young earth Creationism .. again

[PLAYER57832]

NOTE: I modified the above title on April 14, to clarify. The term "Creationist" correctly refers to anyone who believes that God created all (I don't believe it is even limited to the Judeo-Christian Genesis belief, but I might be wrong there). When you see polls that talk of large numbers who accept creationism, a lot of people mean this definition. The discussion here is over the specific idea that Genesis means the earth was created in 6, 24-hour days and that the earth is only thousands of years old. Age estimates used range from mostly very old estimates of about 4000 year old to 6000, to 12000 (common today) to even as long as a few hundred thousand years (for the whole earth and/or universe's creation).

I don't say this to limit other discussion, but to clarify. I will try not to slip into the popular media's (and groups like the Creation Institute's) use of Creationism as meaning only young earth creationism.

I have bumped Widowmaker's original thread, mostly because it was so unwieldy and because so many people who posted there originally are long since gone (haven't seem much from widowmaker for a long time) and so commenting seems not entirely "fair". At the same time, widowmaker very much wanted to keep that thread a discusion between believers and non-believing athiests. Like many young earth creationists, he had been taught to tie the two together (that one cannoe believe in god and evolution). For almost 70 pages or so (I am estimating) he succeeded. Then he more or less abandoned the thread, I stepped in heavily (as did others) and it switched back and forth between various views, including the still highly dominant worldwide view that evolution and the Bible are consistant. (not knowledgeable enough of other religious texts to discuss). It also touched on why these young earth creationist theories are not just "another different idea we can tolerate" but a true attack on all of science with very negative impacts. From a religious standpoint, it offends me greatly to see the Bible so misrepresented, as well. Here I am not going to get into any discussion of "god does not exist" (if others want to .. go for it, I just think there are other threads for that).

So, anyway, to be clear. I absolutely DO believe in God, believe God created everything and DO believe that the Bible represents a true account. I do NOT believe that many of what are put forward as "strict literal accounts" are correct representations of the Bible. I also absolute believe that evolution is true. I won't call it fact. I will say that the chances of it being wrong are very, very, very, very, very slight. More importantly for this discussion, the chances that the earth is young are nil.


so here we go ... again. (for any who wish to participate).
My Answer to Lionz post
From the "Nephlium thread":

PLAYER,

Can you define proven? And am I personally claiming anything proves anything?

I believe I already did define proven. You put forward frauds as if they were real, so yes.

I might have read little to nothing under Acknowledgments in a source by you referring to Schoch, but maybe you would be surprised by how much I read in general and I even provided a source that can take you to words from Schoch that you provided and also words from him you have not read yet. He even threw out one or more idea having to do with it possibly being a quarry from which blocks were cut perhaps.

Try reading what I cited. Your question will be answered therein. The bottom line -- no, he does not believe they are man made. I does acknowledge that it cannot be definitely proven, however the likelihood is pretty slim. And, as I said, to be accepted with any credibility, would have to be further corroborated (that is, more evidence is needed). In truth, the "more evidence" that has been found is pretty indicative of natural origins, not man-made origins.

If it's shown to be made by humans, it's actually very much evidence against a theory of mine? How so, if so? If orthodox history generally holds that tool-making began taking place about 5,000 years ago and it's been dated to be from a point in time before that in which it's claimed the most advanced culture in Japan was small groups of hunter-gatherers, then who's it sticking out like a sore thumb for? How would scientists believing that human civilization is much older than was previously thought be against a theory of mine at all if I hold that Adam and earth were both created about 6,000 years ago?

Your misunderstanding is beyond astounding and into "troll" territory. None-the-less, I will answer.

First I don't know much of Japanese history, but I find it rather astounding that other civilizations would have had tools long before then, but the Japanese would not. However, let's assume you are correct in that for a moment.

Why did I say it would prove your theories false? Anything set forward about Japanese civilization then is based on evidence. Not simply carbon dating (as you might wish to imply) or any other single method, but multiple methods -- rock layers, succession of "styles" of various things (tools, pottery,clothes, houses, etc.). Even so, those things can only go so far. If it were discovered that these rock faces were human-built, then it would provide evidence of something else.. likely another civilization that had no connection to the later residents ( a LOT can happen in 3000 years!). It could be that this other civilization was related to the later people, who had regressed. Or.. another possibility. It provides further proof that the Earth wasn't created a mere 6000 years ago, as many young earth creationists assert.

You seemed to want to imply that this would somehow disprove a young earth, as if all you have to do is find one inaccuracy in any kind of scientific report on Earth's or humanities' history. This is very typical of Creationist "logic" but it is simply not the way it works.

Not sure if I have ever listened to a Chuck Irwin maybe. What if the Father created different kinds of creatures with the ability to bring forth after their kinds? Is it logical to see different breeds of dogs and then jump to a conclusion that whales and ants have common ancestry as a result? What suggests to you that they do?

A lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot of evidence. And when it comes to ants and dogs.. the chain is EXTREMELY long. Ants are not even vertebrates.

See Evidence from Space, Evidence from Earth and Evidence from Biology sections here with points laid out under them? We might have quite a full plate at the moment, but how about respond to them later on if so?
http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

I already gave you quite a bit on this. If you cannot be bothered to even follow the links I provided or read what I wrote on this, then you are not interested in debate, only trolling.

You mean to claim creation science rests on claims that science is full of liars?

After reviewing the stuff for several decades, yes, some are just plain liars. However, the vast majority are folks who completely misunderstand science and cannot be bothered to look into the real truth, because they feel they "know the truth already." They dismiss completely any and all evidence that does not agree with their theories and continue to put forward irrelevancies. These arguments are too well doctored, too much just barely close to the truth, but making very basic and blatant errors. Some of the people involved absolutely must know they are not putting forward truth. In fact, I actually heard an interview with one of the Creation Institute's founders or initial scientists saying as much. Another Christian questioned him about falsifying information. His response? It is not a lie if it supports the Bible. Sorry, but what that really means is that he thinks its perfectly OK to shade and even change data if it will make the data more consistant with is personnal view of what the Bible says. That is not honesty, it is not truth. Bearing False witness is, in fact a commandment for a very good reason. Distorting or making claims about the Bible that are not true are among the highest of lies one can make.

People in the past assumed that the Earth was made in 6 rotations of our Earth much like they assumed earlier that the sun revolved around the earth. It made sense and they knew no different. We, now do very much know differently. And, if you read the Bible carefully, as I hope you have, adn look into the original translations at all, you see that the original words used for "day" is "yom". The translation was exact. And, just as "day" can mean, has always meant varied time frames (in my day, in this day and age.. versus the day after tommorrow). The time specified in the Bible is God's time. It is not constrained to our time. Our reference is a mere shadow of God, just as we are made in the image of God, but are not gods ourselves. We represent God, but we are in no way God or truly like him, except in certain ways.

Maybe you should ask yourself if you are ultimately arguing that the Tanakh and works in the so called NT were written by liars. Was there death before Adam? Was Adam created from dust of the ground? Was there a flood that covered the earth? Have individuals died and been resurrected?

I don't question the Bible, only what some human being try to claim the Bible says.

If we don't know what has happened in the past in regards to how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere, then how useful is the carbon-14 method?

Except, we do know this. The geostrata shows us a lot. We can see through arctic and ocean core samples what the earth's atmosphere was like at various points. .. etc.

The flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms to form fossil fuels and fossil fuel amounts indicate there was a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existance prior to the Flood if the earth was created about 6,000 years ago and the flood is not mythological perhaps. The earth had a biosphere just prior to the Flood that had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than right now possibly. Would that not cause a serious dilution in carbon-14 and mean the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has increased tremendously? Did Willard Libby’s calculations not even show that carbon-14 would only take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state if earth started with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and carbon-14 is still out of equilibrium, then what does that tell you about how old earth is? Less than 30,000 years?

This is just baloney.

The amount of oxeygen, carbon, etc on earth has varied a great deal. The vegetation on Earth has varied a great deal and both vegetation and animal life have spread and died off and varied throughout time. What you put forth might seem reasonable if you don't know anything real about our Earth's history, but it is pure baloney.

Note: Maybe I said carbon-12/carbon-14 instead of carbon-14/carbon-12 in error earlier and I have fixed it.

irrelevant. You obviously did not bother to read the link I posted.

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as `acceptable' by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173.

In 1977? Not a shock at all! But guess who found this incriminating evidence? Other scientists! That is how things work.
and many techniques, carbon 14 included, do have high error rates. No one is claiming otherwise. It is used within the boundaries of what it can and cannot show. Like I said elsewhere, if I want to measure my kitchen table, I am not going to use my car's odometer. Does that mean the odometer cannot be trusted to tell me the distance to the next town? NO!

In the Proceedings of the Symposium on Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology held at Uppsala in 1969, T. Säve-Söderbergh and I. U. Olsson introduce their report with these words:

"C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists towards it, as follows: If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely out of date we just drop it. Few archaeologists who have concerned themselves with absolute chronology are innocent of having sometimes applied this method. . ."

[/quote]

I would have to see the original paper to make any comment. It could be this guy is just doing shoddy science and trying to justify it. It could be that this guy was an idiot (yes, they are found everywhere!) and that his statements were refuted shortly afterward. However, what I suspect is that this is just an explanation of "outliers" or errors. The truth is that nothing is taken so simply. Archeologists, many other scientists have only come to semi-trust carbon dating with a lot of verification. Even so, it is not used in isolation, it is used in conjunction with other information. At any rate, when you have to dig back over 30 years to find substance for your criticism of science, you have to realize that's like saying that because my son could not talk at 6 months, he cannot say much now, at 9. Science has grown that much at least!

You refer to one or more page that treats dendrochronology like it's an anchor that's helping to hold down reliability of the carbon-14 method? Is there a single tree anywhere in all of existance dead or alive that's been dated to be more than 5,000 years old with tree ring dating?

Yes, quite a few, in fact. But, tree ring dating is not used just for living trees. You can "stair step" samples from known events. Tree rings can be like fingerprints of "weather" (but note, the idea some people have of 1 ring = 1 season or year is not necessarily correct) You can, for example, sometimes establish that a certain house was built with wood taken a few years or so before another house. It gets complicated, but when done correctly, is pretty accurate. Over time, there are stores of tree core samples covering a very wide range of times, giving a great deal of information about weather and moisture availability, etc.

Is there a limit for how long a tree can live that just happens to back up scripture if trees have truly been growing on earth for hundreds of millions of years and there's not? Individuals have tried to link up rings on trees and chain them together perhaps, but seperate disturbances can be lined up in error and throw things off and inferred missing rings is common in BCP chronology perhaps.

Some error is not the same as completely disproving the validity of a technique. I don't understand your first sentence. I suspect you are trying to say that the Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old and no trees are older. The Bible does not give a specific date for Earth's age. People try to infer dates from many things, but that is people adding to the Bible.

I'm not sure where an old Widowmaker thread is maybe, but how about we move some stuff to an evidence for Him thread or start up a thread or both if you want?

[/quote]

[Symmetry]

If you think Lionz is going to post anything apart from a series of random pictures, or a few links to the more random sites on the interwebs, you'll be disappointed.

My guess- something along the lines of "What about..." plus something random. When that gets debunked. More "What aboutery".

[PLAYER57832]

You might be right. I give him a chance to prove otherwise.

[army of nobunaga]

I tryed in a different thread, I just cant even get into this debate anymore. Ive had it so many times in my life. What I will do, which ive promised before, is to try to get you guys some cutting edge unbiased scientific links. I think both sides will like the links. A lot of ppl in science, like myself, dont believe in evolution from natural selection as it is taught in highschool and even most fresh biology classes, but we really dont have answers, just holes to your answers.

[PLAYER57832]

I tryed in a different thread, I just cant even get into this debate anymore. Ive had it so many times in my life. What I will do, which ive promised before, is to try to get you guys some cutting edge unbiased scientific links. I think both sides will like the links. A lot of ppl in science, like myself, dont believe in evolution from natural selection as it is taught in highschool and even most fresh biology classes, but we really dont have answers, just holes to your answers.

Links are welcome.

However, I believe that what you posted about natural selection before was really just a common misunderstanding of it, not how it is seen today (or has been seen for a while now).

[army of nobunaga]

and to be honest and not mean...

its stuff like:
"Lionz wrote:If we don't know what has happened in the past in regards to how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere, then how useful is the carbon-14 method?"

and like player on the earth is old arguement-
"Why did I say it would prove your theories false? Anything set forward about Japanese civilization then is based on evidence. Not simply carbon dating (as you might wish to imply) or any other single method, but multiple methods -- rock layers, succession of "styles" of various things (tools, pottery,clothes, houses, etc.). Even so, those things can only go so far. If it were discovered that these rock faces were human-built, then it would provide evidence of something else.. likely another civilization that had no connection to the later residents ( a LOT can happen in 3000 years!). It could be that this other civilization was related to the later people, who had regressed. Or.. another possibility. It provides further proof that the Earth wasn't created a mere 6000 years ago, as many young earth creationists assert. "




I mean, with this stuff guys, I dont even know where to start. Player, the age of the earth comes from radiometric extraterrestrial material... and from orbital position and patterns. The age of the earth if I remember is like 5 bill years or something and its dead proven.

How does a person even jump into these arguments without going to like ground zero. Maybe Ill get a bug up my ass someday and go on a 4 page excursion in genetic evolution here, but till then Ill find you guys some links.

[army of nobunaga]

I tryed in a different thread, I just cant even get into this debate anymore. Ive had it so many times in my life. What I will do, which ive promised before, is to try to get you guys some cutting edge unbiased scientific links. I think both sides will like the links. A lot of ppl in science, like myself, dont believe in evolution from natural selection as it is taught in highschool and even most fresh biology classes, but we really dont have answers, just holes to your answers.

Links are welcome.

However, I believe that what you posted about natural selection before was really just a common misunderstanding of it, not how it is seen today (or has been seen for a while now).

Well I got my masters degree in 03 in molecular biology emphasis in genetic changes in medicago truncatula in ABC transporters. Maybe things have changed in 7 years. But till I email my old friends and see what they say, ill have to say- doubt it.

More like you guys (and I dont blame you for learning and being curious) read internet debates and watch discovery specials. Well sorry man, that shit is all DUMBED down for mass media. Until you get into a masters level or even upper level genetic evolution or even bland ole evolution undergraduate class and read the cutting edge research as well as the classical pivotal experiments, you are just kind repeating dumbed down shit arguments to each other.

not trying to be mean. just my viewpoint

night

[Symmetry]

To be honest, and not mean, those aren't the links you promised. They're still just blanket statements and anecdotes.

[john9blue]

But that original thread is so awesome... (EDIT: I thought you were talking about Widow's thread, not Nephilim... so nvm...)

Also I think it should be stated from the outset: you can believe in God and evolution, at the same time. "Creationism" here means the young earth style creationism that comes from interpreting the Bible literally. I got in an argument in the old thread just because I had a different definition of "creationism" than someone else.

[PLAYER57832]

I mean, with this stuff guys, I dont even know where to start. Player, the age of the earth comes from radiometric extraterrestrial material... and from orbital position and patterns. The age of the earth if I remember is like 5 bill years or something and its dead proven.

Its estimated to be about 4.5 billion years, last I heard (but I could be wrong). It is not "dead proven", it is a theoretical estimate. An estimate with a lot of evidence and on that, within a range of error, is probably about correct, but it is a theory, not fact. The distinction is critical to scientific arguments.

However, my point was simply that if this rock proves civilization is over 8000 years old, then it rather disputes Lionz idea that the Earth is ony 6000 years old. I never mentioned the age of the Earth. I argue biology, to a point, but not the time before life. Its just not my field.

[PLAYER57832]

I tryed in a different thread, I just cant even get into this debate anymore. Ive had it so many times in my life. What I will do, which ive promised before, is to try to get you guys some cutting edge unbiased scientific links. I think both sides will like the links. A lot of ppl in science, like myself, dont believe in evolution from natural selection as it is taught in highschool and even most fresh biology classes, but we really dont have answers, just holes to your answers.

Links are welcome.

However, I believe that what you posted about natural selection before was really just a common misunderstanding of it, not how it is seen today (or has been seen for a while now).

Well I got my masters degree in 03 in molecular biology emphasis in genetic changes in medicago truncatula in ABC transporters. Maybe things have changed in 7 years. But till I email my old friends and see what they say, ill have to say- doubt it.

More like you guys (and I dont blame you for learning and being curious) read internet debates and watch discovery specials. Well sorry man, that shit is all DUMBED down for mass media. Until you get into a masters level or even upper level genetic evolution or even bland ole evolution undergraduate class and read the cutting edge research as well as the classical pivotal experiments, you are just kind repeating dumbed down shit arguments to each other.

not trying to be mean. just my viewpoint

night

Well, I might have a tad bit of education myself.

Attitudes like yours within the scientific community are exactly why we are in the sad state we are, with so many perfectly willing to believe young earth creationism. You could advance our knowledge, but instead choose to sit on a lofty perch telling us that you know so much more than we that you cannot deign to even talk to us.

Yes, it is "dumbed down". My comments certainly were. But you also never bothered to answer what I said before.

Anyway, there always have been problems with natural selection as the sole or even primary mover of evolution. Genetics might explain a bit more about why and how, but is the fossil record that shows what actually happened. Anyway, I have never claimed to be an expert on Evolution, just involved a lot in disputing young earth Creationism. It does not take a whole lot of science to dispute these theories, just persistance and patience.

[Night Strike]

And how about this. If knowing the age of Earth was so very critical to our faith, then why did Christ make no mention of it on the cross. In fact the only references he made to the age of the earth were very broad and not at all specific. No, this movement comes from human beings. Human beings with a vested interest in disputing science. It does not come from God and it does not come from the church, not at all!

To preface this, those of you who don't believe in Christianity can just ignore this post and read the next one. I don't expect you to believe the premise of this argument as it's meant for only those who believe that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

Creation is the foundation of everything about Christianity. The Bible states that death entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned. Evolution states that things have always died in order to evolve into the new species. If evolution were true, then there would have been death prior to the appearance of man. If death was already in the world prior to sin, then Christ's rising again could only be a victory over death, not over sin. By following a biblical worldview, death is seen as the ultimate price for sin, so Christ rising to defeat death is by extension a defeat of sin. Therefore, Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive theories when looking at the roll of Christ on earth. If you believe evolution, then there was no reason for Christ to die and rise again as God would see death as good. Furthermore, why would God use the method of death to create a world that he said was perfect? If God relied on evolution to populate the earth, you no longer believe He is an all-powerful being.


There are 2 other arguments that need to be addressed.
1) If you do NOT believe that Genesis 1 was a literal 24 hour day, then you are completely ignoring the phrase "and there was evening and morning on the xth day". You also cited the Hebrew word "yon" (I believe that is the correct word) as proof of a transient value of time, but every other place it is used in the Bible is in conjunction with a set amount of time. In Genesis 1, the word is coupled with the morning/evening time reference, then it is reasonable to conclude a 24 hour day.
2) You stated that random processes are only a part of evolution and that it is driven by very specific processes, but where did those specific processes come from? How could live suddenly become infinitely organized (humans compared to nonliving matter) when the natural state of the universe is to tend toward disorder? If there are specific processes guiding it, then there HAD to be something to start those processes in action. Evolution is not a self-fulfilling theory.

[Neoteny]

I tryed in a different thread, I just cant even get into this debate anymore. Ive had it so many times in my life. What I will do, which ive promised before, is to try to get you guys some cutting edge unbiased scientific links. I think both sides will like the links. A lot of ppl in science, like myself, dont believe in evolution from natural selection as it is taught in highschool and even most fresh biology classes, but we really dont have answers, just holes to your answers.

Links are welcome.

However, I believe that what you posted about natural selection before was really just a common misunderstanding of it, not how it is seen today (or has been seen for a while now).

Well I got my masters degree in 03 in molecular biology emphasis in genetic changes in medicago truncatula in ABC transporters. Maybe things have changed in 7 years. But till I email my old friends and see what they say, ill have to say- doubt it.

More like you guys (and I dont blame you for learning and being curious) read internet debates and watch discovery specials. Well sorry man, that shit is all DUMBED down for mass media. Until you get into a masters level or even upper level genetic evolution or even bland ole evolution undergraduate class and read the cutting edge research as well as the classical pivotal experiments, you are just kind repeating dumbed down shit arguments to each other.

not trying to be mean. just my viewpoint

night

::seizes::

[Neoteny]

AoN, do "cutting edge" scientists get different journals than what I'm getting? Does one have to have a master's degree to even know about them?

[jay_a2j]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

[PLAYER57832]

And how about this. If knowing the age of Earth was so very critical to our faith, then why did Christ make no mention of it on the cross. In fact the only references he made to the age of the earth were very broad and not at all specific. No, this movement comes from human beings. Human beings with a vested interest in disputing science. It does not come from God and it does not come from the church, not at all!

To preface this, those of you who don't believe in Christianity can just ignore this post and read the next one. I don't expect you to believe the premise of this argument as it's meant for only those who believe that Christianity and evolution are compatible.

Creation is the foundation of everything about Christianity.

Well, there you go. See, I was always taught it was CHRIST. In fact, our church is full of people who try to put other things in front of Christ and God. It is never from God.

The Bible states that death entered the world after Adam and Eve sinned.

I see, so how do you explain the comment that they might next find the Tree of Life, as reason why they had to be cast out?

In truth, it was knowledge of sin that came with the fruit.
Here is the exact wording, in English (Genesis 3:22):
"And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever."

Obviously, death very much existed before this. Else, there would be no need for God to say that they needed to keep Adam from partaking of the Tree of Life. But, yes, there is a group of new theologists who assert what you are saying.

Evolution states that things have always died in order to evolve into the new species.

First, this claim that "things have to die to evolve into new species" is wrong. Young earth creationists like to claim that transition species "cannot occur" because there are examples of such species alive today. Its like saying you have to die to have a child. That's simply not true. Evolution deals with life and birth. Yes, of course death happens and happened, but that is how life works, its not, as you wish to assert, really to do with evolutionary theory.

If evolution were true, then there would have been death prior to the appearance of man. If death was already in the world prior to sin, then Christ's rising again could only be a victory over death, not over sin.

By following a biblical worldview, death is seen as the ultimate price for sin, so Christ rising to defeat death is by extension a defeat of sin.

This is neither logical, nor Biblical.

Earthly Death is not the "ultimate price for sin". The "ultimate price" is separation from God (which is sometimes also referred to as "death") Or, some would say "hell". There is a bit of dispute about this. Roman Catholics, for example, like to add in Perdition, the idea that we need earthly and heavenly punishments to atone for sins. I am not going to get into the breadth of Christian thought on these matters, it is not my field, but my point is that what you are espousing here is a very narrow interpretation believe by only a small group of Christians and pretty recent at that. (though who knows what everybody in the past actually thought, of course-- I speak of official records). I task you with this. Cite the passages that spell out what is you claim here.

Therefore, Creation and evolution are mutually exclusive theories when looking at the roll of Christ on earth. If you believe evolution, then there was no reason for Christ to die and rise again as God would see death as good.

Of course there is! People sin and need forgiveness for those sins. THAT is what Christ says and what he is about. That other stuff is what people like to infer and add in. It is true in certain specific contexts, but not as you lay out here, as a refute of evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Furthermore, why would God use the method of death to create a world that he said was perfect? If God relied on evolution to populate the earth, you no longer believe He is an all-powerful being.

Well, see, I don't claim to know what God knows. All I know is what he actually did. Why NOT use the processes he, himself created? This fixation that he, basically, had to "go poof" like some magician is a human limitation. It is like the old claims that the earth cannot revolve around the sun because God made earth his special creation. Makes sense if you don't know any better, but it just isn't the truth.

See, the only way people can come to believe as you do is by completely and utterly ignoring reams of scientific evidence. There is no real dispute. There are minor disputes over the exact processes. Some of these "relatively minor disputes" are actually pretty big. For example, it was thought for years that dinosaurs were closest to lizards. Now its pretty well accepted they are actually precursors of birds. The length of time needed for various evolutionary processes to occur is also a matter of debate. In Darwin's day no one really understood the various die-offs and subsequent explosions of life.

There are 2 other arguments that need to be addressed.
1) If you do NOT believe that Genesis 1 was a literal 24 hour day, then you are completely ignoring the phrase "and there was evening and morning on the xth day". You also cited the Hebrew word "yon" (I believe that is the correct word) as proof of a transient value of time, but every other place it is used in the Bible is in conjunction with a set amount of time. In Genesis 1, the word is coupled with the morning/evening time reference, then it is reasonable to conclude a 24 hour day.

the word is "yom", and in truth up until very recently the most commonly accepted translation of that term was NOT a specific 24 hour day. And no, the reference to "day and night" are divisions of time. They can be seen as either a "God's day", he might experience day and night more or less as we do, just on a very different level. OR, (this is the most common thinking) it is likely a way of putting concepts into a frame that was understandable by people of the time. Ancient peoples had very different ways of referring to and thinking about time. They were not stupid, but they were not scientific. They accepted much by faith, as opposed to the largely western idea of needing proof from observation and tests.

2) You stated that random processes are only a part of evolution and that it is driven by very specific processes, but where did those specific processes come from? How could live suddenly become infinitely organized (humans compared to nonliving matter) when the natural state of the universe is to tend toward disorder? If there are specific processes guiding it, then there HAD to be something to start those processes in action. Evolution is not a self-fulfilling theory.

[/quote]

First, don't even try to argue against God to me. Of course God steered evolution. Of course God created everything, including the processes within earth. As for the rest, the "natural state of the universe tending to disorder" is gobbledy gook phrasing put forward by Creationists. It has no meaning. Scientists don't starty by saying "hey, this law has to be, so let's just forget what we see and hear". Laws are created by humans to explain what they see and test and record. If the two contradict, then something has to change. I tend to steer away from the initial creation simply because it is not my field AND becuase it really has nothing to do with biologic evolution. However, I will say this. Even IF earth's creation were a violation of the second law (or any other), those laws only apply to our known universe. What happens outside our universe, what happens even at different levels of our universe (the quantum level, for example), what happened before the universe (if there was such a thing..the concept is just mindboggling!) or at its inception are not bound by the laws humans have decided apply now. This does not invalidate the use of those laws in various ways now, but no one really knows what was before our universe. We don't even really know if there could be anything (and don't really understand how there could not be).

As for the rest.. Again, you make clear that you look to Creationists to teach you about evolution, which means that you really don't know about evolution. As a chemist, you know that there are "rules" by which various atoms, parts of atoms, etc connect and bond and so forth. We understand some, but not all of those processes. When you get into the much more complex world of biology that not only uses basic chemistry, but many other added elements, there is so much more that we don't understand than that we do understand that its "convenient" (for lack of a better word) to refer to the processes as "random". In fact, we know they are not truly random. There are just so many things in play that no human being, at least now, can fully understand. In some cases, there are real and true statistically random elements, but mostly, that is just how biologists refer to "so many processes we cannot possibly predict or understand" or "we know there is a pattern of some sort here, but we cannot yet possibly figure it out". Almost nothing on earth is really and truly random. (nope, not even CC dice! .. lol).

Why is it somehow more godly for God to have simply "snapped his fingers" (metaphorically) and said "here is all" than it would be for him to have created the earth, set up all the systems so that eventually humans and all we see would come to be. In Godly time, it would be a "snap of a finger". I don't pretend to fully understand the mind of God, but I also don't limit him to what I think best. What is here is what God created, plain and simply. HOW he created it, precisely, is not spelled out. Generally, yes, but Genesis is not a scientific textbook and never was.

If saying that the world was created in 6 earthly days was so critical to the Christian faith, they why did not Christ harp on that instead of all that "stuff" about acceptance of others, forgiveness of sins, etc. Nay, the point of Genesis is that God created the earth and therefore is all powerful.

[PLAYER57832]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

Actually, he very much has. He placed all sorts of evidence on earth to show us his methods. Some people would rather listen to other human beings than study God's own creations and God's words.

[Timminz]

Have to give it to Lionz. He has been respectful and made his points whereas PLAYER has been condescending and arrogant. Unfortunately, God Himself most likely couldn't prove creationism to her.

Respect does not make falsities truth.

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

How about a number system?

1 ) You might not have actually said something is proven when it's shown to be 100% irrefutable, but how about define irrefutable?

2 ) Would someone intentionally or unintentionally putting forward a fraud as something real mean they were trying to prove something regardless of whether or not I did that? I can't even prove that I was born in 1983 maybe.

3 ) Is one of these the result of human carving and one of these not?





4 ) Orthodox history does hold that stone tools were employed well over 5,000 years ago and I asked a misleading question maybe. What would stone tools help explain in regards to the Yonaguni Monument if it's an unnatural structure though?

5 ) You mean if it were discovered that the Yonaguni Monument was human-built, then it would provide evidence for another civilization that had no connection to the later residents? If so, you mean no connection in a no connection between preflood civilization and postflood civilization type sense? : )

6 ) If someone asks you in a court of law what evidence you have for something having occured and you reply by saying a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot, lot of evidence then where is that going to get you? Can you get specific? What specifically suggests to you that ants and whales share common ancestry? How about list three things if there are three and then we move on from there? What if the Father created various kinds of animals and they have brought forth variety after their kinds and yet universal common descent is not true?

7 ) The answersincreation page actually addresses little to nothing from evidence from space, earth, and biology sections here maybe... http://www.connectionmagazine.org/2002_ ... idence.htm

You might be able to find numerous places online that do address things there though. How about we discuss and compare arguments even if that's the case? You want to simply have a match site for site discussion?

8 ) Maybe this is rude of me to say and I will feel guilty and change this later, but should you accuse folks of misunderstanding science if you yourself just referred to radiometric dating like carbon dating was not an example of it?

9 ) Even if yom has been used to refer to millions of years, did plants exist for millions of years without the sun?

10 ) If Romans 5:12 does not mean to claim that there was no death before Adam, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/romans5.htm

What can the tree of life prove for you if He is outside time and has always known what was going to happen?

11 ) If Genesis 2:7 does not mean to claim that Yahuwah (sp?) formed Adam out of dust from the ground, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen2.htm

12 ) If Genesis 7:19-24 does not mean to claim that every hill under the heavens were covered, then what does it mean to claim? http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm

Also, how about simply tell Noah to walk up a mountain if there was not an earthwide flood?

13 ) Is someone really a Christian if they hold that no one has died and resurrected? How about question to ask yourself and not to answer in here?

14 ) We do know what has happened in the past in regards to how much carbon-14 was produced in the atmosphere? What can geostrata or arctic and ocean core samples tell us about that? You mean to imply that people can use the carbon-14 method itself to test whether or not the carbon-14 method uses a faulty carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio?

15 ) You yourself just claimed the amount of carbon on earth has varied a great deal? Well, does the carbon-14 method not assume that the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio has always been 1 to 1 trillion?

16 ) Should we assume that individuals were selective in regards to what they published 30 years ago and all of a sudden that's not the case? Has anyone ever wanted to publish data contradicting them?

17 ) How about refer to a single tree dead or alive that's been dated to over 5,000 years with tree ring dating if there is one?

18 ) Is there a book or place online where we can personally see dendrochronology samples lined up to apparently show over 5,000 years of time? Who knows how many times seperate disturbances have been lined up in error and who knows how many times missing rings have been inferred if that's common in BCP chronology?

19 ) Is there not geneaology in scripture that suggests Adam was created about 6,000 years ago?

20 ) How is Adam any different from his old man if he has one?

PLAYER and Army,

21 ) What suggests to you that earth is billions of years old?

[tzor]

Maybe you should ask yourself if you are ultimately arguing that the Tanakh and works in the so called NT were written by liars. Was there death before Adam? Was Adam created from dust of the ground? Was there a flood that covered the earth? Have individuals died and been resurrected?

I don't question the Bible, only what some human being try to claim the Bible says.

One of my biggest problems with creationism is not scientific but theological. At the heart of creationism lies the notion of the heresy of extreme literalism, the notion that every word and subsequently every translated word is one hundred percent checked for accuracy by God and guaranteed to be scientifically perfect and true, as understood by anyone in the 31st century (who, ironically, look upon us today as backward, primitive and narrow minded).

If you will permit me, I just want to get into the topic of how truth does not have to be literal to be true. After Salman Rushdie got into trouble for writing “The Satanic Verses” he wrote a children’s book called “Haroun and the Sea of Stories.” Eventually this was made into an opera by Charles Wuorinen with libretto by James Fenton, in 2001 and first performed by the New York City Opera in 2004. I watched that performance. One of the things that were repeated again and again in the story is the refrain “What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?” Here we get into Herod’s question “what is truth?” In the end, the answer is obvious to even a casual observer; the use of stories that are not per se “true” are vital in that they contain within them a deeper truth. They are true, after all, just not true in the literal sense of truth.

In the Gospels, Jesus (and remember all of the Gospels are second hand accounts) teaches in parables, stories that aren’t even true. The “Prodigal Son” is not a real person, nor is the “Good Samarian.” Yet these stories have a deeper truth, a fundamental truth about the relationship between God and His people. Likewise, Jesus was not talking to Wikipedia searching people of the 21st century when he commented that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds because he was not making a Wikipedia entry about the world record holder of the smallest seed; he was making a comparison that a really small seed can make a really big tree and suggesting that really small actions can have a big impact upon the world. There are two major examples in the Bible of apocalyptic writing and the one most commonly known is the one in the New Testament, the Apocalypse. Here is the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the work in the New American Bible.

The Apocalypse, or Revelation to John, the last book of the Bible, is one of the most difficult to understand because it abounds in unfamiliar and extravagant symbolism, which at best appears unusual to the modern reader. Symbolic language, however, is one of the chief characteristics of apocalyptic literature, of which this book is an outstanding example. Such literature enjoyed wide popularity in both Jewish and Christian circles from ca. 200 B.C. to A.D. 200.

This book contains an account of visions in symbolic and allegorical language borrowed extensively from the Old Testament, especially Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question.

As long as I am quoting introductions from the NAB, let’s get back on topic by quoting the introduction, not to Genesis but the whole Pentateuch or in Jewish terms the “Torah.”

The Pentateuch, which consists of the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), enjoys particular prestige among the Jews as the "Law," or "Torah," the concrete expression of God's will in their regard. It is more than a body of legal doctrine, even though such material occupies many chapters, for it contains the story of the formation of the People of God: Abraham and the Patriarchs, Moses and the oppressed Hebrews in Egypt, the birth of Israel in the Sinai covenant, the journey to the threshold of the Promised Land, and the "discourses" of Moses.

The grandeur of this historic sweep is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historic traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint--a rich variety of interpretation that the sensitive reader will take pains to appreciate. A superficial difference between two of these sources is responsible for their names: the Yahwist prefers the name Yahweh (represented in translation as Lord) by which God revealed himself to Israel; the Elohist prefers the generic name for God, Elohim. The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1. The Elohist is more sober, moralistic. The Priestly strand, which emphasizes genealogies, is more severely theological in tone. The Deuteronomic approach is characterized by the intense hortatory style of Deuteronomy 5-11, and by certain principles from which it works, such as the centralization of worship in the Jerusalem temple.

There is truth in Genesis, but it is also easy to mistake symbolism for literalism and loose sight of the truth contained within. The fundamental problem with creationism is that they take these elements of symbolism, mistaken as literalism and attempt to weave from it a complex web of lies and deceit that cannot come from God because God can neither deceive nor be deceived.

But it is likewise folly to assume that any evidence of “evolution” is a proof for the non existence of God. Fools on the left and fools on the right; both are foolish in my sight.


“What’s the use of stories that aren’t even true?”

Do you really need an answer?

Well, let me tell you a story …

[tzor]

The Yonaguni Monument is a massive underwater rock formation off the coast of Yonaguni, the southernmost of the Ryukyu Islands, in Japan.

The Monument consists of medium to very fine sandstones and mudstones of the Lower Miocene Yaeyama Group, deposited about 20 million years ago. Most of the significant formations are connected to the underlying rock mass (as opposed to being assembled out of freestanding rocks).


The formation called "The Turtle"The main feature (the "Monument" proper) is a rectangular formation measuring about 150 m by 40 m, and about 27 m tall; the top is about 5 m below sea level. Most of its top surface consists of a complex series of terraces and broad steps, mostly rectangular, bounded by near vertical walls.

Some of its peculiar details include

Two closely spaced pillars which rise to within eight feet of the surface;
The "Loop Road", a 5 m wide ledge that encircles the base of the formation on three sides;
The "Totem", a stone column about 7 m tall;
The "Dividing Wall", a straight wall 10 m long;
The "Gosintai", an isolated boulder resting on a low platform;
The "Turtle", a low star-shaped platform;
The "Triangle Pool", a triangular depression with two large holes dug at its edge;
The "Stage", an L-shaped rock.

Some of those who have studied the formation, such as geologist Robert Schoch of Boston University, state that it is most likely a natural formation. Schoch observes that the sandstones that make up the Yonaguni formation "contain numerous well-defined, parallel bedding planes along which the layers easily separate. The rocks of this group are also criss-crossed by numerous sets of parallel and vertical (relative to the horizontal bedding planes of the rocks) joints and fractures. Yonaguni lies in an earthquake-prone region; such earthquakes tend to fracture the rocks in a regular manner." He also observes that on the northeast coast of Yonaguni there are regular formations similar to those seen at the Monument. Schoch also believes that the "drawings" identified by Kimura are natural scratches on the rocks.. This is also the view of John Anthony West.

Other examples of natural formations with flat faces and sharp straight edges are the basalt columns of the Giant's Causeway and the natural staircase formation on Old Rag Mountain.

[Lionz]

You make one or more valid point and we should use context to help us figure out what's literal and what's symbolic maybe.

Do early Christian writings not claim that Matthew the Apostle wrote Matthew and does John not claim that it was written by a disciple in John 21?

[Lionz]

Schoch is like the poster boy for theories regarding it being natural maybe. You might want to compare words of him with words of Masaaki Kimura. See two links a bit more than half way down a page here? http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html

[Lionz]

Here's part of a certain feature you refer to maybe...

[comic boy]

Creationism is one of the basic tenets of religion, it simply means a belief in a God who created our World.
Young Earth Creationism is a literal belief in the words of Genesis , it is utterly inflexible , it rails against Scientific progress ,does not make one a better Christian and is in effect a doctrine for Fuckwits.

Next....