My YEC Evidence Challenge

[ananda]

Buddhists have no doctrine of creation and no real reliance on the supernatural ...

That's not completely true, at least for this Buddhist.

The universe(s) are undergoing an ongoing creation-destruction process, lasting for aeons, described in the early Buddhist texts. The creation process results in the appearance of a being who delusionally believes itself to be the Creator, Almighty, Father (not being able to see the heavens above his own, from which he came from):

The Exalted One [Buddha] ... addressed the bhikkhus [monks] ... "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the Ābhassara Brahma-world. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

“But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahmā appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahmā. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.

“Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): ‘Oh, that other beings might come to this place!’ Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the Ābhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahmā, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.

“Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: ‘I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: “Oh, that other beings might come to this place!” And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.’

“And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: ‘This must be Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.’"

(excerpt from Dighanikaya 1, Brahmajala Sutta).

 

[Aman777]

So, I've decided to ask this question of Young (or Young at Heart) Earth Creationists in a challenge response to AV's numerous 'Challenges'.... though, I'd like to think this would actually be constructive over AV's hypothetical scenarios with no fixed facts... (not meaning to offend of course AV! )

If this universe is a direct fiat creation by God, and the bible is God's word filtered through fallible men, why is it that the second option is believed above the directly observed evidence of the creator of the universe?

I support my views with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, science and history. God's view comes first, then the actual scientific and historic facts, discovered by mankind. The reason God's view comes first is because today's scientific view cannot speak of life before the last universal common ancestor on our Planet. L.U.C.A. appeared in the WATER 3.77 billion years ago, in man's time, exactly as God tells us in Genesis 1:21. It's empirical (testable) evidence of the literal God.

*** Points to consider in a reply:

• We don't have the original books making the Bible

That's why I use the KJV of Scripture. It's the oldest and most read version of what the Holy Spirit told us in Genesis. Since we live today in the last days, it should continue to be what God wanted us to know, until the end of the Creation.

• ***We can directly examine the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• There is tangible and demonstrable advantage to knowing facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

Amen. IF God is telling us the Truth in Genesis, His Truth MUST agree, in every way with the scientific and historic facts discovered by mankind, and it does.

• *** The Scientific Method is the most effective method in narrowing in on these facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

Not really since changeable man-made science has the wrong premise. Falsely assuming that Humans had our origin on Planet Earth, their incomplete ToE is "willingly ignorant" that Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the flood, 11k years ago in the mountains of Ararat. IOW, Humans did NOT evolve from Apes but from other Humans who arrived in the Ark in the largest Lake in Turkey. God Bless you

 

[dad]

I don't think the Bible can have much to do with it, considering the pro-war jingoistic nationalism embraced by "Bible-believing" Christians.

I agree. I just don't think Jesus would bomb a village or wedding.

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL! I notice you chose to ignore my comments about traditional Christian metaphysics.

Metaphysics is a deep subject, we take that for granted since Christian theism starts with existential principles. Divine providence are the things God created and then let them run their course, the founding fathers had a firm reliance on them according to the Declaration of Independence. Miracles are another matter, getting into the subject matter is not something we should do lightly.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't think the Bible can have much to do with it, considering the pro-war jingoistic nationalism embraced by "Bible-believing" Christians.

Personally I'm more of an old school Calvinist, evangelical because of my views of Scripture and fundamentalist because I agree with them on the fundamentals. However, I'm a Democrat, I voted Republican in a national election only once and cannot abide their economic and pro status quo agendas. I'm pro choice in the first trimester but after the first 11 weeks everything that defines us as human is functional, taking that life is murder except in extreme situations. I don't support teaching creationism in the public schools, I think the doctrine of creation and natural theology should be a specialized and largely personal pursuit. I firmly believe in free exercise and the separation of church and state.

I've never been nationalistic in my political orientation. Really more of a moderate and I'm as concerned about the dangers of the industrial military complex as I am about the extreme naturalistic bias that exists in leftward leanings of Ivy League liberals.

 

[Kylie]

L.U.C.A. appeared in the WATER 3.77 billion years ago...

How do you know it was in the water? There is quite a bit of discussion as to where it lived, and it has not been settled on. There are many scientists putting forward strong arguments that it lived in deep rocks.

