Convince me

[metherion]

Then work it out yourself! No matter how you cut it you can't get 4.5 billion yrs for the age of the moon. Period. The only way you can do that is fudge the factors and lie!

So...
“It doesn’t matter my source was completely wrong, you’re still wrong anyways, do your own work to show it.”
Gotcha.

Also, I think the Moon is thought to be younger than the Earth.

ETA: But not very, like maybe a few million years-ish.

"Christians"?

Yes. We’ve had this discussion before, about forum rules and calling each other ‘not actually Christians’.

When it comes to very pre-historic times you have nothing but guesswork. Why? Because you have no way of knowing that the natural order of things has changed or not. Any change in the natural order of the balance of nature as caused by a giant meteor, comet, or solar conditions...as well as (ahem!) floods,...etc. would throw evolutionary theory off by not just millions but perhaps billions of yrs. That's why it takes personal observation to establish things scientifically. You evolutionists don't have that. Why don't you be honest and admit it?

No. No no no no, and, uhm, NO.
1. You’re positing a MASSIVE overhaul that is not Biblically or scientifically supported in everything INCLUDING basic physics.
2. We know how meteors work. We know how flood work. We know how comets work. We know what wonderful things solar flares do. Oh, and by the way, stop using ‘evolutionary theory’ to mean ‘everything in science I don’t personally agree with’.
3. No, it doesn’t take personal eyewitness observation to establish everything scientifically. It takes such wonderful things as evidence. Unless you want to discount such wonderful things as CSI and everything we’ve learned from deep space probes. I mean, none of the CSI people where THERE when the murder took place, and there’s no way we can know SOMETHING didn’t happen to change that evidence. There’s no way we can know there isn’t something in deep space messing up everything we’ve ever gotten from Hubble or the Voyager satellites or whatnot.

Your argument plain doesn’t work. And it can really be summed up in one sentence:
YOU DON”T KNOW THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WEREN”T OVERHAULED WITH NO EVIDENCE OF IT HAPPENING OR REASON TO THINK IT HAPPENED SO YOU CAN”T BE RIGHT!

Pangea is a theory, nothing more. Same argument above applies here.

Blatant misuse of the word ‘theory’ out of its contextual scientific meaning.

No, the same source {R.A.T.E} reported on both. Their figures hold true and independent (evolutionist) labs confirm it.

One of the other posters addressed this.

You are the one giving falsehoods here. The creationists are right and God's Word tells the truth about creation. You just don't believe it.

Truth = / = Literal Interpretation 100% of the time. False dichotomy.

Because, like everything else in our universe it is subject to the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Is it really that hard for you to figure out. It is the same reason for luner recession...and not lunar evolution! Figure it out.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, and still managed to get it partly right.

Yes, the Sun IS subject to the SLoT. If we were to gather up ALL the energy ever emitted by the sun, we could not unfuse all the matter ever fused by the Sun. The SLoT does NOT say the Sun is degrading or any such nonsense.

And lunar evolution is just plain nonsense as the moon is not a living thing that WOULD or COULD evolve, but that doesn’t matter to you as long as you get to use your buzzword, does it?

And?

Look, even evolutionists admit it is shrinking and it is NOT getting larger in cycles. Who are you trying to fool? Didn't you both looking at my documentation?

And it was your guys’ linear extrapolations backwards and forwards with no regard for why it would be valid or invalid that makes any argument you make a failure.

I answered this above. Now start doing some thinking on your own and stop mouthing Darwinians (who happen to agree with your prejudices) like a parrot.

Astronomy and solar science and nuclear physics = / = Darwinism. One has to wonder why you continually and knowingly use that false epithet. And no, you didn’t answer anything, especially about how the solar system would exist if the sun was 9.7 million times more massive and why the burning rate would have to change and so on.

It doesn't make any difference their dates are in error. Others do you the tree ring argument

Oh, so you don’t NEED to even know what they do to discount it and declare it wrong? Sounds like someone has their mind made up ahead of time, is discounting everything that could go against it without even examining it, and is generally being irrational.

Rather than believe the likes of you and brainwashed inviduals like you...yes!

So rather than address any arguments and realize the double standards when you apply it to modern day science, you call us brainwashed and ignore everything. All right. As long as it’s clear that is what yo are doing.

By...whose...obervation? I utterly reject that nonsense. No one in the history of astronomy has ever seen a gaseous cloud of any kind form into a planet. You are dreaming.

Not planet, comets. Your misrepresentation has been noted.

I'm not playing. I am giving you a dire warning. You are the one in the wrong. The Lord is not pleased with such a position. There wasn't a single evolutionist in the Christian world until Darwin...because the Bible nowhere teaches it. In fact just the opposite:

Romans 1:22-23 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 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.

If evolution is found in the Bible anywhere this is it...in condemnation.

I reject evolution in toto. It is an unscientific and unbiblical position that had its birth in the mind of Satan.

Ah, yes, we’re wrong and are going to go to Hell because of it. Because of a side issue that you have shown to be unclear/wrong on the science of and is nowhere listed in any Creed or the Bible itself as a requirement for believing.

As long as your position is being made clear, hey, say what you will.

Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

So...
“It doesn’t matter my source was completely wrong, you’re still wrong anyways, do your own work to show it.”
Gotcha.

You can paste that childish flavoring on my attitude if you wish but the truth is that I still don't see any argument that George Darwins formula on lunar recession is in error.

Also, I think the Moon is thought to be younger than the Earth.

??? and?

ETA: But not very, like maybe a few million years-ish.

Who says? We don't agree with evolutionist time scales. They are way, way off.

Yes. We’ve had this discussion before, about forum rules and calling each other ‘not actually Christians’.

Not with me you haven't. I never said that T.E.'s were not 'Christian'. But they are heretical Christians and their unbelief is not pleasing to the heavenly Father for both His Word is clear enough on the issue and the scientific evidence strongly favors creation as taught by the Bible.

No. No no no no, and, uhm, NO.
1. You’re positing a MASSIVE overhaul that is not Biblically or scientifically supported in everything INCLUDING basic physics.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and uhm, yes. I don't have to overhaul anything. I merely need believe what the Lord says in His word and not use tortured logic to make the facts of science fit my theory...like Mary Schweitzer & company have done...believing that no soft tissue in dino's could survive 68 million yrs BEFORE such things are discovered and then moving the goal posts (delieberately) AFTER such things are discovered. And they call that 'science'. It's a joke. You and those like you believe in a joke!

2. We know how meteors work. We know how flood work. We know how comets work. We know what wonderful things solar flares do. Oh, and by the way, stop using ‘evolutionary theory’ to mean ‘everything in science I don’t personally agree with’.

Correction: we don't know where comets originate nor how they form. THAT has never been observed.

3. No, it doesn’t take personal eyewitness observation to establish everything scientifically.

Wrong: empirical investigation is the basis of all scientific law and established fact. Name a single law that isn't.

It takes such wonderful things as evidence. Unless you want to discount such wonderful things as CSI and everything we’ve learned from deep space probes. I mean, none of the CSI people where THERE when the murder took place, and there’s no way we can know SOMETHING didn’t happen to change that evidence. There’s no way we can know there isn’t something in deep space messing up everything we’ve ever gotten from Hubble or the Voyager satellites or whatnot.

It is perfectly permissable for scientists to guess. But those guesses must stay in the realm of hypothesis until the matter is established.

Your argument plain doesn’t work. And it can really be summed up in one sentence:
YOU DON”T KNOW THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE WEREN”T OVERHAULED WITH NO EVIDENCE OF IT HAPPENING OR REASON TO THINK IT HAPPENED SO YOU CAN”T BE RIGHT!

Error. I wasn't talking about the fundamental laws of the universe...I was talking about the forces of nature (i.e. weather, electromagnetic field, gravity, time measurement, etc.) that are governed by those laws that because of unknown factors could have changed conditions in nature in the past. The flood of Noah for example, would certainly qualify and the R.A.T.E. group has verified that helium escape from rocks and radiometric measure are vastly different. You need to check that out.

Blatant misuse of the word ‘theory’ out of its contextual scientific meaning.

I do not believe Pangea. Furthermore if you would look closely at a world map you would see that the continents lining both sides of the Atlantic DO NOT match up if set against each other.

One of the other posters addressed this.

Well, are you going to take the time to research their findings yourself or are you afraid of what you might find and don't wish to discuss it?

Truth = / = Literal Interpretation 100% of the time. False dichotomy.

I never posited a 100% literal interpretation. Ever. False statement.

But if one can't tell the difference between the literal/historical content of Genesis (as verified by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself) and something like Song of Solomon, then...they have a real problem.

You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, and still managed to get it partly right.

I think you need to look into the mirror next time you say that.

Yes, the Sun IS subject to the SLoT. If we were to gather up ALL the energy ever emitted by the sun, we could not unfuse all the matter ever fused by the Sun. The SLoT does NOT say the Sun is degrading or any such nonsense.

You just revealed to the readers that you don't even know what 'degrading' (degradation) is in the first place. But the truth is that degradation, decay, degeneration, and death are all part and parcel of the same eternal truth...the curse of God upon the world for the rebellion of man against Him because of sin. That curse is expressed scientifically in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which affects ALL physical objects in the universe. Entropy, (the measure of disorder) affects all things.

And lunar evolution is just plain nonsense as the moon is not a living thing that WOULD or COULD evolve, but that doesn’t matter to you as long as you get to use your buzzword, does it?

The go dig up Carl Sagan from the grave and lecture him about his many nationally televised programs in which he mentioned 'stellar evolution' repeatedly. Shame on him.

And it was your guys’ linear extrapolations backwards and forwards with no regard for why it would be valid or invalid that makes any argument you make a failure.

You had your chance to show us why. You didn't.

Astronomy and solar science and nuclear physics = / = Darwinism.

No, it doesn't. That is the very fact that we are contesting. We will continue to do so...with a great many reasons.

One has to wonder why you continually and knowingly use that false epithet. And no, you didn’t answer anything, especially about how the solar system would exist if the sun was 9.7 million times more massive and why the burning rate would have to change and so on.

YOU....are not...telling...the truth. I quoted my source directly from NASA about the sun shrinking but you won't even believe them!

Oh, so you don’t NEED to even know what they do to discount it and declare it wrong? Sounds like someone has their mind made up ahead of time, is discounting everything that could go against it without even examining it, and is generally being irrational.

I am an ex-evolutionist. What does that tell you?

So rather than address any arguments and realize the double standards when you apply it to modern day science, you call us brainwashed and ignore everything. All right. As long as it’s clear that is what yo are doing.[/quote

I addressed your arguments. I went to great lengths to document what I said. You are just in denial.

Not planet, comets. Your misrepresentation has been noted.

But you don't know how comets formed either so what difference does it make? No one has seen either planets nor comets form...ever.

Ah, yes, we’re wrong and are going to go to Hell because of it. Because of a side issue that you have shown to be unclear/wrong on the science of and is nowhere listed in any Creed or the Bible itself as a requirement for believing.

That's not for me to decide. My duty is to point out and correct error, (II Timothy 3:16) God will be the final judge.

As long as your position is being made clear, hey, say what you will.

To the readers: notice that this theistic evolutionist did not quote a single scripture from God's Word to support his position. That is becasue it can't be done.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think it's very telling that you do not attempt to defend what AiG stated in the link you provided. The link was "10 dangers of theistic evolution", and "God of the Gaps" was #2. This is what they said:

However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.​

I wouldn't characterize theistic evolution in that way but only because he does not go far enough. Actually I have the same problem with Intelligent Design, however, this is not a lie or a misleading statement. It's an expression of an opinion I agree with as far as it goes. As far as I can tell TEs give no space to God in creation which is why they are so venomously opposed to it.

Do you stand behind this statement, or don't you? If not, why would you point a questioner to this link if you are not sold on what it says? Or did you even think about it beforehand?

Sure I read it and I agree with it, so what?

We all believe in the trustworthiness of scripture. We also all believe that scripture is untrustworthy if you misuse it. I assure you, I spend the vast majority of my time defending scripture; however, when talking to hardcore YEC's who are telling me that I am undermining scripture, I have little choice but to point to the inconsistencies and difficulties of their particular view. And, unfortunately, atheists are every bit as capable of seeing those inconsistencies and difficulties as we TE's are, so we end up hitting on the same points. But they are things that have to be dealt with.

The Scriptures are trustworthy, when they are mishandled then the one doing the exposition is to blame. What you are doing is mimicking the very same arguments atheistic materialists use and passing them off as being from a Biblical or Christian frame of reference. TEs hit on creationists and rarely raise valid issues which is my whole problem with them. It is an endless string of personal remarks with little bearing on science or theology.

The age of the earth is beside the point and the main points at the heart of the issues have never been dealt with by TEs.

I have examined the evidence as well. I see that despite the problems, there is enough evidence to dismiss the idea of a YEC view, and there are numerous theological problems with YEC as well.

I don't think you are that well acquainted with the evidence and while you continue to talk in generalities the evidence gets trampled.

I repeat: in the link you provided, AiG made claims that show a profound misunderstanding of what every single TE I have known believe in. Do you defend their statements? Why am I wrong and why are they right?

Because you are making inflammatory remarks about someone else's opinion. I think you are wrong to make the bulk of your posts a long list of insults. When you get tired of throwing these generalities around I'm going to show you why.

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were being dishonest. That was not my intent. I make no judgments about your personal convictions, I'm making a point about my expectations for Christians in general vs. my expectations of the world.

Well if you think I'm speaking falsely then you should imply that I'm being dishonest. We should be getting closer to the specifics but we have to wade through the banter for a while longer I guess.

OK, since I've asked you to address specifics above, I will straightforwardly answer this. The statement is wrong, and it was wrong of any publication to quote it knowing that it was wrong.

So, what is the implication? The truth seems to be in the 95% range, which is still very high, and still puts us closer to chimps genetically than anything else.

This statement was made on the Smithsonian website in two different places, Scientific American by a leading researcher and Time magazine. What you are quoting from that essay is a very general opinion not based in anything theological or scientific except in the most general sense. I have given you a hard evidential fact that is consistently misrepresented with one real question, why are you not getting morally indignant at their falsehood while getting so exercised by a difference of opinion?

If this was a moral judgement you would be just as indignant at the statement in Nature's Web Focus, if not more so, as you were with the AIG article. Why the double standard? By the way, I have plenty of other examples when you finally let that one sink in.

Granted, there is too much attacking here, but both sides are equally guilty of personal attacks, and who knows who started it. There are no innocents. TE's need to be less condescending, and YEC's need to be less judgmental.

Now that is a statement I can finally agree with, God willing, this we will do.

I dislike AiG because I have found it does not deal with a lot of issues honestly, and it overtly marginalizes a large group of believing Christians because of a side issue. I have a great deal of love and respect for a lot of YEC's; as long as we can work together in love, I have no complaint with them.

​

Context is important. There are Christians out there who would slap even you with this verse for something that they view "worldly" that you happen to believe. Rest assured, if evolution is true, then this verse cannot possibly be against it. Used as you intended, it's meaningless to me.

