Creation vs. Evolution

[Hedshaker]

Hey DavisBJ,

Don't flatter yourself. Of course, you saying Mother God does not faze me.

You mean phase Michael, not faze


Just messing with you Michael

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

I know you are trying to make sense of Genesis. You must realize that there is other light besides sunlight. Florescent light, for one. Look at how fireflies light up. They do so without sunlight. There is no telling what kind of light that God made when it is written "Let there be light." Maybe it was incandescent light? There's all kinds of possibilities. God Bless You for trying.

Much Love Coming Your Way,

Michael

Hi Michael

Glad that you are not devoting all your time to delicious meals.

The light that God created must advance the creation story.
It should also be a permanent feature, visible today.
Everything else that was created in those 6 days is still around and visible today. So I think it's a fair question as to what light is being referred to as being created on Sunday, if the sun, moon and stars only come into being on Wednesday.

I hope you are keeping well??

 

[TheDuke]

Now if you find human footprints in dinosaur footprints as some claim, that would be interesting.

I think I've had an epiphany! I just saw some footage from Jurassic world, and now I totally understand where Ken Ham had his inspiration for the tricertops with the saddle.

 

[DavisBJ]

Hey DavisBJ,

Don't flatter yourself. Of course, you saying Mother God does not faze me. I already know that God said, "Let us make man in our image;" not let us make man in a woman's image. He was a he, and so was the man He created. No, I am just tired of trying to co-exist with your awful, terrible things you say about my God and everything about Him. I can do without it now. Why put my neck out for you?? Just because I've said I'm tired of posting here doesn't mean I will still not post once in a while. I just won't be posting regularly and answering everyone's posts. I hope I made that clear earlier. Most of what I read here I will not respond to like I used to. And I will respond to you too, but my love for you has died. You killed it. I hope you are happy. I do still love Alwight and even Hedshaker, but not you. They don't act like you. You are filthy evil with what you say about God. You bring Shame upon your name.

Michael

I still haven't figured out specifically what set Michael off. Oh well, he has done this before. Time for me, the atheist, to act like a Christian and keep on extending a hand of friendship to Michael, and meantime he (the so-called "Christian") can continue despising me as he walks hand in hand with the prince of darkness.

 

[TheDuke]

I believe Genesis is more trustworthy than scientist's rather fragile interpretations.

That is why you are a creationist and not a rationalist :devil:

But jokes aside, it's clear that someone used to biblical literalism will have difficulty understanding why science always "changes its mind". In fact everyone always change their mind, religious leaders too! You were taught as a child (I presume) to treat the bible as an "absolute truth", which is a standard that science can NEVER achieve. The scientific knowledge, however, improves over time. If you think that as long as the knowledge is still incomplete (or not absolute) that it makes no sense for you to take it seriously, I would advise next time you or a family member gets sick, just pray it all away :rapture:


Theists centuries ago, with your mindset at first, began gradually to realize that mother nature trumps scripture in all accounts. I hope one day, you will too!

But it's better to reject scientists' conclusions than to reject evidence, don't you think? For instance, the sivatherium is believed to have been around during man's existence partly because rock art in the Sahara depicts them.

1) yes, evidence can be re-examined and better conclusions drawn, but rejecting a preliminary conclusion outright is silly. Moreover, it is YEC that rejects evidence, such as tree rings, Ice cores, fossils etc.

2) Who do you think interprets rock art and draws conclusions from it, if not the very scientists you mistrust.

3) Think of the Mammoth, they are relatives of modern elephants, right. And we know they still coexisted with humans, possibly just like sivatherium. Think of the Neanderthal, possibly coexisted with modern humans, different lineage. ETC.

Why does science, or more appropriately, why do scientists use practically the same evidence for different species of animal to come to opposite conclusions? Seems like a discontinuity in the scientific method to me.

It's because they don't. You can read more about "living tissue" in dinos and why we don't have their DNA yet.

why is it that you would be willing to completely disregard evidence from a different source of man's art/history/literature? Is this a particular bias you have against the book of Genesis? Is this bias stronger than anything you might feel toward other books?

1) Genesis isn't special, all religious scripture from around the world is suspect

2) Evidence can be drawn from it: about history, culture etc.

3) It is literally a massive leap of faith to infer that because some realistic events seem plausible, all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo should be taken seriously too.

4) Ask yourself: Are you ready to change your mind, like ever? Or are you so scared of being wrong that you would rather stick your head into the ground at a mere sniff of a physical fact.

I know what my position is: open-minded scepticism. Any new evidence - I embrace. When someone shows me wrong - I'm forever grateful.
Just give it a try, I promise it won't hurt.


PS: The image of the sivatherium is from a Polish museum, I believe. But much more important was the first part of the video series, hope you liked it.

 

[Derf]

Hi Alwight,
I want to compliment you on your responses. Quite clear and concise, and directed to specific statements of mine. Keep up the good work!

I don't see how defining a different early Pleistocene from the scientific one would be particularly helpful?
The first two are pretty much the same thing anyway.

My understanding of the named ages, like pliestocene, is that they specify an "age" rather than a "time", if you can see my distinction. So, creationists might agree with an "age" designation as a grouping of fossil finds from a particular layer of sediment, but disagree with the time assigned to it. That doesn't mean they would agree with every "age" designation, nor disagree with every time assignment (though these would be considered more suspect the further back they are from the 6000 year mark).

Perhaps YECs will want to reject evidence of ice ages as being something to roughly measure the passing of long periods of time by?Or, failing that, dismissing radiometric dating methods, or the fossils found in the time based geological column, or the speed of light from distant galaxies?

Dismiss them? No, but definitely question them, as I believe you feel to be appropriate with any scientific conclusion. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to find any new thing to cheer in the progression of science. Ice-cores, tree ring sequencing, and radiometric dating were introduced as a way to "question" the science (or scientific conclusions) of the time. But does that mean that they are above questioning? Not if science is going to progress. "Questioning" by the way, does not always mean the same as trying to refute, but trying to refute is perhaps the best way to confirm or deny a particular technique.

But my real point is, even if you personally do worry about the scientific evidence, that YECs typically don't care what scientific conclusions may be because for them they are always trumped by a literal Genesis every time, which is why I say it is pointless.

But if I do personally worry about the scientific evidence, and I am a YEC, then is it fair to characterize all YECs with something you accept some don't hold to? But even YECs don't always agree on what a literal Genesis would look like in the fossil record. Just try to find a consensus on which layers are from the flood and which are not!

Your video series link suggested that disagreement (specifically on what would constitute a "human" versus an "ape") in the YEC camp means that they are all wrong. But instead, they are exhibiting the fundamental aspect of science--that differing opinions need to be heard, not squelched. Squelched science is dead science, whether squelched from a literal Genesis approach, or from a deep time approach, or from a materialistic approach, or from whatever approach.

Typically you haven't said why Genesis should be considered to be so historically accurate

I don't think I said that Genesis should be considered so historically accurate. What I said was that as literature and art and history, it should be considered as evidence, no less so than rock art might be. I think it should be given more weight than rock art, because it is easier to interpret its meaning, as it is written in a language we understand with a message we can more or less discern.

and why evidence based science seems to have universally conspired to present peer reviewed conclusions from all its branches that compliments rather than contradicts, which natural scientists pretty much wholly endorse.

I don't believe I said this either. But as long long as you agree that natural scientists only "pretty much wholly" endorse those conclusions, it seems we can have an intelligent conversation about it. "Pretty much" being a relative adverbial phrase, it seems to effectively cancel the more absolute "wholly".

If you are going to wave a literally interpreted Genesis at me to trump anything I say whatever science may conclude then yes of course there is nothing left to talk about.

I agree with you here! (surprised?). But it works both ways. If you are going to wave the "all peer reviewed conclusions are settled science" at me, then there is nothing left to talk about. And before you disagree with me on this point, think long and hard about what might be included in those peer-reviewed conclusions and how they often disagree with each other.

I'm not sure you are right about the last part.

You are absolutely right--I misread my source and confused paragraphs on two different fossil/bone sources. Good catch!

I know about the T-Rex bone with supposedly soft tissue but even that isn't entirely true since the bone had to be cut open and the remains of blood vessels were identified as preserved by the iron in the blood apparently.

That's the most recent hypothesis, anyway. Time will tell on that one. (pun only somewhat intended)

"Fresh Meat" is only a creationist creation imo, but do cite any evidence that I may be unaware of.

I don't know about any fresh meat claim.

If you want to cite your claimed scientific dispute then I'll take a look but to my knowledge there is no real dispute unless engineered by creationist websites perhaps.

This sounds a bit disingenuous--are you saying that anything on a creationist website is unworthy of your perusal? Then we're back to that waving a peer reviewed flag that makes this conversation pointless, don't you think?

I really don't see how Genesis is somehow self-evidenced while I don't know of any particular contention with animals depicted in ancient cave art so please do enlighten me on my supposed bias. Ancient men painting what they saw around them did not require any miraculous events to take place, they appear to be simple observations of daily life which I have not been asked to suspend my belief in the natural world, so why would I doubt?

Good. I agree. And since written words are much better than art, as I described earlier, then I hope you won't mind me referring not to Genesis, but to the book of Job, considered by some to be the oldest book of the bible (thus fitting your description of ancient, I hope). In no case is it any younger than when the septuagint was written somewhere around 285 BC. And just as ancient man might paint what they saw around them, so might ancient man write about what they saw around them. So when the book of Job describes behemoth in Job 40:15-24, which seems to be very similar to things we call dinosaurs, shouldn't we recognize it as evidence? We can argue as to what it is evidence of, but the fact that an ancient writer described something is just as telling as that an ancient artist depicted something. Something that modern science claims is impossible--that man coexisted with creatures that supposedly went extinct 10s of millions of years ago.

I'm sure you would recognize the coelecanth as a modern-day example of this kind of phenomenon, where coelecanths were considered extinct for 65 million years until they were found alive and well. Such doesn't prove anything about the Job reference, except to show the power of human observation (and recording, since I only knew about live coelecanths from someone writing about them) over scientific conclusions in peer reviewed journals. Remember--this is evidence, and the conclusions we reach from it are the thing we disagree on.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm sure you would recognize the coelecanth as a modern-day example of this kind of phenomenon, where coelecanths were considered extinct for 65 million years until they were found alive and well.

No. "Coelacanths" are an order within the class Sarcopterygii, just like primates are an order within the class Mammalia. They are quite diverse...

The body plan of anatomically modern coelacanths in comparison to that of primitive coelacanths and non-coelacanth sarcopterygians. (a) Parietonasal or parietal shields from selected sarcopterygians showing different proportions of preorbital, orbital and postorbital regions. Elongated preorbital portion (purple) and orbital portion (green) represent a derived feature characterizing Euporosteus and other anatomically modern coelacanths. Miguashaia resembles primitive sarcopterygians such as Psarolepis and Styloichthys in having elongated postorbital portion (red). Parietonasal or parietal shields drawn to comparable anteroposterior length and are not to scale. (b–e) Differences in caudal fin between anatomically modern coelacanths and primitive coelacanths. Miguashaia (b) resembles primitive rhipidistians such as Glyptolepis and Osteolepis in having a heterocercal tail. Diplocercides (c), Coelacanthus (d) and Latimeria (e) have a diphycercal or trilobed tail with symmetrically developed dorsal and ventral lobes. Illustrations not to scale. Cd, dorsal lobe of caudal fin; Cv, ventral lobe of caudal fin; Ra, endoskeletal radial. Scale bar, (c) 1 cm.
​

There are quite a few anatomical differences between the ancient species known from the fossil record, and the one discovered still living.

As before, you should incorporate this information and adjust your argument accordingly.

 

[Derf]

No. "Coelacanths" are an order within the class Sarcopterygii, just like primates are an order within the class Mammalia. They are quite diverse...


There are quite a few anatomical differences between the ancient species known from the fossil record, and the one discovered still living.

As before, you should incorporate this information and adjust your argument accordingly.

Thanks Jose. Appreciate the information. But let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the fossil record is full of instances of some type of coelacanth, be it ancient, modern or something else, between 65 million years ago and now, such that scientists would be misinformed to think that the coelacanth (in any form) actually went extinct 65 million years ago?

If your answer is "yes", then why was it such a surprise to scientists to discover even the modern-day version, as depicted here. Note that the link is not to creationist propaganda site, but to the well-respected-by-the-scientific-community Smithsonian Institute.

And why would the Smithsonian link to a site that says "This is the astounding coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), the fusion of life and time, that following a supposed extinction of 65 million years, head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938."(emphasis added)

If you are saying "no", then do you understand my point that recent human observations trump scientific conclusions about what has or hasn't been extinct for 65 million years?

