6,000 Years?

It's unfortunately that YECs never noticed this before:
Genesis 1:1-2 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters—

That the very first verse of the Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it.

They struggle to understand the depth of ancient near east context. So even when we simplify the discussion down to a "plain reading" of the very first verse of the Bible, their only response is to deny what the Bible says.

How can people so fervently defend the Bible, yet not actually have any idea what it says? Not even in the very first verse?

Hi
God did not create the world in 6 days what he will create in 6 days is mankind in the image of the heavenly host which will be realised in Christ Jesus our Lord at his second coming when he gathers together all believers into his body and presents them to the Father and his millennial reign will begin which is the Fathers sabbath rest.

Love and Peace
Dave

Amo2 said:

I didn't say you or all scientists do this. I said many do.

Click to expand...

How do you know?

Amo2 said:

Nevertheless, all those who proceed forward in support of the theoretical work of others before them, are in fact doing this very thing. Their faith in a previous theory, guiding their footsteps and conclusions. This is of course natural and even necessary. One must have a base from which to begin tests and observations.

Click to expand...

Huh? Are you really arguing that every scientist who works under a theoretical framework (which is effectively every scientist) has "pre-determined there is no God"?

Amo2 said:

Deep timers assume deep time according to their faith in the observations and speculations of deep timers before them.

Click to expand...

No we don't. I have to ask, how do you know what I do at work and how I do it?

Amo2 said:

Archaeologists make observations and extrapolate upon artifacts which have been discovered, not nothing. They are often wrong themselves, and disagree among themselves regarding their speculations. As it is with most scientific endeavors, which all incorporate certain assumptions along the way.

Click to expand...

I think you've forgotten the point. You tried to argue that things must be observed before scientists can study them. Archaeology clearly proves that wrong, since they don't have to observe an ancient battle before they can study it.

Amo2 said:

You mean apart from deep timer observations or claims which have already been proved wrong or faith based rather than established facts, as I have already shared or addressed.

Click to expand...

All you've done is say "deep time has been proved wrong". FYI, saying something doesn't make it true.

There isn't a single scientist who works in geochronology who would agree with your claim. If deep time really had been "proved wrong" you'd think they'd know about it.

Amo2 said:

As in deep time scenarios are no longer necessary to the development of great deal of what we presently see all around us. As in observable and testable rapid fossil formation, rapid geographical establishment and or transformation under catastrophic conditions. Including rapid layering of the earths crust through catastrophic flood scenarios, which rapidly lay down sediments over very vast areas in relatively even distributions. Easily observed to be absent of any erosive elements which deep time scenarios would necessitate. Or the ever ongoing observations by deep timers themselves, that complexity seems to have existed further and further back in time concerning almost all scientific disciplines. Which is of course highly suggestive of complexity from the beginning, instead of slowly developing over deep time scenarios. Sure. The following video would be a good place to start.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the science very well. "Deep time" isn't the same as "everything must take a long time to form" and I have no idea why you think it is. It's like if I told you it took a bus 3 days to go from my city to NYC, you saying "but I can get there in 4 hours on a plane" doesn't disprove the bus ride.

Amo2 said:

Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense. Huxley speculated, in a non-scientific way, in Time magazine (not in a science journal) that Japanese crabs' appearance was due to artificial selection and it turns out instead it's due to natural selection (the ridges and grooves have specific functions), which means what exactly?

Amo2 said:

Or perhaps one of the following sites at the links below.

Evolution's Blunders, Frauds & Forgeries | KGOV.com

kgov.com

Evolution frauds

Why are there evolution frauds. In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not ev…

evolutionisntscience.wordpress.com

Evolution Frauds: Top 10

www.christianevidence.net

Fraud at Museums | The Grand Experiment

While filming a documentary on evolution, a filmmaker has documented widespread fraud at many of the top national science museums and universities.

www.thegrandexperiment.com

https://www.science.org/content/article/study-reveals-culprit-behind-piltdown-man-one-science-s-most-famous-hoaxes

Just to grab a few in a minute or two of searching the Web.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. There certainly have been cases of fraud in various scientific fields, which means what? There have been tons of cases of fraud in just about everything, including Christianity but that's not a reason to reject it is it?

Amo2 said:

Of course not. "Christians" today come from an ever increasing number differing beliefs and or even moral standards. The word or title simply does not any longer have a very specific or standardized meaning.

Click to expand...

Okay good.

Amo2 said:

I am saying though, that those who reject biblical testimony regarding the creation in favor of more popular and recent theories concerning our existence, are doing more damage to biblical testimony than they probably realize.

Click to expand...

Except someone reading Genesis differently than you is not the same thing as rejecting it. Christians and Jewish scholars have been debating its interpretation for centuries from all sorts of angles, so there's no reason to depict those of us who differ from you as "rejecting biblical testimony".

Amo2 said:

The implications of which seriously affect the gospel message itself, and or peoples trust or not in the truth of the testimony of holy scripture altogether. If the creation account actually means something so drastically different than what it plainly states, as in deep time evolutionary processes for the existence of everything, then how should all the rest of the following scriptures be viewed? Or who can argue for a literal interpretation or understanding of any of it? Since it is so very contradicting right from the beginning of its testimony.

Click to expand...

Fortunately lots of people are able to think in more nuanced ways and not in such all-or-none terms. Such diversity is one of the beautiful things about humanity and God's creation.

Dan1988 said:

There are many different theories on the age of the earth, but there is no accurate scientific method to gauge the age of the earth.

Click to expand...

Sure there are. That's what geochronologists do for a living. They're not stupid people you know.

Dan1988 said:

Carbon dating has been debunked and so have all the other scientific methods

Click to expand...

Since when? As far as I can tell not one person who actually works with C-14 dating would agree with you. So why should I believe what you say over the actual professionals?

FaithT said:

Are you a YEC or OEC?

Click to expand...

OEC.

Amo2 said:

Let's put a little context around that quoted statement.

Click to expand...

The context is that Dr. Coffin testified that if it were not for his religious beliefs, the evidence would lead him to believe that the world is very old. He honestly and consistently chose his religious beliefs over the evidence. Nothing dishonest or self-deluding about that.

Amo2 said:

In other words, if Dr. Coffin didn't believe the biblical account of creation, he would be a deep timer.

Click to expand...

Rather if Dr. Coffin didn't believe the YEC interpretation of Genesis, he would be a deep timer. YEC is an interpretation of God's word, not God's word.

Amo2 said:

One must have a base from which to begin tests and observations. The problem of course for any side or view, are the presumptions which must be made concerning the differing base faiths, as I would refer to them. Deep timers assume deep time according to their faith in the observations and speculations of deep timers before them. YEC's assume a much younger origin according to the simply stated creation account in Genesis and support for such all throughout scripture. And increasingly also, the observations and speculations of YEC's before them.

Click to expand...

It comes down to evidence. And as many knowledgeable and honest YECs admit, the evidence favors a very old Earth.

Amo2 said:

Yes, and those tests rely upon certain presumptions as well.

Click to expand...

Let's look at plate tectonics. We know that the Atlantic Ocean split Europe and Africa from North America and South America. We know that it's still going on by a few centimeters a year. If one assumes it happened in a few hundred years or less (as YECs say), the energy needed to speed it up and then slow it down again would be removed as heat. Given the mass of the continents and the short time to remove the heat, it would be sufficient to make the planet unlivable. It wouldn't go into the mantle; thermodynamics shows that heat always moves from hotter masses to cooler masses.

Knowing the density of granite, the volume of the continents, the depth of the seas, Newton's laws, and the specific heat of water, this can be demonstrated mathematically. Takes me a long time to look up the data, but if you doubt it, I will do it.

The Barbarian said:

Let's look at plate tectonics. We know that the Atlantic Ocean split Europe and Africa from North America and South America. We know that it's still going on by a few centimeters a year. If one assumes it happened in a few hundred years or less (as YECs say), the energy needed to speed it up and then slow it down again would be removed as heat. Given the mass of the continents and the short time to remove the heat, it would be sufficient to make the planet unlivable. It wouldn't go into the mantle; thermodynamics shows that heat always moves from hotter masses to cooler masses.

Knowing the density of granite, the volume of the continents, the depth of the seas, Newton's laws, and the specific heat of water, this can be demonstrated mathematically. Takes me a long time to look up the data, but if you doubt it, I will do it.

Click to expand...

Did you see that Robert Carter acknowledged that Jeffrey Thompkins was wrong on about a decade worth of claims about chimp and human DNA similarities and human chromosome #2?


YECs slowly come around. Then they get exiled from their tribe.

Job 33:6 said:

It's unfortunately that YECs never noticed this before:
Genesis 1:1-2 CEB
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth— [2] the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters—

That the very first verse of the Bible doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it.

They struggle to understand the depth of ancient near east context. So even when we simplify the discussion down to a "plain reading" of the very first verse of the Bible, their only response is to deny what the Bible says.

How can people so fervently defend the Bible, yet not actually have any idea what it says? Not even in the very first verse?

Click to expand...

Maybe because the first few verses are ambiguous AND the background of contrasting ANE cultural myths aren't even known about by many people. You and I, because we value (and need) academic approaches to both the Bible, Science and History, engage the background info. Others, depending upon their ability, inclination and socialization simply either can't investigate at the same level or don't understand why it's relevant due to decades of prior trust attachments to others at their churches.

This is why I don't pound down on YEC Christians but merely "request" that they don't pound down on me.

I know. It seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask, but the human mind and its socialization is often too deep and intricate for mere data presentations to cut through. If there was a quick formula for doing so, I would present it faster than someone can say, "Jannes and Jambres." But education doesn't work like that.

2PhiloVoid said:

Maybe because the first few verses are ambiguous AND the background of contrasting ANE cultural myths aren't even known about by many people. You and I, because we value (and need) academic approaches to both the Bible, Science and History, engage the background info. Others, depending upon their ability, inclination and socialization simply either can't investigate at the same level or don't understand why it's relevant due to decades of prior trust attachments to others at their churches.

This is why I don't pound down on YEC Christians but merely "request" that they don't pound down on me.

I know. It seems like it shouldn't be too much to ask, but the human mind and its socialization is often too deep and intricate for mere data presentations to cut through. If there was a quick formula for doing so, I would present it faster than someone can say, "Jannes and Jambres." But education doesn't work like that.

Click to expand...

I think that this might be true for lay people to an extent. But does it really apply to YEC educators and lead figures and scientists?

I'm pretty sure that if someone can build a hundred million dollar ark encounter museum, that they would be able to take 5 minutes to open up a NABRE, CEB, NRSV etc. Bible and would have time to read the first two verses.

Even if nobody knew anything about ANE background, people are still capable (usually) of basic reading comprehension.

It is oddly complicated despite the blunt simplicity of it all.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Or
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

In the beginning, when I ate a sandwich, the sandwich had mold on it.
Or
When I began to eat a sandwich, the sandwich had mold on it.

The text never says how long the sandwich was moldy before I began to eat it.

Yet when people read:
In the beginning when God created the...earth, the earth was formless.

Nobody paused even for a moment to question how long the earth was formless before God began to create it?

Not even professional YECs who dedicate their lives to understanding the Bible? Their full time job. Yet they've seemingly never noticed or bothered to ask?

You can go on the "Answers in Genesis" website and ask their AI chatbot about it and it's completely oblivious to the subject.

It's the most simple thing.

"but the human mind and its socialization is often too deep and intricate for mere data presentations to cut through"

Indeed.

Job 33:6 said:

I think that this might be true for lay people to an extent. But does it really apply to YEC educators and lead figures and scientists?

I'm pretty sure that if someone can build a hundred million dollar ark encounter museum, that they would be able to take 5 minutes to open up a NABRE, CEB, NRSV etc. Bible and would have time to read the first two verses.

Click to expand...

True, but even in looking at the Hebrew version of Genesis 1, it's not so clear and there are various interpretations of it. So if professional Jewish and Christian interpreters can't sing in unison about what they think verses 1 and 2 mean exactly, why would we think that the common masses will do any better?

