Creationists and the Heart

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Yes, you missed it in this thread. (hint #21)

Yes, I see. Thanks. We clearly have entirely different ideas about the origin of the texts which make up the Book of Daniel, so I missed your point at first.

 

[miamited]

Yes, I see. Thanks. We clearly have entirely different ideas about the origin of the texts which make up the Book of Daniel, so I missed your point at first.

Hi speedwell,

Yes, I would agree that you and I have a basic foundational difference in our respective understanding of the basis of the wisdom and knowledge that is found in the Scriptures. Mine, however, is based on Paul's explanation of the foundation of the Scriptures. Yours is based on what, exactly?

The question, as always for the believer, what is the truth? Should I believe what men try to convince me is the truth regarding the things of God, despite that fact that they don't really have any concrete evidence that their thoughts and ideas are the truth? Or, should I believe what Paul, a man who obviously had a life changing relationship with the Lord, has explained to me is the foundation of the knowledge and truth that we find in the Scriptures? A man of whom Jesus himself said would be his witness to the Gentiles.

I choose to go with Paul. You seem to choose to go with your own understanding and see things that you can't believe could possibly be true as simply not true. I rather read of all the many, many miraculous things that God has claimed to have done throughout the many years of our history that He has recorded for us some of what He has done, and pretty clearly understand that His ability to create an entire realm of existence by His command and decree is certainly possible. That since He tells us, through the writers of the Scriptures, those writings of holy men who were led by the Spirit of God, that such is the case, then I believe Him.

God caused a young woman who had never had sexual relations with a man to be pregnant. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused water to stand up as a wall. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. God caused a donkey or mule to speak language. Utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. Most all of the trials brought against Egypt are utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. That three men could walk around in a fiery furnace with not a single hair on their heads to become singed, is utterly impossible by any provable understanding of men. There are literally dozens of accounts found in the Scriptures of the things that God has done that are utterly impossible according to any provable understanding of men. The creation is just one more such account. It's utterly impossible...if our foundation for truth is only the wisdom and understanding of men.

But once again, the question that every believer wants answered before they will trust in anyone's explanation is: What is the truth?

Anyway, you and I have been at this crossroads before and here we still stand.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Yes, I would agree that you and I have a basic foundational difference in our respective understanding of the basis of the wisdom and knowledge that is found in the Scriptures. Mine, however, is based on Paul's explanation of the foundation of the Scriptures. Yours is based on what, exactly?

II Timothy 3:16

 

[mindlight]

The ancient Egyptians mummified their dead in an attempt to preserve them for the afterlife. They opened the chest cavity and saw the heart was connected to the body by numerous vessels and thought it was the center of life and reasoning. They usually left the heart in the body while packing the chest with salts to dry out and preserve the body. The Egyptians removed the corpse brains without understanding their function. The Biblical descriptions indicating the heart had brain functions such as thought and memory may have been copied from the ancient Egyptians.

Where in scripture is "heart" identified with the organ? The Israelites made strenuous efforts to differentiate themselves from Egyptian mythologies and idolatries. If this was a commonplace conviction in Egypt it is more significant that it is never repeated or affirmed in the Pentateuch.

 

[miamited]

II Timothy 3:16

Hi speedwell,

Yes, I agree that piece of Scripture is appropriate to this discussion. Unfortunately, you aren't using Scripture for your teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. You're using the wisdom of man.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Yes, I agree that piece of Scripture is appropriate to this discussion. Unfortunately, you aren't using Scripture for your teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness. You're using the wisdom of man.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

My goodness, what a nasty comment! A cold-blooded accusation of teaching false doctrine. And how would you know?

Or are you just falling into the usual creationist mental habit of assuming that anyone who doesn't buy into your theologically unsatisfactory interpretation of Genesis must be doing so because of "the wisdom of man" (AKA the theory of evolution)?

 

[miamited]

My goodness, what a nasty comment! A cold-blooded accusation of teaching false doctrine. And how would you know?

Or are you just falling into the usual creationist mental habit of assuming that anyone who doesn't buy into your theologically unsatisfactory interpretation of Genesis must be doing so because of "the wisdom of man" (AKA the theory of evolution)?

Hi speedwell,

Well, yes, I absolutely believe that the wisdom of man has a lot to do with man's general denial of God's truth. Paul warns the believers in Colosse of believing things that are based on the natural properties of things.

