The Creation Took SIX LITERAL DAYS - Discuss

[Buck72]

Poetry of Love - I appreciate your posts...excellent job my friend.

 

[Curt]

Quote:
Notice the bolded parts. Yes, the writers meant 24 hour days, but did not mean for us to take creation a literally occuring in 24 hours. The 24 hours is to provide an unneeded justification for the Sabbath. It is a theological message, not a historical one.

This last sentance will not hold up in light of this Scripture.

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

 

[lucaspa]

Quote:
Notice the bolded parts. Yes, the writers meant 24 hour days, but did not mean for us to take creation a literally occuring in 24 hours. The 24 hours is to provide an unneeded justification for the Sabbath. It is a theological message, not a historical one.

This last sentance will not hold up in light of this Scripture.

Exod 31:15-17
15 Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.
17 It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
(KJV)

Yes, it still holds up because you are forgetting two things:
1. The order of how the Bible was written
2. The Pentateuch is an edited document from 4 different sources.

Exodus came before Genesis was written. Thus, the Hebrews had the Commandment to keep the Sabbath before the authors of Genesis 1 sat down to write. That Commandment originally said simply to keep the 7th day holy because God commanded them to do it.

When Genesis 1 was written -- at the end of the Babylonian exile -- there was great pressure on the Hebrews to convert to the Babylonian religion. Genesis 1 is an attempt to stop this by getting rid of the Babylonian gods. Each god is now a creation of God, thus destroying their status as a god. The authors are also seeking a justification for the Sabbath. So they structure creation in 6 days with the 7th day at rest. Then the editor who put Exodus together inserted Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 to make the justification full circle. Notice that if you drop 31:17 nothing changes. They are to keep the sabbath and it is a covenant whether it is because God created in 6 days or not.

 

[lucaspa]

The writer meant 24 hours days, but did not mean for us to take a creation literally? HUH?!!! You're contridicting yourself.

I explained that. The 6 days is of theological meaning, but not literal.

Like I said. If it is not a hostorical message, there is no basis for the rest of the scripture. Every other theological doctrine has no foundations.

Nonsense. The important thing is that God created. And nearly all the other 1,000 and more references to creation in the OT states simply that: God created. The how of creation has no bearing on the theological message that God created or any other theological message in the Bible.

You're calling it a man-made theory without explaining the implications it would have when the bible talks about the new heaven and new earth.

And what implications do you think those are?

You have not explained the doctrines involved in compromising on a literal interpretation of Genesis.Even a non-christian reading the post would agree with my points in my previous post that evolution and christianity cannot go together.

Of COURSE a non-Christian agrees that evolution and Christianity cannot go together! Who CARES what they think. Their motive is plain to see: choose between evolution and Christianity and, since it is obvious that evolution is true, then they get people to leave Christianity.

I have explained extensively on what happens when you discard a non-literal Genesis, as have many other Christian writers such as St. Augustine, Calvin, St. Thomas Aquinas, Ian Barbour, Bernhard Anderson, etc. Basically, nothing. Look at the Nicean Creed (rule #6). Nothing in it changes when you discard a literal Genesis.

The world will one day be restored(acts 3:21) to a state in which, once again, there will be no violence and death involving animals.

Acts 3:21 says "whom heaven must receive until the time for establishing allthat God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from old."

Whether Isaiah 11:6-9 is taken to refer to a millennial kingdom or a new earth, the poin is the same. Lambs, wolves, leopards, children, bears, calves and snakes will all dwell together peacefully.

Are you taking this literally? Then why not take verses 8-9 literally? "The suckling child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand in the adder's den."

The vision is of future bliss, but it is done in metaphor form that is very plain as metaphor but makes no sense in terms of literal interpretation.

The bible makes a clear distinction between the status of plants and animals. People and animals are described in Genesis as having, or being, nephesh(Hebrew) - see Genesis 1:20,21,24 where nephesh chayyah is translated 'living creatures', and Genesis 2:7 where Adam became a 'living soul'(Nephesh Chayyah). Nephesh conveys the basic idea of a 'breathing creature'.

And plants do breathe. So there goes that interpretation. They take in air and turn out carbon dioxide.

It is also used widely in the Old testament, in combination with other words, to convey ideas of emotions, feelings, etc. Nephesh refers to life with a certain level of consciousness. Plants do not have nephesh, and so Adam eating a carrot did not involve death in the Biblical sense.

That's fine, but you haven't indicated that organisms without nephesh don't die or it doesn't involve death in Biblical sense. All you have done is show that Genesis uses different words for the life in animals, not that plants are not alive.

Where Beyom is concerned, this comes from a misunderstanding that Genesis 2 is a seperate account from genesis 1.

You have this backwards. That Genesis 2 is a second account comes from the different time frame (among several other pieces of evidece) as given by beyom. IOW, taking beyom as literal leads to the conclusion there are 2 separate creation stories. Therefore the rest of your logic is faulty because your premise is faulty.

Actually, Genesis 2 is not a different account of creation. It is a more detailed account of day 6 of creation.

Nice try, but doesn't work that way. In Genesis 1 we get a detailed order of creation with birds on Day 5, animals on Day 6 before people. In Genesis 2 we get both birds and animals after the first man is created.

This argument of beyom must be rejected because in this verse we find Yom used with the preposition ‘in’ (beyom in Hebrew, which in many translations is appropriately rendered as ‘when,’ rather than as ‘in the day that’).

But not literally. Now you are changing the literal part of the Bible by doing so in the translation. Beyom means literall "in the day".

So in Genesis 2:4 beyom refers to the whole Creation Week. On the other hand, in Genesis 1 we find Yom used with a number and with evening and morning, referring to literal days. These are two very different uses of Yom See a similar literal and non-literal use of Yom in Numbers 7:10-84, where beyom appears in v. 10 and v. 84 referring to the whole 12 days of sacrifice and then at v. 12, 18, 24, 30, etc.,

I don't read it that way. v 10 says "offered offerings for the dedication of the altar on the day it was anointed." They had their offerings there "on the day" the altar was annointed. Then they presented the offerings over a period with each having one day.

Yom is used with a number referring to each literal day of sacrifice.

We are not talking "yom" but beyom. You can't switch words back and forth like that. They are not the same word. Just like "side" and "inside" are different words. Adding the prefix changes the meaning.

Genesis 1 uses literal Yom; Genesis 2:4 uses the non-literal beyom.

Beyom is not non-literal. It is a different word with a different definition. They are listed as such in Hebrew dictionaries. It's just a different meaning, not a non-literal meaning. Now you are screwing with the language because you don't get the interpretation you wanted.

