Proof of Creation?

[Kylie]

The Bible explains that men are faulty in their biased conclusions.
Reality never explains that very well.

Not till you get down to quantum theory anyway where it shows
that reality changes based on the observers intent.

Way to miss the point...

And where in Quantum Mechanics does it say that the intentions of the observer changes reality?

 

[Kylie]

Specifically that part -- called evolution -- that is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots?

Let me ask you something...

Let's say you are walking down the street and some guy runs past, grabbing the phone out of your hand. You want your phone back, so you give chase. You can't see the guy anymore, as he has gone around a corner, but luckily the ground is muddy, and he left footprints that are easy to follow.

Do you give up, because there is not a continuous trail? There are gaps between each footprint, you must remember. So, do you conclude that this isn't a trail, just a game of connect the dots?

What you are doing is misrepresenting evolution, and I suspect you know that you are. And yet you do it anyway.

 

[Strathos]

How about creationists who don't try to prove their side scientifically?

You mean the category you claim to belong to, although further questioning always reveals that you think that scientists are wrong in interpreting their data, hence you are actually claiming you can justify your views scientifically?

Non-creationists don't seem to get this point. (Where did everything come from?)

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This verse is no friend to most flavors of creationist. When we look at the earth and the universe and examine it, we find deep time, evolution over billions of years, cosmology stretching back to the Big Bang - meaning that God used those things as His tools. If creationists were right and all of that was some kind of delusion or false history planted in nature, that would falsify that verse.

 

[stevevw]

This is the one I was on about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mX-BLf3cQBI

Good video I just watch it, very interesting. Thanks

 

[Smidlee]

This verse is no friend to most flavors of creationist. When we look at the earth and the universe and examine it, we find deep time, evolution over billions of years, cosmology stretching back to the Big Bang - meaning that God used those things as His tools. If creationists were right and all of that was some kind of delusion or false history planted in nature, that would falsify that verse.

Not necessary since as a creationist I believe in both creations mention in the Bible, the one in Genesis and the one in Revelation. If man can created his universes with back history preset then why should we assume God can't do the same thing especially since God is also the Time-Lord. I don't believe we are going to wait around a billion years for the earth to cool down after God judge it by fire. Since God is the Time-Lord, He can hit the "Fast-Forward" button on His remote.

There is no new thing under the sun.

 

[stevevw]

That's the one ... yes.

I knew it was over an hour long.

Excellent video!

Here's a good one too:

[youtube]kQa11RMCeSI[/youtube]

Another good one and a bit funny. Very dry sense of humor.

 

[stevevw]

How can the scriptures ring true when they knew even less than we do today? Is it because you want them to be true?

How do know the Koran is not true or any of the other religious books? They were all looking for a reason for why we all exist and made up lots of stories to try and explain everything, all of which use miracles and Magic to try and explain what they didn't understand, making something up is never going to be the answer no matter how much you want it all to be true.

The trouble is IMO as science gets closer to the point of where something comes into existence from nothing it begins to take on the appearance of magic. But its not as if there's a logical explanation. Look at some of the things science itself is saying when they try to explain it. They are using almost magical and religious language themselves because nothing else can logically explain things. How do you explain that a particle once entangled can affect the other instantaneously (thats faster than the sped of light) even if its on the other side of the universe. That invokes time travel and then can change what we understand about cause and effect. How do we explain how a particle can act in two different forms at the same time depending on the observer. Or that it is possible for something to have many different outcomes at the same time yet will only be one when we look at it as though all those possibilities are all just as possible. It just doesn't have a logical explanation.

There has to be something at work beyond the normal logical science at work. Its the same for many things like gravity and dark energy, black holes, the beginning of our universe and the ever increasing universe that is speeding up as it expands. How does everything stay in it place and why is everything so finely tuned especially our sweet spot here on planet earth.

These things just cant have a logical explanation according to relativity and the physics we know of and scientists are finding this out the closer we get to how existence comes into reality. Its not as if there is some logical explanation so we are going to have to invoke some sort of new way of calculating or understanding. Maybe there is no way to understand. Maybe all that we have come to know is just the tip of something that is beyond our comprehension. Thats why scientists themselves are coming up with many far fetched explanations and hypothesis because what they are finding demands explanations beyond the normal science and physics.