Darwinism is worldly, there is no question about it. It was designed to be one long argument against special creationism and serves no other purpose. Creationism is based on a sound exegesis of Genesis 1,2,5 and other supporting texts, no question about that. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms, repeatedly and this has been affirmed by Christian scholarship for 2,000 years. The idea that Adam had ancestors is absent in Christian literature right up until the advent of Darwinism, that is no coincidence.

Look, I don't think you are out to undermine faith. I think what has happened is that you have gotten caught up in the feeding frenzy and fallen for a fallacious philosophical trap. AIG hasn't put anything out there that I would characterize as dishonest and you have no call to throw around such strong language based on an expression of opinion. I don't happen to believe you have to be baptized in water to be baptized into Christ but I don't have a problem with Christians who think they do.

I'll have some more time here in a couple of weeks, really want to get more into the AIG thing but I'm really short on time right now. Don't worry, we will.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[metherion]

You can paste that childish flavoring on my attitude if you wish but the truth is that I still don't see any argument that George Darwins formula on lunar recession is in error.

How about the fact that the “fission theory” of lunar formation that George Darwin put forth is no longer accepted, so his calculations on that particular scenario having happened are invalid?

Not with me you haven't. I never said that T.E.'s were not 'Christian'. But they are heretical Christians and their unbelief is not pleasing to the heavenly Father for both His Word is clear enough on the issue and the scientific evidence strongly favors creation as taught by the Bible.

“Heretics” who are full of “unbelief” don’t believe (see: UNBELIEF). You HAVE accused me of it. And the rest of us.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and uhm, yes. I don't have to overhaul anything. I merely need believe what the Lord says in His word and not use tortured logic to make the facts of science fit my theory...like Mary Schweitzer & company have done...believing that no soft tissue in dino's could survive 68 million yrs BEFORE such things are discovered and then moving the goal posts (delieberately) AFTER such things are discovered. And they call that 'science'. It's a joke. You and those like you believe in a joke!

The corrections on your claims have been repeatedly pointed out to you. You’ve lost that point for everyone to see.

Correction: we don't know where comets originate nor how they form. THAT has never been observed.

Correction: We don’t know where ALL comets originate from nor how ALL of them form. Papers giving you locations for at least some of them have already been given to you in this thread.

And, also, so what if we’ve never SEEN one form? They exist. If they can’t last, then more must be forming. Just because we might not currently have 100% of the answers on just how comets form doesn’t mean a) they can’t or b) everything we know about them is wrong.

Wrong: empirical investigation is the basis of all scientific law and established fact. Name a single law that isn't.

No, sir, you are wrong. You do not have to observe a specific event to find out what happened. You can, in fact, observe the effects of an event to find out what it is.

I keep using CSI as an example. Nobody saw this murder happen. But they can tell where the victim stood because DESPITE NONE OF THE CSIs WITNESSING THE MURDER, all the blood spatter can be traced to coming from one point.

Similarly, past events can be figured out by evidence they leave behind. That is just as much empirical observation as seeing the event in the lab.

It is perfectly permissable for scientists to guess. But those guesses must stay in the realm of hypothesis until the matter is established.

Such as decades of confirmation after confirmation from current research. Unless it’s a matter that happens to disagree with your faith.

Error. I wasn't talking about the fundamental laws of the universe...I was talking about the forces of nature (i.e. weather, electromagnetic field, gravity, time measurement, etc.) that are governed by those laws that because of unknown factors could have changed conditions in nature in the past. The flood of Noah for example, would certainly qualify and the R.A.T.E. group has verified that helium escape from rocks and radiometric measure are vastly different. You need to check that out.

No, see, you’re talking about EXACTLY what I said. What would cause gravity to work differently? A fundamental overhaul of the mechanics that cause it to work. In short, the laws of physics changing.

As for the RATE project, are you referring to the same one which specifically states there are times God must have altered radioactive decay rates? The one done by Humphreys et al?
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium Diffusion Doesn't Support Young-Earth Creationism

Here’s a brief overview of some of the points:
RATE did their experiments under a vacuum. Previous experiment show rates of diffusion decrease by 3-6 orders of magnitude, or about 10^3-10^6 times, (1,000-1,000,000).

The equations assume constant temperature over time. We know that the temperature varies over time. Therefore, it is flawed.

There are a few more.

I do not believe Pangea. Furthermore if you would look closely at a world map you would see that the continents lining both sides of the Atlantic DO NOT match up if set against each other.

Because over millions to billions of years of tectonic and volcanic activity, things have changed. Else we’d still be in Pangaea. Your personal belief is irrelevant to the evidence Pangaea. So is everyone else’s. What matters is the EVIDENCE.

Well, are you going to take the time to research their findings yourself or are you afraid of what you might find and don't wish to discuss it?

Being a scientist myself, I actually TRUST other scientists, especially when we can use their predictions and data for real world applications, like evolution and plate tectonics and so on.

I never posited a 100% literal interpretation. Ever. False statement.

But if one can't tell the difference between the literal/historical content of Genesis (as verified by the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Himself) and something like Song of Solomon, then...they have a real problem.

*facepalm*

I think you need to look into the mirror next time you say that.

No, I really don’t. I actually spend time to figure out what you’re talking about and show WHY it’s actually wrong than look at stuff, say ‘it supports what I think!’ and throw it out there.

You just revealed to the readers that you don't even know what 'degrading' (degradation) is in the first place. But the truth is that degradation, decay, degeneration, and death are all part and parcel of the same eternal truth...the curse of God upon the world for the rebellion of man against Him because of sin. That curse is expressed scientifically in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which affects ALL physical objects in the universe. Entropy, (the measure of disorder) affects all things.

Thank you for showing you have NO IDEA what entropy/SLoT is. Entropy is NOT disorder and decay, entropy refers to the flow of energy. “Perfect internal disorder” and “equilibrium” are interchangeable. Not decay, not degradation, not rot and sin and death. Thermodynamic equilibrium. Learn your terms.

You had your chance to show us why. You didn't.
...
YOU....are not...telling...the truth. I quoted my source directly from NASA about the sun shrinking but you won't even believe them!

No. I did. You just ignored it. I would not be at all surprised if the Sun is truly shrinking. Losing mass tends to do that. But a constant rate extending backwards into infinity does NOT make sense.

OH BY THE WAY:

The Legend of the Shrinking Sun

Enjoy the read.

I am an ex-evolutionist. What does that tell you?

That you changed your mind once, and accepting any evidence might mean you personally are wrong. And if you’re personally wrong about the science, you might be personally wrong about science in the Bible. And if you’re personally wrong about science in the Bible, you might be wrong about something else in the Bible. And if you’re wrong about ANYTHING in the Bible, then you can’t trust your own faith. And if you can’t trust your own faith, God might not be real, etc etc etc.

Now, that may not apply to you. But I have known people to whom it DID apply. Mostly the ones that lost their faith once they actually looked at and understood evidence after they’d had how wrong and evil and anti-God evolution supposedly is drilled into them for years.

Astronomy and solar science and nuclear physics = / = Darwinism

No, it doesn't. That is the very fact that we are contesting. We will continue to do so...with a great many reasons.


Right here, I’m honestly not sure what to think. We obviously both agree that astronomy and solar science and nuclear physics are not “darwinism”. But from your response, it seems you think science is saying it IS darwinism, which means you’re using “Darwin-” (ist, ism, ian, whatever suffix you want) as some sort of ‘I don’t agree with this’ buzzword, which isn’t what it is. So I’m confused.

I addressed your arguments. I went to great lengths to document what I said. You are just in denial.

No, you just asserted I was wrong, and in several cases didn’t even talk about why I was wrong or even know what I was talking about before declaring that it MUST BE WRONG.