Job 33:6 said:

Even if nobody knew anything about ANE background, people are still capable (usually) of basic reading comprehension.

Click to expand...

But it's not really that simple. I wish it was.

Job 33:6 said:

It is oddly complicated despite the blunt simplicity of it all.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.
Or
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

In the beginning, when I ate a sandwich, the sandwich had mold on it.
Or
When I began to eat a sandwich, the sandwich had mold on it.

The text never says how long the sandwich was moldy before I began to eat it.

Yet when people read:
In the beginning when God created the...earth, the earth was formless.

Nobody paused even for a moment to question how long the earth was formless before God began to create it?

Click to expand...

Right. It doesn't say; and what's more, when we bring further considerations into not merely our interpretation but also our hypothetical understanding of 'why' the author wrote what he wrote via Redaction Criticism or Source Criticism, everything gets even more abstruse.

Job 33:6 said:

Not even professional YECs who dedicate their lives to understanding the Bible? Their full time job. Yet they've seemingly never noticed or bothered to ask?

Click to expand...

Maybe they haven't. From my studies, a number of conservative churches lean on a more, shall I say, "cultic" form of socialization and education within their respective churches. By 'cultic,' I mean "reserved to the relational trust ties in their local group," which in turns implies that only the interpretation the pastor and the Sunday School teacher give is trusted by parishioners. They are socialized to not look for additional or competing or critical study outside of "the local group." And then you and I bump into them here and there.

Job 33:6 said:

You can go on the "Answers in Genesis" website and ask their AI chatbot about it and it's completely oblivious to the subject.

It's the most simple thing.

"but the human mind and its socialization is often too deep and intricate for mere data presentations to cut through"

Indeed.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, what seems easy for you to understand since you're technically inclined and not given to "the local group," won't be easy to understand for those who are in "the local group." The act of placing one's trust in some idea or person unfortunately is the priority for some people over and above the actual data, and this is why we can see even some (apparent) PhD's who are YEC remain within the YEC position.

River Jordan said:

How do you know?

Click to expand...

Because in my studies and debates over the last few decades, I have observed them saying or admitting of such. Perhaps the following links could help.

What is the Evolutionist Perspective on God?

A Who's Who of evolutionists

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

River Jordan said:

Huh? Are you really arguing that every scientist who works under a theoretical framework (which is effectively every scientist) has "pre-determined there is no God"?

Click to expand...

I have no idea why you would think that I am saying that at all?

River Jordan said:

No we don't. I have to ask, how do you know what I do at work and how I do it?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you do at work every day, nor am I specifically addressing you personally, but deep timers in general. If you are a deep timer evolutionist, then most of what you believe has come from or is built upon the observations and or speculations of the many deep liners before you. Is it not? Or do you claim to have come to all of your own conclusions alone and completely separate from those before you?

River Jordan said:

I think you've forgotten the point. You tried to argue that things must be observed before scientists can study them. Archaeology clearly proves that wrong, since they don't have to observe an ancient battle before they can study it.

Click to expand...

Yea, we definitely have a disconnect here. Archaeologists could not ever study a battle they don't even know took place, unless they find evidence of that battle and begin examining it, or know of such a battle from historical accounts and are in fact searching for artifacts from it. The world and universe are here and of course observed, and science is the study of them. Scientists may draw unseen conclusions from what they observe, but they have a base from which to conduct their investigations.

River Jordan said:

All you've done is say "deep time has been proved wrong". FYI, saying something doesn't make it true.

Click to expand...

I have not said that they have been proved wrong. No one can prove that they are wrong about their deep time faith concerning things unobserved and therefore unknown for certain. Just like deep timers cannot prove the faith of YEC's wrong concerning things which have been unobserved. I have rightly said that deep timers claims regarding the necessity of an old earth for the existence of what we observe in and on the world today, have been proved wrong. Deep time is not necessary as can and has been tested and proved.

River Jordan said:

There isn't a single scientist who works in geochronology who would agree with your claim. If deep time really had been "proved wrong" you'd think they'd know about it.