However, as to my response to you most recently, you quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 and what that piece of Scripture says is that ALL the Scriptures are God breathed and, therefore, useful for teaching, correcting, rebuke and training. All I'm saying is that I agree with that piece of Scripture which says that the Scriptures are God breathed, which is what was under discussion earlier about where the wisdom of the Scriptures comes from. That it is they which are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training and not the wisdom of man.

I have asked you for support of your understanding based on those Scriptures which are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training and you have, so far, seemed unable to provide any teaching or training that is found within them to support your position. You have repeatedly merely bantered about the words of men to support your teaching and training. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be mean to you about it, but I'm merely pointing out that, while you bring into play that particular piece of Scripture, you aren't using it to support your position.

If you are now reduced to merely diverting and obfuscating the issue, then I'm guessing that our discussion is over? Yes, I am falling into the usual creationist arguments concerning God's word. Why would you think that my arguments would be particularly different concerning this subject that has been discussed for centuries than those arguments have been? So, yes, it is exactly as you perceive as regards my arguments being pretty much the same as creationists who have gone before and will likely follow after me. Let me be perfectly clear that I am a young earth creationist, as that label is defined, in my understanding of the creation of this realm and I expect that my argument will be in line with most other young earth creationists. If you're expecting differently, then I'm afraid I will disappoint.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

Well, yes, I absolutely believe that the wisdom of man has a lot to do with man's general denial of God's truth. Paul warns the believers in Colosse of believing things that are based on the natural properties of things.

However, as to my response to you most recently, you quoted 2 Timothy 3:16 and what that piece of Scripture says is that ALL the Scriptures are God breathed and, therefore, useful for teaching, correcting, rebuke and training. All I'm saying is that I agree with that piece of Scripture which says that the Scriptures are God breathed, which is what was under discussion earlier about where the wisdom of the Scriptures comes from. That it is they which are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training and not the wisdom of man.

I have asked you for support of your understanding based on those Scriptures which are useful for teaching, correcting, rebuking and training and you have, so far, seemed unable to provide any teaching or training that is found within them to support your position. You have repeatedly merely bantered about the words of men to support your teaching and training. I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be mean to you about it, but I'm merely pointing out that, while you bring into play that particular piece of Scripture, you aren't using it to support your position.

If you are now reduced to merely diverting and obfuscating the issue, then I'm guessing that our discussion is over? Yes, I am falling into the usual creationist arguments concerning God's word. Why would you think that my arguments would be particularly different concerning this subject that has been discussed for centuries than those arguments have been? So, yes, it is exactly as you perceive as regards my arguments being pretty much the same as creationists who have gone before and will likely follow after me. Let me be perfectly clear that I am a young earth creationist, as that label is defined, in my understanding of the creation of this realm and I expect that my argument will be in line with most other young earth creationists. If you're expecting differently, then I'm afraid I will disappoint.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

My "position?" My "position" is accurately and succinctly set out in the Nicene Creed, which I swear to publicly and wholeheartedly at least once a week. On what grounds do you accuse me of being unable to find scriptural support for that position? My "position" further includes the divine inspiration of scripture, which is why I invoked St. Paul on the point, whereupon you accused me of dissembling.

What I expected was a discussion of our differing points of view. I don't understand the YEC view of scripture very well--it is foreign to my faith tradition, definitely not what I learned in Sunday School--and I would like to find out more about it. What I got was the usual YEC nastiness and hostility, so in that sense I wasn't disappointed.

I was taught to regard YECs as fellow Christians--Christians, even though eccentric of doctrine like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, but Christians nonetheless. You, on the other hand, seem to want to regard non YEC Christians as implacable enemies. If that's what you want, so be it. We are enemies and the time for discussion is past.

 

[Halbhh]

The word "heart" appears quite a number of times in the Bible. "Heart" is used 127 times in the Psalms and 75 times in Proverbs, for instance. Overall, "heart" appears 712 times in the Bible. This count is based on the NIV translation.

"Heart" obviously has two meanings, one, an organ of the body, and two, a secret place of thoughts, feelings, and motives.

