The Deception of Genesis

Critias · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Yes I do believe that or that you don't understand the material. The YEC side is abysmal in its science understanding. You may have read but I doubt you understood.

Same can be said about TOEs when it comes to the Bible.

What we see as a current trend is that TOEs read their science books and expound on them as truth.

YECs read their Bibles and expound on God's message as truth.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Critias said:
Jews have a longer and richer line of Theological scholarship than any you mentioned above. Are the many Jews stupid because they believe a six day creation?

The Jewish scholars are probably the most liberal with respect to science you can find for the most part. Jewish thought has always been reconciled with scientific discovery as the Jewish educational institutes love to point out in contrast to the silly Bible colleges as they put it.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Critias said:
Same can be said about TOEs when it comes to the Bible.

What we see as a current trend is that TOEs read their science books and expound on them as truth.

YECs read their Bibles and expound on God's message as truth.

That's all well and good but we can actually produce real world results and successful models of the world around us and the YEC's never have and never will. I also believe you accept the fruits of scientific labour with no problem. Good luck finding a Creation science tool or gadget or theory that works or predicts anything.

Critias · Oct 31, 2005

I assume no TEs here have an answer for my question in post #115.

Critias · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
The Jewish scholars are probably the most liberal with respect to science you can find for the most part. Jewish thought has always been reconciled with scientific discovery as the Jewish educational institutes love to point out in contrast to the silly Bible colleges as they put it.

Well, you must inform my Messianic friends who are theologian scholars about this.

Critias · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
That's all well and good but we can actually produce real world results and successful models of the world around us and the YEC's never have and never will. I also believe you accept the fruits of scientific labour with no problem. Good luck finding a Creation science tool or gadget or theory that works or predicts anything.

I have the Bible that delivers God's message to mankind. For me, that is enough. I have faith.

Micaiah · Oct 31, 2005

There are many areas of science that have provided further insight into the mechanism of evolution that TE's claim to believe in. Darwin claimed that all living things came from a simple living cell. That cell evolved through a process of natural selection and variation. Darwin did not know then what we know today about the DNA. Any serious study of the DNA should leave a person in awe of the Creator.

What we do know is that many if not all of the examples of so called evolution that we have today are not the kind that will transform the cell into a person. Variation is claimed to be the result of mutations. The mutations typically observed in these examples results in the loss or rearrangement of DNA rather than the creation of new DNA. The chance of a a string of mutations surviving in a population and resulting in the large scale changes required by evolution is so low it can be considered impossible. That is if the right kind of mutations could e found. In spite of all the scientific research, there are only a few tenuous examples of the type of genetic change required to go from cell to person.

Why is it that scientists continue to promote this theory as fact even though they are unable to describe and find examples of even the most basic processes? Our knowledge of origins is but a drop in the bucket of all there is to know. Just because there is more published material supporting the TOE than YEC doesn't mean that therefore it is more correct. That seems to be the rationale of TE's. It leads to claims that the historicity of Genesis is scientifically impossible. Increasingly organisations such as AIG are questioning and shaking the fundamental assumptions of the evolutionsists and confirming what we already know. God's word is true and dependable.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Critias said:
Well, you must inform my Messianic friends who are theologian scholars about this.

I said majority. The major Jewish Universities are excellent science institutions as well as theological ones and love to point out that not a single US Bible College has any scientific reputation worth a penny. In fact, science is an anathema in US Bible schools. It's a part of the curriculum that is ignored or *******ised.

What kind of joke is this. It bleeped bas-tardised. Hilarious in a sad way.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Critias said:
I have the Bible that delivers God's message to mankind. For me, that is enough. I have faith.

That is not the topic at hand. The fact is the Bible doesn't provide the how to perform science instruction necessary to solve real world physics problems. And yet you rely on these solutions for your very survival in the world.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Micaiah said:
What we do know is that many if not all of the examples of so called evolution that we have today are not the kind that will transform the cell into a person. Variation is claimed to be the result of mutations. The mutations typically observed in these examples results in the loss or rearrangement of DNA rather than the creation of new DNA.

Complete nonsense. Even Googling could set this straight. Haven't studied a thing on this topic have you? It's OK just admit it.

Why is it that scientists continue to promote this theory as fact even though they are unable to describe and find examples of even the most basic processes?

More rubbish. You could fill a few semi-trucks with literature on mutation in genetics and cell biology.

Our knowledge of origins is but a drop in the bucket of all there is to know. Just because there is more published material supporting the TOE than YEC doesn't mean that therefore it is more correct.

Because YEC "science" is not science and is childish and laughable to anyone with training.

Increasingly organisations such as AIG are questioning and shaking the fundamental assumptions of the evolutionsists and confirming what we already know. God's word is true and dependable.

All AIG has done is to lie and misstate so as to make money of a gullible flock. The only thing shaking is the laughter of the few scientists who have heard of them and their goofy website. It's not science people, it's a mixture of infantile musings, fabrications and lies. Of course when a dollar is to be made......

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Critias said:
Well, you must inform my Messianic friends who are theologian scholars about this.

Talk about obscure. There is what, about 20,000 Messianics in the world. How many are theological scholars? 10 or 15 of them. How many get any respect in Judaism as a whole? Zero?

Micaiah · Oct 31, 2005

That is not the topic at hand. The fact is the Bible doesn't provide the how to perform science instruction necessary to solve real world physics problems. And yet you rely on these solutions for your very survival in the world.

Can you provde an example of the type of real world physics problems that is solved by evolution and is required for our survival in the world today?

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Micaiah said:
Can you provde an example of the type of real world physics problems that is solved by evolution and is required for our survival in the world today?

I thought we were talking about geology on this thread?

I believe most microbiologists and pharmacologists would say it does as well as research in computer algorith design.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Micaiah said:
Can you provde an example of the type of real world physics problems that is solved by evolution and is required for our survival in the world today?

Isn't it ironic that Bush made a statement about evolution being "just a theory" and then he makes a bird flu speech about its possible mutation into a human-human transmitting form.

Micaiah · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Complete nonsense. Even Googling could set this straight. Haven't studied a thing on this topic have you? It's OK just admit it.

More rubbish. You could fill a few semi-trucks with literature on mutation in genetics and cell biology.

Because YEC "science" is not science and is childish and laughable to anyone with training.

All AIG has done is to lie and misstate so as to make money of a gullible flock. The only thing shaking is the laughter of the few scientists who have heard of them and their goofy website. It's not science people, it's a mixture of infantile musings, fabrications and lies. Of course when a dollar is to be made......

When you are ready feel free to provide some of the examples of mutations with explanations in your own words. Remember we're talking here about mutations that have been shown to increase information in the genome.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Micaiah said:
When you are ready feel free to provide some of the examples of mutations with explanations in your own words. Remember we're talking here about mutations that have been shown to increase information in the genome.

Nice game. Why don't you read what biologists have to say on this matter as opposed to having a geophysicist parse the material for you. There are many websites/books that detail the different mutations, how they add or change to the genome and how this is mathematically provable as information increase. In other words do your own leg work!!!!!!!

I sometimes think you guys don't do the work so as to remain ignorant so that you can pretend the game is still playable. Anyone who makes the information comment about mutations is either ignorant of the facts or is lying. Why not learn the facts?

In fact why not define "information" for us so that w can mathematically show that mutation can add information. This can and has been done many times.

Micaiah · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
I thought we were talking about geology on this thread?

I believe most microbiologists and pharmacologists would say it does as well as research in computer algorith design.

The thread is titled the deception of Genesis. The inference is that science proves that a literal understanding of Genesis is wrong and therefore if that is what God intended he is deceiving us. My point was to show that scientific evidence shows that evolution has not and cannot happen. A study of genetics is the most relevant to the discussion.

On the question of geology, can you tell me in you own words:

1. where we can find complete examples of the geological column?
2. How deep it is now?
3. How deep it would be hypothetically if it was not subject to weathering and erosion?

Please provde references with your comments.

KerrMetric · Oct 31, 2005

Micaiah said:
The thread is titled the deception of Genesis. The inference is that science proves that a literal understanding of Genesis is wrong and therefore if that is what God intended he is deceiving us. My point was to show that scientific evidence shows that evolution has not and cannot happen. A study of genetics is the most relevant to the discussion.

On the question of geology, can you tell me in you own words:

1. where we can find complete examples of the geological column?
2. How deep it is now?
3. How deep it would be hypothetically if it was not subject to weathering and erosion?

Please provde references with your comments.

Google and don't be lazy. You know full well there are many references to this out there.

Why don't you get them and then give me your critique of them.

Oh and by the way I can tell you don't know what the geological column is.

Uphill Battle · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Talk about obscure. There is what, about 20,000 Messianics in the world. How many are theological scholars? 10 or 15 of them. How many get any respect in Judaism as a whole? Zero?

I notice that you appeal to the argument of authority very often. More of these believe this.. more of those... none of these... etc... Is majority always right?

Micaiah · Oct 31, 2005

KerrMetric said:
Nice game. Why don't you read what biologists have to say on this matter as opposed to having a geophysicist parse the material for you. There are many websites/books that detail the different mutations, how they add or change to the genome and how this is mathematically provable as information increase. In other words do your own leg work!!!!!!!

I sometimes think you guys don't do the work so as to remain ignorant so that you can pretend the game is still playable. Anyone who makes the information comment about mutations is either ignorant of the facts or is lying. Why not learn the facts?

In fact why not define "information" for us so that w can mathematically show that mutation can add information. This can and has been done many times.

You are the one playing the game. I asked you for an example, you are unable to provide one. I have to assume your talk is mere bluff and you do not know what you are talking about.

as opposed to having a geophysicist parse the material for you.

Why not be sure of your facts before making wrong assumptions. Which geophysicist are we talking about.

The Deception of Genesis

Critias

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Critias

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency