud - that's 58 consective counts of fraud. I know that he has bilked Christians out of literally millions of dolars.
UM NO. AGAIN INCORRECT. THE SUPPOSED FRAUD WAS IN PAYROLL TAXES, AND THE PROBLEM IS TBA FLORIDA ALLOWS EMPLOYERS TO NOT WITHHOLD THESE TAXES IF THEY PLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE EMPLOYEE WHICH THEY DID, AND EVERY EMPLOYEE WAS ABLE TO PROVE AT TRIAL THAT ALL TAXES WERE PAID. OH, AND ONE OF THE COUNTS WAS "THREATENING AN IT'S AGENT" BY PRAYING HE WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND FIND GOD. OOH WHAT A VILLAN!

Do you realize that much of your defense of these con artists consisted of saying their crimes should be ignored because they were treated harshly by police? Can you imagine that defense being used in court?

"Yes, your honor, I know my client did murder his victim, but hey, he needed to go to the bathroom when the police arrested him, so he's innocent!"
NO, THE POINT WAS THEY WERE ARRESTING TWO PEOPLE FOR SUPPOSED TAX FRAUD, IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS THE KORESH COMPOUND AND THEY WERE HOLED UP WITH GUNS. THE POINT WAS ONLY IN THE RIDICULOUS NATURE OF THE WHOLE THING. I'M SORRY THAT WAS LIST ON YOU.

Here, take some time to learn from something other than the half-truths Hovind sends out in his newsletters. I especially encourage any lurkers to look at this fraudster that MM is defending. MM, do you think Kent Hovind is a good representative of Christianity?IN YOUR OPINION APPARENTLY NOT, BUT I MUST SAY, WHAT DOES HIS TAX SITUATION HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION? THIS IS AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
REALLY? WIKIPEDIA? HERE, LET ME PAY MY MONEY TO THEM SO I CAN CHANGE WHATEVER INFORMATION I WANT. THAT SITE IS ABOUT AS RELIABLE AS A CARNIVAL FORTUNE TELLER.

********** Papias wrote: I hope to sometimes reach people with the saving message of Christ. When they see a minister using Malone and Hovind, is it any surprise that they start to think that Christianity itself might be a hoax?Please, for the unsaved, use some better vetting of your sources. ********** You mean like you did with the smithsonian? ********** No, as we've pointed out, Bible scholars who know hebrew and the ancient world much better than you reject the literal interpretation. Why do you think that we'll listen to some guy on the internet (who's shown he has no credibility by using Malone and Hovind), and ignore the Bible Scholars? ********** The Hebrew word for day, yom, ...... In the Genesis Creation account, yom is used with a numeral, indicating that it intends the reader to understand that these are literal days of twenty-four hours. As a unit of time, the .... This, too, argues that the Creation week in Genesis was a week of seven literal days. 4. God set aside the seventh day of Creation week as a holy rest day. The .....weekly cycle of seven days. The integrity of the weekly cycle continues and is an evidence for Creation week being composed of seven literal days. 5. 6. The fourth commandment (....The admonition concerning days of labor and day of rest would also be meaningless. 7. The wording of the creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is best understood as meaning literal days. Such expressions as "day and night," "evening and morning," "light and darkness" can hardly be understood as indefinite periods of time.

Do you seriously think that the Bible scholars haven't heard these? Are you seriously claiming to know Hebrew and the Bible better than the Bible scholars? I'm not sure if that's a more incredible claim than the idea that Kent Hovind is an innocent victim. It's close.
AGAIN, YOU MAKE A CLAIM WITH NO PROOF. MY SOURCE IS ONE THAT TOOK THE HEBREW AND HEBREW SCHOLARS AND SHOWED WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANT. I ALSO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HEBREW AND THEY HAVE VERIFIED THIS FOR ME AS WELL.

Many of them are so simple that I, a non-scholar who doesn't know Hebrew, can see through them. For instance:

The view that each day of the Genesis Creation account is actually an extremely long period of time--rather than literal days of twenty-four hours --causes problems. For example, Genesis says that plants were created on the third day (see Genesis 1:11-13) and that sunlight was created on the fourth day (see verses 14-19). If the third day is actually a long period of time, how could plants have existed without sunlight?Likewise, many plants require insects for pollination. How could these plants have survived and reproduced without insects which were not created until the sixth day (see Genesis 1:24, 25)--if these days were actually long periods of time? Because it's obviously metaphorical. The whole chapter is written as a poem, with puns to show that it isn't literal. Like Exodus, Solomon, and so on, scripture often contains things that aren't literal. I mentioned the flying on eagles wings before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask again. MM, do you consider Exodus 19:4 to be literal?
OH BOY *SIGH* I TOLD YOU BEFORE, SONG OF SOLOMON WAS WRITTEN LIKE A SONG, BUT REFFERING TO A BIT OF HYPERBOLE AS EVIDENCE THAT THE WHOLE OF GENESIS WAS METAPHORICAL? THAT'S STRETCHING LOGIC PAST ITS BREAKING POINT. ARE YOU SAYING IT TOOK GOD BILLIONS OF YEARS AND TRIAL AND ERROR TO BRING US ABOUT?

********** Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over -even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back. ********** The same could easily be said of evolution. We've heard the same tired excuses for a lack of evidence but we're supposed to put our faith in fallible humans many of whom want to disprove God. Except that you haven't heard the evidence - doing so would take a whole college degree in biology, years of research, a post-doc position, and so on. You are completely ignorant of 99+% of the evidence for evolution, yet you say the evidence is lacking.
I DON'T NEED ANY OF THAT TO UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, AND TO USE COMMON SENSE. I ALSO HAVE COMPLETE FAITH THAT GOD PLACED US HERE LIKE HE SAID IN GENESIS

Is it possible you've let your faith slip by the words of men? Christianer than thou much?NOPE, JUST AN OBSERVATION. YOU SEEM TO HAVE MORE FAITH IN SCIENCE AND THE MEN BEHIND IT THAN GOD AND HIS WORD.

The point is that for evolution to be even remotely true there needs to be billions if not trillions of intermediary fossils. It appears you are clueless about taphonomy.
NO I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT EVOLUTION NEEDS AN EXCUSE AS TO WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR IT'S THEORY. YET WE ROUTINELY FIND "MODERN" ANIMAL FOSSILS IN STRATA SUPPOSEDLY BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD. OR HOW ABOUT THE DATING OF THE KBS TUFF? IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD UNTIL THEY FOUND A HUMAN SKULL UNDER IT. BUT THAT ONLY CHANGED THE DATE TO MAKE IT A 95% ERROR .

 

[Metal Minister]

Cont:


A handful of bones that we cannot even date accurately does not support evolution. And clueless about not just what evidences we have, but even about the different types of evidence available. Since you have claimed to be familiar with the evidence, could you show us that you are by simply listing 6 of the main different types of evidence. Hint - fossils aren't even the most important type.
WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU "EVIDENCE" FOR YOUR THEORY? TALK ABOUT HAVING IT BACKWARDS, AND AS I SAID, I WANTED A THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION AND FOLKS LIKE YOU AND NGC 6712 BROUGHT SCIENCE INTO IT.

If a whale gets buried above a dolphin, does that mean he evolved from that dolphin?They have some very similar structures, and are the only creatures that breathe through a blow hole. The whole idea of using fossils is based on the ASSUMPTION of the geologic time scale which doesn't exist anywhere in the world, is based on circular reasoning, and was dreamed up by people trying to sell the idea that the earth was millions of years old. And apparently you are also ignorant about dating methods, and the fact that they all confirm each other.
AGAIN, WRONG. THEY ALL MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE EASILY DISPROVED. TAKE FOR INSTANCE C14. IT HAS TO ASSUME THE RATE OF DECAY WAD ALWAYS THE SAME, THAT THE ATMOSPHERE WAS IN EQUILIBRIUM, ETC. THIS ALSO DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO THE WILD DATES THEY SOMETIMES GET.

Recommending that people actually know what they are talking about before speaking is "arrogant and self-righteous"?While at the same time saying that you know better than the experts, who have spent their whole lives studying the evidence is somehow not arrogant?Might you have that backwards? And yet you admit to me you don't know most of this as well, but will preach to me that I need to be more educated.

Of course you need to be more educated, while I don't. Because I'm not disagreeing with the experts,( SO YOUR TAKING WHAT THAT DAY SIMPLY AT FACE VALUE WITH NO EDUCATION OR UNDERSTANDING? TALK ABOUT FAITH) so I don't have to claim to be an expert to point out that someone disagreeing with the experts (you) doesn't have leg to stand on.WOW, SO IF ONE OF THESE "EXPERTS" CLAIMED TOMORROW TO HAVE "PROOF" THERE IS NO GOD, WOULD YOU BE AS READY TO DUMP YOUR FAITH?

For instance, if I claimed that beams from space aliens caused cancer instead of cancer being caused by environmental chemicals, you would be correct in asking for my credentials. However, if I claimed that cigarrettes cause cancer, I don't need to be an expert, because that is in agreement with the experts.
NO THAT WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY NOT JUST EXPERTS, AND THOUGH I AGREE THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER, THERE ATE STILL SOME EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE.

You stepped in and assumed I knew nothing of what I was speaking of, and chose to assert your scientific superiority. From your posts, it's clear that no assumption was involved. It's not relevant whether or not I'm "scientifically superior". It's only relevant that you, who are the one disagreeing with the experts, are clueless.
IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION CORRECT?

That is what turns people away. When they get dose after dose of this type of attitude. Oh, and not the person who questions my faith, and cites con artists as if the thought they were scientific authorities, while dissing the Smithsonian?
AGAIN, YOU HAVE SHOWN TIME AND AGAIN, MORE FAITH IN PEOPLE WITH AN ATHEISTIC BENT THAN THE WORD OF GOD. I'M ONLY OFFERING THE OBSERVATIONS.