Here is an extraordinary fact: As often as Biblical authors used the word "heart," not one of them knew that blood circulates. Not one of them knew that the heart, as an organ of the body, pumps blood through the body. Even less did they know how the heart works with the lungs.

The circulation of the blood wasn't understood until it was demonstrated by William Harvey in 1628. Harvey was an English doctor. He based his views both on dissecting bodies and research on live patients. Blood pressure was first measured in 1733, over a hundred years later.

In the ancient world, Galen was physician to the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He died about 200 AD. Galen thought that blood formed in the liver, flowed out to the rest of he body, and was absorbed. Galen knew more about blood than anyone in the ancient world and yet he still didn't understand that blood is circulated by the heart.

Here is the problem for creationists. No Biblical author knew the function of the heart, the function of blood, or the contents of veins and arteries. Since they had no accurate knowledge of the human body, why would we expect them to know the natural history of how humans came about? Why would we expect them to have accurate knowledge of animals, plants and continents?

Why would we expect the authors of the Bible to know whether frogs have been around longer than rabbits? Why would we expect them to know whether turtles had been around longer than foxes? They had no knowledge of animals and plants beyond what is obvious to farmers, herdmen and hunters.

They were right to say that God is responsible, that God is the Creator, that God has creative power but they did not know the details. As non-creationists have pointed out before, the Bible is not a science text.

I'm not that kind of 'creationist' that can't see metaphors or poetic wording, but....

Just like 99% of Americans I know precisely what someone means when they say "It touched my heart."

No problem with that metaphor of "heart" as the organ of feeling and emotion, etc. You "feel it inside", etc.

And people 3000 years ago I bet knew perfectly well this is a figurative wording to refer to the heart, but also literal at the same time (!) -- they were not unintelligent. They could feel feelings in the chest, like you or me, and used the word 'heart' figuratively and literally both at once, and weren't naive about it, in my best guess, or better, just from reading.

Admittedly this barely touches on Genesis chapter 1. But Genesis chapter 1 is definitely poetic in wording at least. That's a very similar kind of thing to clearly meant metaphors. It's meant in a way just like a poem is meant -- to get to a new place mentally.

It's anything but a mere trivial history about mere time duration and mere sequence. Anything except that kind of meaningless concrete small detail. Anything but.

If a person thinks the Bible isn't full of metaphors, one after another, endless thousands of metaphor -- then they can quickly learn better by simply reading through a few books (more than 1), but I mean full books, not isolated verses or little passages in isolation. Isolated verses and passages are only a way to error after error until one has read the full books.

One reading full books quickly learns the Bible is chock full of metaphors, everywhere. Of course, one has to read with true openness to listen and learn and stop doing the talking but instead do the listening.

 

[miamited]

My "position?" My "position" is accurately and succinctly set out in the Nicene Creed, which I swear to publicly and wholeheartedly at least once a week. On what grounds do you accuse me of being unable to find scriptural support for that position? My "position" further includes the divine inspiration of scripture, which is why I invoked St. Paul on the point, whereupon you accused me of dissembling.

What I expected was a discussion of our differing points of view. I don't understand the YEC view of scripture very well--it is foreign to my faith tradition, definitely not what I learned in Sunday School--and I would like to find out more about it. What I got was the usual YEC nastiness and hostility, so in that sense I wasn't disappointed.

Hi speedwell,

I'm fairly confident that our discussion has been a discussion of our differing points of view, but I'm not understanding why you would think that such a discussion with me would necessarily be any different than previous discussions you may have had with young earth creationists. Our discussion was going pretty well until you brought up 2 Timothy 3:16. I responded with my understanding of that piece of Scripture and how you didn't seem to be applying it and you took offense. Sorry.

Yes, I can understand that your 'faith tradition' may be different. However, once again the question must be asked, "what is the truth?"

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

I'm not that kind of 'creationist' that can't see metaphors or poetic wording, but....

Just like 99% of Americans I know precisely what someone means when they say "It touched my heart."

No problem with that metaphor of "heart" as the organ of feeling and emotion, etc. You "feel it inside", etc.

And people 3000 years ago I bet knew perfectly well this is a figurative wording to refer to the heart, but also literal at the same time (!) -- they were not unintelligent. They could feel feelings in the chest, like you or me, and used the word 'heart' figuratively and literally both at once, and weren't naive about it, in my best guess, or better, just from reading.