Click to expand...

Moot point. As you have misunderstood what I was saying or meant.

River Jordan said:

I don't think you understand the science very well. "Deep time" isn't the same as "everything must take a long time to form" and I have no idea why you think it is. It's like if I told you it took a bus 3 days to go from my city to NYC, you saying "but I can get there in 4 hours on a plane" doesn't disprove the bus ride.

Click to expand...

That is a grossly inaccurate comparison. Deep timers have in fact been preaching very long processes for the evolution of the universe, world, and life. Real science has now proved that these deep time scenarios concerning the formation of the world we now observe, simply are not necessary. Which is why many scientists now lean toward Catastrophism over deep time developments for the greater part of what we observe concerning the geography and surface of the earth. Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated. While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning. They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.

River Jordan said:

That doesn't make any sense. Huxley speculated, in a non-scientific way, in Time magazine (not in a science journal) that Japanese crabs' appearance was due to artificial selection and it turns out instead it's due to natural selection (the ridges and grooves have specific functions), which means what exactly?

Click to expand...

Simply that everything "scientists" say, believe, and or pass off as truth, most obviously is not.

River Jordan said:

I don't understand your point. There certainly have been cases of fraud in various scientific fields, which means what? There have been tons of cases of fraud in just about everything, including Christianity but that's not a reason to reject it is it?

Click to expand...

No. Certainly a reason to be very cautious about what many claim, since as you also state, there is much fraud in this world. Including among many who profess to be scientists. So be careful, use your own brain, and closely examine issues before just gullibly accepting and supporting the countless claims in and of this world.

River Jordan said:

Okay good.

Except someone reading Genesis differently than you is not the same thing as rejecting it. Christians and Jewish scholars have been debating its interpretation for centuries from all sorts of angles, so there's no reason to depict those of us who differ from you as "rejecting biblical testimony".

Click to expand...

First, there is a difference between someone reading something differently than someone else, and someone seeing things that simply are not stated at all in what they are reading. Deep time evolution is not even hinted at anywhere in the entirety of holy scripture, let alone Genesis. Even if one wants to make the days mentioned great periods of time instead. Which oddly, none of the many different bible interpretations we have to date, have done. Apart from this though, deep time evolution, survival of the fittest, and the suffering and death of countless millions of creatures along the way of development, trashes the fundamental claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That death came through or by way of sin, therefore our Lord died to save us from sin and death. To the contrary according to deep time evolution, we are indebted to death for our present "evolved" existence.

River Jordan said:

Fortunately lots of people are able to think in more nuanced ways and not in such all-or-none terms. Such diversity is one of the beautiful things about humanity and God's creation.

Click to expand...

There is nothing nuanced about attempting to add deep time evolution to that depicted in the book of Genesis. Thereby changing the glory of God and His creative power, into vain imaginings.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Amo2 said:

Because in my studies and debates over the last few decades, I have observed them saying or admitting of such.

Click to expand...

About what percentage of scientists would you say you've observed saying they start their work by "predetermining that there is no God"?

Amo2 said:

Perhaps the following links could help.

What is the Evolutionist Perspective on God?

Click to expand...

That's nothing but a couple of paragraphs of empty rhetoric.

Amo2 said:

A Who's Who of evolutionists

Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. The article lists a handful of famous "evolutionists" and from that tries to imply that therefore the science of evolution must be atheistic.

You wouldn't accept that if someone pointed to the child abuse in your denomination and tried to imply that therefore the faith is about abusing children, would you? I'm pretty sure you'd immediately recognize that as very, very poor reasoning, so I recommend you take the same approach to what you've tried to argue here.

Amo2 said:

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Click to expand...

That one is even worse because it tries to argue that evolution is completely made up and not even science. Do you really believe that?

Amo2 said:

I have no idea why you would think that I am saying that at all?

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm glad to hear you don't believe every scientist has "pre-determined that there is no God".

Amo2 said:

I have no idea what you do at work every day, nor am I specifically addressing you personally, but deep timers in general.

Click to expand...

And you're wrong. We don't just assume deep time nor do we just accept the work of others without looking into it. Just recently we hired a genetics team to do some work to verify a conclusion that geologists had reached about when a species had become geographically isolated. When they sent us their draft report we didn't just blindly accept it; several of us reviewed it, provided comments, asked questions, and generally picked it apart.

So I really recommend you refrain from speaking like an authority about people's work that you really don't know much about.

Amo2 said:

If you are a deep timer evolutionist, then most of what you believe has come from or is built upon the observations and or speculations of the many deep liners before you. Is it not? Or do you claim to have come to all of your own conclusions alone and completely separate from those before you?

Click to expand...

All scientists utilize long-standing, established facts in their work. Physicists don't re-establish the gravitational constant every day, geographers don't re-establish a spherical earth every day, geneticists don't re-establish the structure of DNA every day, and earth scientists don't re-establish that the earth is ancient every day.

You may not agree with their conclusions, but that's a you issue and the mere fact that you disagree doesn't mandate scientists spend precious time and resources re-doing basic science.

Amo2 said:

Yea, we definitely have a disconnect here. Archaeologists could not ever study a battle they don't even know took place, unless they find evidence of that battle and begin examining it, or know of such a battle from historical accounts and are in fact searching for artifacts from it.

Click to expand...

Exactly! Scientists don't have to see an event before they can study it. If the event leaves behind evidence, it can be studied.

Amo2 said:

I have not said that they have been proved wrong.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm glad we agree that an ancient earth and universe have not been proved wrong.

Amo2 said:

No one can prove that they are wrong about their deep time faith concerning things unobserved and therefore unknown for certain. Just like deep timers cannot prove the faith of YEC's wrong concerning things which have been unobserved.

Click to expand...

We just agreed above that events don't need to be observed before we can study them.

Amo2 said:

I have rightly said that deep timers claims regarding the necessity of an old earth for the existence of what we observe in and on the world today, have been proved wrong. Deep time is not necessary as can and has been tested and proved.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean.

Amo2 said:

That is a grossly inaccurate comparison. Deep timers have in fact been preaching very long processes for the evolution of the universe, world, and life.

Click to expand...

Well there's your mistake. You're thinking scientists concluded the earth and universe are ancient due to some need for evolution to take place. That's not the case at all. Ancient ages are the result of several independent lines of evidence and diverse methods of testing.

Amo2 said:

Real science has now proved that these deep time scenarios concerning the formation of the world we now observe, simply are not necessary. Which is why many scientists now lean toward Catastrophism over deep time developments for the greater part of what we observe concerning the geography and surface of the earth. Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated. While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning. They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting suite of claims, but when I look at the actual science I see zero indication that anyone in any relevant field is re-thinking "deep time". Do you have any evidence that scientists are doing that?

Amo2 said:

Simply that everything "scientists" say, believe, and or pass off as truth, most obviously is not.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the case with everyone? Or are you trying to argue that scientists are uniquely dishonest?

Amo2 said:

No. Certainly a reason to be very cautious about what many claim, since as you also state, there is much fraud in this world. Including among many who profess to be scientists. So be careful, use your own brain, and closely examine issues before just gullibly accepting and supporting the countless claims in and of this world.

Click to expand...

Glad we agree on that.

Amo2 said:

First, there is a difference between someone reading something differently than someone else, and someone seeing things that simply are not stated at all in what they are reading. Deep time evolution is not even hinted at anywhere in the entirety of holy scripture, let alone Genesis. Even if one wants to make the days mentioned great periods of time instead. Which oddly, none of the many different bible interpretations we have to date, have done.

Click to expand...

Your mistake is assuming that I believe Genesis describes evolution.

Amo2 said:

Apart from this though, deep time evolution, survival of the fittest, and the suffering and death of countless millions of creatures along the way of development, trashes the fundamental claims of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That death came through or by way of sin, therefore our Lord died to save us from sin and death. To the contrary according to deep time evolution, we are indebted to death for our present "evolved" existence.

There is nothing nuanced about attempting to add deep time evolution to that depicted in the book of Genesis. Thereby changing the glory of God and His creative power, into vain imaginings.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree, but since it's not a salvation issue I'm okay with that.

Amo2 said:

Because in my studies and debates over the last few decades, I have observed them saying or admitting of such. Perhaps the following links could help.

Click to expand...

There is no "evolutionist perspective on God." Evolutionary scientists vary from people like Dawkins, who says there might be a god, but he doubts it, to Christians like Kevin Miller and Francis Collins. They agree on practically nothing about God. Anyone who tells you that there is such a perspective ignorant about it, or hopes you are.

Amo2 said:

A Who's Who of evolutionists

Click to expand...

Let's see...
Darwin, who said that God created the first living things.
Francis Collins who found God as an adult, and founded Biologos, a group that seeks to understand God in nature.
Michael Behe, who is a devout Christian and an evolutionist, albeit a follower of ID.
Thomas Huxley, who was an agnostic, willing to accept that there might be a god.
Charles Doolittle Walcott, the paleontologist who discovered the Burgess Shale, and a devout Christian.

Amo2 said:

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Click to expand...

Well, let's ask an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist about that...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

Another good video by Answers in Genesis Canada

The Barbarian said:

There is no "evolutionist perspective on God." Evolutionary scientists vary from people like Dawkins, who says there might be a god, but he doubts it, to Christians like Kevin Miller and Francis Collins. They agree on practically nothing about God. Anyone who tells you that there is such a perspective ignorant about it, or hopes you are.


Let's see...
Darwin, who said that God created the first living things.
Francis Collins who found God as an adult, and founded Biologos, a group that seeks to understand God in nature.
Michael Behe, who is a devout Christian and an evolutionist, albeit a follower of ID.
Thomas Huxley, who was an agnostic, willing to accept that there might be a god.
Charles Doolittle Walcott, the paleontologist who discovered the Burgess Shale, and a devout Christian.

Well, let's ask an honest and knowledgeable YE creationist about that...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

The truth about evolution

A blog about the creation/evolution debate from the president of Core Academy of Science.

toddcwood.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

Yes I see, of course. All honest Creationists agree with you, and the rest of course then, are what? Dishonest I suppose. The theory of evolution provides a good model for atheists, and many there be which take hold of it. Probably most I would imagine. What other options do they have? Are there any examples of other belief systems which atheists chose over the theory of evolution?

River Jordan said:

About what percentage of scientists would you say you've observed saying they start their work by "predetermining that there is no God"?

Click to expand...

I don't know or really care. I just know there are many who do so, and many others who come to that conclusion based upon evolutionary teachings. Whose testimony to such I have heard over the years of examining this issue.

River Jordan said:

That's nothing but a couple of paragraphs of empty rhetoric.

Click to expand...

No, they are examples of exactly what you asked for. Nothing is empty rhetoric simply because you state that it is. I would venture to say that most atheists are probably evolutionist, would you not agree? Why wouldn't they be, they have all been taught that it is a scientific fact in their schools, in this country at least. What else would they believe?

River Jordan said:

That's ridiculous. The article lists a handful of famous "evolutionists" and from that tries to imply that therefore the science of evolution must be atheistic.

You wouldn't accept that if someone pointed to the child abuse in your denomination and tried to imply that therefore the faith is about abusing children, would you? I'm pretty sure you'd immediately recognize that as very, very poor reasoning, so I recommend you take the same approach to what you've tried to argue here.

Click to expand...

No not really, and you make some rather poor comparisons. Yet I will say again, most atheists are most likely evolutionists.

River Jordan said:

That one is even worse because it tries to argue that evolution is completely made up and not even science. Do you really believe that?

Click to expand...

The theory of evolution is absolutely faith based. It has not been and is not observed anywhere. Change and adaption are observed, evolution from one species into another has not and is not.

River Jordan said:

Okay, I'm glad to hear you don't believe every scientist has "pre-determined that there is no God".

Click to expand...

I never said such. Even a great many evolutionists believe there is a God. I argue that scripture nowhere even hints at anything like evolution as the mechanism of our existence. I personally believe the theory of evolution to be on the level of fairy tale, especially when considered as the mechanism of our existence.

River Jordan said:

And you're wrong. We don't just assume deep time nor do we just accept the work of others without looking into it. Just recently we hired a genetics team to do some work to verify a conclusion that geologists had reached about when a species had become geographically isolated. When they sent us their draft report we didn't just blindly accept it; several of us reviewed it, provided comments, asked questions, and generally picked it apart.

So I really recommend you refrain from speaking like an authority about people's work that you really don't know much about.

Click to expand...

I never said I knew anything about your work, or personally addressed you with my views. I maintain my view, that deep timers contradict the overall testimony of holy scripture, and choose to believe unproved deep time scenarios. Are you saying that you do not subscribe to deep time evolutionary beliefs?

River Jordan said:

All scientists utilize long-standing, established facts in their work. Physicists don't re-establish the gravitational constant every day, geographers don't re-establish a spherical earth every day, geneticists don't re-establish the structure of DNA every day, and earth scientists don't re-establish that the earth is ancient every day.

Click to expand...

Of course they do not, because they have never established that the earth is ancient, but in their own minds.

River Jordan said:

You may not agree with their conclusions, but that's a you issue and the mere fact that you disagree doesn't mandate scientists spend precious time and resources re-doing basic science.

Click to expand...

I'm not mandating that scientists do anything. I of course consider your deep time views a you issue. Simply that which you have chosen to believe.

River Jordan said:

Exactly! Scientists don't have to see an event before they can study it. If the event leaves behind evidence, it can be studied.

Click to expand...

Correct. This of course does not mean that their conclusions regarding the evidence they study will be or are correct. Leaving a lot of room for difference of opinion, and often based upon certain presumptions assumed in the processes. To the effect, that many scientists have been proved wrong over and again, conceding that which they once declared to be scientific facts.

River Jordan said:

I don't know what you mean.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll copy and paste what I have already written to you. -

Real science has now proved that these deep time scenarios concerning the formation of the world we now observe, simply are not necessary. Which is why many scientists now lean toward Catastrophism over deep time developments for the greater part of what we observe concerning the geography and surface of the earth. Evolutionists also admit of much more rapid change and adaption to environment than they once propagated. While observing that complexity seems to have consistently appeared further and further back in time than they once thought. Suggesting of course that it was there from the beginning. They are now finding this concerning their speculations regarding the formation of the universe as well, largely from observations made by the James Webb telescope.

River Jordan said:

Well there's your mistake. You're thinking scientists concluded the earth and universe are ancient due to some need for evolution to take place. That's not the case at all. Ancient ages are the result of several independent lines of evidence and diverse methods of testing.

Click to expand...

Lines of evidence and diverse methods of testing which all include certain presumptions about the unknown. And to the contrary, the slow theoretical processes of evolution have and do require deep time scenarios. Even with evolutionists presently concluding that these processes do occur much faster than they once thought.

River Jordan said:

That's an interesting suite of claims, but when I look at the actual science I see zero indication that anyone in any relevant field is re-thinking "deep time". Do you have any evidence that scientists are doing that?

Click to expand...

I could post many articles from the past that I have addressed on other boards concerning as already stated, tendencies toward more rapid processes than once thought, and continued observations of complexity further and further back in time which is suggestive of complexity from the beginning of course. If you would like.

River Jordan said:

Isn't that the case with everyone? Or are you trying to argue that scientists are uniquely dishonest?

Click to expand...

No not uniquely. If however, their base assumptions are wrong, then everything that follows is likely wrong as well. Which would mean that although they are ever learning, they will never come to a knowledge of the truth. As holy scripture describes a certain class.

River Jordan said:

Your mistake is assuming that I believe Genesis describes evolution.

Click to expand...

Apparently so. What exactly do you believe it describes?

River Jordan said:

Obviously I disagree, but since it's not a salvation issue I'm okay with that.

Click to expand...

That is kind of strange. I thought you just pretty much said you don't believe Genesis describes evolution. So what, you are a deep timer, but not an evolutionist? Or are you disagreeing with the idea that the theory of evolution creates problems for the gospel message?