As I've have shown above, there is no contradiction in the creation account.

I'm afraid you didn't. You simply asserted it. You haven't told us why birds which are a day 5 creation are in the expanded and detailed day 6 account. Nor why the order of creation is totally off between the two.

Unlike what you said, it is common knowledge that God didn't have to create every single specie. For example, the lion and the tiger probably came from a single parent in the past(They can mate to produce Tions and Ligers). Zebra, horses, etc can hybridize. The Chihuahua and Doberman probably came from a common ancestor in the past. These speciation comes from the sheiving and diluting of the gene pool as a result from either natural selection or artificial selection.

LOL! EVOLUTION! Now you are saying that species evolve from other species.

The gene pool is diluted. Not increased.

That's an empty assertion. Where in the Bible does it mention "gene pool" or "decreased". Also, where does it mention that lions and tigers have a common ancestor? Were lions and tigers speciated at the time of the Flood? Since Adam is supposed to have named all the animals, who named either the lion or the tiger after the Flood?

This is where the man-made theory really rears its head. You take extrabiblical knowledge, but won't acknowledge when that knowledge contradicts your theory. Yet that is what you have to do if you are going to invoke the extrabiblical knowledge. Can't have it both ways.

The bible is consistent in that each animal produces after its own kind. I.E. a dog will never become a monkey or some other animal. God didn't have to create every specie. He created some animals which then produced according to theis kinds.

But guess what? The ligers produced by hybridization of lions and tigers can't produce after it's "kind". They can't breed back to lions or tigers! So, are they a separate "kind"?

As for rabbit! This is an incredible proposition. One of the most successful species on earth would have to be the rabbit! The rabbit's mode of existence is obviously very efficient (what about the saying ‘they breed like rabbits’?).

So they can breed. Doesn't mean that the design of them isn't cruel and sadistic. Apples and oranges.

Just because eating feces may be abhorrent to humans, does not mean it is inefficient for the rabbit!

Abhorrent and cruel is abhorrent and cruel. Are you advocating relative morals?

And no, it's not as efficient as having the enzyme internally. There is no way the rabbits can get 100% of the feces back. Close, but never 100%. And think of the wasted energy doing so? They have to eat twice instead of once.

Indeed rabbits have a special pouch called the cecum, containing bacteria, at the beginning of the large intestine. These bacteria aid digestion, just as bacteria in the rumen of cattle and sheep aid digestion. The rabbit produces two types of fecal pellet, a hard one and a special soft one coming from the cecum. It is only the latter which is eaten to enrich the diet with the nutrients produced by the bacteria in the cecum. In other words, this ability of rabbits is part of their design;

Yep, and that design is cruel. It still forces the rabbit to eat its feces. Using the technical words doesn't disguise that you are admitting what I told you is the truth. The enzyme necessary for rabbits to break down cellulose is not made by the rabbit. It's made by bacteria in the large intestine -- the cecum at the beginning of the large intestine. I didn't want to get too technical, but the technical confirms what I am saying.

it is not something they have learnt to do because they have ‘digestive systems which function so poorly’. It is part of the variety of design which speaks of creation, not evolution.

I never said they learned. Read what I said. I said the cecum design was because the digestive system functions poorly because it was designed poorly. Invoking God as the Designer makes God both stupid and sadistic. You are nicely making my argument for the problems of Special Creation.

The red and tooth in nature was a result of the curse.

And where does it say that in Genesis 3? It doesn't. The punishment for Adam's disobedience are very specific and limited. This is a man-made theory to get around creationism being falsified.

There is no contradiction within Genesis 1-3. Chpter 2 is not a different account of creation - it is a more detailed account of the 6th day of creation. The Jews recognise this.

Not according to the pew Torahs I have read in 5 different synagogues. Nor the Jew Nahum Sarna in his book Genesis.

Where on earth in the bible did it mention that Genesis was just a theological truth and not historical and scientific truth.

2 Timothy where Paul tells us that scripture (and he had to mean the OT because there was no NT when he wrote this) is good for instruction in righteousness. Can't be much plainer than that.

the bible is not meant to be a scientific book, but everywhere it touches on science, it has been incredibility accurate. It is clear that it was meant to be read literally and not theologically.

If that had been the case, we wouldn't be having this disagreement. The history of Christianity is Christians finding out that the literal interpretation is the wrong one. Or are you saying Luke 2:1 is literal or the early Christians were right about the literal interpretation that led them to believe flat and immovable earth?

Quoting you: "The idea that men and women go together works just as well with God creating us thru evolution as it does if God zapped men and women into existence. "

This is not true. It is clear theologically that the theory of evolution is not supported by the bible in anyway. Creation is.

Evolution is Creation! They are not two separate things. Evolution is how God created.

And, you didn't address my point. I said -- clearly -- "The idea that men and women go together works just as well with God creating us thru evolution as it does if God zapped men and women into existence." You didn't address the point but tried to change the subject by saying "evolution is not supported by the bible". But that isn't the claim, was it? Evolution does not put men and women apart, does it? They are together under evolution.

Quoting you again: "That is simply not the case. Jesus died for your sins. And you commit them. Not because of Adam, but because of you. "

Romans 5:12 - 21: Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--

Thank you for the quote. Notice the part I bolded. ALL sinned. Paul is using Adam here how he was meant to be used -- as an allegorical representation for each of us.

Jesus died for us! You're right! But he had to die for us because

all sinned. Jesus made that very clear when he made sin be not only the action but the thought.

If we take Adam out of the picture, we would be making a joke of the atonement as there would be no Jesus' death.

I don't see it. Sin is still in the world because we sin.

However, if you want to look at evolution, why did Adam sin? He was selfish. He put his desires -- eat the fruit -- above God's. Well, evolution guarantees this type of selfishness. Remember the selfish gene? Natural selection can't select for altruism but must select for selfishness. So, the story is telling us that the very method God used to create us resulted in our being selfish and thus will disobey God. We need Jesus to help us counteract this and bring us forgiveness for our very nature.

Enough Said!

Nice try to close the discussion, but you aren't even close yet.

 

[lucaspa]

Duplication or any mutation does not increase the genetic complexity of an organism - be it polymorphism, polyploid, etc etc. Every example has failed to show an increase in genetic complexity.

What exactly is "genetic complexity" and how would you recognize and "increase" in it? I submit that you have 2 very vague terms here that don't really mean anything.

Increase in information comes in two steps:
1. Mutation. Particularly gene and chromosome duplication which increases the amount of DNA. Kind of like increasing the pages in a book.
2. Selection. Selection always increases information.

We have seen an increase in capabilities of organisms.
1. The ability to degrade nylon while keeping the ability to eat all other kinds of food. Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the pre-existed, internally repetitious coding sequence, Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984. Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon) http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
2. The ability to live in apple juice in addition to all the other environments the E. coli lived in. D. Grady, Quick-change pathogens gain an evolutionary advantage.Science, vol.274: 1081, 1996 (November 15). The primary research articleis JE LeClerc, B Li, WL Payne, TA Cebula, High mutation frequencies among Eschericia coli and Salmonella pathogens. Science, 274: 1208-1211, 1996 (Nov.15).
3. The ability of Drosophila to live in temperatures lower than previously while still living in the older temps. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

There are dozens more, but you specifically claimed "every example" so 3 should suffice for now.

I do not claim a mutation can be both harmful and useful at the same time. What I mean is that even a "lost" mutation can be beneficial at times.

A pump in the cell wall takes in the antibiotic. A mutation disabling this pump will prevent the bacterium pumping in its own executioner. But in the wild, a bacterium with a disabled pump will be less fit than other bacteria because the pump also brings nutrients, etc., into the cell.

And that's the problem. The pump does not shut down. The mutation did not disable the pump, but instead gave it added information: pump in these nutrients (the existing info) but also exclude the antibiotic (the added infor).

A control gene regulates the production of an enzyme that destroys the antibiotic, e.g. penicillinase which destroys penicillin. A mutation disabling this gene destroys the regulation of the production, so far more enzyme is produced.

1. The enzyme wasn't present to begin with. So you have the added info of the enzyme.
2. The beta-lactamase had an inhibitor. The inhibitor was not destroyed. Instead, there is an additional protein that binds the inhibitor and keeps it from binding to the DNA to shut off beta-lactamase. Again, addition of information and not loss of it.

Such a bacterium can cope with more antibiotic than others can, but in the wild, it would be less fit than normal because it’s wasting valuable resources producing more enzyme than is needed.

Right. Which is why "good" and "bad" variations are defined by the environment. There is no absolute good or bad variation.

An enzyme is highly specialized to break down one specific type of chemical very well, and hardly affect other chemicals. A mutation could reduce its specificity, i.e. it no longer does its main job so well, and affects other chemicals to some extent too.

That's adding information again. Now not only will the enzyme catalyze the original reaction, but other reactions as well.

Normally, a biological system with such a mutation would not function as well, and reduced specificity is reduced information by definition.

Is it? When you add the information "also do this reaction"? You are adding a new specificity.

The antibiotic streptomycin works by attaching onto a precisely matching site on the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, where decoding of DNA information to proteins occurs. When the streptomycin attaches, it stops this machinery from producing the right proteins, and the bacterium dies. Resistance to the drug can be caused by an information-losing mutation that degrades the surface of a bacterium’s ribosome, which reduces the binding ability of the drug to the ribosome, preventing it from ruining the protein manufacturing machinery

You misread this. Erythromycin and other macrolide antibiotics inhibit protein synthesis by binding to the 23S rRNA molecule (in the 50S subunit) of the bacterial ribosome blocking the exit of the growing peptide chain. Resistant organisms added the information: "bind everything we need to bind (original information) but don't bind erythromycin (added info).

Despite all this, many evolutionist crow about antibiotic resistance as an amazing ‘prediction’ of evolution. Even aside from the above points, this is revisionist history. Historically, antibiotic resistance first took the medical profession by surprise—even as late as 1969, experts stated that ‘infectious diseases were a thing of the past’. I.e. antibiotic resistance was hardly a ‘prediction’ of evolution, but is really a phenomenon explained ‘after the fact’ by evolutionary language.

"prediction" in science means predicting new knowledge to be found, not predicting the future. Evolutionary biologists were saying that organisms would evolve resistance. The 'experts' you quoted were MDs unfamiliar with evolution.

However, here you are admitting that antibiotic resistance was not present in the original population. Creationism would predict that no resistance should ever have occurred. What you tout as "the Biblical Creation/Fall model explains it better" is an after-the-fact rationalization by modifying the "Biblical Creation/Fall model" to incorporate evolution but add an ad hoc hypothesis about "no additional information" to evolution.

The failure of mutations to increases complex genetic information is a major theme in his book.

And that is a failure of his book. It's his strawman combined with a shell game. Since increased info/complexity is a two step process, Spetner keeps moving the pea around between the shells of "mutation" and "natural selection" and claiming that each alone can't increase complexity.

Quote: Nope. You are aware that we have observed a bacterium evolve the ability to digest nylon, which it couldn't do before?

I am. I know what is natural selection and I know my genetics. In fact, if you have been up to date, you would have read the recent issue of TJ(former technical journal), there is a complete and detailed refutation of the Nylon issue. p.3, TJ Vol 17(3),2003 by Dr. Don Batten citing 11 secular sources.

Why don't you paste some of it for us, please. Of course, I posted the nylon bug reference above, so now you need to go into detail for the refutation.

Start a new thread.

 

[lucaspa]

In reply to the twin-nested hierarchy subject you brought up.

www . trueorigins . org / theobald1b . asp

Look under the heading PREDICTION 2: A “NESTED” HIERARCHY OF SPECIES

1. The original article by Theobald did not make the above statement. So what we have are apples and oranges.

2. The author argues against Theobald's essay, not the claim above. And the author uses specific mistakes made by Theobald. For instance, Theobald doesn't predict nested hierarchies, he tries to talk about specific traits within the heirarchy. And thereby Theobald makes a mistake. He defines "life" and then says that all life has the characteristics of life! DUH!

Instead, let's deal with the real thing, not Theobald's strawman.

Common ancestry predicts that all organisms can be organized in a nested hierarchy. That is true. Linnaeus did that before evolution was proposed. Entities not related by common ancestry can't be classified by nested hierarchy and that is also true. Gems, for instance, can't be classified that way.

What's more, entities created by intelligent design -- such as human artifacts -- can't be grouped in a nested hierarchy. Eldredge has noted this is true in The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism.

If creationism were true, then we could not tie all the "kinds" into a single nested hierarchy. Each -- such as lions and tigers -- would have to be in their own group, just as each gem is in its own group. Linneaus' classification falsifies creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

I must ask Lucaspa, what kind of advances do we have that can trace evolution as their theoretical benefactor, and why would these advances would have been stymied by a purely creationist perspective?

Let me give you an example from my research.

I study fracture repair and wound healing. Obviously, I am interested in human fracture repair and wound healing. But I can't do the experiments on humans for a multitude of ethical and practical reasons. So I need to choose an animal model. Now comes the crucial question: Which animal(s) do I choose as models? Evolution states that certain animals are similar because they share a common ancestor. Because of inheritance, they will share characteristics of that ancestor. As the relationship moves farther apart, they will share fewer characteristics. OK, the original determination of similarity is based on (usually) static characteristics visible to the naked eye: shape of bones, shape of limbs, warm vs. cold blood, fur vs. scales or feathers, etc. No one ever looked at fracture repair or wound healing as a basis for deciding similarity or relationship. However, at this stage we make a prediction based upon evolution: since the animals descended from a common ancestor, then the unknown characteristics (fracture repair) will also have to be similar as well as the known characteristics.

So what are the closest relatives to humans. The great apes, especially chimps. They would make good models, but they are too expensive to use in large numbers. From there we go to monkeys, but the same objection applies. The next step would be other mammals, then reptiles, then amphibians, then fish. Mammals are the closest relatives of that list to humans, which brings us to the humble rat, rabbit, and dog as experimental models. As it turns out, the prediction is correct, and it is possible to study fracture repair or wound healing in those animals and have the results be applicable to humans. Since descent also implies change, the results are often confirmed by experiments in small numbers of the more expensive chimps and monkeys.

Please note that creation does not permit this prediction. There is no reason fracture repair HAS to be similar between rats and humans. It MAY be, if the Creator so chose, but you can't predict that. Instead, you would have to test all species to see which one had fracture repair closest to human. Then, when I chose to study wound healing, I would have to conduct the search all over again. With creation, there's no reason to suppose that since rats have similar fracture repair to humans that they would have similar wound healing. Maybe for wound healing the best model would be fish. Again, there's no reason a Creator would have to make BOTH wound healing and fracture repair similar. Evolution allows a shortcut to choosing animal models. I don't have to check each and every species.

If creationism were true, we would have spent all our time determining which animal models to use for each specific question and we would not have had any time to research the problem.

Why is it that the Bible cannot be seen by so many as all-inclusive to the point that scientific finds are amalgumated into Biblical context without the need for these finds to be readjusted to fit into evolutionary dogma?

Because the Bible isn't God. And because God really did create. Science studies God's second book -- Creation.

Buck, you need to remember that creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1830. Scientific finds were amalgamated into the Biblical context. Even index fossils were said to be evidence for Noah's Flood when first published! But there was just too much evidence that could not be there if a literal Bible were true. Scientists, all of whom were Christian, first realized that 1) the earth was very old, 2) was not created in 6 literal days, and 3) had never had a world-wide Flood. God told them all this in His Creation and they would not turn their back on God.

Without the evolutionary template to encapsulate the latest scientific theory within, we have a greater capacity for allowing the science to be self-determining, and thus easily graft itself into the purely creationist arena, with LESS interference than required to force it into the evolutionary arena.

Should we also discard heliocentrism instead of "forcing" new observations on planetary motions to fit into it? When the orbit of Uranus was seen not to fit into Newtonian mechanics, should we have brought out geocentrism again?

What you are forgetting is that, once theories are falsified, they are falsified and nothing brings them back. Creationism was falsified in the period 1700-1850. It can't be brought back. It's false and will forever stay false.

Now, over the years, there have been multiple challenges to all aspects of evolution, from common ancestry to natural selection. However, all the challenges have failed and it was shown that going outside the evolutionary theory did not fit their data after all.

The data that falsified creationism is still there; it hasn't gone away.

The bias of most scientists that evolution is THE answer, obfuscates the potential to find truth in science.

No more than the "bias" of most scientists that heliocentrism is THE answer obfuscates the potential to find truth in science. As I said, Kimura, Gould, Margulis, etc. have all challenged parts of evolutionary theory.

I think what you are doing is not talking about evolution the scientific theory but rather evolution as atheism. But evolution is not atheism. Never has been. Isn't now despite the efforts of some atheists to make it so.

If people wish to be objective in science, recognize that evolution is purely theoretical, not empirical.

LOL! Not empirical! Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter the world "evolution" as your search term. Notice the sheer number of articles that you get. Start reading the abstracts and then try that "not empirical" line on me again.

We do have purely theoretical theories. Loop quantum gravity, No Boundary, ekpyrotic, etc. We don't accept them like we do evolution. Precisely because they are not empirical and evolution is.

By the way, the Creation took six days because God said it did.

In Genesis 2:4 God says it took a single day. By your logic, this makes God wrong.

The environment impacts itself with greater veracity than humans do. An example is the supposed "greenhouse gasses" that humans have unleashed upon the fragile ecosystem, yet one volcanic eruption like Mt Pinatubo, or Mt Etna, causes 10,000 times the atmospheric damage than 1,000 years of CFC producing industrialization (at 21st Century rates) can possibly create.

I'd like to see your data on that, please. However, remember that it is the environment that determines the design problem for plants and animals.

What is "natural selection"? That is a Darwinian holdback term for "God".

Not really. Here is Darwin's summary of natural selection:
"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

God is the Maestro behind the invisible curtain, Darwin was a confused theology student that provided little more to real science than an extension from Charles Lyell's godless rants to dislodge God from His creation, so that man can start making the decisions for a change.

This is so wrong on so many levels. Darwin was an acknowledged scientist long before he wrote Origin. He had contributed so much to finding new species on the Beagle voyage that, before Origin, he had 6 species named after him. He also served 9 years as Secretary to the Royal Geological Society -- again before he wrote Origin. The only reason Darwin was a theological student is because he wanted to do science. In his day, there were no paid scientists like I am. Nearly all scientists were Anglican ministers and the rest were idependently wealthy. That was their "day job" and they did science in their large amount of free time.

Finally, Lyell never ranted to dislodge God. Look at these passages from Origin and tell me how Darwin wanted to dislodge God:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Then look at the Fontispiece to Origin. It's on the web.

 

[lucaspa]

On the question of the Rhipidistian -> Amphibian transitional series in the rocks.

For the sake of arguement, I've only quoted evolutionists here and not creationists.

Are these evolutionist scientists also guilty of having “unreasonable expectations”?

“the Cambrian strata of rocks...are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.”
— Dawkins, Richard, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987) p. 229

Ah, Argument from Authority. However, the true authority in science is the physical universe, not out-of-context or outdated quotes from scientists.