Admittedly this barely touches on Genesis chapter 1. But Genesis chapter 1 is definitely poetic in wording at least. That's a very similar kind of thing to clearly meant metaphors. It's meant in a way just like a poem is meant -- to get to a new place mentally.

It's anything but a mere trivial history about mere time duration and mere sequence. Anything except that kind of meaningless concrete small detail. Anything but.

If a person thinks the Bible isn't full of metaphors, one after another, endless thousands of metaphor -- then they can quickly learn better by simply reading through a few books (more than 1), but I mean full books, not isolated verses or little passages in isolation. Isolated verses and passages are only a way to error after error until one has read the full books.

One reading full books quickly learns the Bible is chock full of metaphors, everywhere. Of course, one has to read with true openness to listen and learn and stop doing the talking but instead do the listening.

HI halbhh,

I agree that the Scriptures are full of metaphors.

"Like a hut in a field of melons." However, metaphorical language follows certain guidelines. The Genesis account doesn't fit any of the guidelines that give us clues that any of it is metaphorical. However, I do fully understand that such a teaching is a well established teaching and that they're are literally millions of 'christians' who attempt to explain the book of the beginning in that context. Again the question is: what is the truth? According to the guidelines of metaphorical use, the book of the beginnings doesn't use such guidelines. So, there really doesn't seem to be any language usage evidence that the book of the beginnings is speaking metaphorically in its explanation of the creation event.

All the statements are made in the simple declarative. There is no use of 'like' or 'as' which is generally used to denote metaphorical language.

When God's word says, "like a hut in a field of melons', everyone knows that He isn't actually saying that abandoned Israel will actually be a hut in a field of melons, but that it will be like an abandoned hut in a field of melons. No one around. Left out to rot and age. It is a metaphorical statement to explain, using some other well known and understood example, what Israel will be like when it becomes abandoned.

Anyway, I've about exhausted my explanations and so I'll leave all of you to continue on with this discussion.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Hi speedwell,

I'm fairly confident that our discussion has been a discussion of our differing points of view, but I'm not understanding why you would think that such a discussion with me would necessarily be any different than previous discussions you may have had with young earth creationists. Our discussion was going pretty well until you brought up 2 Timothy 3:16. I responded with my understanding of that piece of Scripture and how you didn't seem to be applying it and you took offense. Sorry.

Yes, I can understand that your 'faith tradition' may be different. However, once again the question must be asked, "what is the truth?"

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

What it looks like to me, seeing YECism from the outside so to speak, is that you are dictating to God the kind of literature He is allowed to inspire, based on the notion that reading the Bible should require no more literacy skills than reading the National Enquirer. That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but you are in no position to require it of other Christians.

 

[Dale]

I disagree with you. understanding what the heart does has no bearing on the accuracy of their historical beliefs. and we too use the heart as a metaphor. albeit we use it for emotion (they used the bowels to represent the seat of emotion rather than the heart).

your argument is fallacious, and silly. And Creationists are not determined to ignore everything. there you continue going. there are many scientists who are Creationists. I myself am one. I don't have a problem with science and what it has helped us to discover.
I find the evidence of your beliefs to be lacking. Now when scientists come out with more evidence for their theory (or potentially come up with a new theory that is well-supported by evidence), I will consider it.
If they could just create life in laboratory using chemicals, I would consider it possible to have happened by accident. but until they prove it is even possible to be done intelligently, I am hard-pressed to believe it could be done unintelligently.

But so far, the only evolution that occurs is within the individual kinds of animals.

Grandpa,

What science are you knowledgeable about?


You mangled what I said about creationists ignoring what we know about the natural world.

Part of the problem is that creationists claim that they read Genesis without interpretation. This is nonsense. You can't talk to your best friend without interpretation of what is said, there is always interpretation. In particular, interpretation is always a problem when reading a text which is thousands of years old and composed in an ancient language. Creationists need to realize the difficulties of interpretation.

 

[Dale]

So, you are saying that due to the fact that people don't have knowledge of the physical anatomy of the circulatory system........they, then, cannot possibly understand where humans came from?

Really? Seriously?

How about this.....

The main driving person at launcher of the TOE, Chucky Darwin, had absolutely no idea of the complexity of every single living cell of any living being. Nor was he aware of DNA and the complexity and vast amount of information which it contains, or the fact that all this information for the organism it is in, is in every single cell of that organism....

So, the question to you is:

Would Darwin continued with his assumptions about the origin of species if he knew the complexity of each living cell and the DNA that is within every living cell? He already had his doubts...

I bet he would have canned the whole silly concept.

Do you realize that the fact of species change was known before Charles Darwin?
Darwin didn't invent the idea that species were changing. Fossils already proved that.
Darwin put forward a theory to understand why and how species change.

 

[Grandpa2390]

Grandpa,

What science are you knowledgeable about?

.

Primarily Physics with a strong background in Chemistry (naturally)

 

[Grandpa2390]

Do you realize that the fact of species change was known before Charles Darwin?
Darwin didn't invent the idea that species were changing. Fossils already proved that.
Darwin put forward a theory to understand why and how species change.

Going to disagree with your opinion that fossils prove anything, and just clarify the Creationist position for you.

Creationists don't deny evolution. We don't deny the role of evolution in the appearance of many different dogs, produce, viruses, whatever.
We deny the idea of evolution being stretched to justify the belief that creatures evolved from different kinds of creatures.
did the dog and the wolf have common ancestor? sure! probably. did the dog and the tulip have a common ancestor? No. We disagree on that one.

I'm just clarifying the Creationist position for you on Evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

Going to disagree with your opinion that fossils prove anything, and just clarify the Creationist position for you.

Creationists don't deny evolution. We don't deny the role of evolution in the appearance of many different dogs, produce, viruses, whatever.
We deny the idea of evolution being stretched to justify the belief that creatures evolved from different kinds of creatures.
did the dog and the wolf have common ancestor? sure! probably. did the dog and the tulip have a common ancestor? No. We disagree on that one.

I'm just clarifying the Creationist position for you on Evolution.

If you accept some forms of evolution (genetic change with descent with modification), even just recognizing that dogs originated from wolves, then you are accepting the same science that demonstrates larger scale transitions as well. Because there really is no line, or limit to change. There is no barrier where genes simply stop changing. So long as mutations occur, physical morphology changes as well.

So i would ask, in scientific terms, or perhaps relating to genetics, what is the difference between wolf to dog evolution and say, reptile to bird? In the most literal sense, why is one possible while the other impossible (even though we know that God is capable of all things)?

 

[St_Worm2]

Darwin didn't invent the idea that species were changing. Fossils already proved that.

Hi Dale, I can guarantee you that these guys all disagree with you.

• Kevin Anderson, PhD – Microbiologist
• Steve Austin, PhD – Geologist
• Steven Boyd, PhD – Hebraist
• Robert Carter, PhD – Marine Biologist
• Arthur Chadwick, PhD – Taphonomist
• Danny Faulkner, PhD – Astronomer
• George Grant, PhD – Pastor
• Paul Nelson, PhD – Philosopher of Science
• Douglas Petrovich, PhD – Archeologist

• Marcus Ross, PhD – Paleontologist
• Andrew Snelling, PhD – Geologist
• Kurt Wise, PhD – Paleontologist
• Todd Wood, PhD – Biologist
• Stuart Burgess, PhD – Mechanical Engineer (Bonus Features)
• Douglas Kelly, PhD – Theologian (Bonus Features)
• Larry Vardiman, PhD – Atmospheric Physicist (Bonus Features)

Want to find out why? Then check out the wonderful 2016 documentary called, Is Genesis History? (free on Netflix right now ) which they all had a big hand in making

--David

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you realize that the fact of species change was known before Charles Darwin?
Darwin didn't invent the idea that species were changing. Fossils already proved that.
Darwin put forward a theory to understand why and how species change.

Everyone knows that species were changing....within the species.

Fossils prove nothing as far as the TOE is concerned. They are static items of the proof of one thing and one thing only.....that this animal lived and died.

They cannot tell you how many siblings it had, what it's parents, grand parents or great great great grand parents looked like, what it's children, grand children or great great grand children looked like OR if it even had any.

They don't even know it 's age as fossils are to precious to cut open and see....

The fossil record is completely lacking in the phenomenally large numbers of species that would have been necessary for slow transitions that would have been necessary over billions of years.