But you don't know how comets formed either so what difference does it make? No one has seen either planets nor comets form...ever.


Hey, do you need a crane to help you shift those goalposts further?

That's not for me to decide. My duty is to point out and correct error, (II Timothy 3:16) God will be the final judge.

Matthew 7:5

To the readers: notice that this theistic evolutionist did not quote a single scripture from God's Word to support his position. That is becasue it can't be done.

Or it might be because the Bible is not meant to be a science textbook. So quoting the Bible to refute/confirm science really doesn’t work. It’s like using a screwdriver when you need a magnetic grappling hook.

Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

Mark Kennedy: quote - "Creationism is based on a sound exegesis of Genesis 1,2,5 and other supporting texts, no question about that. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms, repeatedly and this has been affirmed by Christian scholarship for 2,000 years. The idea that Adam had ancestors is absent in Christian literature right up until the advent of Darwinism, that is no coincidence."

Absolutely amen, brother!

 

[metherion]

Creationism is based on a sound exegesis of Genesis 1,2,5 and other supporting texts, no question about that. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms, repeatedly and this has been affirmed by Christian scholarship for 2,000 years. The idea that Adam had ancestors is absent in Christian literature right up until the advent of Darwinism, that is no coincidence.

I actually expect this to come up again when we talk later, but here's a question for both of you.

How is that different from such things as geocentrism (as in Galileo) and other earlier held ideas such as the impossibility of people living on the other side of the Antipodes, or the ideas of the earth being older than a literal interpretation of the Bible which came into existence no less than half a century before Darwin? Was THEIR exegesis unsound, or prevalent before science discovered it? And for the first two (since you guys are obviously YEC you'd disagree on the third), were they not similarly unmentioned/talked against in the Bible, and yet still correct?

My overall point is, when people use the Bible for science, they often come up with things that are way off from what ACTUAL science says. And scientific ideas generally aren't in religious thought, even if they can be made to have religious significance until they are scientifically discovered. Yes, nobody thought the "first human" would have ancestors until the ToE came around. But nobody thought the earth wasn't flat until (well, it's generally attributed to) the classical Greeks figured that it wasn't. People using the Bible thought the earth was the center of the universe, until scientifically minded people figured out that it wasn't. And things done using their models, such as the Voyager satellites, work. People currently think the world is only 6k years old, except science thinks it isn't, and old earth models WORK (for instance, finding oil and fossils like Tiktaalik). People currently think humans are an act of special creation that are not actually related to other creatures by evolution, but models based on common ancestry WORK (such things as humans having the same broken vitamin C gene as the other great apes, the fused Chromosome 2, etc). So why are only the recent ones different while the older ones are settled and fine? What's the difference?

And how do you know the older ideas were based on unsound exegesis (as they are obviously wrong) but your current ideas are not?


Metherion

 

[Calypsis4]

How about the fact that the “fission theory” of lunar formation that George Darwin put forth is no longer accepted, so his calculations on that particular scenario having happened are invalid?

So he was wrong about that. So? He wasn't wrong about lunar recession.

“Heretics” who are full of “unbelief” don’t believe (see: UNBELIEF). You HAVE accused me of it. And the rest of us.

If you don't believe the testimony of the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who verified the literal/historical events described in Genesis then you are in unbelief; no 'if's', 'and's', or 'but's' about it.

In other words, the same Holy Spirit who led the author of I & II Kings to write

"And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD" Chap. 6:1

...as a literal, historical fact which occurred in about 1,000 B.C. also inspired Moses to write:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Genesis 7:11.

He did NOT begin the account of the great flood by saying, "Once upon a time..."

The matter is not obscure, unclear, or even difficult to grasp.

The corrections on your claims have been repeatedly pointed out to you. You’ve lost that point for everyone to see.

Those 'claims' are in error and I documented that they are in error by posting evidence from evolutionists themselves from place like NASA, Harvard, etc. But your prejudice for error is so deep you won't even believe them.


Correction: We don’t know where ALL comets originate from nor how ALL of them form. Papers giving you locations for at least some of them have already been given to you in this thread.

Again...you are not...telling...the truth:

Quote - "The origin of comets is still uncertain. They were once thought to have originated outside the solar system; however, modern theories suggest they were formed during the formation of the solar system and are permanent members of it."

comet: The Origin of Comets — Infoplease.com

Quote - "Where do comets come from? These cosmic apparitions have had humans pondering their nature for millennia, yet theories of where comets originate still don't answer the question." Emphasis mine.
(From New Scientist magazine).

And, also, so what if we’ve never SEEN one form? They exist. If they can’t last, then more must be forming. Just because we might not currently have 100% of the answers on just how comets form doesn’t mean a) they can’t or b) everything we know about them is wrong.

Their existence is not in question...it is the life-span of comets that is.

No, sir, you are wrong. You do not have to observe a specific event to find out what happened. You can, in fact, observe the effects of an event to find out what it is.

Oh, I see. You are infected with the uniformitarian principle that 'the present is the key to the past'. So because we don't find(for instance) dinosaurs in our day therefore they no longer exist, right? Or do they?

keep using CSI as an example. Nobody saw this murder happen. But they can tell where the victim stood because DESPITE NONE OF THE CSIs WITNESSING THE MURDER, all the blood spatter can be traced to coming from one point.

But if further research of the facts reveal that the original theory of crime was in error then out the window goes the theory. That is the case with evolution vs creation. We are demonstrating that the facts do NOT support evolution theory in everything from Biogenesis, to Thermodynamics, to the fossil record, to the carbon 14 discovered in diamonds...and now even the soft tissue in '68 million yr old' dinosaurs.

A CSI will always follow the trail of facts to get a true picture of where it leads. BUT...they still have to OBSERVE enough facts to make an intelligent, rational decision. Just as I have demonstrated in this very post that you have not taken the FACTS to the bottom line...nor are you even interested in finding facts that fly in the face of your ideology.

Such as decades of confirmation after confirmation from current research. Unless it’s a matter that happens to disagree with your faith.

No, no, no. They have not confirmed evolution. Just the opposite is true. Only pure prejudice would cause a person to come to such an inane conclusion.

No, see, you’re talking about EXACTLY what I said. What would cause gravity to work differently? A fundamental overhaul of the mechanics that cause it to work. In short, the laws of physics changing.

Check out the time as recorded by the atomic clock in Boulder, Colorado. Then check out the reading of the atomic clock at Greenwich, England. Are they the same? Does time change with velocity? Yes/no. If you don't know what I am driving at then I can't help you any further. Gravity affects things differently depending on location/distance.

As for the RATE project, are you referring to the same one which specifically states there are times God must have altered radioactive decay rates? The one done by Humphreys et al?
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium Diffusion Doesn't Support Young-Earth Creationism

Here’s a brief overview of some of the points:
RATE did their experiments under a vacuum. Previous experiment show rates of diffusion decrease by 3-6 orders of magnitude, or about 10^3-10^6 times, (1,000-1,000,000).

Tell me honestly: Did you READ what R.A.T.E. said or are you merely parroting talk/origins again?

Your reference leads to an article in talk/origins by Ken Henke, the apostate who says:

"I committed my life to Christ and I encouraged others to do so. However, after I read the Bible, and especially the false prophecies in Revelation and the countless contradictions in the Gospels, I realized that the claims of Christianity were false."

​

Does it do your conscience good to know this is the feeling of the one whom you use for documentation or do you agree with that statement? If you agree with him then we are done with this debate.

Humphreys corrected Henke in great detail in true/origins:

Helium Evidence for A Young World Remains Crystal-Clear

So you trust the word of atheists rather than the Word of God and godly men who believe in it...men whose qualifications are impeccable.

The equations assume constant temperature over time. We know that the temperature varies over time. Therefore, it is flawed.

No, it isn't. Not just because you say so. Again, you didn't document your position on this point.

Because over millions to billions of years of tectonic and volcanic activity, things have changed. Else we’d still be in Pangaea. Your personal belief is irrelevant to the evidence Pangaea. So is everyone else’s. What matters is the EVIDENCE.

You don't have evidence for Pangea, just a guess.

The most radical change in earths tectonics was a matter that was OBSERVED...by Noah and his family. Their verbal testimony has been handed down by oral tradition through virtually every family and/or tribe on earth. But God told Moses what really happened and he gave the accurate written account to us as verified by Jesus Christ Himself. Matthew 24: 36-39.

Not only so but Jesus compared that literal event with another literal event...yet to come: His second coming. But should I suppose you don't believe that either?

Being a scientist myself,...

You are? Well, blow me down.:o

I actually TRUST other scientists

You mean scientists like Wernher Von Braun? How about Henry Morris? How about Jean Henri Fabre? How about Dr. Rudolph Virchow or Louis Agassiz...all of whom, in their day vehemently opposed Darwinism? Do you trust any of them?

I don't trust any 'scientist' who uses tortured logic and ignores even his own comrades when they produce facts that differ with their prejudices like you do. There are some evolutionists I do trust but they are not the fanatics who wave their fingers in our faces and insist that we are ignorant. Some of them are pretty nice fellows in fact.

...especially when we can use their predictions and data for real world applications, like evolution and plate tectonics and so on.

So I have to rely on you to tell me what the real world is and not God?

Forget that.

*facepalm*

If I bore you or irritate you, sir, then feel free to move on to other posters. I won't mind at all because you aren't establishing your point. Far from it.

You for showing you have NO IDEA what entropy/SLoT is. Entropy is NOT disorder and decay, entropy refers to the flow of energy. “Perfect internal disorder” and “equilibrium” are interchangeable. Not decay, not degradation, not rot and sin and death. Thermodynamic equilibrium. Learn your terms.

Not only do I know it...I taught it. Senior high school physics.

You don't know what you're talking about...but any perceptive reader should have seen that by now.

Quote - (Now catch this: from Oxford University Dictionary on Physics)
"A measure of the unavailability of a systems energy to do work. All real processes are to a certain extent irreversible changes and in any closed system such a change is always accompanied by an increase in entropy. In a wider sense entropy can be interpreted as a measure of disorder. It follows that if the entropy of the universe is increasing its available energy is decreasing." Oxford Dictionary of Physics:2005.

Quote - "The degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity. A process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder." The Dorland Medical Dictionary.

Quote - "the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness in the system. Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Those are all evolutionist sources but I am not foolish enough to think that you will believe them either. I have about seven or eight more evolutionist sources that give the same definitions. Would it make any difference if I quoted them also?

BY THE WAY:

The Legend of the Shrinking Sun

Enjoy the read.

Enjoy the read? So which evolutionists should the inquiring reader believe Mr. scientist? NASA or the compromising 'Christians' at ASA. I believe NASA.

You changed your mind once, and accepting any evidence might mean you personally are wrong.

The issue is God's Word. It is not wrong. It is never wrong. The literal/historical account that Jesus Christ affirmed in Genesis will stand forever along with the rest of His word and in the end of things all scientific facts will be understood because He will make it all clear. Evolution will be destroyed from the face of the earth and never believed in again.

you’re personally wrong about the science[.quote]

Nope. Not a chance.

No, you just asserted I was wrong, and in several cases didn’t even talk about why I was wrong or even know what I was talking about before declaring that it MUST BE WRONG.

Yet you either ignore my documentation...even that from evolutionist sources or you fall back on atheists who hate the Word of God as your evidence to support your views.

you need a crane to help you shift those goalposts further?

I am not pushing the 'goalposts'. I should have said 'comets' instead of 'planets'. I am not above making mistakes.

Matthew 7:5

Got it. The 'beam' is out of my own eye so I can see clearly to cast the mote out of my brothers eye. Your the one who believes in the heresy here. John 7:24.

It might be because the Bible is not meant to be a science textbook.

But the statements it touches on concerning scientific law and/or fact are correct in everything from Biogenesis to entropy to the spherical shape of the earth.

ting the Bible to refute/confirm science really doesn’t work. It’s like using a screwdriver when you need a magnetic grappling hook.

Your error in this matter is very great. So is it with your comrades in unbelief.

Notice to the readers: Neither this individual nor any of his comrades have given me a single passage of the Bible supporting their views on evolution.

 

[metherion]

If I bore you or irritate you, sir, then feel free to move on to other posters. I won't mind at all because you aren't establishing your point. Far from it.

You do both. But I think you’ve gotten my point across FAR better than I ever could... especially with the ‘dinosaur’ pictures, including the one WELL KNOWN to be a basking shark. Well done sir, showing you have nothing.


Now to address a couple more points you’ve made.



If you don't believe the testimony of the prophets, apostles, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who verified the literal/historical events described in Genesis then you are in unbelief; no 'if's', 'and's', or 'but's' about it.

See, this is the false dichotomy here. I either accept what they say as literally/scientifically true OR I DON”T BELIEVE. False. Dichotomy. Say it with me now.

You are infected with the uniformitarian principle that 'the present is the key to the past'.

But I thought you ridiculed and denounced the idea of creationism positing a huge unevidenced, extra-Biblical overhaul of all the laws of physics and everything. And short of God LYING by changing things, why WOULDN”T be present be the key to the past?

Does it do your conscience good to know this is the feeling of the one whom you use for documentation or do you agree with that statement? If you agree with him then we are done with this debate.

Why would his feelings matter to the work he does? The Greeks who figured out the earth was round were definitely not Christian. The Chinese who first figured out rockets and gunpowder and fireworks weren’t Christians. I don’t need to agree with someone’s theological viewpoints to acknowledge work done as valid.

Who the work comes from DOESN”T matter. The WORK ITSELF is what matters.

Werhner Von Braun...

I’d trust him for rocket science, sure. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t READ his papers, CHECK his theory and methods sections, etc.

Henry Morris

For hydraulics and other civil engineering I probably would. But again, I’d READ the papers and CHECK the theory and methods sections. And I would multiple check everything he wrote on evolution since a lot of his life was spent propagating a religious bias so everything he tried to do in that field would warrant EXTRA checking.

Jean Henri Fabre

If I had ANY interest in entomology I would. I’m sure many entomologists do. I would probably refer to him were to I do anything with entomology, but it doesn’t really overlap with chemical engineering much. Of course, from what I know of him, he was far more a ‘do it and record it’ type of fellow.

Dr. Rudolph Virchow

Depends. Guy did a LOT of good stuff, there’s a method of AUTOPSIES named after him... but on the other hand he really didn’t accept that bacteria caused disease. But, again, if his methods are sounds and so on, yes I would.

Louis Agassiz

Well, it depends on what, again. As far as I know, a lot of his work has been superseded so I’d more likely go look at that stuff. I WOULD disagree some of his ‘scientific racism’ type ideas, but he was also quite correct in his propositions of Earth being subjected to previous Ice Ages (well, to those of us who accept the age of the earth anyways). So again, it depends on the topic, his methodologies, etc.

You see, work stands or falls on its own merit. Science doesn’t care WHO brings the work forward if the work itself is valid. Neither do I. Most of the time, I didn’t even look at the authors when I was doing research for stuff, I looked at the methods and the results.