********** Is not the fact that all the different dating methods confirm each other "proof" of an old earth?And, by the way, evolution is called a fact. ********** Actually wrong on both counts. All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point. In fact its documented proof that if a scientist finds a date that doesn't fit with the evolutionary time table, its simply discarded. This is not science. Whoa, I'd like to see evidence for that claim that dates are discarded for the sole reason that they don't fit any time scale.
The dates Gd 12638, Gd 15477, and Gd 3006 of Phase 2 and Gd 15502, Gd 12637, and Gd 467 of Phase 3 are definitely too young. They were also discarded by the excavator as

aberrant. [1]

The compilation of radiocarbon dates reveals that both the GdA-date (AMS) and the GdS-dates from liquid scintillation spectrometry (LSC) are later than the conventional Gd-dates.
FROM PPND - THE PLATFORM FOR NEOLITHIC RADIOCARBON DATES

I've often posted some of the plentiful evidence that the dating methods confirm each other. Here is a thread where that is discussed, start at post #10:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/

And evolution is only asserted as a fact by fools and athiests.( one in the same really) There are far too many holes in evolution to call it a fact.

Is Dr. Collins a fool or an atheist? NIH - Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.

And so you are saying that the National Academies are fools and or atheists? Evolution Resources from the National Academies
AS I POSTED IN THE ARTICLE EARLIER, YES, THEY ARE ALL BASICALLY ATHEISTS.

********** I believe Ted obliterated this argument nicely, but in point of fact, since when did the majority decide truth?The majority of "Christian" scientists believed in things like blood letting, geo-centrism, and flat earth, in direct contradiction to what the bible teaches. Ted's posts are often little more than hymns of praise to his own view. Oh, of course Christian scientists can be wrong. I'm pointing out that you are incorrect in saying that only atheists support evolution. In fact, most of the support for evolution in the US comes from Christians, not atheists.
ONLY BECAUSE ATHEISTS ARE A MINORITY IN TERMS OF POPULATION. GIVE THEM A NIFTY LITTLE TAG LIKE PHD AND IT GIVES THEM AN AIR OF AUTHORITY TO MOST PEOPLE, WHEN THEY COULD WELL BE FULL OF IT. ERNST HAECKEL COMES TO MIND.

********** Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you. ********** I believe it could be from Harvard and evolutionists would still call it fake. That's silly. I would certainly not call it fake if it came from Harvard. Since you sound defensive, might I ask where it is coming from?


I must say Papias, its very frustrating to discuss anything with you if you're willing to dismiss what you hear because it doesn't mesh with evolution. No, I'm willing to dismiss the repeatedly disproven canards from con-artists that you refuse to back up with actual references. I hope you are too.

If you wish to continue the theological aspect, then please by all means,let's. Otherwise I have no choice but to skip over the scientific posts I simply don't have the time, I'm sorry. And what credibility does that have at the end of a huge two post rebuttal? If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you?

In Christ's name-

Papias ___________
SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU TOOK TWO PAGES DOESN'T ADD WEIGHT, JUST WORDS. IN THE END, MY OFFER STILL STANDS. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS THEN LET'S. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS THEN USE THAT AREA OF CF. IT'S APPARENT THAT NEITHER OF US IS GOING TO CHANGE THE OTHERS MIND, SO I WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS ON THIS THREAD AS I'M TRYING TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT, AS PROGMONK AND I WERE DOING.
MAY GOD RICHLY BLESS YOU. MM

 

[Metal Minister]

However Papias, since you did bring up a bit of a theological point, here is a question: if Genesis is metaphorical, then why would anyone take Jesus's death for us as anything but a metaphor? If God used billions of years and evolution, then why not say so? He's not exactly shy about telling us what He's done so why obfuscate our origin?

 

[Ronald]

[Metal Minister;60579515]In my opinion, there are only three reasons why a bible believing Christian would believe in macro-evolution.

I agree with these three reasons and with that additional reason that people misinterpret the scriptures as you have demonstrated.
Some additional thoughts:
The text explains the order of things created which require 24-hour days.
A child can read, "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day"; and figure it out. It's simple. A child can figure out that on the third day, all the vegetation was created and that a sun was needed for this vegetation to grow -- which was made on the fourth day (not millions or billions of years later).
According to Astro-men and the like, the universe is 13.7 billion years old and therefore, to harmonize this "theory" with the Genesis account, each day must then represent TWO BILLION YEARS! Well, God finished in six days and rested on the seventh. Are we to believe that God has been resting for the last TWO BILLION YEARS? GO AHEAD, IT'S OK TO LAUGH OUT LOUD. The truth is, God has been very active since his day of rest.
A day may be like a thousand years to God since He is not confined to a time domain which is physical. But this day of rest was a pattern set out for us to follow -- in our time domain.
OEC's must deny that a literal interpretation can be used concerning the days of creation in Genesis and then must procede to distort and symbolize scripture in a way that conforms to their so-called scientific baloney.
It must be awkward for evolutionists who all of a sudden meet Jesus, begin reading the Bible and believe yet still hold reservations about the Genesis account. Especially if they've taught it in school and are wondering what to do now ... what will my colleagues think? I'd imagine them hiding for awhile as they go through this inner conflict, holding onto the Bible in one hand yet tightly to what they've taught for years. Shall they not re-consider that they presented fraudulent lessons for all those years? How tragic to think that your whole life's purpose promoted a fraudulent theory about life and the universe! This of course is cowardice and in denial, but it's human nature --we're not perfect.
I'm here to tell everyone, all our fraudulent work will burn up in the end! Any work that was done in our lives that wasn't in line with God's truth and purpose will burn up! So, cling to what the Bible says, take everything else with a grain of salt. Focus on things above, things that are temporal will pass away.

 

[shernren]

However Papias, since you did bring up a bit of a theological point, here is a question: if Genesis is metaphorical, then why would anyone take Jesus's death for us as anything but a metaphor?

Both Luke (1:1-4) and John (20:30-31) make explicit claims to be historical records. All similar literature of the period also aspire towards historicity, whether it is achieved or not. Furthermore, the Apostles testified to be witnesses of the Resurrection.

By contrast, Genesis never claims for itself to be a historical record; all parallel accounts of creation are poetic (in the Psalms or Job, for example); all similar literature of the period is patently mythological in nature and function; nobody ever claims to be a witness to creation and the Flood, or even to revisit any physical artefacts originating from them.

Now you may well choose to assume that Genesis is historical, and you may well be right, but you cannot claim that this assumption comes from the text. When I say Luke and John (and by extension the parallel gospels of Matthew and Mark) are historical, I am taking them at face value; when I show reticence to claim Genesis to be historical I am doing the exact same thing.

If God used billions of years and evolution, then why not say so? He's not exactly shy about telling us what He's done so why obfuscate our origin?

If God is three-in-one, then why not say so? Ask any Christian who has given the matter the slightest thought and they will quickly tell you that the Trinity is the most important theological distinctive of Christianity. There are many monotheistic religions, and some even with a notion of substitutionary atonement, but none have the Father, Son and Spirit.

And yet there is not a single passage you can point me to which will tell me straight out that this is so. Don't get me wrong. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and am in agreement with the ancient creeds about it. What I am saying is that Paul, say, never spends five or six verses telling us in full detail about the relationship between the Father, Son and Spirit, in the same way that he will revel in justification by faith or the use of spiritual gifts in worship or the conduct of believers.

Could it be that God is simply not obliged to tell us things we would not understand without great effort and which are not necessary for our faith? Could it be that the Bible was written, instead of to pander to our intellectual curiosities, to save us?

 

[Metal Minister]

From AIG:

A very important question we must ask is, "What was Jesus' view of the days of creation? Did He say that He created in six literal days?"

When confronted with such a question, most Christians would automatically go to the New Testament to read the recorded words of Jesus to see if such a statement occurs.

Now, when we search the New Testament Scriptures, we certainly find many interesting statements Jesus made that relate to this issue. Mark 10:6 says, "But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.'" From this passage, we see that Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed "from the beginning," not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence. Jesus made a similar statement in Mark 13:19 indicating that man's sufferings started very near the beginning of creation. The parallel phrases of "from the foundation of the world" and "from the blood of Abel" in Luke 11:50-51 also indicate that Jesus placed Abel very close to the beginning of creation, not billions of years after the beginning. His Jewish listeners would have assumed this meaning in Jesus' words, for the first-century Jewish historian Josephus indicates that the Jews of his day believed that both the first day of creation and Adam's creation were

about 5,000 years before Christ. 1

In John 5:45-47, Jesus says, "Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you --Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in Exodus 20:11 states: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week--six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

In fact, in Luke 13:14, in his response to Jesus healing a person on the Sabbath, the ruler of the synagogue, who knew the law of Moses, obviously referred to this passage when he said, "There are six days on which men ought to work; therefore come and be healed on them, and not on the Sabbath day." The sabbath day here was considered an ordinary day, and the six days of work were considered ordinary days. This teaching is based on the Law of Moses as recorded in Exodus 20, where we find the Ten Commandments--the six-day Creation Week being the basis for the Fourth Commandment.

We should also note the way Jesus treated as historical fact the accounts in the Old Testament, which religious and atheistic skeptics think are unbelievable mythology. These historical accounts include Adam and Eve as the first married couple (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:3-9), Abel as the first prophet who was killed (Luke 11:50-51), Noah and the Flood (Matthew 24:38-39), Moses and the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14), Moses and the manna from heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness (John 6:32-33, 49), the experiences of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-32), the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), the miracles of Elijah (Luke 4:25-27), and Jonah and the big fish (Matthew 12:40- 41). As New Testament scholar John Wenham has compellingly argued, Jesus did not allegorize these accounts but took them as straightforward history, describing events that actually happened just as

the Old Testament describes. 2 Jesus used these accounts to teach His disciples that the events of His death, Resurrection, and Second Coming would likewise certainly happen in time-space reality.

These passages taken together strongly imply that Jesus took Genesis 1 as literal history describing creation in six 24-hour days. But are there any more explicit passages?

I believe there are. However, one has to approach this issue in a slightly different manner. We are not limited to the New Testament when we try to find out if Jesus stated He created in six days; we can also search the Old Testament. After all, Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity and therefore has always existed.

First, Colossians makes it clear that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the one who created all things: "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist" (Colossians 1:16-17).

We are also told elsewhere in Scripture how Jesus created: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast" (Psalm 33:6, 9). We see the meaning of this when we consider the miracles of Jesus during His earthly ministry. All the miracles occurred instantly--at His Word. He instantly turned water into wine in His very first miracle, which "revealed His glory" as the Creator (John 2:1-11; John 1:1-3, 14, 18). It was the instant calming of the wind and the waves that convinced His disciples that He was no mere man. So it was with all His miracles (Mark 4:35-41). He did not speak and wait for days, weeks, months, or years for things to happen. He spoke and it was done. So, when He said, "Let there be . . ." in Genesis 1, it did not take long ages for things to come into existence.

We also know that Jesus is in fact called the Word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made" (John 1:1-3).

Jesus, who is the Word, created everything by simply speaking things into existence.

Now, consider Exodus 20:1: "And God spoke all these words, saying . . . ." Because Jesus is the Word, this must be a reference to the preincarnate Christ speaking to Moses. As we know, there are a number of appearances of Christ (theophanies) in the Old Testament. John 1:18 states: "No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." There is no doubt, with rare exception, that the preincarnate Christ did the speaking to Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, Moses, etc. Now, when the Creator God spoke as recorded in Exodus 20:1, what did He (Jesus) say? As we read on, we find this statement: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11).

Yes, Jesus did explicitly say He created

in six days. 3 Not only this, but the one who spoke the words "six days" also wrote them down for Moses: "Then the Lord delivered to me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God, and on them were all the words which the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly" (Deuteronomy 9:10).

Jesus said clearly that He created in six days. And He even did something He didn't do with most of Scripture--He wrote it down Himself. How clearer and more authoritative can you get than that?

Footnotes

1. See William Whiston, transl., The Works of Josephus, Hendrickson, Peabody, Massachusetts, p. 850, 1987, and Paul James-Griffiths, "Creation days and Orthodox Jewish Tradition," Creation 26(2): 53-55, www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp. Back 2. John Wenham, Christ and the Bible, IVPress, Downers Grove, Illinois, pp. 11-37, 1973. Back 3. Even if someone is convinced that God the Father was the speaker in Exodus 20:11, the Father and Son would never disagree. Jesus said in John 10:30: "I and my Father are one" [neuter--one in the essence of deity, not one in personality]. He also said, "I speak these things as the Father taught me," and "I always do the things that are pleasing to Him" (John 8:28-29).

May God Richly Bless You. MM

 

[Papias]

Ouch. MM, just doing a cut and past from the AIG website is hardly an argument, and doesn't help your credibility.

 

[Papias]

http://www.humanevents.com/2010/06/1...y-of-sciences/ (AS A MATTER OF FACT, YEAH I DO)

OK, being that they are the pre-eminent scientific body of the United States, do you consider them a reliable source of scientific information?


Extinctions, Inc. THIS IS WHERE THE SMITHSONIAN GETS IT'S FOSSILS.

All it's fossils? Source for that?

BUT ON ANOTHER NOTE, IT ONLY TOOK A YEAR BEFORE THEY DECIDED TO ACTUALLY CHECK THE FOSSILS FOR AUTHENTICITY, EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE SEVERE DOUBTS

A year is awfully quick compared to the creationists who are still peddling the same hoaxes, many of which are years old, or even decades old, and still haven't been admitted as false. See, that's the difference - reliable science corrects its errors, while creationists don't correct them at all.....

Now, please compare that with the list of hoaxes you posted earlier as "evidence" for young earth creationism. That list not only contained a number of hoaxes, but YECs are still touting the hoaxes after they've been exposed!.........So that's 99.9% success, with errors corrected as soon as discovered for the Smithsonian, vs. YEC's with mostly hoaxes, with errors clung to even after being exposed.

WHICH ONE ARE HOAXES? YOU KEEP SAYING THAT WITHOUT SAYING WHICH ONES ARE...

I wrote earlier, in post #21:

Just to give short responses:

Receding Moon (recession rate is consistent with an old earth - have you read the thread on this here http://www.christianforums.com/t7489648-6/ ?)
Oil Pressure (these are in impermeable rocks, so pressure not a surprise, plus, only an old earth shows why the pressure is there to start with)
Shrinking Sun (disproven)
Oldest living thing only roughly 4500 years old (simply false, plenty of living things are over 4,500 years old, such as the 10,00 year old Huon pine colony, quaking aspen at 80,000, King Clone at 11,700, the Jurupa Oaks, and many, many more.)
Helium In Our Atmosphere (simply false - Helium escapes to space)
Short Period Comets (simply false, they are replenished, with a well known source)
Earth's Magnetic Field (simply false, it's well known to oscillate)
DNA Found In Supposedly 165 myo Dino Bones (not a problem)
C14 levels In Earth's Atmosphere (are replenished by nitrogen decay)
Salt Content of The Dead Sea (is well known to be systematically saturated)
Eve's Mitochondrial DNA (dates to 200,000 years ago - disproves a 6,000 year old earth)
Rapid Mountain Uplift (always takes longer than 6,000 years)

More info here: An Index to Creationist Claims

I think many of these are so bad they have been abandoned even by other creationists. With ministers and other Christians still using arguments like these, is it any surprise that the younger generations are fleeing the churches?

All of those are debunked falsehoods.

Please compare that in your mind with what you have done - posted videos from well known quacks and charlatans. You started with Bruce Malone, who has no background nor credentials in biology, geology, etc, and makes money from his many publications, which have been shown over and over to be filled with errors and the common methods of pseudoscience.

COMPARED WITH WHO? CHARLES DARWIN? WHO ALSO HAD ZERO SCIENTIFIC TRAINING AND NUMEROUS ERRORS THAT HAVE YET TO BE CORRECTED?

Compared with the National Academies of Science, the Smithsonian, the American Geological Society, and many more that have endorsed the Talkorigins.org site. Evolutions has mountains of evidence apart from Darwin - In fact, evolution would have been just as solidly established today if Darwin never lived, as shown by the fact that Wallace (a solid Christian) figured it out at the same time Darwin did.

While it may be hard to do worse than that, you managed to top that by posting videos and sites from Kent Hovind, an even morfe well known scheister, who has bilked Christians out of millions of dollars, makes arguements so silly that even other creationists laugh at them, and is a convicted fraud who is now in federal prison. Wow, MM, just wow. Do you even know the story behind Kent Hovind's "conviction"?

Hey, you even topped what you did before. To think that you would go on to try to defend Kent Hovind!
......Yes, I know his story. He was convicted by an impartial jury on all counts of fraud - that's 58 consective counts of fraud. I know that he has bilked Christians out of literally millions of dolars.

UM NO. AGAIN INCORRECT. THE SUPPOSED FRAUD WAS IN PAYROLL TAXES, AND THE PROBLEM IS TBA FLORIDA ALLOWS EMPLOYERS TO NOT WITHHOLD THESE TAXES IF THEY PLACE THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE EMPLOYEE WHICH THEY DID, AND EVERY EMPLOYEE WAS ABLE TO PROVE AT TRIAL THAT ALL TAXES WERE PAID. OH, AND ONE OF THE COUNTS WAS "THREATENING AN IT'S AGENT" BY PRAYING HE WOULD DO THE RIGHT THING AND FIND GOD. OOH WHAT A VILLAN!

That only covers his 12 tax evasion counts. He was also convicted of a count of obstructing federal officers, as well as 45 counts of "structuring", which is a kind of fraud - like Goldman Sachs was found guilt of.

SEC Charges Goldman Sachs With Fraud in Structuring and Marketing of CDO Tied to Subprime Mortgages; 2010-59; April 16, 2010

Do you realize that much of your defense of these con artists consisted of saying their crimes should be ignored because they were treated harshly by police? Can you imagine that defense being used in court?

"Yes, your honor, I know my client did murder his victim, but hey, he needed to go to the bathroom when the police arrested him, so he's innocent!"

NO, THE POINT WAS THEY WERE ARRESTING TWO PEOPLE FOR SUPPOSED TAX FRAUD, IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS THE KORESH COMPOUND AND THEY WERE HOLED UP WITH GUNS. THE POINT WAS ONLY IN THE RIDICULOUS NATURE OF THE WHOLE THING. I'M SORRY THAT WAS LIST ON YOU.

Oh, OK. So you agree that con artists are just as guilty regardless of how they are arrested, and that graphic arrest details are a red herring?

Here, take some time to learn from something other than the half-truths Hovind sends out in his newsletters. I especially encourage any lurkers to look at this fraudster that MM is defending. MM, do you think Kent Hovind is a good representative of Christianity?

IN YOUR OPINION APPARENTLY NOT,

You ducked my question. I asked if you, MM, think Kent Hovind is a good representative of Christianity?

BUT I MUST SAY, WHAT DOES HIS TAX SITUATION HAVE TO DO WITH EVOLUTION? THIS IS AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK.

Do you think that a convicted fraudster with no scientific credentials is a reliable source for information? That's why it's relevant. We can get into his arguments as well if you like - they've all been debunked long ago, yet, he still uses them to bring in the cash.

Do you seriously think that the Bible scholars haven't heard these? Are you seriously claiming to know Hebrew and the Bible better than the Bible scholars? I'm not sure if that's a more incredible claim than the idea that Kent Hovind is an innocent victim. It's close.

AGAIN, YOU MAKE A CLAIM WITH NO PROOF.

OK, here's one. Oxford University Press: The Bible Now: Richard Elliott Friedman

MY SOURCE IS ONE THAT TOOK THE HEBREW AND HEBREW SCHOLARS AND SHOWED WHAT IT ACTUALLY MEANT. I ALSO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS HEBREW AND THEY HAVE VERIFIED THIS FOR ME AS WELL.

OK, give us a link to his book and credentials, then.

--if these days were actually long periods of time? Because it's obviously metaphorical. The whole chapter is written as a poem, with puns to show that it isn't literal. Like Exodus, Solomon, and so on, scripture often contains things that aren't literal. I mentioned the flying on eagles wings before, and you ignored it, so I'll ask again. MM, do you consider Exodus 19:4 to be literal?

OH BOY *SIGH* I TOLD YOU BEFORE, SONG OF SOLOMON WAS WRITTEN LIKE A SONG, BUT REFFERING TO A BIT OF HYPERBOLE AS EVIDENCE THAT THE WHOLE OF GENESIS WAS METAPHORICAL? THAT'S STRETCHING LOGIC PAST ITS BREAKING POINT.

