Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing

[mark kennedy]

No he wasn't.

That's true, I had him confused with Cuvier, good catch.

 

[mark kennedy]

Since life has been on this planet for 3.8 billion years I think it does have something to do with the age of the earth. Life has certainly been around long enough to evolve endless forms most beautiful

Except life on this planet was created 6000 years ago.

 

[Brightmoon]

Except life on this planet was created 6000 years ago.

I’ve probably got t shirts older than that. So what planet are you talking about cuz you’re certainly no talking about Earth

 

[Job 33:6]

Except life on this planet was created 6000 years ago.

Are you a young earth believer as well?

 

[juvenissun]

juvie , I figured out that the earth was old by the time I was in middle school . I live in NYC and I can see where glaciers from the ice ages carved the enormous boulders in Central Park . I ride on the major deegan expressway and I can see schist sparkling. It’s metamorphic from a lot of heat and pressure and it’s now at the surface. No one TOLD me that the earth is old, I KNEW it.

OK. But how old? Is 20 million years old enough for what you have seen?

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you a young earth believer as well?

I believe God created life 6000 years ago, the earth and the universe could have been created minutes before or billions of years. So I'm not a conventional young earth creationist. I also don't believe the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4, I think God continued to work on the atmosphere making them regularly visible from the surface of the earth, and I've done extensive exegetical studies.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Brightmoon]

So your basic ideas mean that you don’t accept biochemistry, physics ,geology or biology . How did you come to the conclusion that life has been around only for 6000 years while knowing the earth is billions of years old? Geological progression and dating doesn’t mean anything to you.

 

[mark kennedy]

So your basic ideas mean that you don’t accept biochemistry, physics ,geology or biology . How did you come to the conclusion that life has been around only for 6000 years .

First of all the word translated in Genesis 1 as 'created' is (בָּרָא bara'), in it's Qal form it is used only of God. It's used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life in general (Gen. 1:21) and then three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27) in a triple parallelism. The ancient Hebrews and some New Testament writers would use parallelisms to repeat something in other words for the sake of emphasis. The fact that Adam and Eve were created is at the heart of the emphasis, the idea that Adam had ancestors is unknown in Scripture. From Genesis 5 and throughout the Old Testament there is an unbroken timeline from Adam to Christ. I Luke's genealogy when he comes to Adam he calls him, 'son of God', indicating he had no earthly parent.

That's the gist of it, on the other hand I have had an avid interest in genomics and paleontology. I reject none of the life sciences, or sciences at large. I am convinced the Mendelian genetics is compatible with special creation and contrary to Darwinian universal common ancestry. Mine is an exegetical and evidential argument.

 

[Job 33:6]

I believe God created life 6000 years ago, the earth and the universe could have been created minutes before or billions of years. So I'm not a conventional young earth creationist. I also don't believe the sun, moon and stars were created on day 4, I think God continued to work on the atmosphere making them regularly visible from the surface of the earth, and I've done extensive exegetical studies.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Thanks. Do you believe a global flood deposited strata? I feel like, if you believe it is possible that the planet could be old or young, it might logically follow that you might expect the planet to have a certain appearance. Ie a 6000 year old planet with fossils may not appear the same as a billion year old planet with fossils.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well Mark, that’s certainly different. I didn’t believe any of the biblical stories about separate creation because of basic land vertebrate anatomy . Forelimbs are forelimbs, ribs are ribs and vertebrae are vertebrae. Doesn’t matter if you’re a “reptile”, mammal or amphibian or a bird. Having different bones would be definitive evidence that we were separate creations . I could understand your point of separate if you were talking about bacteria, plants or some the other bilaterians like arthropods and mollusks. Those are more a little difficult for laymen to tease out as being related but fetal development of the bilaterians and genetics adds them all in too. You keep talking about fossils as if they’re the only reason we have for saying common descent. ( That wasn’t true even for Darwin) But fossils are only a small part of it. They’re basically icing on the cake at this point. Important but not crucial to our understanding of common descent/ evolution

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks. Do you believe a global flood deposited strata? I feel like, if you believe it is possible that the planet could be old or young, it might logically follow that you might expect the planet to have a certain appearance. Ie a 6000 year old planet with fossils may not appear the same as a billion year old planet with fossils.

I think there was a global flood although I never really explored geology and what might be learned there. When I got into this I felt I had a choice between the life sciences and geology, I ended up spending most of my time on genetics. As far as dating fossils, it kind of makes sense that if the fossil is mineralized by something that is very old the fossil would appear to be very old. As a young earth creationist (at least biologically) I have to qualms about radiometric dating or the depth of time regarding the age of the universe and the earth. I consider them to be irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think there was a global flood although I never really explored geology and what might be learned there. When I got into this I felt I had a choice between the life sciences and geology, I ended up spending most of my time on genetics. As far as dating fossils, it kind of makes sense that if the fossil is mineralized by something that is very old the fossil would appear to be very old. As a young earth creationist (at least biologically) I have to qualms about radiometric dating or the depth of time regarding the age of the universe and the earth. I consider them to be irrelevant to the doctrine of creation.

I think that, you should explore geology. Maybe I'm just biased because that's what I study. Contrary to what some biologists may suggest, I think it holds a lot of weight with respect to understanding things like evolution and or creation at large. It is the study of the planet we live on. Our biology holds a special kind of relationship with the land we live on, and understanding the earth I think fulfills an understanding of geology.

If you ever have time, let me know and we can discuss.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well Mark, that’s certainly different. I didn’t believe any of the biblical stories about separate creation because of basic land vertebrate anatomy . Forelimbs are forelimbs, ribs are ribs and vertebrae are vertebrae. Doesn’t matter if you’re a “reptile”, mammal or amphibian or a bird. Having different bones would be definitive evidence that we were separate creations . I could understand your point of separate if you were talking about bacteria, plants or some the other bilaterians like arthropods and mollusks. Those are more a little difficult for laymen to tease out as being related but fetal development of the bilaterians and genetics adds them all in too. You keep talking about fossils as if they’re the only reason we have for saying common descent. But fossils are only a small part of it. They’re basically icing on the cake at this point. Important but not crucial to our understanding of common descent/ evolution

I would agree but there have been extensive studies regarding human evolution, the Leaky family for instance uncovered a treasure trove of hominid fossils. I limit myself to human evolution because it's given special emphasis in both the old and new Testaments. Between paleontology and biology I think we have all the naturalistic evidence necessary to come to a conclusion regarding our origins. I consider the Scriptures to be primary source evidence and both the Old and New Testaments start off with five historic narratives, the Pentateuch, the Gospels and Acts respectively.

Opinions vary, as long as you don't deny essential doctrine I have no problem with a person concluding Darwinian universal common ancestry. If you think they have made their case I say go in peace, I have to problem with you. If on the other hand you think there is room for skepticism here and choose to explore the various lines of evidence I have found it to be a solid supplement to expressions of faith and interests regarding natural phenomenon.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think that, you should explore geology. Maybe I'm just biased because that's what I study. Contrary to what some biologists may suggest, I think it holds a lot of weight with respect to understanding things like evolution and or creation at large. It is the study of the planet we live on. Our biology holds a special kind of relationship with the land we live on, and understanding the earth I think fulfills an understanding of geology.

If you ever have time, let me know and we can discuss.

That sounds wonderful, you have to understand. I pursued genetics because there is so much research out there readily available. I have never really been able to research paleontology as much as I would like because it would require days, maybe weeks looking up stuff in the central library. So even the things I have pursued for years still show the signs of neglect I must admit are the product of a kind of laziness, faced with the voluminous task of tracking down the details.

If you start a thread on the issues regarding geology and creation I can only offer that I would be interested and happy to participate. You might have to spend some time breaking it down to me barney style but depending on the subject matter, I think I would be up to it.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Brightmoon]

So you think that humans are separate creations somehow . Even though we’re obviously mammals , vertebrates and bilaterians and eucaryotes! I’m not particularly impressed with that separate creation argument as it goes against EVERY SINGLE BIT of evidence that we have

 

[Brightmoon]

OK. But how old? Is 20 million years old enough for what you have seen?

Well the schist is certainly older than that as it’s ultimately metamorphosed mud which has gone through different stages to get to that point

 

[mark kennedy]

So you think that humans are separate creations somehow . Even though we’re obviously mammals , vertebrates and bilaterians and eucaryotes! I’m not particularly impressed with that separate creation argument as it goes against EVERY SINGLE BIT of evidence that we have

I don't think so, as a matter of fact I think the evidence has created an insurmountable burden of proof for Darwinians. 2 mya there would have had to have been an unprecedented expansion of the cranial capacity of the hominid line with no precursors. This would have had to involve highly conserved genes that were not only overhauled, but at least 60 genes would have had to be produced de novo.

No less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes.

Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.

 

[juvenissun]

Well the schist is certainly older than that as it’s ultimately metamorphosed mud which has gone through different stages to get to that point

Again, how can you be sure that 10 million years of time is not enough to make schistose rocks?

 

[Brightmoon]

Oh by the way Linnaeus was a botanist. You might be thinking of Lyell.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well in NY these were most likely rocks formed by orogenesis ( mountain building) from the plates bumping into each other. The ice age glaciers scraped the land flat and a lot of Long Island is probably dirt and rocks that were dumped here by the glaciers . It fascinates me that the small hills of Forest Hills come from that.