I don't trust any 'scientist' who uses tortured logic and ignores even his own comrades when they produce facts that differ with their prejudices like you do.

Like the ones who invoke miracles in their methods sections, misapply when linear extrapolation is valid, and use vacuum results to determine results under an atmosphere? Gotcha.

Not only do I know it...I taught it. Senior high school physics.

Then cut the equivocation crap. You COMPLETELY ignored my statement about how ‘molecular disorder’ and entropy DO IN FACT mean the same thing (which you showed quite well in your definitions) and insist I know not whereof I speak. Molecular disorder is NOT the same as decay, rot, sin, all the negative disorder YOU previously listed. Order is how much energy you can get from the system, disorder is energy in the system that cannot be used. That is ALL. Not

degradation, decay, degeneration, and death

as you claim.

Got to love the blatant misrepresentation of my statement

Entropy is NOT disorder and decay, entropy refers to the flow of energy. “Perfect internal disorder” and “equilibrium” are interchangeable. Not decay, not degradation, not rot and sin and death.

Which CLEARLY has the disorder=entropy as the middle sentence, with the ones on the ends protesting the equivocation you preformed. To FURTHER equivocate my statement is... well... being charitable it’s a grievous mistake.

But the statements it touches on concerning scientific law and/or fact are correct in everything from Biogenesis to entropy to the spherical shape of the earth.

Except it DOESN”T show a spherical shape to the earth, as has been pointed out to you, and says NOTHING about the SLoT.

And again, you enjoy winding it down with more accusations of me not actually being a Christian with such epithets as ‘comrades in unbelief’.

I’ve satisfied myself in showing what I think is important to the OP.

Metherion

 

[Mallon]

Oh, I see. You are infected with the uniformitarian principle that 'the present is the key to the past'.

It's silly you should berate metherion for applying the principle of uniformitarianism when you yourself used the same principle to argue for YECism here:

Friend, if you want the most credible source, it is the Word of God itself. When it is all looked at in its fell context, then the six day creation about 6,000 yrs ago is the only option. There are many scientific facts supporting a young earth and it is verily accessible to all:

Clock
Age Estimate
1. Receding Moon
750 m.y.a. max
2. Oil Pressure
5,000 - 10,000 years
3. The Sun
1,000,000 years max
4. The Oldest Living Thing
4,900 years max
5. Helium in the Atmosphere
1,750,000 years max
6. Short Period Comets
5,000 - 10,000 years
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field
10,000 years max
8. C-14 Dating of Dino Bones
10,000 - 50,000 years
9A. Dinosaur Blood and Ancient DNA
5,000 - 50,000 years​

9B. Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones 5,000 - 50,000 years
9C. 165 Million Year Old Ligaments 5,000 - 50,000 years

10. Axel Heiberg Island

5,000 - 10,000 years
11. Carbon-14 in Atmosphere
10,000 years max
12. The Dead Sea
13,000 years max
13. Niagara Falls
5,000 - 8,800 years max
14. Historical Records
5,000 years max
15. The San Andreas Fault
5,000 - 10,000 years
16. Mitochondrial Eve
6,500 years
17. Population Growth
10,000 years max​

18. Minerals in the Oceans Various (mostly young) Ages 19. Rapid Mountain Uplift Less than 10 million years 20. Carbon 14 from "Old" Sources 10,000 to 50,000 years 21. Dark Matter and Spiral Galaxies 100 - 500 million years (max) 22. Helium and lead in Zircons 6,000 years

The Age of the Earth: Evidence for a Young Earth, Young Earth Evidences.

Evidence for a Young World

But if you won't accept what God Himself has to say about it you won't believe the scientific facts about it either.

So it is with the so-called 'Christians' who believe in evolution.

I don't think you've thought your position through entirely. You appear not to take your own advice when it doesn't suit you.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Mark Kennedy: quote - "Creationism is based on a sound exegesis of Genesis 1,2,5 and other supporting texts, no question about that. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms, repeatedly and this has been affirmed by Christian scholarship for 2,000 years. The idea that Adam had ancestors is absent in Christian literature right up until the advent of Darwinism, that is no coincidence."

Absolutely amen, brother!

The more you invest in your own or someone else's interpretation of the Bible, the more you have to lose when it gets yanked out from under you... don't make the same mistake the geocentricists did.

 

[crawfish]

I wouldn't characterize theistic evolution in that way but only because he does not go far enough. Actually I have the same problem with Intelligent Design, however, this is not a lie or a misleading statement. It's an expression of an opinion I agree with as far as it goes. As far as I can tell TEs give no space to God in creation which is why they are so venomously opposed to it.

For someone to present their opinion on what somebody believes rather than what they actually believe in order to discredit it is classic strawman argumentation. I'm guessing I could pull a similar list from an atheist website which might claim "YEC belief gives you a profound disrespect for the scientific method" or "YEC belief causes you to disregard any fact that you don't find convenient", and you would strongly disagree with the assessment. I can assure you that quite a few atheists have that opinion of YECs; but that doesn't make it fact.

BTW, TE's give God every bit as much credit in creation as YEC's do. All of it. If you've decided that anything natural cannot possibly be indicative of God's purpose in design, then I hate to tell you, but you have a lot of problems.

The Scriptures are trustworthy, when they are mishandled then the one doing the exposition is to blame. What you are doing is mimicking the very same arguments atheistic materialists use and passing them off as being from a Biblical or Christian frame of reference. TEs hit on creationists and rarely raise valid issues which is my whole problem with them. It is an endless string of personal remarks with little bearing on science or theology.

It is my opinion that YEC resistance to these questions stems from the fact that their hermeneutic is not sufficient to answer them; they bring up conflicts and inconsistencies that are difficult to deal with. "Attack the messenger" is a logical fallacy that I recognize as avoidance.

I don't think you are that well acquainted with the evidence and while you continue to talk in generalities the evidence gets trampled.

By "generalities", I assume you are talking about issues of hard science. I am not a scientist and will not pretend that I have the background knowledge to argue such things (nor will I copy-and-paste articles that I barely understand and cannot properly defend). There are enough experts in various fields on this board and elsewhere. Since I am no expert, I have to use discernment to determine who is best dealing with the issue and who is treating it with the most honesty. Sadly, from what I have read that is rarely the YECs.

This statement was made on the Smithsonian website in two different places, Scientific American by a leading researcher and Time magazine. What you are quoting from that essay is a very general opinion not based in anything theological or scientific except in the most general sense. I have given you a hard evidential fact that is consistently misrepresented with one real question, why are you not getting morally indignant at their falsehood while getting so exercised by a difference of opinion?

One of those falsehoods is an exaggeration that does not adversely affect the point that is being made. One is an opinion that misleads about the true nature of the argument. Which one should I be more indignant about?

Darwinism is worldly, there is no question about it. It was designed to be one long argument against special creationism and serves no other purpose. Creationism is based on a sound exegesis of Genesis 1,2,5 and other supporting texts, no question about that. This is confirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms, repeatedly and this has been affirmed by Christian scholarship for 2,000 years. The idea that Adam had ancestors is absent in Christian literature right up until the advent of Darwinism, that is no coincidence.

Scholarship that claims a non-literal Genesis has been around for just as long, and history is dotted with highly respected theologians who have held that view. The principles that underlie the possible acceptance of cosmological and biological evolution as God's tool for creation are based on sound exegesis of Genesis 1-11 and supporting texts, no question about that. Discovery of the natural world has had a dramatic effect on our view of scripture for the history of mankind; but it has always been our lack of understanding and not God's misleading that has been behind it.