If you say that fossils only happen in certain circumstances.....then your snapshot of time that they present is severely lacking in data to confirm any of your, or the TOE"s concepts.


In a failing and struggling effort to make fossils actually prove something... they have been formulated, fabricated and manufactured in combining different pieces from miles apart of filed teeth or what have you. These efforts to make fossils show any of the promoted events of the TOE have been proven in courts as hoaxes and frauds.

There is your fossil record.....Even Darwin knew it was severely lacking..... and it hasn't gotten any better.

Oh ya...you have a bunch of men and women in white coats who will say otherwise and I am supposed to believe them.... over God's word.......not happening.

It still remains a joke that someone can say that due to society not knowing what the heart was that they could not understand the TOE.....bahahahahahaha...

These people were not unintelligent.... they were just not technologically advanced.... Understanding the TOE is so easy you teach it in grade school.... come on... the people of that time are, now, less intelligent than 8 and 9 year old's of today???

Ya,....right.

 

[miamited]

**Hi dale,

You questioned grandpa,

What science are you knowledgeable about?

For me, this is the crux of the matter. People don't recognize the limitations of science. Science is fine in proving how the here and now works. However, there are dozens of events recorded in the Scriptures, that if we believe that the scientific method is the only proof of things, we would have to deny that they happened. The greatest one is Jesus. All known medical science and natural science would deny that Jesus could possibly have been born of a virgin. It is merely impossible for a female human being to be with child without ever having a man's sperm introduced into her womb. While there are some animals that can self impregnate themselves, pretty much all of the insect and some small sea life kinds, it is not possible for a normal human being to be self impregnated. You can google it for days and you will not find a single shred of evidence that a woman has ever become pregnant without the fertilization process of male sperm being introduced to the female egg.

So, if scientific knowledge and understanding is your only resource for depending on answering some of the larger questions of life, then you must deny that Jesus' birth was as it is presented to us in the Scriptures. Maybe Mary was raped or she and Joseph had a little early fling and everyone cobbled together some story of a virgin birth, but it surely could not possibly have happened as the Scriptures tell us that it did, according to all known scientific study.

If scientific study is all that we depend on for our knowledge of the answers of these great questions, then...

The passage of the Hebrews through the sea, as told to us in the Scriptures, didn't happen either.
That the sun shone in Goshen, while it was pitch black for three days in Egypt, didn't happen.
That a shadow cast by the sun went backwards 10 feet or so, didn't happen.
That the sun stood still in the sky, didn't happen.
That the Nile River flowed full of blood, didn't happen.
That a donkey or mule spoke a human language, didn't happen.
That a jug of water instantly turned into wine, didn't happen.
And many, many more such examples.

So, the difference between creationist's understanding of the scientific method is fundamentally different than others. We believe that despite what science tells us is the truth of things ages past, those things can't really be proven by their methods. We believe in a God who can merely command things to be and they become. We believe in a God who can manipulate this realm in which we live in pretty much any way that He cares to manipulate it. That He has absolute power, control and authority over all that He has created to act in whatever manner that He chooses to make it act.

That He can spread all the billions of stars across the entire universe and the light from each of those stars to be visible to anyone on the earth with the ability to see them, the moment they were placed in the heavens. Now, how He made that possible, no one can answer. We just believe that He has the
power and authority to do it.

We believe in a God who has the power to make water stand up, despite all scientific knowledge that would tell us that such a thing is possible. We believe in a God who can make the light waves of the sun to reach all over the area of the earth on which it is shining, but withhold those rays from reaching the ground over a single city in that area. We believe in a God who can turn the water of the Nile River into blood without having to slaughter millions of creatures to make it happen. The Nile River, after all, is a very, very large body of water. We believe in a God who can take a simple jug of water and, much as the water became blood in the Nile, instantly turn it into wine.

It boils down to a different understanding of God and the full range and power of His abilities to manipulate the things that He has created.

I fully believe in the scientific process and as far as it being able to see things happen and understand how they happen in the here and now with processes that can replicate such events in the here and now, there is no problem. So, those who make the claim that creationists don't believe in science, that's all hogwash. We just want to see that such theories and assumed processes can be replicated and shown to have been the explanation with some verifiable methodology. Merely extrapolating current data and saying, 'well, that's how it happens now and so it must be how it happened then', doesn't do it for me.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted