Why I rejected theistic evolution

[Martyrs44]

As a young man I argued for evolution vehemently as a professing Christian. Then I was given a copy of Dr. Henry Morris's book The Twilight of Evolution and I was shocked to discover that he himself was once an evolutionist. His stuff was more clear to me than any evoloutionist author/scientist I ever read.



After reading that it was downhill for evolution for about two years until the final blow. Once I realized that Biogenesis was law and that life can only come from the Creator and that nature is incapable of generating life, there was no question to me that the Bible was accurate in saying, "IN Him is life..." All life on earth came originally from the Lord. Nature can only do what it is pre-programmed by its Creator.

Secondly, the long ages of time in the matter of millions and billions of years is in direct conflict with both scripture and science. I realized that Moses did not waste his time giving the chronology of mankind in the early stages of human history. The fact is that Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all give the same names...at least in the early stages of human history. The first twelve names given are identical in each of the three accounts. That spoke very loudly to me because I came to realize that Jesus family lineage as stated in Luke has to be legitimate and correct in order to be legal by Jewish law. Otherwise the Lord could not make legal claim to the throne of David when the kingdom comes.

Thirdly, the dating methods that are used in our time are all fraught with assumptions. No matter what the method, we cannot know by observation or even experimentation what the conditions of the so-called 'early earth' were according to evolution theory. The truth is that if God 'spake and it was done'...a la 'Let there by light and there was light' then anything He made would have to have the appearance of age. in light of this there have been countless numbers of rock samples dated in the range of millions of years that were later discovered to come out of volcanoes of the last few hundred years including the ones from Mount St. Helens.

In the last fifteen yrs creation scientists have documented our position quite well in the matter of assumptions. Ex:

http://www.rae.org/pdf/radiodat.pdf

There are many other reasons I rejected evolution or any thought that God created the world in any other way than what He plainly told us in Genesis and the scriptures that confirm what is said in Genesis. There are many and not one scripture suggests evolution or long ages of time as the TE's suggest.

 

[Martyrs44]

In addition; as it concerns an earlier challenge to me by a poster who claimed my/our creationist position on dating methods predicated on assumptions is wrong.

Those assumptions go like this:

1. the system has been closed
2. the radioactive decay rate has remained constant.
3. the original conditions are known

But our counterparts insist, however, that the isochron dating method is not subject to the same criticism. The one who said this is either deliberately relying upon the ignorance of most of the readers or else he is too lazy to research our position on the matter. Not that such information is not available. Do Radioisotope Clocks Need Repair? Testing the Assumptions of Isochron Dating Using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb Isotopes

However. It is evolutionary scientists who are placing the isochron method in question. Let me document that.

As quoted in answersingenesis: Chemical Geology, Y.F. Zheng of the Geochemical Institute at the University of Gottingen in Germany says:

Quote: "Zheng wrote:

‘In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr vs. 87Rb/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods.’8​

And as if to make the point even more succinctly and clearly, Zheng also wrote in the abstract (or summary) of his paper:

‘As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system.’9​

One could hardly expect a more emphatic and complete ‘demolition job’ on the isochron dating method than that! Notice also that Zheng extends his criticism to the traditional uranium-lead (UPb) and currently-in-vogue samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) isochron methods.

(Radioactive Dating Method ‘Under Fire’ - Answers in Genesis

We just simply don't believe their dates and we have both scientific and logical reasons not to.

 

[Papias]

martyrs44 wrote:

Then I was given a copy of Dr. Henry Morris's book The Twilight of Evolution and I was shocked to discover that he himself was once an evolutionist. His stuff was more clear to me than any evoloutionist author/scientist I ever read.

You are aware, I hope, that Henry Morris is uneducated in biology, paleontology, or any other field related to evolution. His education is in civil engineering, and even that is from the 1930's. Relying on him for information about biology is obviously a mistake.

Secondly, the long ages of time in the matter of millions and billions of years is in direct conflict with both scripture and science.

But scripture directly says that God's times are longer (such as in Psalm 90:4), and even if he didn't then your same argument would suggest that germ theory, atomic theory, a spherical earth, and heliocentrism are false.

As for science, practically all scientists agree on an age of the earth of 4.6 billion years, as confirmed by many different dating methods. (we'll get back to that below).

The fact is that Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all give the same names...at least in the early stages of human history.

but remember that scripture helps interpret scripture, and it is Matthew (well, the Holy Spirit through Mt) who reminds us to look at these geneologies figuratively, by arbitrarily removing some names.

You can see this by comparing the same geneology in Mt and Cr:
Mt Gen# .....................Gospel of Matthew has.............................. 1st Chron. Has:
1....................................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .................Solomon's son was
2 ....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,............... Rehoboam
3 ....................................Abijah ..............................................Abijah his son
4....................................Asa .....................................................Asa his son,
5 ....................................Jehoshaphat ....................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6.................................... Jehoram ....................................Jehoram his son,
....................................Skipped....................................Ahaziah his son,

....................................Skipped ....................................Joash his son,
....................................Skipped ....................................Amaziah his son

7..........................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ......Azariah his son

8.................................... Jotham ....................................Jotham his son
]
9 ....................................Ahaz ....................................Ahaz his son,
10.....................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,

11.................................... Manasseh ....................................Manasseh his son,
12 ....................................Amon ....................................Amon his son,
13.................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, ..............Josiah his son.

Thirdly, the dating methods that are used in our time are all fraught with assumptions.

Reasonable ones, like the idea that things that are gases today were gases then. More importantly, if there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non-radioactive ones? I asked that before and you didn't answer.

then anything He made would have to have the appearance of age.

Would not the "appearance of age" mean that God was deceptive? If God were deceptive like that, then how do you know everything wasn't created last thursday, with the "appearance of age", including your memories of last wednesday?

in light of this there have been countless numbers of rock samples dated in the range of millions of years that were later discovered to come out of volcanoes of the last few hundred years including the ones from Mount St. Helens.

Hoax. Please supply and example and we can examine it.

One could hardly expect a more emphatic and complete ‘demolition job’ on the isochron dating method than that! Notice also that Zheng extends his criticism to the traditional uranium-lead (UPb) and currently-in-vogue samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd) isochron methods.

Um, did you actually read the original paper? If you did, you would have seen that it is about when the method can't be used, and the quote you copied from a creationist source is actually another creationist quote mine.

Papias

 

[Martyrs44]

Anyone else? Just ask and I will do my best to answer.

 

[Philis]

If evolution is wrong, does that still mean that the creation account has to be literal history? Couldn't we understand the creation account in a figurative way and still find out that the earth is 10,000 years old, 1,000,000 years old, or even 1,000,000,000,000 years old?

You seem to have cemented your theology to your science and I'm not sure why. Understanding the creation account in it's context in a figurative way makes more sense to me and it has even more meaning, but that doesn't mean I think evolution is true. Even with my view we may still find out the earth is 6,000 years old, and that's just fine with me.

I just don't understand why theology and science are coupled together so tightley.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Anyone else? Just ask and I will do my best to answer.

No, Papias pretty much summed it up.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, Papias pretty much summed it up.

Oh Really!!!

You are aware, I hope, that Henry Morris is uneducated in biology, paleontology, or any other field related to evolution. His education is in civil engineering, and even that is from the 1930's. Relying on him for information about biology is obviously a mistake.

Have you no shame?

He worked as a hydraulic engineer until 1942, when he returned to Rice to teach civil engineering for the next four years. After this, he worked at the University of Minnesota, where he received his master's degree in hydraulics in 1948 and his Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering in 1950.

In 1951, he became a professor and chair of civil engineering at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. He then served as a professor of applied science at Southern Illinois University and then as the department chair of civil engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Henry Madison Morris​

Henry Morris' undergraduate studies was in hydraulics, he worked in the field as a Professor receiving a PHD in the 50s. So much for his education being 'from the 30s', why do you do that when it's so easy to find out the truth. It might not be a good idea to get your Biology from him but it is even a worse idea to get your information about Biology or Henry Morris from you.

But scripture directly says that God's times are longer (such as in Psalm 90:4), and even if he didn't then your same argument would suggest that germ theory, atomic theory, a spherical earth, and heliocentrism are false.

What? You cite a verse of Scripture and you tie it directly to 'germ theory, atomic theory, a spherical earth and heliocentrism without even quoting the text. Are you typing blindfolded because you cannot possible believe that argument made any sense if you actual read it.

As for science, practically all scientists agree on an age of the earth of 4.6 billion years, as confirmed by many different dating methods. (we'll get back to that below).

Define science.

but remember that scripture helps interpret scripture, and it is Matthew (well, the Holy Spirit through Mt) who reminds us to look at these geneologies figuratively, by arbitrarily removing some names.

Here we go again...

[Snip the spam quote]

Dude seriously, I have a Bible, the references and a couple of selected quotes will do nicely. It would also be nice if when you make these long quotes if you actually had a point, that would be very helpful.

Reasonable ones, like the idea that things that are gases today were gases then. More importantly, if there were a problem with any assumption, then why would the methods agree with each other, even the non-radioactive ones? I asked that before and you didn't answer.

You asked him what exactly, let me see if I'm following this:

Reasonable one (whoever they are) like the idea that gases today were gases then. Check! I support the position that gases of today have always been gases as long as there have been gases. I agree that there 'were a problem' with assumptions. I have no idea what methods you are referring, radioactive or otherwise and I am not surprised he didn't answer you since you are making no sense.

Just thanks for not talking to him in the third person, I find that approach rather disturbing. I sometimes wonder if you have imaginary friends who read your posts and respond without us knowing it.

Would not the "appearance of age" mean that God was deceptive? If God were deceptive like that, then how do you know everything wasn't created last thursday, with the "appearance of age", including your memories of last wednesday?

So because you think the earth is old, based on gases being gases and assumptions being presumptive God must be deceiving us? You haven't made a single coherent statement and yet you parade your argument is if it were irrefutable.

Hoax. Please supply and example and we can examine it.

Why, so you can do one of your gas tests? He is obviously referring to the tests of the magna from Mount St Helen's that MIT dated millions of years old when it was about ten years old at the time.

That brings me to a point no evolutionist has attempted to answer. What sets the geologic clock back to zero?

Um, did you actually read the original paper? If you did, you would have seen that it is about when the method can't be used, and the quote you copied from a creationist source is actually another creationist quote mine.

Papias

Did you read what you wrote before you posted it or are you doing this blindfolded? Not a single substantive point but you dance in circles as if you had actually addressed a single thing he said.

Standard Papias spam attack, just keep typing and take a bow. In the Darwinian theater of the mind that gets you a standing ovation but in the real world it's the same old fallacious rhetoric you have been trolling the boards with since you started posting.

 

[mark kennedy]

If evolution is wrong, does that still mean that the creation account has to be literal history?

No, the problems posed by evolutionary biology are the same for a young earth creationist as they are for a Darwinian. The only difference is that Darwinians have all the time in the world, literally.

Couldn't we understand the creation account in a figurative way and still find out that the earth is 10,000 years old, 1,000,000 years old, or even 1,000,000,000,000 years old?

Sure we could, not that it would make any difference with regards to Adam being the first man. The earth can be billions of years old and the creation of life on earth still happen 6-10 thousand years ago.

You seem to have cemented your theology to your science and I'm not sure why.

At least he has a theology.

Understanding the creation account in it's context in a figurative way makes more sense to me and it has even more meaning, but that doesn't mean I think evolution is true. Even with my view we may still find out the earth is 6,000 years old, and that's just fine with me.

Define evolution.

I just don't understand why theology and science are coupled together so tightley.

Because epistemology (theories of knowledge) are questions of how I know anything, theological, scientific or otherwise. You should know, the word science actually means 'knowledge' but it's a specific kind of knowledge.

Are you seriously going to pretend your being 'open minded' after a post like this?

 

[Martyrs44]

If you believe papias over God's Word then I can't help you.

By the record, everytime this subject comes up he posts this chart that 'exposes' Matthew's genealogy with missing names and/or that some of the chronologies in the O.T. also have missing names or are inconsistent. Never mind the fact that I never even mentioned Matthew's genealogy in my OP. What he said was junk.

You see the reason this professing believer attacks the historical validity of the Bible is because he/they want you to believe them and their 'expertise' and not what the Holy Spirit inspired, never mind the fact that Paul, Peter, and even the Lord Jesus tell us that all of the scriptures are inspired and without error. II Tim.3:16, II Peter 1:21-22. John 10:35 (where Jesus said, 'the scripture cannot be broken').

But the names missing from Matthew are easy to grasp for those who understand that the list of ancestors in Matt. 1 are according to God's count, not man's. Matthew wrote just what the Holy Spirit told him to write and included just those names that the Lord intended to be included for His own eternal purposes, some of which have not been revealed to us yet. Let me illustrate it this way:

If I asked an IRS agent 'How many tax payers are in America?' How would he answer me? Would he give a definite number? No, he would ask, "Does that include American territories like Guam, Samoa, etc? Do you mean tax payers who file jointly with their mate or as single?' In other words it all depends upon who is included in the count and the kind of count under consideration.


One of the best Bible scholars in the last 40 yrs to bring this matter out was Arthur Custance in The Doorway Papers. Also The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings by Dr.Edwin Theile was helpful though I did not agree with all of it.

But I will not believe the cheap critics like papias, Assyrian, et. al. I have no confidence in them because they continually place question in and doubts about scripture; despite the fact that even David acknowledged in his time,

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Psalm 12;6-7)

But the TE's like papias don't care what this says; they would have you believe them rather than God's word. Caution, dear readers, they will tell you that it is my interpretation they differ with and not the Bible. But what did papias place in question above? Answer, the genealogy in Matthew 1!

Don't believe him, dear friends. Don't believe any of them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Anyone else? Just ask and I will do my best to answer.

I don't have any specific questions but could you elaborate on this statement for me?

Those assumptions go like this:

the system has been closed
the radioactive decay rate has remained constant.
the original conditions are known​

If you would mind not talking to me like I'm a geologist I would appreciate it. I think I got the first one, the samples are mixing over time and even if the decay rates are a constant how do we are not sure how the clock is set back to zero.

That's my take on it, could you explain your point of view on it a little more?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Philis]

At least he has a theology.

Are you seriously going to pretend your being 'open minded' after a post like this?

Why are you so rude to everyone here? I asked him some questions to learn what his view is and why he has it.

 

[Martyrs44]

I don't have any specific questions but could you elaborate on this statement for me?

I put that fellow on ignore because I asked him to not send me PM's and he did so anyway. So if you have any questions about what he said in response to my OP feel free to do so.

If you would mind not talking to me like I'm a geologist I would appreciate it. I think I got the first one, the samples are mixing over time and even if the decay rates are a constant how do we are not sure how the clock is set back to zero.

I'm not a geologist either but I have been on the field. I taught general sceince and I had geology in college. Dr. John Woodmarape is one of the best in establishing the terrible inconsistencies in dating rock/sediment. Google him and you will find a rich supply of evidence that evolutionists are so inaccurate in this area.

That's my take on it, could you explain your point of view on it a little more?

Of course. The scripture and science agree with each other, all things considered. After all, they should for God is the Creator and He is the source of knowledge. Science = knowledge and therefore science is God's realm to help man understand the world He gave us. Genesis is history and not symbolic.The authors of scripture tell us so and that is why the TE position is so very wrong and harmful to the faith of believing Christians.

Concerning the TE position that God deceived us if He made things with the appearance of age; they are shallow thinkers. How does moving the creation back to the big bang (13.7 bya) help them in this regard? No matter what was created at that time it would naturally have the appearance of age.

If you want more specifics I will gladly give them.

Regards.

 

[Martyrs44]

Why are you so rude to everyone here? I asked him some questions to learn what his view is and why he has it.

You need to look in a mirror while you ask that question.

 

[Philis]

You need to look in a mirror while you ask that question.

Please quote where I have been rude and I will apologize for it.

 

[Martyrs44]

Please quote where I have been rude and I will apologize for it.

You already did that for which you had to apologize.

Please post others now for I don't think you are the least bit interested in learning from us.

 

[Philis]

You already did that for which you had to apologize.

I don't recall being rude at all. I recall being mistaken about something Mark said and I promptly admitted it and apologized for it. There is a difference between being mistaken and being rude.

Please post others now for I don't think you are the least bit interested in learning from us.

I seriously want to hear your literal interpretation of Genesis 1. I even started a new thread hoping you'd chime in. If you can't explain a literal reading of Genesis 1 then just let me know and I will stop pestering you.

My main question is that you said the firmament is an expanse between the waters, and the waters above are ice. I'm just wondering how that works since the stars were placed in the firmament. How could there be ice above the stars that melts to cause the global flood?

 

[gluadys]

As a young man I argued for evolution vehemently as a professing Christian. Then I was given a copy of Dr. Henry Morris's book The Twilight of Evolution and I was shocked to discover that he himself was once an evolutionist. His stuff was more clear to me than any evoloutionist author/scientist I ever read.

So in spite of once teaching science, you agree you don't actually understand scientific papers very well and find it much easier to follow something aimed at the general populace.

I can understand that. I much prefer reading a good popularization like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll, than the tech-heavy reports he has actually had published in Nature.

Once I realized that Biogenesis was law and that life can only come from the Creator and that nature is incapable of generating life, there was no question to me that the Bible was accurate in saying, "IN Him is life..." All life on earth came originally from the Lord.

What does any of this have to do with evolution, since the theory of evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life?

I guess you aren't an exceptional "former believer in evolution" who actually understood evolution after all.

Nature can only do what it is pre-programmed by its Creator.

And there is another example of someone who calls himself a creationist, but ejects the Creator from nature. Do you think God merely created a self-running machine?

There is a name for that belief.
It is called Deism.
It is not biblical.

God does not pre-program nature as if it were a sophisticated computer. God works with and sustains nature at all points; God transcends nature (i.e. God is not equivalent to nature) and God is immanent in nature (for all of nature lives and moves and has its being in God.) The life of nature originates in the life of God and is always intimately connected to the life of God.

I don't pre-program my fingers to type on this computer. They act as they are moved by me moment by moment, because their life is my life. That is a better (though not perfect) analogy of what nature does.

Secondly, the long ages of time in the matter of millions and billions of years is in direct conflict with both scripture and science. I realized that Moses did not waste his time giving the chronology of mankind in the early stages of human history. The fact is that Genesis, Chronicles, and Luke all give the same names...at least in the early stages of human history. The first twelve names given are identical in each of the three accounts. That spoke very loudly to me because I came to realize that Jesus family lineage as stated in Luke has to be legitimate and correct in order to be legal by Jewish law. Otherwise the Lord could not make legal claim to the throne of David when the kingdom comes.

Well, when scientists come to the conclusion that the current estimate of the age of the earth is in conflict with science, I will take that into consideration. Meanwhile, it is hardly honest to say that there is a conflict between science and the scientific estimate of the age of the earth or of the universe.

As for the rest, what does it have to do with evolution?

And why would one not expect Luke and the authors of Chronicles to present the same genealogy as Genesis, since that was the source they copied it from?

It is not as if there is some mysterious coincidence here. Rather it is a matter of note when someone copying from the same source does not reproduce it exactly. (See Papias' post.)

Thirdly, the dating methods that are used in our time are all fraught with assumptions. No matter what the method, we cannot know by observation or even experimentation what the conditions of the so-called 'early earth' were according to evolution theory.

Paleontologists are certainly interested in learning what the early conditions facing life on earth were, but what part of evolutionary theory addresses that issue?

Again you show that you never really understood the theory of evolution. You may have "defended" it, but you never understood it.

There are many other reasons I rejected evolution or any thought that God created the world in any other way than what He plainly told us in Genesis and the scriptures that confirm what is said in Genesis. There are many and not one scripture suggests evolution or long ages of time as the TE's suggest.

So far you have told us you reject geology and physics because your theology of scripture conflicts with them.

You haven't said a word about evolution yet.

 

[mark kennedy]

I put that fellow on ignore because I asked him to not send me PM's and he did so anyway. So if you have any questions about what he said in response to my OP feel free to do so.

Ok, no problem.

I'm not a geologist either but I have been on the field. I taught general sceince and I had geology in college. Dr. John Woodmarape is one of the best in establishing the terrible inconsistencies in dating rock/sediment. Google him and you will find a rich supply of evidence that evolutionists are so inaccurate in this area.

I have always been into the biological aspects of the whole subject. My thing is genomics and the genetic basis for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes. All I know about radiometric dating is that it is ratios of one element to another and these methods are grossly over rated.

Of course. The scripture and science agree with each other, all things considered. After all, they should for God is the Creator and He is the source of knowledge. Science = knowledge and therefore science is God's realm to help man understand the world He gave us. Genesis is history and not symbolic.The authors of scripture tell us so and that is why the TE position is so very wrong and harmful to the faith of believing Christians.

They are strangely silent with regards to the New Testament. It seems rather odd that someone would have no problem with miracles in the New Testament, the resurrection and the deity of Christ and get so exercised about God as Creator. Science is a certain kind of knowledge and I've spent a great deal of time studying the history and philosophy of science. Got a big interest in the Scientific Revolution and if you want to understand Biology as it relates to evolution forget Darwin, Mendelian genetics is the prize.

Concerning the TE position that God deceived us if He made things with the appearance of age; they are shallow thinkers. How does moving the creation back to the big bang (13.7 bya) help them in this regard? No matter what was created at that time it would naturally have the appearance of age.

If you want more specifics I will gladly give them.

Regards.

I'm pretty much convinced the original creation could have been 13 billion years ago but creation week happened 6-10 thousand years ago. The age of the earth has never been a big issue with me but I nurse an interest from time to time. This one article convinced me early that radiometric dating is bogus.

How Old Is the Mount St. Helens Lava Dome?

That's about it, I have never thought that the age of the earth was of any great significance. I'm a young earth creationist by default, it has no real bearing on my view of origins, just kind of interesting is all.

 

[Martyrs44]

So in spite of once teaching science, you agree you don't actually understand scientific papers very well and find it much easier to follow something aimed at the general populace.

I am going to tell you directly, gluadys; stop putting words in my mouth concerning statements I did not make. I made no such statement. The fact is I have read and studied many scientific papers concerning a number of different subjects including Morris's dissertation on hydraulics and water erosion. that was over thirty years ago.

I can understand that. I much prefer reading a good popularization like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll, than the tech-heavy reports he has actually had published in Nature.

The truth is that TE's such as you can't stand it when someone breaks free from the darkness and error that you are involved in. You must really hate people like J.C.Sanford (Cornell U.), Dean Kenyon (fromerly at Stanford), or Richard Lumsden (Tulane)...assuming you know of them.

Kenyon even wrote a best-selling book on the subject of abiogenesis entitled "Biochemical Predestination' but eventually tossed it out along with evolution in toto because he realized how hopeless and without evidence evolution theory is.

What does any of this have to do with evolution, since the theory of evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life?

Proof that you are very wrong:

Observe:

Ever hear of a book called "Origin of the Species" by a fellow named Darwin? How about these, all written about evolution:

Though this may not make a single dent in your mind as to the depth of the error you have swallowed the fact is that I am amazed at your attitude you have in telling me that evolution has 'nothing to do' with origins. Shall I provide more evidence? Just say the word; no problem.

I guess you aren't an exceptional "former believer in evolution" who actually understood evolution after all.

Oh, of course. I'm just a dummy...who has trained PhD's in a family of PhD's in both medicine and education. Poor me. If' I had only known you 40 years ago before I began to convert from evolution. But i never said I was exceptional. But I'm typical and you will se a lot more conversions from your faith.

And there is another example of someone who calls himself a creationist, but ejects the Creator from nature. Do you think God merely created a self-running machine?

Junk thinking. Cheap shots. Not worth answering.

There is a name for that belief.
It is called Deism.
It is not biblical.

Yawn. You are really beginning to bore me now. You don't know what you're talking about. Try and convince the other creationists here that I am a deist. Good luck.

God does not pre-program nature as if it were a sophisticated computer. (Wrong. He designed it all; every bit of it) God works with and sustains nature at all points; God transcends nature (i.e. God is not equivalent to nature) and God is immanent in nature (for all of nature lives and moves and has its being in God.) The life of nature originates in the life of God and is always intimately connected to the life of God.

I don't pre-program my fingers to type on this computer. They act as they are moved by me moment by moment, because their life is my life. That is a better (though not perfect) analogy of what nature does.

No. The brain is a pretty fast computer...biologically speaking and it also is the creation by God...not by nature. Nature doesn't create and nature doesn't design (program!)anything, but the Lord does. Now...how would you call that last statement 'deism'?

Definition: deist - The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on the natural world. (the Free Dictionary)

I can answer the rest of what you said but I think I've made my point. Nothing else you said is worth answering anyway.

 

[mark kennedy]

So in spite of once teaching science, you agree you don't actually understand scientific papers very well and find it much easier to follow something aimed at the general populace.

I can understand that. I much prefer reading a good popularization like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carroll, than the tech-heavy reports he has actually had published in Nature.

Ok, let the games begin, first he doesn't understand science even though he taught it professionally.

What does any of this have to do with evolution, since the theory of evolution does not address the issue of the origin of life?

No it doesn't but Darwinism will not admit the inverse logic of their naturalistic assumptions.

I guess you aren't an exceptional "former believer in evolution" who actually understood evolution after all.

There it is, either you make the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic assumptions. If you don't, then you must be ignorant of science. That's the gospel according to Darwinism, learn it, love it, live it.

And there is another example of someone who calls himself a creationist, but ejects the Creator from nature. Do you think God merely created a self-running machine?

There is a name for that belief.
It is called Deism.
It is not biblical.

This just drips with absurdity. Creationists believe that God created the world and all that is in it in 6 days but they are deists while theistic evolutionists who never credit God with anything are immune to such criticisms. Creationism is a New Testament belief based on a firm conviction that God is involved in human affairs from the original creation to the new creation of Revelations 22.

You know this but being a theistic evolutionist means never having to answer for the fallacious nature of you arguments. A big round of applause for gluadys, she preached the fallacious logic of Darwinism with great zeal and unrelenting ad hominem attacks. Bravo!

God does not pre-program nature as if it were a sophisticated computer. God works with and sustains nature at all points; God transcends nature (i.e. God is not equivalent to nature) and God is immanent in nature (for all of nature lives and moves and has its being in God.) The life of nature originates in the life of God and is always intimately connected to the life of God.

Would you stop it, he's obviously not a deist.

I don't pre-program my fingers to type on this computer. They act as they are moved by me moment by moment, because their life is my life. That is a better (though not perfect) analogy of what nature does.

Yea, so what?

Well, when scientists come to the conclusion that the current estimate of the age of the earth is in conflict with science, I will take that into consideration. Meanwhile, it is hardly honest to say that there is a conflict between science and the scientific estimate of the age of the earth or of the universe.

First he is ignorant because he won't make the naturalistic assumptions of atheistic materialism. So because God created the world supernaturally as described in Scripture he must be a deist, which is utterly absurd. Now he must be a liar because he doesn't accept radiometric dating as reliable

Bravo! All that typing of personal attacks, impeccably fallacious logic, charges of heresy and deception. Why? Because he prefers the literal meaning of Scripture over the naturalistic assumptions of atheistic materialists.

Well done!

As for the rest, what does it have to do with evolution?

Define evolution.

And why would one not expect Luke and the authors of Chronicles to present the same genealogy as Genesis, since that was the source they copied it from?

It is not as if there is some mysterious coincidence here. Rather it is a matter of note when someone copying from the same source does not reproduce it exactly. (See Papias' post.)

Papias posts that ridiculous genealogical argument to run Creationists in circles. He has never done a sound exposition of the Scriptures or the theological doctrines of his own religion. But of course you are going to defend him, especially if he is attacking a Creationist, the argument need not have any merit as long as it insults a Creationist.

Paleontologists are certainly interested in learning what the early conditions facing life on earth were, but what part of evolutionary theory addresses that issue?

Again you show that you never really understood the theory of evolution. You may have "defended" it, but you never understood it.

So why don't you define it since you know so much more then him about it?

So far you have told us you reject geology and physics because your theology of scripture conflicts with them.

No he hasn't, he rejected radiometric dating, not because there is a conflict with Scripture but because of false assumptions proven to be invalid, inconsistent and false estimates.

You have your nerve calling him a liar and then making a bogus argument like this post.

You haven't said a word about evolution yet.

The topic is why he is not a theistic evolutionist, weren't you paying attention?