My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Obliquinaut]

Obliquinaut, who is that guy in your avatar?

Edward VIII via Photoshop (I fixed his jacket, his tie, gave him a new hair color and added the glasses, oh and gave him some stylin' rainbow lenses.)

 

[AV1611VET]

And yet you do not wish to learn that which others correct you on?

I've been corrected before.

One of the first things I was ever corrected on here ... if not THE first ... was that abiogenesis is not considered a part of biological evolution; it is considered apart from biological evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Edward VIII via Photoshop (I fixed his jacket, his tie, gave him a new hair color and added the glasses, oh and gave him some stylin' rainbow lenses.)

Thank you. Are you a Welsh?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Thank you. Are you a Welsh?

There might be some on my mom's side of the family but I am unclear on that. I just wanted a historic photo to play with in Photoshop and I thought of Eddy VIIIth (because I'm currently reading a world history of the 1930's and the author discusses Eddy Baby's Abdication so his name was in my head when I went searching on Google for a photo).

 

[AV1611VET]

There might be some on my mom's side of the family ...

Okay, thank you!

-- Whew! I almost got corrected here a second time!

 

[dad]

The "Days" continue.

No more than the pre flood days continue, the days Jesus walked on earth continue, or last week continues. The six days of creation was a certain time.

Haven't you noticed that the 7th Day has NO morning and NO evening. That's because it's Eternity, which has no beginning and no end. It's God's rest. Don't you want to enter His rest?

Either that or He was finished creation week. Maybe He didn't rest both morning and Evening? Ha. Whatever reasons it was, you don't get to insert reasons and form some reinvented bible over it.

The sons of God were prehistoric people who were created and brought forth from WATER on the 5th Day Gen 1:21. They are "THEIR" kinds or the kinds created by God the Trinity. Humans are HIS kinds or the temporary kinds created by the Hands of Jesus. Gen 2:7 In order to be created eternally, Humans MUST be born again by the Trinity in order to be saved. Gen 1:26 and John 14:16

So whatever reasons you invent that these beings existed, were they ape like creatures?

Don't you know that today's Humans are a combination of His and Their kinds?

No. I believe Adam was the first man, and have no need for a planet of the apes to account for mankind.

I said Adam's firmament was in the midst or middle of water and that water totally surrounded it. Gen 1:6-8 Today, the firmament is at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey in the mountains of Ararat, not mankind, unless they are dead.

But you claimed Noah stepped on a new planet from the ark. You claimed mankind was all under lake Van if I recall, till then?

Adam was made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 before the plants herbs and rain and he lived until some 12,000 years ago. Gen 5:5 Since the Big Bang was also at the end of the 3rd Day AND today remains the 6th Day, Adam lived for more than 3 Days in God's time and BEFORE the Big Bang in man's time. Can you refute me Scripturally? Of course not but only in your own unsupportable view.

Billion year old Adam and the big bang go together well. Like the hare and tortoise.

Scripture says God rested (Heb-ceased) on the 7th Day which is future UNLESS you can show us a Bear or Lion vegetarian.

It never says He rested always ever after till some cow gets home.

*** Easy. All that was just created and talked about and recorded.

Chapter and verse which you cannot produce. God Bless you

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Thus...after the only thing in the bible given before this verse..chap 1...it was all finished.

 

[dad]

LOL! That's rich. What do YOU know about geology?

But thanks for playing!

What does anyone know about it? What do you know about it that you think is special, that we don't know? Geology is a belief system.

 

[dad]

You are making a logic error. They didn't get it from the Bible but they are still Christians just the same! (Unless YOU are Jesus who sits at the Right Hand of the Father to come to judge the quick and the dead. Are you Jesus?)

Did I ask if they were christians? I mentioned Jesus believed in creation. Why would I care what 'christians' believe, if different? Some christians think the world is flat. Others think there are no angels. Others think we are in the kingdom of God on earth. Others think war is great. Others think killing babies is fine. Etc. I do not go by what people labeling themselves a certain way say.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Did I ask if they were christians? I mentioned Jesus believed in creation.

It was in response to the other poster wherein you noted that Jesus believed in literal 6-day creation. I was merely noting that perhaps this issue was not necessarily seen the same way by other Christians.

Meaning, perhaps you might do better to claim "I, Dad, believe Jesus believed in literal 6-day Creation".

He may very well have, I can't speak to the beliefs of a guy living in Judea 2000 years ago. But, that being said, your statement would seem to indicate that you do wish to make definitive claims as to the veracity of said 6-day creation by aligning with your claims of what Jesus believed.

Why would I care what 'christians' believe, if different? Some christians think the world is flat. Others think there are no angels. Others think we are in the kingdom of God on earth. Others think war is great. Others think killing babies is fine. Etc. I do not go by what people labeling themselves a certain way say.

Well, not to point out an inconvenient point here but these "beliefs" are all held by different people all of whom call themselves Christians yet there is no way to verify which is accurate and which is inaccurate. Such is the "issue" with faith-based things.

Take for instance your hypothesis that the world in the past was dramatically different (even going so far as to question the nature of reality and physical laws in the past). This is an unfounded belief you hold on faith without any ability to verify it.

(One could make the argument that if your version is correct then there's no reason whatsoever to even believe the Bible itself because it was written a time when words probably had different meaning like up was down and black was white and Adam was a woman. We just don't know. That is the problem with your position such as it is, but that aside.... It is an unfalsifiable and untenable position. But you are free to believe it. But just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it is therefore more likely than the more mundane alternatives, many of which don't necessarily comport with a literal Bible).

 

[Obliquinaut]

What does anyone know about it?

Quite a bit actually. I know you want to eliminate that knowledge with your epistemological "unfalsifiability" thermonuclear strike on knowledge, but your position suffers from two large problems:

1. It cannot apparently be verified (since we KNOW how rocks form today and we see the EXACT SAME STRUCTURES IN THE ROCK RECORD, you claim they were formed from different processes, making it "unfalsifiable")

2. It destroys your own position as well since you have no way of knowing that the Bible as written waaaay back then isn't also contorted such that its message today is the same as it was then (Perhaps in the past "up" was "down", "black" was "white", Adam was a woman. You simply don't know! If the scientists don't know about the past then what right do YOU have to claim that you know anything about the past?)

What do you know about it that you think is special, that we don't know? Geology is a belief system.

Nope. If you don't understand geology that's fine. Not everyone does. You can learn it if you like. But you are not allowed to decree it unworthy of learning until you do so.

(You would also do well to learn some philosophy and logic.)

 

[dad]

It was in response to the other poster wherein you noted that Jesus believed in literal 6-day creation. I was merely noting that perhaps this issue was not necessarily seen the same way by other Christians.

I know.

Meaning, perhaps you might do better to claim "I, Dad, believe Jesus believed in literal 6-day Creation".

Jesus talked of the first man, and the flood. The New Testament He endorsed talks of Adam being the first man. Creation is talked about. Nowhere does it hint that the six days were a fairy tale. Those who claim that do so to try and agree with science. Name anyone in the 1600s or early church etc who bent the bible out of shape trying to get a morning and evening or day to mean billions of years!?
My point was that christians believe all sorts of silly things, and who cares? The bible is clear.

He may very well have, I can't speak to the beliefs of a guy living in Judea 2000 years ago. But, that being said, your statement would seem to indicate that you do wish to make definitive claims as to the veracity of said 6-day creation by aligning with your claims of what Jesus believed.

Get serious. Show us anywhere where Jesus or the prophets or apostles claimed anything else?

Well, not to point out an inconvenient point here but these "beliefs" are all held by different people all of whom call themselves Christians yet there is no way to verify which is accurate and which is inaccurate. Such is the "issue" with faith-based things.

Take for instance your hypothesis that the world in the past was dramatically different (even going so far as to question the nature of reality and physical laws in the past). This is an unfounded belief you hold on faith without any ability to verify it.

It is no more unfounded than claiming it was the same! The bible also agree with me. History too. Nothing is better founded than a DSP.

(One could make the argument that if your version is correct then there's no reason whatsoever to even believe the Bible itself because it was written a time when words probably had different meaning like up was down and black was white and Adam was a woman.

No. One could not. God's words do not change when nature does! Heaven and earth as we know it will pass away, but His words will not.

We just don't know. That is the problem with your position such as it is, but that aside.... It is an unfalsifiable and untenable position.

No more than a same state past that science uses. I also have God agreeing with me, unlike sillyscience. But you are free to believe it.

But just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it is therefore more likely than the more mundane alternatives, many of which don't necessarily comport with a literal Bible).

No one cares what one can imagine. The issue is what science can prove and what God said.

 

[dad]

Quite a bit actually. I know you want to eliminate that knowledge with your epistemological "unfalsifiability" thermonuclear strike on knowledge, but your position suffers from two large problems:

1. It cannot apparently be verified (since we KNOW how rocks form today and we see the EXACT SAME STRUCTURES IN THE ROCK RECORD, you claim they were formed from different processes, making it "unfalsifiable")

Show me a rock formed today and the 'exact same' one from the dawn of earth? Easy to talk, but we shall see if you have the goods.

2. It destroys your own position as well since you have no way of knowing that the Bible as written waaaay back then isn't also contorted such that its message today is the same as it was then (Perhaps in the past "up" was "down", "black" was "white", Adam was a woman. You simply don't know! If the scientists don't know about the past then what right do YOU have to claim that you know anything about the past?)

Yes we do have a way. Of course. Jesus verified it! It also works! Gong.

Nope. If you don't understand geology that's fine.

So far it appears you don't.

Not everyone does. You can learn it if you like. But you are not allowed to decree it unworthy of learning until you do so.

I hereby decree that geology is a Satanic pile of lies and cunningly crafted delusions. How do you like me so far?

(You would also do well to learn some philosophy and logic.)

Let's see what we can learn from you. So far you said the words logic and philosophy. Wow.

 

[Aman777]

Sorry I was being flippant.

I'd be interested to know which bible verses support this novel concept of a flat earth floating on water that was later destroyed by the Noachian Flood.

Sure. Remember that Adam's firmament, or boundary of his small world, was made the 2nd Day Gen 1:8 and placed in the midst of water, Gen 1:6-8 with water above and below the firmament, which reveals that it was totally immersed in water, thus completely surrounded by water. This reveals that Adam's world was also Self-Sufficient, which makes it transportable to anywhere within the Multiverse. The Hebrew words also indicate the firmament was metallic like with sheets of metal on the exterior of the firmament.

The firmament was hollow inside and filled partially with water, and God put dry ground to a height of 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above water level. Gen 7:20 The Garden of Eden was the highest point on Adam's Earth since water collected there, formed a River which split off into 4 more tributaries. Gen 2:10 Since our Earth has thousands of Rivers, it's easy to see that Scripture is NOT speaking of Planet Earth, since the Big Bang of our Cosmos was on the THIRD Day, Gen 2:4 instead of the 2nd Day when Adam's world/universe/cosmos was made.

Here are some of the verses which show Adam's flat Earth, which God put inside the hollow firmament which protected Adam's Earth from destruction by the Water which completely surrounded it:

Gen 1:9 ¶ And God said, Let the waters under the heaven (firmament) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. Gen 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

When God says it's good, it's perfect since God is perfect. Adam's Earth was totally destroyed in the flood but the Scoffers of the last days will be "willingly ignorant" of this fact. ll Peter 3:3-7

*** And more importantly: why is this explanation necessary? Is it necessary to maintain a literal interpretation of the Bible by addition to the Bible of other information not on evidence?

Sure it is, since it reveals that ONLY God could have possibly known the latest scientific and historic proof He wrote of, in Genesis. God sees the end from the beginning. Isa 46:10 For the next few years, scientists will continue to confirm what God told us in Genesis. It's God's way of fulfilling His promise to pour out His Spirit of Truth upon ALL flesh. All flesh includes scientists, unbelievers and even phony religionists.

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon ALL flesh:

God Bless you

 

[Obliquinaut]

Jesus talked of the first man, and the flood. The New Testament He endorsed talks of Adam being the first man. Creation is talked about. Nowhere does it hint that the six days were a fairy tale. Those who claim that do so to try and agree with science. Name anyone in the 1600s or early church etc who bent the bible out of shape trying to get a morning and evening or day to mean billions of years!?
My point was that christians believe all sorts of silly things, and who cares? The bible is clear.