 

[Speedwell]

Personally I'm more of an old school Calvinist, evangelical because of my views of Scripture and fundamentalist because I agree with them on the fundamentals. However, I'm a Democrat, I voted Republican in a national election only once and cannot abide their economic and pro status quo agendas. I'm pro choice in the first trimester but after the first 11 weeks everything that defines us as human is functional, taking that life is murder except in extreme situations. I don't support teaching creationism in the public schools, I think the doctrine of creation and natural theology should be a specialized and largely personal pursuit. I firmly believe in free exercise and the separation of church and state.

I've never been nationalistic in my political orientation. Really more of a moderate and I'm as concerned about the dangers of the industrial military complex as I am about the extreme naturalistic bias that exists in leftward leanings of Ivy League liberals.

I wish there were more of you.

 

[Speedwell]

Metaphysics is a deep subject, we take that for granted since Christian theism starts with existential principles. Divine providence are the things God created and then let them run their course, the founding fathers had a firm reliance on them according to the Declaration of Independence. Miracles are another matter, getting into the subject matter is not something we should do lightly.

My reference to Aristotle was to his ideas about fourfold causality which we need not go in to, but the point was that causality as a concept is not as simple as many people seem to think. That is why I take issue with the "God or nature" mindset of creationists. It's really a false dichotomy. From the metaphysical standpoint, God and nature is perfectly feasable, and the "nature" part of it will appear to us to be a self-sufficient system of natural causes. Miracles extra, your mileage may vary.

Now, I don't care whether you believe any of that or not, but I'm here to tell you that a lot of people do, or something like it. I learned about it as an Anglican undergraduate science major at a Roman Catholic university, to give you some idea. Which is why, to a lot of Christians here who are not creationists, your notions about your "Darwinism" seem contrived and unconvincing

 

[mark kennedy]

My reference to Aristotle was to his ideas about fourfold causality which we need not go in to, but the point was that causality as a concept is not as simple as many people seem to think. That is why I take issue with the "God or nature" mindset of creationists. It's really a false dichotomy. From the metaphysical standpoint, God and nature is perfectly feasable, and the "nature" part of it will appear to us to be a self-sufficient system of natural causes. Miracles extra, your mileage may vary.

You can't categorically reject miracles rationally unless your convinced that God is either nonexistent or irrelevant. Yes I'm familiar with Aristotle's four causes:

1. Matter: a change or movement's material "cause",
2. Form: a change or movement's formal "cause", is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving.
3. Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving "cause", consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father.
4. End or purpose: a change or movement's final "cause", is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom. (in Physics II, 3, and Metaphysics V, 2)

Matter and form are inconsistent with the Hebrew word for creation ( בָּרָא bara' H1254) in it's Qal to shape, fashion, create it always has with God as subject. Matter and form are clearly not what is intended in Genesis 1. Things created in the sense of bara are the heavens and the earth (the universe), life in general, and man in particular. It's also used extensively in Isaiah to discuss the creation of Israel. The teleological cause is only important if there is design, and thus deliberate and intelligent intent.

So your an educated man, always expected as much. Am I as a Protestant am I to take the word of Anglican and Catholic scholarship over the clear teaching of Scripture?

Now, I don't care whether you believe any of that or not, but I'm here to tell you that a lot of people do, or something like it. I learned about it as an Anglican undergraduate science major at a Roman Catholic university, to give you some idea. Which is why, to a lot of Christians here who are not creationists, your notions about your "Darwinism" seem contrived and unconvincing

My opinion has always been this, if you think Darwinian evolution has made it's case go in peace I have no problem with you. But don't expect me to dismiss the historic narrative of Genesis, the Pentateuch the Gospels or Acts based on a logic that can't accept the inverse logic of their arguments. Do you think I want to talk to a Christian scholar about radiometric dating or fossils?

I'd rather talk about the aseity of God, or the, absolute independence and self-existence of God. It's the very basis for holiness at a literal level. At the same time God is omnipotent and omnipresent, with nothing beyond his purview and nothing too difficult. The Scriptures are clear that God created life during creation week, a declaration echoed throughout the Scriptures literally from Genesis to Revelations. The eight times the New Testament mentions Adam he is considered the first parent of humanity in no uncertain terms. Over four hundred times Adam is used in the Old Testament synonymously with humanity the same way Israel's name is used synonymously with his descendants. In Luke's genealogy everyone is the son of someone until you get to Adam, then it simple says, son of God, indicating creation.

So Christians have some problems with me being a Creationist. I've done my due diligence, I've learned from the sciences and the Scriptures and never ask anyone to accept my opinion without qualification or based on a private interpretation.

I've studied a little myself and Darwinian logic is wholesale naturalistic assumptions arranging evidence loosely around foregone conclusions. Think what you like of me, I was always prepared to accept a Theistic Evolution view as long as it did no disservice to either the theism or evolution as a natural phenomenon. That was always too much to ask, here I stand, I can do no other.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

I wish there were more of you.

I would just like to know there is more then one, it's lonely out here in no man's land. Politically moderates are controlling elections because they are the elusive swing votes. When it comes to political issues I try to take into consideration how indignant God gets when discussing things like how the rich treat the poor. 1 Corinthians 11, James 2 are blistering indictments and the eighth century prophets went ballistic over the issue, second only to idolatry. My political party rejects a great deal of my Christian conviction and I'm alright with that, I know who is the true sovereign ruler of this world. It's painful for me to see so many of my evangelical brethren follow right wing, pro status quo politicians but it's not as bad as the feeling I get when they do end times scenarios.

Christianity has long been a worldview of the world turned upside down. Maybe it's normal for believers to be upside down and backwards when trying to understand worldly politics. I just can't stand the duplicity of GOP politics, I'm going to stop now before I go into a rant about Trump.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Standard ad hominem remark, personal remarks without any regard to anything substantive.

You still have learned what an ad hominem remark is I see. Hint: it's not what Kylie said.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There you go equivocating again, natural phenomenon with reality. Science isn't the sole arbitrator of reality, that definition drips with bias.

But natural phenomenon IS reality. It's the world around us. And if science can't tell us more about reality, then what can?
I honestly don't think that you're actually attempting to have a legitimate argument here. It sounds like you're arguing solely for the sake of arguing.

 

[Speedwell]

So your an educated man, always expected as much. Am I as a Protestant am I to take the word of Anglican and Catholic scholarship over the clear teaching of Scripture?

LOL! No more than I would take the word of a Protestant about what the clear teaching of scripture is, or that scripture alone should be consulted. But you remind me of a friend of mine who goes to the Reformed church--we differ greatly in our views but can still talk about it enjoyably. As such, you are a little out of the main line of fire in the creation/evolution controversy.

What I don't understand is the hostility and belligerence. It is reflected to some extent in these forums, but I've lived in the Bible Belt and seen first hand the harrassment, bullying and sometimes even violence meted out to non-YEC Christians. I do not feel, any longer, able to go south of The Line unless I am armed, which I don't particularly like. Unfortunately, it has also made me intolerant, which I don't like either.

 

[Aman777]

How do you know it was in the water? There is quite a bit of discussion as to where it lived, and it has not been settled on. There are many scientists putting forward strong arguments that it lived in deep rocks.

Because WATER is essential for the cells to survive. Tell us how the universal common ancestor's cells could live without liquid water. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

How do you know it was in the water? There is quite a bit of discussion as to where it lived, and it has not been settled on. There are many scientists putting forward strong arguments that it lived in deep rocks.

Because WATER is essential for the cells to survive. Tell us how the universal common ancestor's cells could live without liquid water. God Bless you

 

[mark kennedy]

LOL! No more than I would take the word of a Protestant about what the clear teaching of scripture is, or that scripture alone should be consulted. But you remind me of a friend of mine who goes to the Reformed church--we differ greatly in our views but can still talk about it enjoyably. As such, you are a little out of the main line of fire in the creation/evolution controversy.

I don't think science or theology are subject to any kind of revision, minor or otherwise. The age of the earth is irrelevant which makes the whole thing a lot clearer to begin with. The dating techniques are accurate and it accounts for the old age of the fossils since they are mineralized with elements that are old. God creating life is inextricably linked to the Incarnation and Resurrection, being a new creature in Christ, aka born again, is also a miracle, God doing what only God can do. That's it in a nut shell and you would be hard pressed to find that on a Creationist website.

What I don't understand is the hostility and belligerence. It is reflected to some extent in these forums, but I've lived in the Bible Belt and seen first hand the harrassment, bullying and sometimes even violence meted out to non-YEC Christians. I do not feel, any longer, able to go south of The Line unless I am armed, which I don't particularly like. Unfortunately, it has also made me intolerant, which I don't like either.

While I seldom mention creationism among church people I get a weird sense of apprehension. It doesn't seem to matter what view they hold, there is a strange tension over this. Christians don't seem to know their Bibles and getting people acquainted with genomic research hardly seems like it's going to be fashionable anytime soon. I come online to find people who are actually interested in the subject matter, elsewhere I have met very few.

 

[Speedwell]

I just hope we don't have to fight them again. They lost last time, but it cost over 600,000 dead and vast stretches of the country laid to waste.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I support my views with the AGREEMENT of Scripture, science and history. God's view comes first, then the actual scientific and historic facts, discovered by mankind. The reason God's view comes first is because today's scientific view cannot speak of life before the last universal common ancestor on our Planet. L.U.C.A. appeared in the WATER 3.77 billion years ago, in man's time, exactly as God tells us in Genesis 1:21. It's empirical (testable) evidence of the literal God.

*** Points to consider in a reply:

• We don't have the original books making the Bible

That's why I use the KJV of Scripture. It's the oldest and most read version of what the Holy Spirit told us in Genesis. Since we live today in the last days, it should continue to be what God wanted us to know, until the end of the Creation.

• ***We can directly examine the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• There is tangible and demonstrable advantage to knowing facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

Amen. IF God is telling us the Truth in Genesis, His Truth MUST agree, in every way with the scientific and historic facts discovered by mankind, and it does.

• *** The Scientific Method is the most effective method in narrowing in on these facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

Not really since changeable man-made science has the wrong premise. Falsely assuming that Humans had our origin on Planet Earth, their incomplete ToE is "willingly ignorant" that Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the flood, 11k years ago in the mountains of Ararat. IOW, Humans did NOT evolve from Apes but from other Humans who arrived in the Ark in the largest Lake in Turkey. God Bless you

Hello @Aman777, thanks for replying. Do you have any scientific evidence to support this view? Namely, that there was a 'clean dissolved' earth? As far as I understood Genesis, it spoke of Adam coming first as well as many of the life forms being created separately, which isn't at all what the scientific evidence shows. In particular (I know this has been brought up countless times), we share some 200,000 endogenous retroviruses with the other great apes, and to a lesser extent, with many other species on the planet which is a clear indicator we do share a common ancestor with them. The Theory of Evolution is borne of exactly the same science that enables you to communicate with almost anyone around the world, live a long and healthy life, eat food of all types supplied from a variety of places on this planet, we have even studied tens of billions of years in the past by looking to the stars, etc. Do you acknowledge these accomplishments are of value? Also, how is confirming the Theory of Evolution being "willingly ignorant" if this is what all the scientific evidence shows?

I reiterate my concern for the value of Science in our collective societies, and the value of teaching it along with critical thinking in schools - Otherwise, I am glad you do appreciate the progress we've made in science.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, I've decided to ask this question of Young (or Young at Heart) Earth Creationists in a challenge response to AV's numerous 'Challenges'.... though, I'd like to think this would actually be constructive over AV's hypothetical scenarios with no fixed facts... (not meaning to offend of course AV! )

If this universe is a direct fiat creation by God, and the bible is God's word filtered through fallible men, why is it that the second option is believed above the directly observed evidence of the creator of the universe?

Points to consider in a reply:

• We don't have the original books making the Bible
• We can directly examine the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• There is tangible and demonstrable advantage to knowing facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between
• The Scientific Method is the most effective method in narrowing in on these facts about the world around us, life, the universe & everything in between

Then apply those laws of science and apply time dilation corrections to account for the acceleration in the beginning when God stretched out the heavens.

I wholeheartedly agree science must be melded to fit with the Word, but for some reason those who always claim they follow science refuse to apply science to the equation...... even when their own science demands it. It isn't a prerogative that time dilation corrections be applied, but a scientific mandate.

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then apply those laws of science and apply time dilation corrections to account for the acceleration in the beginning when God stretched out the heavens.

I wholeheartedly agree science must be melded to fit with the Word, but for some reason those who always claim they follow science refuse to apply science to the equation...... even when their own science demands it. It isn't a prerogative that time dilation corrections be applied, but a scientific mandate.

Hubble law and the expanding universe

"Hubble's law is a statement of a direct correlation between the distance to a galaxy and its recessional velocity as determined by the red shift."

So, I've been painstakingly wording an even more epic reply to @Jennifer Rothnie 's epic post to me on p48 of this thread, I've uncovered quite a number of scientific papers relating to the recession (redshifting) of galaxies - unfortunately, the redshift we see absolutely cannot support a young earth view. It just can't. We can see things happening at billions of light years distance in real time here. If it were that a 'God stretched out the heavens', then we wouldn't be seeing things doing things at these distances as they happened billions of years ago. We've verified these redshift measurements with other forms of distance measuring - we can measure the luminosity of a supernova (deemed a standard candle) that gives us measurements to the source - this has been correlated by measuring the speed of luminosity observed from the same supernova as its light reaches gas clouds where the supernova occurred, which themselves are often light years in size. We know the speed of light, we can measure how fast it illuminates the gas clouds they're in and we've been able to correlate all these forms of measurements to check, double check and triple check them to be accurate, there's no guesswork in these.

We can also see some of these events several times because of gravitational lensing, sometimes years apart - also something that would be impossible given the speed of light and the nature of gravitational lensing... a process that requires the time and distances involved to create the phenomena.

So there you have it, three processes by which we can accurately measure distances (redshift, type Ia/Ii supernova and light dispersal triangulation) and another two process that are required to create gravitational lensing (light over long distances/time affected by large bodies of mass/gravitational sources).

All of these observations take on board all of the available science and observations... I'll find you the appropriate papers if you'd like, you can go over their methods and see for yourself what was involved if you like? In the mean time, I'll get back to this epic reply for @Jennifer Rothnie

 

[Aman777]

Hello @Aman777, thanks for replying. Do you have any scientific evidence to support this view?

Of course and that's what I do, I show the agreement of Scripture with every other discovered Truth of mankind. Here's one. God told us more than 3k years ago that "every living creature that moveth" was created and brought forth from WATER. Scientists finally confirmed this scientific Truth last year. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/science/last-universal-ancestor.html

It's proof of God since NO man of the time could have possibly known this scientific Truth. I have many many more from Genesis so it's not a coincidence.

*** Namely, that there was a 'clean dissolved' earth? As far as I understood Genesis, it spoke of Adam coming first as well as many of the life forms being created separately, which isn't at all what the scientific evidence shows.

Actually, Genesis shows that Adam lived and died on a Flat Earth which was only 22.5 feet high since the flood covered the highest mountains of his Earth, when the flood reached that depth. Gen 7:20 The New Testament adds to this by showing that Adam's entire Heaven was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:6

Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the Snare or Trap which God set with the Flood. Isaiah 24:19

*** In particular (I know this has been brought up countless times), we share some 200,000 endogenous retroviruses with the other great apes, and to a lesser extent, with many other species on the planet which is a clear indicator we do share a common ancestor with them.

False assumption since God told us WHY we have the DNA of prehistoric people in our blood, many thousands of years ago. Noah's grandsons, like Cain on Adam's Earth, had NO other Humans to marry. They married and produced children with the sons of God (prehistoric people) who numbered some One Million when the Ark arrived 11,000 years ago. Gen 6:4 It's proof of God since No man of the time would have known what we know TODAY about Human genetics. The false assumption is that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes when it actually was the sons of God (prehistoric people) who were not Humans (descendants of Adam).

*** The Theory of Evolution is borne of exactly the same science that enables you to communicate with almost anyone around the world, live a long and healthy life, eat food of all types supplied from a variety of places on this planet, we have even studied tens of billions of years in the past by looking to the stars, etc. Do you acknowledge these accomplishments are of value? Also, how is confirming the Theory of Evolution being "willingly ignorant" if this is what all the scientific evidence shows?

The willing ignorance of the Scoffers/evolutionists of the last days is that Adam's entire world/Heaven was totally destroyed in the flood. 2Pet3:6 IOW, Humans did NOT have our origin on planet Earth. We came from the first Heaven when it was totally dissolved in the flood. The first Humans arrived here on the 150th day after the flood began. Gen 8:4 The firmament was above the highest mountains on Adam's world on the SAME 150th day after the flood began. Gen 7:20-24

*** I reiterate my concern for the value of Science in our collective societies, and the value of teaching it along with critical thinking in schools - Otherwise, I am glad you do appreciate the progress we've made in science.

Amen, but some arrogant scientists should bow their knees to God's Truth when they realize that He hid His Truth in the future discoveries of today's Science. It's empirical, testable evidence of the literal God. God bless you