For instance, let's continue quoting Dawkins here:
"Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from the periods before about 600 million years ago. ... Both schools of thought [gradualists and punctuationists] despise the so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record."

Notice that this has nothing to do with the transition supposedly being discussed. But I guess false witness got dropped from the Commandments for creationists. Special dispensation, perhaps?

Anyway, here is where you can find some of the data to look at:
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

“There are too many places where the fossil record is complete enough that we ought to see transitions occurring. Even in these cases we see very few good examples of higher taxa evolving by gradual change. There may be a few examples here and there, but by and large we just don’t see the steps.”
— Stanley, Steven M., “Resetting the Evolutionary Timetable,” interview by Neil A. Campbell, Bioscience, vol. 36 (December 1986), p. 725

And that is because most speciation is by allopatric speciation and we rarely find the small population. Stanley here is arguing for punctuated equilibrium, but PE isn't against evolution. It simply says that the fossil record demonstrates allopatric speciation.

But notice the part I bolded. Sorry, Poetry, but this quote shows that the transitions that falsify creation science are there. "Very few" is enough to falsify creationism, because creationism demands that there be none.

 

[lucaspa]

Ayala, F., "The Mechanisms of Evolution." Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3,1978, p. 56.

The cytochrome c tree pictured in books and magazines is only one of forty trees generated by computer analysis of the data—the tree "corrected" for closest fit to the "known phylogeny" (i.e., the presumed evolutionary history)
Certainly such a tree cannot be claimed as independent confirmation of evolution.

This is where you article is misleading. It seems to be quoting Ayala here, but it really isn't. This isn't what Ayala said. It is their own assertion, not Ayala's. Nor is it correct. Trees are correlated to parsimony, but not to previous trees. For instance, the molecular evolutionists insisted that whales were related to artiodactyls even tho the fossil data said mesonchynids. Well, the molecular data turned out to be correct. Last year Gingerich found a fossil that put whales into the artiodactyls.

So, we have one case (among many) where the molecular tree was not corrected and proved to, indeed, be an independent confirmation of evolution.

The whole article, Poet, is typical of creationist literature. Hand-waving, bare assertions, out-of-context quotes. Including the famous made-up quote of Patterson by Sunderland!

 

[Buck72]

Let me give you an example from my research.

I study fracture repair and wound healing. Obviously, I am interested in human fracture repair and wound healing. But I can't do the experiments on humans for a multitude of ethical and practical reasons. So I need to choose an animal model. Now comes the crucial question: Which animal(s) do I choose as models? Evolution states that certain animals are similar because they share a common ancestor. Because of inheritance, they will share characteristics of that ancestor. As the relationship moves farther apart, they will share fewer characteristics. OK, the original determination of similarity is based on (usually) static characteristics visible to the naked eye: shape of bones, shape of limbs, warm vs. cold blood, fur vs. scales or feathers, etc. No one ever looked at fracture repair or wound healing as a basis for deciding similarity or relationship. However, at this stage we make a prediction based upon evolution: since the animals descended from a common ancestor, then the unknown characteristics (fracture repair) will also have to be similar as well as the known characteristics.

How about a common DESIGNER?

So what are the closest relatives to humans. The great apes, especially chimps.

What happened to Genesis 1:26-27!!??

Please note that creation does not permit this prediction. There is no reason fracture repair HAS to be similar between rats and humans. It MAY be, if the Creator so chose, but you can't predict that. Instead, you would have to test all species to see which one had fracture repair closest to human.

Where do these findings come from? What about soul fracture repair?

Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him.

Yes, the Bible is most assuredly wrong...place your bets on this one. It will only cost you your soul to wager...step on up.

If creationism were true, we would have spent all our time determining which animal models to use for each specific question and we would not have had any time to research the problem.

Or perhaps simply giving God the glory and proceeding on with your work in His name?

Because the Bible isn't God. And because God really did create. Science studies God's second book -- Creation.

I hear this blythe argument at every turn of the "scientific pages" - save it for Christ, maybe He will validate this plea.

Just read this thread in its entirety, or perhaps just this part:

Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Buck, you need to remember that creationism was the accepted scientific theory from 1700-1830. Scientific finds were amalgamated into the Biblical context.

I remember more than that brother, the fact is not simply the 130 year period you describe, but the 5000 year period up until the 1800's...evolution is a NEW idea, not an old one, and certainly not something to boast about in light of the solid instruction of the word, but if people think they are wiser than God...go ahead, refuse belief in the Bible and see what it leads to, don't mind me, just a witness here.

Even index fossils were said to be evidence for Noah's Flood when first published! But there was just too much evidence that could not be there if a literal Bible were true. Scientists, all of whom were Christian, first realized that 1) the earth was very old, 2) was not created in 6 literal days, and 3) had never had a world-wide Flood. God told them all this in His Creation and they would not turn their back on God.

Lyell gave us the horsedroppings of the "geologic column". Nevermind that the studies failed to account for a non-uniformitarianistic possibility (ie: FLOOD). And then George Lucas gave us "Star Wars".

Should we also discard heliocentrism instead of "forcing" new observations on planetary motions to fit into it? When the orbit of Uranus was seen not to fit into Newtonian mechanics, should we have brought out geocentrism again?

Perhaps Uranus does not fit into Newtonian mechanics because the conclusions of how it got to be in its present condition are both inconclusive and unverified?

What you are forgetting is that, once theories are falsified, they are falsified and nothing brings them back. Creationism was falsified in the period 1700-1850. It can't be brought back. It's false and will forever stay false.

Incorrect. The theory that broke from creation seperated itself and is itself unverified, and incompatible with creation. Creation is NOT falsified any more than Christ is falsified.

This is a Christian Forum right?

Now, over the years, there have been multiple challenges to all aspects of evolution, from common ancestry to natural selection. However, all the challenges have failed and it was shown that going outside the evolutionary theory did not fit their data after all.

Wrong.

The data that falsified creationism is still there; it hasn't gone away.

No "data" - only specualtion and heresay.

No more than the "bias" of most scientists that heliocentrism is THE answer obfuscates the potential to find truth in science. As I said, Kimura, Gould, Margulis, etc. have all challenged parts of evolutionary theory.

So there is no bias with evolutionists? I'm sorry, my skills of being minimally observant seem to obfuscate the simplicity and basic reason of the evolutionary agenda to replace "science" with a humanistic religion. Excuse me while I pass on the fanatical buy-in. I'm painfully aware that GOD challenges evolution, and I choose to side with Him.

I think what you are doing is not talking about evolution the scientific theory but rather evolution as atheism. But evolution is not atheism. Never has been. Isn't now despite the efforts of some atheists to make it so.

Forget atheism...what about what God said? Anyone still believe in the Bible? What about FAITH!?

LOL! Not empirical! Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and enter the world "evolution" as your search term. Notice the sheer number of articles that you get. Start reading the abstracts and then try that "not empirical" line on me again.

No, not lol. Empirical means ABSOLUTE AND DEMONSTRABLE. Evolution is nothing but a theory without any real substance. Much like any Democratic nominees campaign posture.

We do have purely theoretical theories. Loop quantum gravity, No Boundary, ekpyrotic, etc. We don't accept them like we do evolution. Precisely because they are not empirical and evolution is.

Huh!?

In Genesis 2:4 God says it took a single day. By your logic, this makes God wrong.

Okay, you claim to be learned and I will give you that claim, but play straight with me when it comes to "Bible Time".

In this forum, I have laid out the translation of the word "yom" (hebrew for 'day') ad nauseum. Please review previous posts.

Yom, according to theological evolutionists ALWAYS means "period of time", while to the creationist, and any serious Hebrew scholar, it has a plethora of meanings according to CONTEXT.

I'd like to see your data on that, please. However, remember that it is the environment that determines the design problem for plants and animals.

I read other sources beside CNN. Hang on, I'll send a few your way. And for the record, I OPPOSE the kind of liberal **** like the Kyoto Treaty that takes it inconclusive CONTROL MEASURES to invade my country (by the hands of liberal freaks like clinton) for a globalistic agenda that offers ZERO solutions other than to force me, the common man, into a communistic state of submission...pardon me while I load another magazine. This is nothing but rot-gut science and an enthusiastic sell-out of the globalists to make ready for Revelation.

This is so wrong on so many levels. Darwin was an acknowledged scientist long before he wrote Origin. He had contributed so much to finding new species on the Beagle voyage that, before Origin, he had 6 species named after him. He also served 9 years as Secretary to the Royal Geological Society -- again before he wrote Origin. The only reason Darwin was a theological student is because he wanted to do science. In his day, there were no paid scientists like I am. Nearly all scientists were Anglican ministers and the rest were idependently wealthy. That was their "day job" and they did science in their large amount of free time.

Darwin was a NON-SCIENTIST. Lyell provided nothing more than a virile rant against God and a pathetic "geologic column" (by which scientists today date fossils; LOL) that has never, nor will ever, been observed in nature.

 

[Curt]

I read all of these words of men leaning to their own understanding, interpreting Scriptures to fit doctrines, telling us that God became helpless to inspire when The Bible was put together, and that it wasn't put together in the right order, and telling us when it was written. This all based on what man has written. This is really sad coming from people claiming to be Students of The Bible. God has never told us to read any books of the writtings of men about His Scriptures, but He has told us to meditate in His Scriptures all the time.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Sounds like a call to anti-intellectualism to me Curt.

 

[lucaspa]

This is really sad coming from people claiming to be Students of The Bible. ... but He has told us to meditate in His Scriptures all the time.

And that is what students of the Bible did -- meditated and then wrote down their meditations. What's wrong with that? You expect them to just keep the meditations in their heads?

I notice there is no real refutation of the points I made, just a general lament that you don't like the points. Too bad.

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: What you are forgetting is that, once theories are falsified, they are falsified and nothing brings them back. Creationism was falsified in the period 1700-1850. It can't be brought back. It's false and will forever stay false.

Incorrect. The theory that broke from creation seperated itself and is itself unverified, and incompatible with creation. Creation is NOT falsified any more than Christ is falsified.

You need to read more closely. Look at what I bolded. Creation and creationism are two separate things. This misunderstanding contributes to everything else in your post.

Creation is a theological statement that God created the heavens and the earth. You are correct. Creation is not falsified. Nor did I say it was.

Creationism is a very specific scientific theory about how God created. It is based loosely on a literal reading of Genesis 1-11 but also contains a lot from pagan Greek philosophy and some modern ad hoc hypotheses where creationists just make it up as they go along. The problem is that you have confused creation with creationism.

Creationism is indeed falsified -- shown wrong.

What you are missing is that evolution is also a method of how God created. It is not anti-God or anti-Bible. It is just anti-literal interpretation of the Bible. But I'll trust God over fallible man's interpretation of the Bible any day.

How about a common DESIGNER?

I dealt with that. There is no reason that compels an entity designing from scratch to make all mammals have the same fracture healing? As I said, it's whim. And in order to check out that the Designer had that whim, we have to check each and every mammal.

The common Designer argument also fails when we get to the data. For instance, why did this common designer make a very similar pinhole and camera eye for the octopus and vertebrates but wire them backwards? Wouldn't the common designer have used the best design for the wiring of each eye?

Or, the common designer makes a perfectly good grasping thumb in raccoons and primates. It makes the same thumb in bears but fuses that thumb to the other fingers. Then, when it comes to the panda, this "common designer" decides to make a grasping "thumb" out of a wrist bone! Instead of the perfectly good thumb that is already there! All the "common designer" had to do was free that thumb up!

What happened to Genesis 1:26-27!!??

What about it? The closest relatives to humans are still the great apes, especially chimps.

Where do these findings come from? What about soul fracture repair?

The "findings" come from looking at God's Creation. What about soul fracture repair? Am I looking at that? NO! I'm looking at bone fracture repair.

lucaspa: Please note that creation does not permit this prediction. There is no reason fracture repair HAS to be similar between rats and humans. It MAY be, if the Creator so chose, but you can't predict that. Instead, you would have to test all species to see which one had fracture repair closest to human.

Isa 1:4 Alas, sinful nation, People weighed down with iniquity, Offspring of evildoers, Sons who act corruptly! They have abandoned the LORD, They have despised the Holy One of Israel, They have turned away from Him.

I'm reporting this one. You asked how evolution was useful. Specifically you asked:
I must ask Lucaspa, what kind of advances do we have that can trace evolution as their theoretical benefactor, and why would these advances would have been stymied by a purely creationist perspective?

I'm telling you, and now you are using the opportunity to tell me I'm sinful and an offspring of evildoers!!?? I'm giving you exactly the answer you want, and because you don't like it you flame me??!!

Yes, the Bible is most assuredly wrong...place your bets on this one. It will only cost you your soul to wager...step on up.

I never said the Bible was wrong, have I? All I did was show research based on evolution and why we could not get the results under creationism.

lucaspa: If creationism were true, we would have spent all our time determining which animal models to use for each specific question and we would not have had any time to research the problem.

Or perhaps simply giving God the glory and proceeding on with your work in His name?

But "my work" would have had to be wasting my time looking for appropriate fracture models. Not finding new ways to repair bones better. Buck, I really thought I would see better from you. You asked a straightforward scientific question. I gave you a straightforward answer and now you turn it into a theism vs atheism argument.

I hear this blythe argument at every turn of the "scientific pages" - save it for Christ, maybe He will validate this plea.

The argument of two books is Christian, not scientific.
"the great book ... of created things. Look above you; look below you; read it, note it." St. Augustine, Sermon 126 in Corpus Christianorum

"duplex cognito" John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed by John T. McNeil, 1.2.1, 1960.

"Man learns from two books: the universe for the human study of things created by God; and the Bible, for the study of God's superior will and truth. One belongs to reason, the other to faith. Between them there is no clash." Pope Pius Xii, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Science, Dec. 3, 1939.

"The book of God's Word leads to salvation, which is the ultimate concern for mankind, whereas the book of God's Works leads to science, which confers lesser but still very great benefits. This distinction can perserve the integrity both of faith and science, and forestall unnecessary confrontations between them, confrontations wich can only confuse our understanding of both books through which God speaks. If we fail to respect the knowledge of God attainable through either of these books, we neglect his gifts. While one book confers ultimate grace of salvation, and the other confers the proximate benefits of knowledge, we do not need to choose one to the exclusion of the other, for God has laid both open before us. " Roland Frye, Epilog, in Is God a Creationist? ed by Roland Frye, 1983, pg 200

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

If you want to deny Christianity and Christian thinking, go ahead. But don't blame science for that.

I remember more than that brother, the fact is not simply the 130 year period you describe, but the 5000 year period up until the 1800's...evolution is a NEW idea, not an old one, and certainly not something to boast about in light of the solid instruction of the word,

Gravity is a "new" idea too, but I don't see you arguing that. Relativity is even newer and quantum mechanics newer still. None are based in a literal Bible but you don't have a problem with that.

The point is that scientists -- all Christians -- looked at creationism and found thru God that it was false. God simply didn't create that way.

if people think they are wiser than God...go ahead

A good description of creationism.

refuse belief in the Bible and see what it leads to, don't mind me, just a witness here.

Who is refusing a belief in the Bible. I'm refusing a belief in your interpretation of parts of the Bible. But hey, I have a choice between God or Buck. Tough choice (yeah, right!), but I will have to go with God. Sorry, Buck.

Lyell gave us the horsedroppings of the "geologic column".

Actually, it was Reverends Sedgwick, Burnett, and Buckland that did that.

Nevermind that the studies failed to account for a non-uniformitarianistic possibility (ie: FLOOD).

Oh, no, Lyell's work did account for it. After all, Lyell was a student of Buckland, a catastrophist and the last of the honest Flood geologists. But even Buckland graciously admitted that the Flood had never happened. The data was simply too overwhelming.

That really sticks in your craw, doesn't it? The myth of creationism is that the Flood was never given a fair chance. But history shows otherwise. The Flood was assumed true. As I said, when Williams came out with index fossils and helped use them to correlate strata in 1798, they were thought to be evidence for the Flood! Rev. Townsend published a book on Williams' methods and part of the title was "evidence for the Flood". So the carefully constructed myth of Lyell and unfair rejection of the Flood falls apart when you really examine it. Fortunately for Christianity, Christianity still survives even when we really examine creationism and find that it too falls apart.

Perhaps Uranus does not fit into Newtonian mechanics because the conclusions of how it got to be in its present condition are both inconclusive and unverified?

Nope. You don't know much history, do you? Uranus' orbit doesn't fit Newtonian mechanics because Neptune's gravity affects the orbit. It was the anomalies of Uranus' orbit and the attempt to save Newtonian mechanics that led to the discovery of Neptune.

No "data" - only specualtion and heresay.

We can go into the data that falsifies creationism if you want. The data that was there in 1830 and the data that has been found since.

So there is no bias with evolutionists? I'm sorry, my skills of being minimally observant seem to obfuscate the simplicity and basic reason of the evolutionary agenda to replace "science" with a humanistic religion.

I agree that some atheists have indeed tried to misuse evolution to say God does not exist. The problem is that they get the science wrong. Evolution doesn't say that. So yes, if you want to fight atheism, I'll help you. If you want to fight the atheists' use of evolution to back atheism, I'll help with that, too. But you won't successfully combat either by saying evolution is wrong. Instead, you will be successful by using good science and showing that evolution and science do not back atheism.

I'm painfully aware that GOD challenges evolution, and I choose to side with Him.

This is where I have to tell you that GOD backs evolution. In fact, in His Creation God shouts at the top of his lungs "I did it by evolution." You don't listen. What's worse, here you set yourself up AS God. And, of course, here I can't help you. At this point you become apostate and I won't follow you over that theological cliff.

Forget atheism...what about what God said? Anyone still believe in the Bible? What about FAITH!?

We have been over what the Bible says. The creation stories in Genesis 1-3 are structured so that anyone should see that they are not literal. Instead, they are designed to tell you the who and why of creation. Along with some other truths about how humans relate to God. They were never meant to tell you the how of creation. God has His Creation to do that.

What you have here is what is called "bibliolatry" or worship of the Bible. You have made your interpretation of the Bible into a false god. I'm hoping, for your sake, that we can get you back from this error.

No, not lol. Empirical means ABSOLUTE AND DEMONSTRABLE. Evolution is nothing but a theory without any real substance. Much like any Democratic nominees campaign posture.

1. You make up definitions as you go along, too?
"1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment "
Evolution is empirical. Not only is it capable of being disproved by observation or experiment, it is based on observation and experience. Look thru Origin and you will see all the observations used. Evolution has been observed. We have seen natural selection make new designs and we have observed new species formed, both in the lab and in the wild. I can give you a partial list, if you'd like. Or just go to PubMed and enter "evolution" as the search term and begin reading the over 120,000 papers for just a portion of the observations.

2. Where did the political ad hominem come from? You think Republican politicians are any better?

Huh!?

It was pretty clear. Science does contain theories that are not based on observation. I listed 3. We don't accept them as (provisionally) true as we do evolution precisely because evolution has the observations and these theories do not. Instead, we keep the 3 theories as ideas to play with and see if sometime we can't get the observations we need to falsify them or support them.

 

[lucaspa]

In this forum, I have laid out the translation of the word "yom" (hebrew for 'day') ad nauseum. Please review previous posts.

And I've laid out "beyom" ad nauseum. Please review previous posts.

Yom, according to theological evolutionists ALWAYS means "period of time", while to the creationist, and any serious Hebrew scholar, it has a plethora of meanings according to CONTEXT.

To Day-Age Theory, "yom" means period of time. But Day-Agers are not "theological evolutionists". Theistic evolutionists are not Day-Agers; they are a form of old earth creationists.

But in Genesis 2:4 we are talking the word "beyom". You will find it also in Genesis 2:18. I have consulted 4 Hebrew-English dictionaries and all 4 say that "beyom" is "in the day". Not multiple days.

I read other sources beside CNN. Hang on, I'll send a few your way. And for the record, I OPPOSE the kind of liberal **** like the Kyoto Treaty that takes it inconclusive CONTROL MEASURES to invade my country (by the hands of liberal freaks like clinton) for a globalistic agenda that offers ZERO solutions other than to force me, the common man, into a communistic state of submission...pardon me while I load another magazine. This is nothing but rot-gut science and an enthusiastic sell-out of the globalists to make ready for Revelation.

It's nice to see you evaluating the data in such an unbiased mood. I can see now why you are a creationist -- you let your emotions run what you see in the data. The data must fit your preconceived emotional position rather than adjust your position to the data.

Darwin was a NON-SCIENTIST.

Darwin was published in his field, was a member of several scientific societies, and was regarded by scientists and the foremost biologist of his time. Your assertion is simply contradicted by the data.

Lyell provided nothing more than a virile rant against God and a pathetic "geologic column" (by which scientists today date fossils; LOL) that has never, nor will ever, been observed in nature.

Have you ever read Lyell? He did not rant against God. He was a theist who eventually became a deist! I'm afraid you have absorbed the a lot of creationist mythology here.

The geologic column, as I said, was worked out by Reverends Sedgwick, Burnett, and Buckland. And no, fossils are not dated by the geological column. The entire column is not in one place, but overlapping pieces are found all over the world and it's no different, really, than putting together the overlapping pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to make up a whole picture.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

You just contradicted yourself.

You cannot except evolution and Genesis if you take Genesis literally.

k?

i think they are reconsialable, but the curent theory of evolution has some problems with it as evedenced by the bible.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

Sounds like a call to anti-intellectualism to me Curt.

anti intelectualism is the exact reason God tells us not to lean on our own understanding; being an 'intelectual' is trying to be all knowing as a human, it's foolishness. Learning and gaining wisdom and knowledge are wonderfull things, but when your own ego about what you know causes you to fail in faith then you're surely foolish in your leaning on your own understanding, not every word that comes from the mouth of God.

 

[Buck72]

What you are missing is that evolution is also a method of how God created

That is a LIE. Nothing more than a lie among lies. You put your entire faith on a lie and find fault with any who challenge you.

The Bible challenges you and calls you a liar, on my own accord it really doesn't matter to me since I did not author the Bible. I simply believe in God's word. You believe in DarwinianISM, EvolutionISM, and absurdity so deep it will be the mockery of the Ages to come.

Sorry to be so direct and blunt, but dang, you guys are really in the dark here.

The worst part of it all is the claim that this is how God works...it is beyond the worst of Divine misrepresentations.

 

[Buck72]

Bear with me, please, for His sake...

Folks here get so passionate about evolution, I feel like I must be in "Evolutionforums.com". But, after a careful check of my address bar in my browser, I see: "Christianforums.com", yes CHRISTIAN; literally translated: "Little Christ".

We, as Christians are to be about the mission and business of our Master, yet I find a strange conflict here. Why?

I comes down to who can you trust. Either I trust the Bible, and that it is simply the word of God, as it claims to be, as it describes, in intimate, supernatural language, the Creator, and the creation; the Genesis and the Revelation, in unparalleled efficiency and intra-complimentary writings of inspired men in 66 books composed over thousands of years that make up the Bible.

The other side, claims Darwin, ape ancestry, complex organisms "evolving" from amino acids with the magic ingredient of "billions of years"...and a last-minute pasting of the word "God" on the end to appease any otherwise irritated conscience.

Those that hold the Bible, find the answers in it to be sufficient. God is not a man that He should lie, He does not change, and His word is sharper than any two-edged sword even to divide body and soul. The Genesis account is as factual as the Resurrection account. There are NOT inconsistencies and bits and pieces of truth mixed among bits and pieces of lies in the Word of God. That claim is itself a lie.

It frightens me, as I can see the dark cloud of Judgment on the horizon in this godless generation, that so many that carry the mantle: "Christian" fail to comply with step #1:

BELIEVE.

If the Bible is wrong, than find a new Jesus. Christ quoted the OT enough times to validate it just find for my skeptic mind...any real student of the Bible could see that one without any help.

Why dump the faith of Christ for the "faith" of something that Christ did NOT command you to accept?

No one here can claim to be an original thinker in evolutionary theory. Therefore you are buying into someone else's idea. I cannot help but find amusement in the fact that you congratualte one another on being such intellectuals, but you do not seem to able to break from the lemming, cultic followership that evolution demands of you to be in the "science club", nor have you recognized that Christ does not reward us according to our intellect, but our FAITHFULNESS.

You were taught, and believed. Eve was decieved by the serpent because she did not believe the word of God, and then bought into satan's lie when he told her that God did not really say what He said.

Anyone besides me aware that the first thing recorded in the Bible out of satan's mouth is him questioning God's word? Eve believed his lie above God's word -- she was DECIEVED...now look at the place!!

This will preach brothers...think about it.

Christ does not tell you that evolution is the truth, in fact, He tells you the opposite of evolution in EVERY TURN OF THE BIBLE. Arguing otherwise requires you to abandon all rational thought and literalistic comprehension that even my two-year old can understand and go onto say that "the day in this case is not a day at all, but millions of years"; and "the flood was not worldwide, it was local, the text that says otherwise was mistranslated".

Am I missing something!?

 

[MagusAlbertus]

well, buck, i think there are reasonable interpretations of the bible that preserve it's factual and literal basis but allow for multi million year evolution.



but



after talking to these people for just a few days it seems that I would be standing on the side of the faithless and scripture haters if i accepted that interpretation... I came here expecting to be flamed by people like you for saying it's a possibility, but all I’ve been getting is people upset that I believe that the bible is right and beasts came after birds.

confusing to me that they would reject an open minded opinion that still holds true to the infallibility of scripture.