Are you then of the opinion that millions of Christians are wrong?

Get serious. Show us anywhere where Jesus or the prophets or apostles claimed anything else?

I don't intend to! I wouldn't be surprised that an itinerant preacher in Judea 2000 years ago may very well have believed in literal Genesis.

It is no more unfounded than claiming it was the same!

If I can't know something YOU can't know it either, especially when you destroy all possibility of knowledge.

(Pro-Tip: pick up a book on epistemology.)

No. One could not. God's words do not change when nature does!

How do you know this?

I also have God agreeing with me

Well, at least God can take your word for it!

 

[Aman777]

What cows will do in the future actually has nothing to do with creation week's events.

Sure it does, since it does NOT happen until AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign on this Earth for a thousand years, at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Genesis 1:30 and Isaiah 11:7 Can you refute God's Holy Word? Of course not. God Bless you

 

[dad]

Sure it does, since it does NOT happen until AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign on this Earth for a thousand years, at the end of the present 6th Day/Age.

The verses you gave have nothing to do with the six days of creation having to do with the future coming kingdom. The kingdom will come. Of course. Creation happened long ago. Of course. Adam did not live billions of years. Your fables simply have no real connection to Scripture or reality.

 

[Aman777]

No more than the pre flood days continue, the days Jesus walked on earth continue, or last week continues. The six days of creation was a certain time.

Amen, and we live today at Genesis 1:27 since God is STILL creating mankind (Heb-Adam) in Christ Spiritually on the present 6th Day, the Day of Salvation, according to Jesus.

2Co 6:2 (For He saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, NOW is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

*** Either that or He was finished creation week. Maybe He didn't rest both morning and Evening? Ha. Whatever reasons it was, you don't get to insert reasons and form some reinvented bible over it.

I haven't but you have failed to refute my view by explaining HOW the present 6th Day has already ended but the prophecy of Genesis 1:28-31 has not and will NOT happen, until after Jesus returns and gives mankind rule over mosquitoes, viruses and Angels, as your view falsely claims. Also, explain WHEN in the past Lions and Bears were vegetarians. You cannot show it Scripturally or you would have done it long ago. All you have left is bluff and bluster, which some silly comedy thrown in.

>>>>>>>>>>Big Snip of silly comedy. God Bless you

 

[dad]

Are you then of the opinion that millions of Christians are wrong?

Yes.

I don't intend to! I wouldn't be surprised that an itinerant preacher in Judea 2000 years ago may very well have believed in literal Genesis.

Your claiming that Jesus was ignorant shows us something.

If I can't know something YOU can't know it either, especially when you destroy all possibility of knowledge.

Long as you have no origins claims, fine.

(Pro-Tip: pick up a book on epistemology.)

Why?

How do you know this?

The bible.

Well, at least God can take your word for it!

I took His, that's how I now He is on the same page.

 

[dad]

Sure it does, since it does NOT happen until AFTER Jesus returns to rule and reign on this Earth for a thousand years, at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Genesis 1:30 and Isaiah 11:7 Can you refute God's Holy Word? Of course not. God Bless you

Right, the cow thing is in the future. The creation thing of six days was in the past.

 

[Obliquinaut]

Yes.

OK. So you know more about what Jesus valued than they do. Does it give you pause that you are elevating yourself above millions of Christians?

Your claiming that Jesus was ignorant shows us something.

I should hope my position would be obvious even to some as unskilled with logic as you!

Why?

You can learn about David Hume!

The bible.

What if the Bible was written under a different regime of reality where up is down and black is white? How do you know it wasn't?

I took His, that's how I now He is on the same page.

But you didn't say it that way, now did you? LOL. (You should read more so you'll learn not only about topics like epistemology but also how to write clearly!)

Also I love your typo there, that "now He is on the same page" as you. LOLOL.

(Is God guiding your hand in typing your posts as He must have guided the hands of the authors of the Bible?)