Maybe we are just pulling Gods creation apart and trying to put explanations on it. As the bible says man thinks he is wise by putting his own explanations on things but maybe he is just a fool when it comes to understanding Gods creation.
Romans 1:20 to 23.
20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Not necessary since as a creationist I believe in both creations mention in the Bible, the one in Genesis and the one in Revelation. If man can created his universes with back history preset then why should we assume God can't do the same thing especially since God is also the Time-Lord. I don't believe we are going to wait around a billion years for the earth to cool down after God judge it by fire. Since God is the Time-Lord, He can hit the "Fast-Forward" button on His remote.

There is no new thing under the sun.

If God hit the fast forward on his remote and the earth whizzed around the sun 4 plus billion times in a week or perhaps a day of God's time . . . would you accept that scenario? But if you did, you would be admitting the earth is over 4 billion years old, for a year is not defined by the subjective experience of time but by the orbit of the earth around the sun.

Are you cool with that?

 

[Smidlee]

If God hit the fast forward on his remote and the earth whizzed around the sun 4 plus billion times in a week or perhaps a day of God's time . . . would you accept that scenario? But if you did, you would be admitting the earth is over 4 billion years old, for a year is not defined by the subjective experience of time but by the orbit of the earth around the sun.

Are you cool with that?

Doctor Who is over 900 years old but that doesn't mean the series is that old. In Star Trek if the Enterprise has to travel for 2 weeks, for example, to reach it's destination, you don't have to wait the full two weeks to see what happens. If we can do this without any trouble in our created universes why do you believe it would be a problem for God? All things are possible in our creations so why try to limit God in His.

I ask you do you believe we are going to have to wait a billion years for the earth to cool down after it's judge by fire?

 

[Tina W]

I haven't read the whole thread, but concerning creationism, there are a couple of theories that I heard and think could be possible, 1 is the Gap Theory that says that something happened in between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2 that the Bible doesn't mention. It's where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth then it says the earth was formless and void. Something happened after God created the heavens and the earth to make the earth become formless and void and that the reason why Genesis took only 6 days is because that was God restoring the earth after He had already created it who knows how long ago. It takes less time to fix something than to create something. That theory also comes from the verse where God tells Adam & Eve to multiply and replenish the earth or refill the earth. How can you refill it if it wasn't full before? So some say there was a lot of strange stuff that happened on this planet before God made Adam & Eve and that that could be the stuff archaeologists find when they find all kinds of weird old fossils and dinosaur bones etc. So that makes sense.

The other theory is I don't know what you call it but that it's possible that when God created the earth He made it mature in the same way that Adam & Eve were physically mature adults even though they were like 1 day old. God made them as adults so some say God could have made the earth physically mature in the same way. If someone could have taken DNA from Adam & Eve they would say it came from 2 adults even when they were only a few days old, so in the same way when people take samples of the earth the samples are from a mature planet even though the earth might not be as old as the samples suggest. God created the earth as an adult or aged planet like Adam & Eve. So I thought that theory was interesting too. I think I like the Gap Theory better because I'm fascinated with strange unexplainable things, but both theories are interesting.

 

[JacksBratt]

I haven't read the whole thread, but concerning creationism, there are a couple of theories that I heard and think could be possible, 1 is the Gap Theory that says that something happened in between Genesis verse 1 and verse 2 that the Bible doesn't mention. It's where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth then it says the earth was formless and void. Something happened after God created the heavens and the earth to make the earth become formless and void and that the reason why Genesis took only 6 days is because that was God restoring the earth after He had already created it who knows how long ago. It takes less time to fix something than to create something. That theory also comes from the verse where God tells Adam & Eve to multiply and replenish the earth or refill the earth. How can you refill it if it wasn't full before? So some say there was a lot of strange stuff that happened on this planet before God made Adam & Eve and that that could be the stuff archaeologists find when they find all kinds of weird old fossils and dinosaur bones etc. So that makes sense.

The other theory is I don't know what you call it but that it's possible that when God created the earth He made it mature in the same way that Adam & Eve were physically mature adults even though they were like 1 day old. God made them as adults so some say God could have made the earth physically mature in the same way. If someone could have taken DNA from Adam & Eve they would say it came from 2 adults even when they were only a few days old, so in the same way when people take samples of the earth the samples are from a mature planet even though the earth might not be as old as the samples suggest. God created the earth as an adult or aged planet like Adam & Eve. So I thought that theory was interesting too. I think I like the Gap Theory better because I'm fascinated with strange unexplainable things, but both theories are interesting.

The word for "replenish" is male, with some funny accent things over the a and e. It can be translated "fill", "filled" or "refill".

It is translated "refill" 7 times in the bible, "fill" 33 times, "filled" 73 times and "full" 97 times.

If there was a gap in the verses, and evolution took place, the evolutionary "data" would have been destroyed since the Bible describes the earth as without form and void. Therefore the fossil record would not exist.

So, you have to believe that there was no gap that would allow for evolution or a preadamic race. What exists in the fossil record exists from what happened after the "earth was without form and void"

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, you have to believe that there was no gap that would allow for evolution or a preadamic race. What exists in the fossil record exists from what happened after the "earth was without form and void"

I think one has to ask why the KJV translators chose 'was' over 'became', unless of course they were actually 'interpreting by translation' according to their understanding at the time. The preponderant meaning of the Hebrew implies a change from a previous state.

01961 // hyh // hayah // haw-yaw //

a primitive root [compare 01933 ]; TWOT - 491; v

AV - was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become,
pertained, better for thee; 75

1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) -----
1a1a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about,
come to pass
1a1b) to come about, come to pass
1a2) to come into being, become
1a2a) to arise, appear, come
1a2b) to become
1a2b1) to become
1a2b2) to become like
1a2b3) to be instituted, be established
1a3) to be
1a3a) to exist, be in existence
1a3b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
1a3c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word
of locality)
1a3d) to accompany, be with
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
1b2) to be done, be finished, be gone

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Doctor Who is over 900 years old but that doesn't mean the series is that old. In Star Trek if the Enterprise has to travel for 2 weeks, for example, to reach it's destination, you don't have to wait the full two weeks to see what happens. If we can do this without any trouble in our created universes why do you believe it would be a problem for God? All things are possible in our creations so why try to limit God in His.

I take that as a concession you are in fact cool with an earth that is over 4 billion years old.

I ask you do you believe we are going to have to wait a billion years for the earth to cool down after it's judge by fire?

Lets wait and see what God has in mind. He'll do it right. For example, the "judgement by fire" might actually involve widespread nuclear war.

 

[EternalDragon]

The word for "replenish" is male, with some funny accent things over the a and e. It can be translated "fill", "filled" or "refill".

It is translated "refill" 7 times in the bible, "fill" 33 times, "filled" 73 times and "full" 97 times.

If there was a gap in the verses, and evolution took place, the evolutionary "data" would have been destroyed since the Bible describes the earth as without form and void. Therefore the fossil record would not exist.

So, you have to believe that there was no gap that would allow for evolution or a preadamic race. What exists in the fossil record exists from what happened after the "earth was without form and void"

Um, no. Many of those dead things in the fossil record were buried
while still alive by water and sediment. The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

 

[selfinflikted]

Um, no. Many of those dead things in the fossil record were buried
while still alive by water and sediment. The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

What, SPECIFICALLY, about the fossil record leads you to believe that?

 

[florida2]

Um, no. Many of those dead things in the fossil record were buried
while still alive by water and sediment. The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

In your religious belief.

The physical evidence, however, disagrees.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Um, no. Many of those dead things in the fossil record were buried
while still alive by water and sediment. The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

If they were all buried by the same flood:
1. Why do the rocks above the different fossils have widely varying (by millions/billions of years) radiometric dates associated with them?
2. Why did the flood group the fossils such that the same fossils always lie is sediments layered in rocks that are close to the same radiometric dates?

 

[lasthero]

The fossil record we have
is largely post flood.

'Largely'. Okay.

Where does it start, where does it end, and how do you tell?

 

[EternalDragon]

'Largely'. Okay.

Where does it start, where does it end, and how do you tell?

Good question. You should be asking scientists that question about
a lot of stuff they assume to be true and pass off as fact.

 

[lasthero]

Good question. You should be asking scientists that question about
a lot of stuff they assume to be true and pass off as fact.

So, you don't have any evidence it's a flood layer, you don't know when it starts or stops, but you know it's there. Right.

I can't help but notice you skipped Junction's questions, ED. In case you missed them:

If they were all buried by the same flood:
1. Why do the rocks above the different fossils have widely varying (by millions/billions of years) radiometric dates associated with them?
2. Why did the flood group the fossils such that the same fossils always lie is sediments layered in rocks that are close to the same radiometric dates?