Look, I don't think you are out to undermine faith. I think what has happened is that you have gotten caught up in the feeding frenzy and fallen for a fallacious philosophical trap. AIG hasn't put anything out there that I would characterize as dishonest and you have no call to throw around such strong language based on an expression of opinion. I don't happen to believe you have to be baptized in water to be baptized into Christ but I don't have a problem with Christians who think they do.

Well - since we're speaking of opinions, I will assure you that I have an entirely different one here. I have read dozens of articles from AiG, and from what I have read I do not trust them. Thinking about why, I think that is summarized in a point made during an interview with the director of "Expelled". He was asked why they didn't interview scientists such as Francis Collins or Ken Miller, who are both strong Christian believers and support ToE. His answer: "It would have just confused things."

And there is likely the answer. AiG, ICR and other (non EC) creationist sites are not seekers of scientific truth. They exist to help Christians deal with faith issues. Dealing with the reality that this is a complex subject and there are many troubling questions and problems with YEC belief that have not been answered would simply confuse things.

I'll have some more time here in a couple of weeks, really want to get more into the AIG thing but I'm really short on time right now. Don't worry, we will.

I look forward to it.

 

[Calypsis4]

You do both. But I think you’ve gotten my point across FAR better than I ever could... especially with the ‘dinosaur’ pictures, including the one WELL KNOWN to be a basking shark. Well done sir, showing you have nothing.

Hmm, a basking shark without a dorsal fin and an elongated neck. Yup, that's real scientific expertise there Mr. scientist.



See, this is the false dichotomy here. I either accept what they say as literally/scientifically true OR I DON”T BELIEVE. False. Dichotomy. Say it with me now.

Should I take your last statement about the basking shark literally? Yes/no? Is so, then why? What if I choose to take you not literally and arbitrarily declare that your statement actually includes the possibility that I was right all along? Can I justify such a position?

You are not justified in denying Genesis 1 - 11 is historical because ALL of the writers (prophets, apostles, & Jesus Himself) declared that those events and occurrences all happened in time and space. Therefore you will be judged accordingly.

But I thought you ridiculed and denounced the idea of creationism positing a huge unevidenced, extra-Biblical overhaul of all the laws of physics and everything. And short of God LYING by changing things, why WOULDN”T be present be the key to the past?

There is no extra-biblical overhaul of the laws of science. Those laws were created by God and they are still in effect. One of those laws cause the universe to degnerate. That means a change in the natural order of things.

Why would his feelings matter to the work he does? The Greeks who figured out the earth was round were definitely not Christian. The Chinese who first figured out rockets and gunpowder and fireworks weren’t Christians. I don’t need to agree with someone’s theological viewpoints to acknowledge work done as valid.

Who the work comes from DOESN”T matter. The WORK ITSELF is what matters.

Because both his feelings about God's Word and his scientific understanding are corrupt. BOTH are in error.

[/quote]I’d trust him for rocket science, sure. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t READ his papers, CHECK his theory and methods sections, etc.[/quote]

O.K. I do the same with Hawking, Asimov, Sagan, etc. Yet by your opinion my scope is 'narrow' as far as science is concerned because I don't agree with you. Whatever.

For hydraulics and other civil engineering I probably would. But again, I’d READ the papers and CHECK the theory and methods sections. And I would multiple check everything he wrote on evolution since a lot of his life was spent propagating a religious bias so everything he tried to do in that field would warrant EXTRA checking.

His 'religious bias' as you call it is in line with God's Word. Your position on thermodynamics isn't even close to accurate.

Like the ones who invoke miracles in their methods sections, misapply when linear extrapolation is valid, and use vacuum results to determine results under an atmosphere? Gotcha.

Hmm, did any of those scientists invoke miracles in their methods? Name them.

Then cut the equivocation crap. You COMPLETELY ignored my statement about how ‘molecular disorder’ and entropy DO IN FACT mean the same thing (which you showed quite well in your definitions) and insist I know not whereof I speak.

There is no 'equivocation' because your following statement reveals...

Molecular disorder is NOT the same as decay, rot, sin, all the negative disorder YOU previously listed. Order is how much energy you can get from the system, disorder is energy in the system that cannot be used. That is ALL. Not...as you claim.Got to love the blatant misrepresentation of my statement."

You just lied to me and to the readers. Molecular disorder is the very core and source of all decay, disorder, and eventual death.

Fact; all human beings sin. Fact: all human beings get older, develop gray hair, wrinkles, contusions, sickness and or serious disease, weakness, and eventually death. Then the elements go back to the dust. THAT is degeneration and yes it is on the molecular level. I'll say it again, you don't know what you're talking about and you need to go back to school and learn the definitons over again..next time hopefully in a school that teaches the accurate definitions of scientific law.

[quote/]it DOESN”T show a spherical shape to the earth, as has been pointed out to you, and says NOTHING about the SLoT.[/quote]

I gave the Hebrew defintion of the word 'circle' in Isaiah 40:22 more than once in my posts but you deliberately ignore it. I also quoted other passages of the Bible that indicate the sphericity of the earth. It's clear to me that you just don't care what God says in His Word.

in, you enjoy winding it down with more accusations of me not actually being a Christian with such epithets as ‘comrades in unbelief’.

Again you aren't being truthful. I did not say you are not a Christian, but IF you are indeed a Christian you are a Christian who is infected with unbelief about what the Lord said conerncing His creation. Despite all you've said you still have not given a single verse from God's Word supporting evolution theory. If that doesn't bother your conscience then perhaps it is because you have none.

I am done with this debate. I urge you to post others.

 

[metherion]

Hmm, a basking shark without a dorsal fin and an elongated neck. Yup, that's real scientific expertise there Mr. scientist.

Sea-Monster or Shark: An Alleged Plesiosaur Carcass

It’s been known what that was since ’78. This was in an NSCE periodical in ’97.

There is no extra-biblical overhaul of the laws of science. Those laws were created by God and they are still in effect. One of those laws cause the universe to degnerate. That means a change in the natural order of things.

But somehow all findings that show the universe to be older than the date YOUR interpretation ascribes to it have to be MAGICALLY wrong, despite following those same rules you’ve just said God created and are still in effect.

Because both his feelings about God's Word and his scientific understanding are corrupt. BOTH are in error.

His feelings about God’s Word, I agree with you there. He is in error. But your second claim is unjustified, unevidenced, and more importantly, wrong.

O.K. I do the same with Hawking, Asimov, Sagan, etc. Yet by your opinion my scope is 'narrow' as far as science is concerned because I don't agree with you. Whatever.

Except you throw them out not for any scientific reason, but for a religious reason that has faked ‘science’ to back it up.

His 'religious bias' as you call it is in line with God's Word. Your position on thermodynamics isn't even close to accurate.

Considering you think thermodynamics is tied to such wonderful things as aging and death, you are the one with no clue what you are talking about.

Hmm, did any of those scientists invoke miracles in their methods? Name them.

“After surveying the evidence for geomagnetic polarity reversals for myself, I concluded that they had indeed occurred. I proposed that they took place rapidly during the Genesis flood (Humphreys, 1986).”
The Earth’s Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy

‘I assume a miraculous event occurred, that has been recognized by the scientific community as a whole to have not happened since the 1800s, and in it several events that generally take 100s of thousands of years rapidly occur.’

Modern natural laws, operating at rates we
recognize today were evidently not fully instituted until Creation was
completed on Day 6, and God rested from His creative acts,

Oh look, NATURAL LAWS WEREN”T ALWAYS IN PLACE WHEN THINGS HAPPENED BY THE WILL OF GOD! If that’s not a miracle, WHAT IS?

That entire document is full of fallacies and anti-scientific CRAP from beginning to end, and of COURSE if you presuppose your end point, you’ll wind up there, especially when (as above) you feel free to toss any natural law out the window.

It has been suggested that
these increased decay rates may have been part of the rock-forming
process on the early earth and/or one of the results of God’s judgment
upon man following the Creation, that is, the Curse or during the Flood.

It happened DUE TO AN ACT OF GOD. Miracle.

The RATE group suspects that large amounts of radioactive decay
occurred during the first three days of Creation as part of the supernatural
Creation process.

SUPERNATURAL CREATION PROCESS. Miracle.

And one more for laughs.

Same paragraph:

The presence of supernatural
“process” during Creation is essential to our approach, however.

IT DOESN”T WORK WITHOUT MIRACLES. Miracle.

There’s FIVE. One from Humphreys, four from the ICR RATE documents. Those four are from the foreword and the first 5 pages.

There is no 'equivocation' because your following statement reveals...

Molecular disorder is NOT the same as decay, rot, sin, all the negative disorder YOU previously listed. Order is how much energy you can get from the system, disorder is energy in the system that cannot be used. That is ALL. Not...as you claim.Got to love the blatant misrepresentation of my statement."
You just lied to me and to the readers. Molecular disorder is the very core and source of all decay, disorder, and eventual death.

Fact; all human beings sin. Fact: all human beings get older, develop gray hair, wrinkles, contusions, sickness and or serious disease, weakness, and eventually death. Then the elements go back to the dust. THAT is degeneration and yes it is on the molecular level. I'll say it again, you don't know what you're talking about and you need to go back to school and learn the definitons over again..next time hopefully in a school that teaches the accurate definitions of scientific law.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You think AGING is caused by ENTROPY?! Here’s a fun fact for you. Eating is for both absorbing nutrients AND staving of entropy. Yes, that’s right, pooping is basically excreting entropy, as you’ve gotten the energy from the food. The only ‘death’ that’s really POSSIBLY related to entropy is STARVING to death (and that’s a stretch) because your body digests enough of itself to keep powered that it eats itself to death. Aging has to do with telomeres and the WONDERFUL process by which human cells reproduce themselves. Not entropy. One of the causes of cancer is when the system that keeps telomeres in check fails. Not entropy. Bruises are caused by damaged to the body. Not entropy. Death is caused by lots of things, from blood loss to organ failure to lack of oxygen and MANY more. Not entropy. As I said, thank you SO much for proving my point.

I gave the Hebrew defintion of the word 'circle' in Isaiah 40:22 more than once in my posts but you deliberately ignore it. I also quoted other passages of the Bible that indicate the sphericity of the earth. It's clear to me that you just don't care what God says in His Word.

Yes, except you ignored WHEN that meaning was ascribed to that word. And your posts in the Bible indicating a spherical earth were quite unconvincing, and the ones indicating a FLAT earth had no convincing refutation by you.

Again you aren't being truthful. I did not say you are not a Christian, but IF you are indeed a Christian you are a Christian who is infected with unbelief about what the Lord said conerncing His creation. Despite all you've said you still have not given a single verse from God's Word supporting evolution theory. If that doesn't bother your conscience then perhaps it is because you have none.

See, I can’t be a heretic and an unbeliever AND STILL BE A CHRISTIAN. You fail to grasp this fact.

Furthermore, I don’t need to quote the Bible to support:
The internet
Atomic theory
Internal Combustion engines
germ theory
Calculus

so why should I need to quote the Bible to support evolutionary theory, hrm?

Oh, and implying that I have no conscience, yeah, that’s a really good point, with PLENTY of evidence and absolutely ZERO semblance of a personal attack.

Metherion

 

[Partaker of Christ]

That's the stamp, C4. That's the piece they used to press into the clay (bulla) to flatten it. I posted pictures of the bullae themselves above, which is what Job compared the shape of the earth to. You've got it backwards.

Job 38:12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
Job 38:13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

Job 38:14 It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.

I was not Job who said this, but God Himself.

Also He did not say that the earth itself was that, but how it is "changed like" that, by the command of the morning, and the cause of the dawn to its place.

The command of the morning and the cause of the dawn, would be the sun rising and sun setting.

"and its features stand out like a garment"

Job 38:15 From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

You can keep pretending the Bible does not say these things, if you like. It's really of no consequence to me. But if there's one thing that history has taught us, it's that reading the Bible for scientific insight is a mistake. The earth is neither flat nor unmovable, and the sky isn't a solid dome. So why YECs continue to insist that Genesis is scientifically accurate is beyond me. It certainly strikes me as inconsistent. It also strikes me as unbiblical. The Bible tells us why it was written: It was written so that we might have eternal life (2 Tim 3:15, John 5:39, 20:23, Eph 2:20, Rom 15:4), not scientific easter eggs."

Whilst it may be true that not everything written in scripture about the universe is literal, how does that give you licence to claim that the Genesis account of creation is not literal????

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

So, I ask "Did God 'LITERALLY' say":
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Are you agreeing with the crafty serpent (and evolutionist), or with what God did say?

 

[Mallon]

Job 38:12 "Have you commanded the morning since your days began, and caused the dawn to know its place,
Job 38:13 that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

Job 38:14 It is changed like clay under the seal, and its features stand out like a garment.

I was not Job who said this, but God Himself.

Also He did not say that the earth itself was that, but how it is "changed like" that, by the command of the morning, and the cause of the dawn to its place.

The command of the morning and the cause of the dawn, would be the sun rising and sun setting.

"and its features stand out like a garment"

Job 38:15 From the wicked their light is withheld, and their uplifted arm is broken.

I don't see how any of that changes the fact that the earth is described as a piece of clay pressed beneath a seal. The analogy is pretty obvious. And like I said, the Bible's other references to the earth only make sense if we understand it to be flat. Many other books besides Job describe a flat earth.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

Genesis 1-11 is figurative,

So, you claim that:
"In the beginning God" is figurative?

"In the beginning God created" is figurative?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is figurative?

 

[Mallon]

Whilst it may be true that not everything written in scripture about the universe is literal, how does that give you licence to claim that the Genesis account of creation is not literal????

I'm not saying the creation account isn't literal (with respect, do you know what the word means?). I'm saying that it isn't an account of a historical event. The early Hebrew people may have believed it as literally written, just as they believed the Bible's description of the shape of the earth (flat) and the substance of the heaves (solid dome) as literally written (read the Jewish Talmud, which goes into a lot more detail about what they thought the earth looked like). This doesn't mean that we, too, are meant to believe these things as literally written. God accommodated His perfect message of love and sacrifice to the Hebrew people using the imagery, cosmology, and science they were familiar with. God speaks to us like a father speaks to his children, telling them only what they need to know in words they can understand. There's no reason to expect God to override the minds and experiences of His audience in order to get His point across because this is not how He operates. Just look at how He took on the form of a man so that we might connect with Him. That's the ultimate form of accommodation. He came down to our level -- to our world -- in order that we might better understand and appreciate Him. Note that this is not the same as lying. God may not be a human, but He became human to connect with us. And He uses human words and thoughts and imagery to connect with us, too.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

I totally agree. All of this nonsense about the earth being suspended in space is just atheist lies pushed into our schools to try to dismantle the truth of the bible, which is that the earth is on pillars.

Do you deny the truth Paul taught?

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Or is this your view?
1Co 15:21 For since by chimpanzee came death, by chimpanzee came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in chimpanzee all die, even so in chimpanzee shall all be made alive.

 

[Partaker of Christ]

I'm not saying the creation account isn't literal (with respect, do you know what the word means?). I'm saying that it isn't an account of a historical event.

It is both literal and historical.

As to "do you know what the word means?"
Yes, but I do have to look up the meaning of such words first before I post.