Evolution Goes (Retro)Viral

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then I don't want to hear your "Pi=3.0 in 1 Kings" nonsense, until you learn draftsmanship.

But then, to use your philosophy:

If you think you know more than any draftsman on the planet ...

So you have nothing to contribute other than knocking Dr Ross and me down. A number of atheists were asked what was it about Christianity that caused them to either become atheist or remain atheist. They said it wasn't what Christians taught about the Bible, it was what they saw the way Christians treated each other. So, be careful about how your comments are received.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Ya ...

Kent tried to fight fire with fire and lost.

I'd do it all differently and challenge Mr Ross to explain the Creation Week to me from a scientific standpoint.

Which, of course, can't be done.

I'd make it clear to him that I believe the Creation Week didn't use a bit of science, and consisted of one miracle after another that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level over a period of six days.

Oh, I think that Jason Lisle did a better job. He is a young earth Astrophyicist. so they were debating from the same scientific background and experience.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Let's say ... for the sake of arguing ... that the days in Genesis 1 were not 24-hour periods.

Let's say they were ... oh .... 2-billion year periods.

How do you explain angiosperms living 2 billion years without the sun?

If you read Job 38:8-11 in conjunction with Genesis 1, then the sun was there, but no light got through to the world because of the density of earth's atmosphere is dense and 1% oxygen content, enough to support bacteria. But there was a sudden increase in oxygen to 8% which clarified the atmosphere enough to allow enough sunlight to get through to sustain plant life. It is when God said, "Let there be light" that the increase in oxygen occurred, When the oxygen level went up to 10% that was enough to sustain animal life.

This is Dr Ross' theory, and it makes a lot of sense, and explains how the plants had enough sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. The description of a greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and a lesser light (the moon) to rule the night being put in place, was part of the summary of creation where one day was amount of time it all happened. Obviously that day was not 24 hours, but a summary of the 6 days of creation.

I don't have to be a PhD scientists to learn from those who are scientists. I supported a young earth creation for 50 years and you will see on previous posts I had made that I had strongly debated for it at times. But now, after watching quite a number of hours of Dr Ross' videos, what he puts forward makes sense to me and shows me that the six days of creation could not have been just 24 hour days. When we combine the book containing the 66 books of the Bible plus the book of nature, then we get a clearer picture of how God created the cosmos. This has not made me a Theistic Evolutionist, more a Theistic Constructionist. Even though God took billions of years to put the cosmos together in six phases, it is still miraculous and shows God's greatness and glory.

I believe that God, within His timeless reality, created the cosmos in an instant, but within our space time continuum, it took billions of years. It is true that God spoke the universe into being from His timeless reality, and then it took six stages of billions of years in our finite space time dimension.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you've not put in the hours of actual study,
as I said.
10 hours of vids?? You're just making it worse.

Two one-year post grad certificates in what?

I hope you are not going to claim anything in
a field that qualifies your opinions about " science " from
your hero who can't get his ideas published.

And you think I'm a ..yec?

I have three year Mastorate in English Literature, and a three year Master of Divinity. These may not be science degrees, but they involved a comprehensive level of research to complete them. Over the last 50 years I have done a wide reading in Astronomy, Evolution, Creation vs Evolution. As I said in another post on this forum, I have debated strongly over the years for a young earth creation, but after viewing a majority of Dr Ross' videos on Youtube, I am changing my position, because his views make more sense that God just performing a magic trick to create a universe that science dates as billions of years. His view of appreciating the Bible along with the book of nature widens our perspective on how God created the cosmos. We also know why God created it - to enable the redemption of mankind. So whether some think He created the cosmos in six days, or whether in six stages of billions of years, it makes little difference between them in view of what is important for the redemption of mankind and our salvation.

If what many atheists are saying is true, that what has put them off believing in God is their observation of how Christians treat each other, then we have a lot to learn about being open to differences in the way we view the cosmos, how God created it, and how He works in maintaining it. It looks like the prejudice and willingness to rubbish those Christians who don't believe what we do, is making more atheists than anything else. I would hate to be standing to the judgment and realising how many people became atheists through my actions over the years.

 

[Astrid]

I have three year Mastorate in English Literature, and a three year Master of Divinity. These may not be science degrees, but they involved a comprehensive level of research to complete them. Over the last 50 years I have done a wide reading in Astronomy, Evolution, Creation vs Evolution. As I said in another post on this forum, I have debated strongly over the years for a young earth creation, but after viewing a majority of Dr Ross' videos on Youtube, I am changing my position, because his views make more sense that God just performing a magic trick to create a universe that science dates as billions of years. His view of appreciating the Bible along with the book of nature widens our perspective on how God created the cosmos. We also know why God created it - to enable the redemption of mankind. So whether some think He created the cosmos in six days, or whether in six stages of billions of years, it makes little difference between them in view of what is important for the redemption of mankind and our salvation.

If what many atheists are saying is true, that what has put them off believing in God is their observation of how Christians treat each other, then we have a lot to learn about being open to differences in the way we view the cosmos, how God created it, and how He works in maintaining it. It looks like the prejudice and willingness to rubbish those Christians who don't believe what we do, is making more atheists than anything else. I would hate to be standing to the judgment and realising how many people became atheists through my actions over the years.

Very little of that is about what I said, so let's simplify.

But you agree that you've not studied science and
that being the case are not well qualified to conclude
that this one guy- who also has not studied biology or
geology -somehow knows more than any geologist/
paleontologist/biologist on earth.

Does that seem reasonable?



The topic isn't atheism.
Do you wish to talk about Hugh Ross' credility or
about his ideas?

He has no credibility in the scientific community.

But maybe one of his ideas is right.

He rejects evolution.

Why? Does he have some facts to disprove it?

Even with no science background you know that
opinion with no facts adds up to twaddle.

So what does he have?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you have nothing to contribute other than knocking Dr Ross and me down.

If that's what you got from my posts, then I'm sorry.

I read your profile, and my heart goes out to you for the loss of your two cats.

I know I lost my "son" recently and it tore me up inside.

God bless.

 

[AV1611VET]

I believe that God, within His timeless reality, created the cosmos in an instant, but within our space time continuum, it took billions of years. It is true that God spoke the universe into being from His timeless reality, and then it took six stages of billions of years in our finite space time dimension.

Just in case you're interested, this is a creationism test I once made up, if I were to teach creationism in college:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If what many atheists are saying is true, that what has put them off believing in God is their observation of how Christians treat each other

I doubt you can provide evidence for that, either.

Honestly, young earth creationism deserves to be rubbished. (And you're doing your cause no favors making claims about plants being more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.)

 

[Astrid]

I doubt you can provide evidence for that, either.

Honestly, young earth creationism deserves to be rubbished. (And you're doing your cause no favors making claims about plants being more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.)

I dont think many are so dimwitted as that.
Disbelief in God has a great deal more to it
than observing human nature in action.



Basically, the statement you responded to
was just making things up, stating opinion as fact.

 

[AV1611VET]

(And you're doing your cause no favors making claims about plants being more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.)

It's mushrooms, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I dont think many are so dimwitted as that.

* cough *

Disbelief in God has a great deal more to it than observing human nature in action.

I agree.

One has to work hard to not believe in God.

It doesn't come naturally.

Basically, it's just making things up, stating opinion as fact.

Unlike scientists, who state facts as fact, then change it later.

 

[Astrophile]

If you read Job 38:8-11 in conjunction with Genesis 1, then the sun was there, but no light got through to the world because of the density of earth's atmosphere is dense and 1% oxygen content, enough to support bacteria. But there was a sudden increase in oxygen to 8% which clarified the atmosphere enough to allow enough sunlight to get through to sustain plant life. It is when God said, "Let there be light" that the increase in oxygen occurred, When the oxygen level went up to 10% that was enough to sustain animal life.

I don't understand this. I Googled 'Earth Precambrian atmosphere composition', 'Earth Precambrian atmosphere opacity', and 'Earth Precambrian atmosphere cloudiness' but did not find any definite information, not enough to support Dr. Ross's theory at any rate.

The composition of the Precambrian atmosphere is controversial. One website gave the composition at 2500 million years ago as 80-90% nitrogen and 10-20% carbon dioxide, with very little oxygen, but other sites say that the atmosphere contained oxygen as long ago as 3.5 billion years.

There does not appear to be any reason to think that the near-absence of oxygen would make the atmosphere opaque. In fact, according to Astrophysical Quantities (4th edition, pages 268-9), the blue-green extinction of the atmosphere is dominated by molecular scattering (Rayleigh scattering) of light and by ozone (O3) absorption. Obviously the atmosphere did not contain ozone when there was no oxygen, so the increase in oxygen would lead to an increase in the atmospheric absorption. In the orange-red region, H2O and O2 bands are the main contributors to the atmospheric extinction, so again, an increase in oxygen would lead to the atmosphere becoming more opaque rather than clearer. An astrophysicist of the calibre of Dr. Ross ought to know this.

The information about clouds in the Precambrian atmosphere is equally contradictory. According to one website, the atmosphere was probably less cloudy during the Precambrian. However, in the absence of plants (which didn't evolve until about 400-500 million years ago), the atmosphere probably contained more dust, which would have darkened the sky.

This is Dr Ross' theory, and it makes a lot of sense, and explains how the plants had enough sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. The description of a greater light (the sun) to rule the day, and a lesser light (the moon) to rule the night being put in place, was part of the summary of creation where one day was amount of time it all happened. Obviously that day was not 24 hours, but a summary of the 6 days of creation.

Of course, all this is very uncertain, and, in my opinion, the evidence is not strong enough to support any theory about the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface in Precambrian times. To say that Dr. Ross's theory 'makes a lot of sense' is over-optimistic.

 

[Astrophile]

It's mushrooms, isn't it?

Mushrooms are fungi, not plants.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mushrooms are fungi, not plants.

Yes, I know.

But Saltes said claiming plants leads to rubbishness.

So I'll further Watchman's point with fungi, not plants.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Very little of that is about what I said, so let's simplify.

But you agree that you've not studied science and
that being the case are not well qualified to conclude
that this one guy- who also has not studied biology or
geology -somehow knows more than any geologist/
paleontologist/biologist on earth.

Does that seem reasonable?



The topic isn't atheism.
Do you wish to talk about Hugh Ross' credility or
about his ideas?

He has no credibility in the scientific community.

But maybe one of his ideas is right.

He rejects evolution.

Why? Does he have some facts to disprove it?

Even with no science background you know that
opinion with no facts adds up to twaddle.

So what does he have?

What would be more helpful to me would be any scientific evidence you can present to me that might disprove what Dr Ross is putting forward. All you are doing so far is making generalised comments about Dr Ross' credibility, but you given no material to refute the points he is making.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If that's what you got from my posts, then I'm sorry.

I read your profile, and my heart goes out to you for the loss of your two cats.

I know I lost my "son" recently and it tore me up inside.

God bless.

i have been able to respond positively to some of your posts. It confused me a bit when it seemed that you were firing bullets, and then in the next posts you have very reasonable comments. It made me wonder whether we were actually on the same page in some matters.

Thanks for your caring comments about my sadly departed cats.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Just in case you're interested, this is a creationism test I once made up, if I were to teach creationism in college:

1. Explain the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia; and give two examples of each.
2. Explain the difference between "God" and "LORD God".
3. Eden in the Bible is known as __________ on a secular map.
4. What literary device reconciles Genesis 1 and Genesis 2?
5. Put the following in order that they appeared in the universe: whales, stars, trees, sun, land, sea, outer space.
6. What day was Adam created on?
7. Was the universe created a closed system and, if not, what kind of energy did it run off of? if it was created open, what closed it?
8. Describe terra aqua and what kind of water it consisted of and why.
9. Photosynthesis required light from the sun prior to the Fall. true or false?
10. Explain how a 24-hour day could transpire before the sun was created.
11. Explain the difference between "miracles" and "magic."
12. When discussing Creationism, why should one never let himself stray from Genesis 1 or 2?
13. Why is "heaven" singular in Genesis 1, but plural in Genesis 2?

It would take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to satisfactorily answer those questions. Makes me tired just reading them! But very searching questions nevertheless and very useful in promoting good discussion and debate.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would take quite a bit of mental gymnastics to satisfactorily answer those questions. Makes me tired just reading them! But very searching questions nevertheless and very useful in promoting good discussion and debate.

Thank you!

What tore me up about "my boy" was coming home from the vet and seeing his food bowl there on the floor.

That hurt!

I can imagine what you went through!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I doubt you can provide evidence for that, either.

Honestly, young earth creationism deserves to be rubbished. (And you're doing your cause no favors making claims about plants being more closely related to humans than chimpanzees.)

Firstly, it was an anecdotal survey done among a group of atheists, and the results are worth considering.

Secondly, I might have got it wrong about the plant. I think it was that we share many genes with a cockroach. The point is that there are other life forms that share more genes with us humans than chimpanzees. Someone made the comment that we are closely genetically related to the banana! I already commented that the nature of our brain is closely related to that of rodents. What this shows us that our ancestors could not have been any of these life forms. Each life form contains its own unique genetic code that makes it what it is, and reproduction passes that code on to its descendants. Although it is possible to cross breed a horse with the donkey, a lion with a tiger, it is impossible to cross breed a dog with a cat, or a chimpanzee with a human. Although a chimp has two eyes, two ears, heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, two arms and legs, etc. in common with humans, there are distinct genetic differences that makes the primate a non human animal that can be taught a few tricks involving tools and rudimentary language signs, but could never be a fully functioning human who can have self consciousness, understand symbolism, and have a spirit to understand and fellowship with God.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Firstly, it was an anecdotal survey done among a group of atheists, and the results are worth considering.

There's a group of atheists here. It might be worth your while to consider our anecdotes.