For a third time now, you don't answer a simple question. MM, do you consider Exodus 19:4 to be literal?

ARE YOU SAYING IT TOOK GOD BILLIONS OF YEARS AND TRIAL AND ERROR TO BRING US ABOUT?

No, I'm saying that God took billions of years of unfolding his glorious and divine plan to bring us about.

********** Did it ever cross your mind that we've heard those same "facts" hundreds of times before? Yes, I did listen, and even go to your videos. They show that you've been duped by arguments that have been refuted over and over -even on these fora. You might learn a lot by perusing old threads here - even several years back. ********** The same could easily be said of evolution. We've heard the same tired excuses for a lack of evidence but we're supposed to put our faith in fallible humans many of whom want to disprove God. Except that you haven't heard the evidence - doing so would take a whole college degree in biology, years of research, a post-doc position, and so on. You are completely ignorant of 99+% of the evidence for evolution, yet you say the evidence is lacking.

I DON'T NEED ANY OF THAT TO UNDERSTAND THE BASICS, AND TO USE COMMON SENSE.

Intentional ignorace is sadly one of the most common types.

I ALSO HAVE COMPLETE FAITH THAT GOD PLACED US HERE LIKE HE SAID IN GENESIS

I too have complete faith that God placed us here, as he said metaphorically in Genesis, just as I have complete faith that he safely got the Jews out of Egypt by walking, not by flying them out on eagles as he literally says in Exodus.

The point is that for evolution to be even remotely true there needs to be billions if not trillions of intermediary fossils. It appears you are clueless about taphonomy.

NO I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT EVOLUTION NEEDS AN EXCUSE AS TO WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR IT'S THEORY.

I don't see any evidence that you have a clue as to what the evidence for evolution actually is. Maybe show us that you understand it by listing some of it? Maybe list just a few dozen of the hundreds of transitional fossils, and other evidence as well? Otherwise it looks like your intentional ignorance you bragged about above.

YET WE ROUTINELY FIND "MODERN" ANIMAL FOSSILS IN STRATA SUPPOSEDLY BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.

OK, some examples? Or are you making stuff up?

OR HOW ABOUT THE DATING OF THE KBS TUFF? IT WAS SUPPOSEDLY BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD UNTIL THEY FOUND A HUMAN SKULL UNDER IT. BUT THAT ONLY CHANGED THE DATE TO MAKE IT A 95% ERROR .

What are you talking about? Feel free to post a reliable, peer-reviewed source......

 

[Metal Minister]

Ouch. MM, just doing a cut and past from the AIG website is hardly an argument, and doesn't help your credibility.

Why? Because you disagree? I still have yet to see you post anything of substance on the matter at hand. Can you disprove anything they said or will you go with the idea that they're perpetuating hoaxes?

 

[Papias]

Since you have claimed to be familiar with the evidence, could you show us that you are by simply listing 6 of the main different types of evidence. Hint - fossils aren't even the most important type.

WHY WOULD I GIVE YOU "EVIDENCE" FOR YOUR THEORY? TALK ABOUT HAVING IT BACKWARDS,

Um, it's called "establishing credibility". It also shows that you are interested in having a rational discussion, where each side actually tries to understand the other. I'll have to take your refusal as an admission that you are clueless about the actual evidence.

AND AS I SAID, I WANTED A THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION AND FOLKS LIKE YOU AND NGC 6712 BROUGHT SCIENCE INTO IT.

It takes two to tango.

Apparently you are also ignorant about dating methods, and the fact that they all confirm each other.

AGAIN, WRONG. THEY ALL MAKE ASSUMPTIONS THAT ARE EASILY DISPROVED.

OK, then, show us a reason to give you the time of day by please listing 8 different dating methods, and the assumptions behind each that you think are unreasonable? If you don't even know what they are, then how could you think they are unreasonable?

TAKE FOR INSTANCE C14. IT HAS TO ASSUME THE RATE OF DECAY WAD ALWAYS THE SAME, THAT THE ATMOSPHERE WAS IN EQUILIBRIUM, ETC.

The rate of decay is confirmed by other methods, so it isn't an assumption. The atmosphere being in equilibrium isn't an assumption because it's known that it hasn't always been at the same concentration. You really don't understand C14 dating, do you?

THIS ALSO DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING TO THE WILD DATES THEY SOMETIMES GET.

If you intentionally misuse the method, as the RATE people have been shown to have done, then of course their numbers are wrong. Other dates that don't match are due to assignable causes, like sources of old carbon, as has been shown repeatedly. Hey, if you think you have a solid, repeatable example where the radiocarbon date was wrong without an obvious misuse of the method, then you want to publish it right away. Millions of scientists have been looking for exactly that, there could be a nobel prize in it for you.

Of course you need to be more educated, while I don't. Because I'm not disagreeing with the experts,

( SO YOUR TAKING WHAT THAT DAY SIMPLY AT FACE VALUE WITH NO EDUCATION OR UNDERSTANDING? TALK ABOUT FAITH)

Some understanding, sure, but not arrogant ignorance. You take what "that day" too, all the time. You have the sense to take the medicine a doctor prescribes, to follow legal advice from a lawyer, and to do what the dentist says. Unless you are living in cave, you are singling out one field (well, several) for your arrogant ignorance, while respecting the opinion of experts in other fields without any more justification.

so I don't have to claim to be an expert to point out that someone disagreeing with the experts (you) doesn't have leg to stand on.

WOW, SO IF ONE OF THESE "EXPERTS" CLAIMED TOMORROW TO HAVE "PROOF" THERE IS NO GOD, WOULD YOU BE AS READY TO DUMP YOUR FAITH?

God is outside the realm of testable science. Indeed, science tells us of the glory of God by studying His creation.

For instance, if I claimed that beams from space aliens caused cancer instead of cancer being caused by environmental chemicals, you would be correct in asking for my credentials. However, if I claimed that cigarrettes cause cancer, I don't need to be an expert, because that is in agreement with the experts.

NO THAT WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE MAJORITY NOT JUST EXPERTS, AND THOUGH I AGREE THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER, THERE ATE STILL SOME EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE.

So you think there is significant disagreement over whether or not smoking causes cancer? You really don't understand what a "scientific consensus" is, do you?

That is what turns people away. When they get dose after dose of this type of attitude.

Oh, and not the person who questions my faith, and cites con artists as if the thought they were scientific authorities, while dissing the Smithsonian?

AGAIN, YOU HAVE SHOWN TIME AND AGAIN, MORE FAITH IN PEOPLE WITH AN ATHEISTIC BENT THAN THE WORD OF GOD. I'M ONLY OFFERING THE OBSERVATIONS.

So are these some of those "people with an atheistic bent"?
BioLogos

All forms of "dating" have major flaws, and use assumption on most every point.

I'm still waiting for your list of methods and assumptions.

The dates Gd 12638, Gd 15477, and Gd 3006 of Phase 2 and Gd 15502, Gd 12637, and Gd 467 of Phase 3 are definitely too young. They were also discarded by the excavator as

aberrant. [1]

Did you even bother to read the footnote? The footnote explains that there is no justifiable reason to throw them out, so the "excavator", not the scientist in charge, ignored them. The analysis itself, however did use them as ACTUALLY READING THE FOOTNOTE ON YOUR OWN REFERENCE shows.

[1] There is no plausible reason why the date of Gd 30062 could be considered too young, as it was by the excavators. It is thus retained in the following compilation.
​

I've often posted some of the plentiful evidence that the dating methods confirm each other. Here is a thread where that is discussed, start at post #10:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/

And evolution is only asserted as a fact by fools and athiests.( one in the same really) There are far too many holes in evolution to call it a fact.

Is Dr. Collins a fool or an atheist? NIH - Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.

And so you are saying that the National Academies are fools and or atheists? Evolution Resources from the National Academies

AS I POSTED IN THE ARTICLE EARLIER, YES, THEY ARE ALL BASICALLY ATHEISTS.

Accusing a professed and active Christian as being an atheist is a pretty low blow. I'm still waiting for evidence that all the millions of scientists in the National Academies are atheists.

Since you didn't reply to it, do you now admit that the dating methods confirm each other?

I'm pointing out that you are incorrect in saying that only atheists support evolution. In fact, most of the support for evolution in the US comes from Christians, not atheists.

ONLY BECAUSE ATHEISTS ARE A MINORITY IN TERMS OF POPULATION.

Sure. So now you admit that your claim that evolution is only supported by atheists is a bogus claim?

**********

Cool. If that's from a reputable University, then I commend you

. ********** I believe it could be from Harvard and evolutionists would still call it fake.

That's silly. I would certainly not call it fake if it came from Harvard. Since you sound defensive, might I ask where it is coming from?

So you won't say where it is coming from? Do you think that reflects well on your credibility?

If you wish to continue the theological aspect, then please by all means,let's. Otherwise I have no choice but to skip over the scientific posts I simply don't have the time, I'm sorry.

And what credibility does that have at the end of a huge two post rebuttal? If you don't want to discuss it, then why did you?

MY OFFER STILL STANDS. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS THEN LET'S. IF YOU WISH TO DISCUSS THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS THEN USE THAT AREA OF CF. IT'S APPARENT THAT NEITHER OF US IS GOING TO CHANGE THE OTHERS MIND, SO I WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS ON THIS THREAD AS I'M TRYING TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT, AS PROGMONK AND I WERE DOING.

Why should I believe you when you said that before and then didn't do it? So far you have repeatedly written long responses on scientific topics, then said you weren't going to do that in the same post.

Ouch. MM, just doing a cut and past from the AIG website is hardly an argument, and doesn't help your credibility.

Why? Because you disagree? I still have yet to see you post anything of substance on the matter at hand. Can you disprove anything they said or will you go with the idea that they're perpetuating hoaxes?
​

If I have to explain to you why cutting a pasting from some webpage without showing any reason to think you understand it is poor netiquette, then you are beyond help.


You have your theological discussion. I can add nothing to Shernren's excellent theological explaination.

Papias
​