 

[MichaelCadry]

You mean phase Michael, not faze


Just messing with you Michael

Dearest Hedshaker,

My Amigo!! No, I really meant faze. Are you joking with me? How have you been doing lately? I'm pulling my amp out and going to be playing guitar and singing again soon. It helps my heart and soul to sing certain songs. I'm gonna crank that amp up!! I could use the practice for when I go to my nephew's home next. We jam down when I'm there. His girlfriend has a good voice indeed. But not my nephew. Anyway, sometimes I mess up the chords or the words, so I could use some practice. I wanna do some Lady Gaga songs and maybe Hozier. And some Cat Stevens/Yusuf. His songs make my heart feel better! Elton John too!! England has some wonderful artists!! Well, you take care and keep in touch!!

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Thanks Jose. Appreciate the information. But let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying that the fossil record is full of instances of some type of coelacanth, be it ancient, modern or something else, between 65 million years ago and now, such that scientists would be misinformed to think that the coelacanth (in any form) actually went extinct 65 million years ago?

If your answer is "yes", then why was it such a surprise to scientists to discover even the modern-day version, as depicted here. Note that the link is not to creationist propaganda site, but to the well-respected-by-the-scientific-community Smithsonian Institute.

And why would the Smithsonian link to a site that says "This is the astounding coelacanth ("see-la-kanth"), the fusion of life and time, that following a supposed extinction of 65 million years, head-lined into human consciousness with its discovery alive in 1938."(emphasis added)

If you are saying "no", then do you understand my point that recent human observations trump scientific conclusions about what has or hasn't been extinct for 65 million years?

Dear Derf,

They like to say millionth, so no one can challenge their deduction. Who could only prove it is one million years old, much less 65 million years old?? No one. So they think that everyone believes in their deduction. Too much, really. Their dating methods and their grandiose methods leave much to be desired.

And the Universe is over 3.5 billion years old and who is going to prove it's not? See what I mean? No one has been alive for 1/10,000 years old, so who the hell was around 3.5 billion years ago so we can accurately measure the time? Their dating methods are as good as their guessing methods. Don't believe them for a second.

Praise God!!!

Michael

 

[intojoy]

Evolution is as true as gravity. It's just a fact. Not really debate able. Especially by the layman creationist. Especially by the layman creationist.

The devil is lying to you

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael

Glad that you are not devoting all your time to delicious meals.

The light that God created must advance the creation story.
It should also be a permanent feature, visible today.
Everything else that was created in those 6 days is still around and visible today. So I think it's a fair question as to what light is being referred to as being created on Sunday, if the sun, moon and stars only come into being on Wednesday.

I hope you are keeping well??

Dear iouae,

Thanks for your thoughtful post to me!! Yes, 2nite we had gyros. I have the special meat, bread and Mediterranean yogurt so I could make the sauce, with mint and garlic in it. Delicious. Green peppers, red onions, and sliced tomatoes. Tomorrow I'm planning on making a meat loaf. The ones I make are meaty and not drowned in bread crumbs or oatmeal. My meat loaf is yummy!! I make it with an extra egg to bind it instead of relying on too many bread crumbs. Only 2/3 cup bread crumbs/no oatmeal. Will have it with mashed potatoes and French-style green beans with butter and dill weed. You can eat this well, but just not too much, or you will gain weight. It's healthier than fast food though. Have egg prices gone through the roof yet!! Ayyyy!!

Praise The Lord!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I still haven't figured out specifically what set Michael off. Oh well, he has done this before. Time for me, the atheist, to act like a Christian and keep on extending a hand of friendship to Michael, and meantime he (the so-called "Christian") can continue despising me as he walks hand in hand with the prince of darkness.

You are joking, right? It is very easy to see who is walking hand in hand with the prince of darkness. I'm the one walking hand in hand with Jesus Christ. And how about you?? I'm not going to go back into all of these posts and enunciate them for you. One thing I didn't like was your unholy reference about Jesus making bread and fish to feed the people who followed Him. That's not even part of what upset me most.

Michael

 

[iouae]

Dear iouae,

Thanks for your thoughtful post to me!! Yes, 2nite we had gyros. I have the special meat, bread and Mediterranean yogurt so I could make the sauce, with mint and garlic in it. Delicious. Green peppers, red onions, and sliced tomatoes. Tomorrow I'm planning on making a meat loaf. The ones I make are meaty and not drowned in bread crumbs or oatmeal. My meat loaf is yummy!! I make it with an extra egg to bind it instead of relying on too many bread crumbs. Only 2/3 cup bread crumbs/no oatmeal. Will have it with mashed potatoes and French-style green beans with butter and dill weed. You can eat this well, but just not too much, or you will gain weight. It's healthier than fast food though. Have egg prices gone through the roof yet!! Ayyyy!!

Praise The Lord!!!

Michael

That sounds fantastic.

My meal was spinach (swisschard) grown in my garden on grey water, microwaved for 8 min, with white sauce plus cheese and garlic, microwaved for 2 min. And Jentzen Franklin was interviewing Ben Carson while I ate. Does life get better?

Ps: Glad you getting back to your music. I may dust off my harmonica later.

 

[alwight]

Hi Alwight,
I want to compliment you on your responses. Quite clear and concise, and directed to specific statements of mine. Keep up the good work!

In my more lucid moments perhaps.

I don't see how defining a different early Pleistocene from the scientific one would be particularly helpful?
The first two are pretty much the same thing anyway.

My understanding of the named ages, like pliestocene, is that they specify an "age" rather than a "time", if you can see my distinction. So, creationists might agree with an "age" designation as a grouping of fossil finds from a particular layer of sediment, but disagree with the time assigned to it. That doesn't mean they would agree with every "age" designation, nor disagree with every time assignment (though these would be considered more suspect the further back they are from the 6000 year mark).

Well, my mission here as I see it is to steer you away from a fundamentalist doctrinal adherence and to embrace science. Not as a religion but as something that best explains the facts and evidence, which it may not always get right of course, but is arguably getting there and generally doing a good job.

Creationists however have a fixed predetermined doctrinal time limit in which everything has to be made to fit into, whereas science takes whatever time the evidence seems to require which strangely enough always seems to dovetail well with other scientific disciplines without too much fettling. Hence the generally accepted scientific epochs and the clarity of how long ago something probably happened in actual Earth years.

Perhaps YECs will want to reject evidence of ice ages as being something to roughly measure the passing of long periods of time by?Or, failing that, dismissing radiometric dating methods, or the fossils found in the time based geological column, or the speed of light from distant galaxies?

Dismiss them? No, but definitely question them, as I believe you feel to be appropriate with any scientific conclusion. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to find any new thing to cheer in the progression of science. Ice-cores, tree ring sequencing, and radiometric dating were introduced as a way to "question" the science (or scientific conclusions) of the time. But does that mean that they are above questioning? Not if science is going to progress. "Questioning" by the way, does not always mean the same as trying to refute, but trying to refute is perhaps the best way to confirm or deny a particular technique.

You seem to me to have your own background agenda to maybe find some doubt for doctrine to occupy, rather than to honestly seek to correct your own understanding or science if it is wrong. Science is about being wrong sometimes and being corrected by the evidence. There's nothing wrong with questioning science, but simply doing so because it doesn't fit with a pre-concluded religious agenda isn't exactly going to help put science on a better track imo, unless what you say is based in fact and evidence, rather than perhaps an adherence to a literal Genesis.

But my real point is, even if you personally do worry about the scientific evidence, that YECs typically don't care what scientific conclusions may be because for them they are always trumped by a literal Genesis every time, which is why I say it is pointless.

But if I do personally worry about the scientific evidence, and I am a YEC, then is it fair to characterize all YECs with something you accept some don't hold to? But even YECs don't always agree on what a literal Genesis would look like in the fossil record. Just try to find a consensus on which layers are from the flood and which are not!

Then perhaps for you there is hope, but I think you are perhaps trying to fudge your own beliefs albeit with at least some desire to value the core conclusions of science generally.
Cognitive dissonance?
Do you really think that the Earth is young because real facts and evidence indicate that is so, or are you more compelled to presuppose that the Earth is young because that's what Genesis would have us believe, if presumed to be an inerrant historical narrative? You can't really have it both ways.

Your video series link suggested that disagreement (specifically on what would constitute a "human" versus an "ape") in the YEC camp means that they are all wrong. But instead, they are exhibiting the fundamental aspect of science--that differing opinions need to be heard, not squelched. Squelched science is dead science, whether squelched from a literal Genesis approach, or from a deep time approach, or from a materialistic approach, or from whatever approach.

Differing opinions are one thing but evidential support is what tends to settle scientific arguments. I don't know what you mean by "squelched" science. Science isn't about someone's opinions it's about being demonstrably falsifiable should it be false. