Creation vs. Evolution II

[Jose Fly]

yes historical science is valid.

Try to not forget that the next time you feel the urge to regurgitate "evolution is a belief about the past and not science".

But when you start with the wrong conclusion, then try shoehorn data to fit your belief... you might convict the wrong guy.

You don't start with the conclusion....period. And that's one of the main reasons why the framework both you and AiG operate under ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record") is completely anti-scientific.

Try to remember this time.

 

[6days]

My understanding is that the Genesis creation story was about a local event that took place in the region described in Genesis 2:8-14 about 4,000 BC.

God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4. It was not a local event.

Thus, it doesn't require that we take Genesis 1:1 to be the beginning of the entire Planet Earth or Universe. The "deep waters" in Genesis 1:2 were already there before Day One (Genesis 1:3).

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the*Lord*made the heavens and the earth,*the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested*on the seventh day.Therefore the*Lord*blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

 

[Rivers]

God created the sun, moon and stars on day 4. It was not a local event.

How do you explain the fact that the "sun" was created after there was already light, waters, land, skies, and vegetation?

Ex. 20:11 "For in six days the*Lord*made the heavens and the earth,*the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested*on the seventh day.Therefore the*Lord*blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

What you're missing here is that "light" and "darkness" and "days" throughout the Pentateuch are reckoned by the rising and setting of the sun. Thus, your theory that the "sun" was created on Day Four contradicts the biblical evidence.

 

[6days]

TOL helps confirm that we live in a post-truth existence, where the facts are not as important as how good the lies can make you feel.

Welcome back Stuu... nice to 'see' you again.

 

[6days]

It seems like he just made a mistake

What mistake?

* I haven't found any documentation anywhere confirming (or even asserting) that this was intentionally fraudulent.

What are you talking about? What fraud? Nobody suggested fraud.

*I think you're trying to smear someone you dislike who made an honest mistake.

I think you had too much coffee. Who is being smeared? What are you talking about.

Tell me again, how does a 2 million year old skull lead you to believe that the Earth is 6000 years old?

I'm not sure what you are on about. You wanted an example of how evolutionists sometimes ignore data then assign dates to fit their beliefs. Your pressure valve seemed to blow at the thought. You have been provided with an example. I did offer to provide more example if you wish.*

 

[6days]

Quote=GregJennings]

For a God who can speak the universe into existence, turning a 70KG body into 700 tonnes of salt is small potatoes.

"Since you're a man of science, explain to me scientifically how that happens.*[/quote]
Keep asking... the answer is the same.
A supernatural creation or event is a belief based on the evidence. We have evidence of divinely inspired and inerrant scripture. We have the evidence of the world around us that points towards an Intelligent Designer. We have the evidence from archaeology that supports the historical accuracy.

But, We can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past. (Life from non life, everything from nothing etcbr....that 'ain't' science)
It seems you don't know what science is.
Science is the search for knowledge and truth. Science is the study of the world around us using observation and experiment. Contrary to the belief of some evolutionists..... Science is NOT excluding a hypothesis of an intelligent designer, when the evidence seems to point in that direction. There are things in the past that can't be observed, and can't be proved by experiment. For example an atheist believes that life came from non life...or perhaps that nothing created everything. Likewise with supernatural events in the Bible...we can't observe or experiment on a one time event in the past.

However, we can see if evidence supports our beliefs. For example the first 5 words of the Bible are "In the beginning, God created"... So, we can look for evidence if there really was a beginning. We can look for evidence of an Intelligent Designer. We can look for evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired, and inerrant. Science is a body of knowledge and as such is always consistent with, and helps proclaim the truth of God's Word*

 

[6days]

How do you explain the fact that the "sun" was created after there was already light, waters, land, skies, and vegetation?

Why does it need explained? Do you need it explained how the walls of Jericho fell? That Jesus was born of a virgin?
Gen. 1:3 And God said,*“Let there be light,” and there was light.*4*God saw that the light was good,*and he separated the light from the darkness.*5*God calledthe light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”*And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What you're missing here is that "light" and "darkness" and "days" throughout the Pentateuch are reckoned by the rising and setting of the sun. Thus, your theory that the "sun" was created on Day Four contradicts the biblical evidence.

My theory? No... its what God tells us. Gen. 1:14And God said, “Let there be lights*in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night,*and let them serve as signs*to mark sacred times,*and days and years,*15*and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.*16*God made two great lights—the greater light*to govern*the day and the lesser light to govern*the night.*He also made the stars.*17*God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,*18*to govern the day and the night,*and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.*19*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

 

[Jose Fly]

You wanted an example of how evolutionists sometimes ignore data then assign dates to fit their beliefs. Your pressure valve seemed to blow at the thought. You have been provided with an example. I did offer to provide more example if you wish.*

Except the facts don't match your talking point. The obvious fact is, it is impossible for them to have "ignored data" while simultaneously documenting and reporting the same data in the scientific literature.

That you can't grasp that basic fact is further testament to how you can only speak in memorized talking points rather than from a standpoint of actually understanding the issues.

 

[Rivers]

Why does it need explained? Do you need it explained how the walls of Jericho fell? That Jesus was born of a virgin?

You seem to be missing that the Creation story is an explanation! Thus, your interpretation of the text should be able to account for why the writer has "deep waters" before Day One, and why there is light, waters, land, skies, and vegetation before Day Four.

Gen. 1:3 And God said,*“Let there be light,” and there was light.*4*God saw that the light was good,*and he separated the light from the darkness.*5*God calledthe light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”*And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. My theory? No... its what God tells us. Gen. 1:14And God said, “Let there be lights*in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night,*and let them serve as signs*to mark sacred times,*and days and years,*15*and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.*16*God made two great lights—the greater light*to govern*the day and the lesser light to govern*the night.*He also made the stars.*17*God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,*18*to govern the day and the night,*and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.*19*And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Yes, these two passages show that the sun must have existed on Day One or else there could not have been "day and night, evening and morning" in Genesis 1:3.

 

[6days]

You seem to be missing that the Creation story is an explanation! Thus, your interpretation of the text should be able to account for why the writer has "deep waters" before Day One, and why there is light, waters, land, skies, and vegetation before Day Four.

There is no days before day 1. God tells us "For in six days the*Lord*made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is..."

Yes, these two passages show that the sun must have existed on Day One or else there could not have been "day and night, evening and morning" in Genesis 1:3

God tells us He created light and seperated it from darkness on day one...and that He created the sun on the fourth day. *I believe it.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What mistake?
What are you talking about? What fraud? Nobody suggested fraud.
I think you had too much coffee. Who is being smeared? What are you talking about.
I'm not sure what you are on about. You wanted an example of how evolutionists sometimes ignore data then assign dates to fit their beliefs. Your pressure valve seemed to blow at the thought. You have been provided with an example. I did offer to provide more example if you wish.*

In order:

The dating error was the mistake.

If you agree that it was just a simple mistake that was then peer-corrected, then I suppose you aren't suggesting fraud. I can't say I see your issue with what happened if you know it was mistake that was quickly corrected.

Don't drink coffee. The guy who said the skull was 200 million years old.


Are you aware that a 200 million year old human skull would directly contradict what the ToE says about human evolution? I'll put it to you this way: dinosaurs died out only 65 million years ago, and only creationists think that humans and dinosaurs ever coexisted. So, despite your best efforts to find an example that undermined evolution, you have instead used one that bolsters it

 

[6days]

The dating error was the mistake.

What dating error are you referring to? Who says it was an error? *Why was it an error? Because it didn't fit their beliefs?*

Are you aware that a 200 million year old human skull would directly contradict what the ToE says about human evolution?

That is why they rejected the data...it didn't fit their beliefs. They assigned a date to the skull based on beliefs.*

...dinosaurs died...

We were discussing how evolutionists sometimes reject data, and assign dates. You seemed to get angry at that notion? But you now have an example of the circular 'reasoning' sometimes used in dating fossils.*

I'm ready to move on to the next example if you can acknowledge they rejected the data ... looked for new data that fit their worlview, and eventually assigned a date.*

 

[Jose Fly]

6days, you still don't have the foggiest idea how science works. Here, you're actually criticizing scientists for re-evaluating a data point that was an outlier among all the other data.

It's like I tried to explain to you earlier, where if I used a tire pressure gauge and got 44 (psi), 45, 44, 210, 43, and 44, decided to throw out the 210 outlier, and concluded that the tire pressure was 43-45 psi, you would claim "you ignored data that didn't agree with your beliefs".

This is exactly the sort of nonsense we've come to expect from a person whose understanding of science is limited to mere sound bites.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What dating error are you referring to? Who says it was an error? *Why was it an error? Because it didn't fit their beliefs?*
That is why they rejected the data...it didn't fit their beliefs. They assigned a date to the skull based on beliefs.*

We were discussing how evolutionists sometimes reject data, and assign dates. You seemed to get angry at that notion? But you now have an example of the circular 'reasoning' sometimes used in dating fossils.*

I'm ready to move on to the next example if you can acknowledge they rejected the data ... looked for new data that fit their worlview, and eventually assigned a date.*

I think I finally see what you are saying. That the date was nefariously switched to 2 million in order to preserve the status quo.


If you think that's how REAL science works, if that's how little you think of people who are the foremost professionals in their field and take their professions deadly seriously, then no wonder you never make any sense. You're either a conspiracy theorist nut or maybe just actually too dumb to comprehend what is being discussed here.



PS: what you are accusing the skull dating scientists of is absolutely 100% fraud. I point that out because you claimed that you weren't accusing them of fraud, however you are

 

[6days]

think I finally see what you are saying. That the date was nefariously switched to 2 million in order to preserve the status quo.

Thats your words.
The words I used was "*dates from the lab is sometimes ignored, and dates are simply assigned to fit evolutionary beliefs?"

Your response to that was a little heated..."Complete bs. Prove it you liar".
So.... you have been given one example so far "proving it". The lab date was rejected and a new date, more than 200,000,000 years different, was assigned. *

 

[redfern]

Dear redfern,

I've been over it a number of times and am not going to keep repeating myself.

Then don’t. You are perfectly free to not respond to my posts, and I have suggested you don’t. But if you decide to respond, well then …

one mistake that I made …

Yup, one mistake, a real doozer.

BTW, is it true that back in the very first post in the original thread (not the edited post that is there now) you said the earth was millions (or billions) of years old?

 

[redfern]

God tells us He created light and seperated it from darkness on day one...

From a scientific perspective, “light” generally means lots of photons with wavelengths that our eyes are sensitive to, and darkness means few photons with those wavelengths. So God created lots of photons, and He separated those lots of photons from not lots of photons? What a dorky way of expressing it – “separating light from darkness”. When you turn on the light in a dark room, do you declare you are separating light from darkness?

God tells us … He created the sun <and stars> on the fourth day.

Had kinda uneven task loading that creation week. 3 days getting this pinpoint-sized speck of matter called earth that we live on set up (speaking from an astronomical perspective), and then on day 4 He has to hurry right along and create billions of galaxies, each one with billions of stars, and probably planets as well. Maybe our planet earth was a first-time experience learning how to do this creating task?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thats your words.
The words I used was "*dates from the lab is sometimes ignored, and dates are simply assigned to fit evolutionary beliefs?"

Your response to that was a little heated..."Complete bs. Prove it you liar".
So.... you have been given one example so far "proving it". The lab date was rejected and a new date, more than 200,000,000 years different, was assigned. *

This was what you said:

Are you aware that dates from the lab is sometimes ignored, and dates are simply assigned to fit evolutionary beliefs?

Which implies that fraud is regularly committed by scientists. I asked you for an example (admittedly contentiously) and you provided a situation where a date was improperly assigned and later corrected upon peer review. You somehow interpret that as a plot by scientists to mask results that are harmful to the ToE.

The field of science isn't as petty as your creationist peers. The pursuit of knowledge drives scientists, not the pursuit of proving a 4000 year old creation myth true

 

[Rosenritter]

You're right!! I was thinking in error!! I am sorry and I apologize. Quite a sneaky question?!!

God Bless Your New Family!!!

Michael

Thank you for the acknowledgment and the well wishes both.

There's no record of "Ten Commandments" being given until Mount Sinai, including no record of "remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy" until that same Mount Sinai. No record of Adam, Enoch, Noah, or Jacob observing a Sabbath. Only a specific people were given the command, not others.

When Jonah was sent to Ninevah, he wasn't told to preach "Remember the Sabbath day" and when they repented and were forgiven, they didn't become seventh-day Sabbath keepers. It wasn't expected or required of them. It was never a requirement of Gentile peoples.

When there was controversy in the early New Testament church concerning the circumcision and the law of Moses, they were told that the Gentiles were now considered clean, and they realized that new moons, meats, and Sabbath days were no longer applicable. If there is value through them, it would be in understanding their significance as shadows of things to come, what they represent.

 

[Rosenritter]

I felt it best if I gave you another chance to show that you were man enough to give a direct answer to a simple question. Like most con artists, you avoided that answer and instead responded with a diatribe.

I am going to focus more specifically on the salt lady story. Do you dare discuss how well it comports with science in light of A) Conservation of Mass (both in her biological mass disappearing and in the appearance of salt in its place), B Conservation of Energy, and C) the Second Law of Thermodynamics?


You and Rosen toss out stupid absolutist claims like this pretty regularly. Can you honestly not think of scientific experiments specifically designed to investigate events that far pre-dated man?



Science does not concern itself with whether or not an intelligent designer exists, it simply investigates the natural world. Over the past few centuries since science was recognized as a formal independent field of study, a vast number of things once attributed solely to your God have been shown to be quite natural. The only scientific “evidence” for your God that you allude to lies in those extreme places where science has not been successful. Those islands of scientific ignorance are pretty sad excuses that you to have to rely on to pretend that proves your God.

Ah, the continued refrain of idiocy that fails to understand the irrelevance of its own argument, so pointedly demonstrated by the question of how a person could possibly turn to salt. Oh silly humanist, the human didn't EVOLVE into salt. The being that made worlds out of nothing accomplished the task. Considering that this being "God" is already a given at this point of the account, this is no difficult feat.

Now let's consider what you believe. You believe that a block of salt evolved into the human in the first place! Except with your story, there is no God, and no conceivable nor rational nor scientific way for this to happen.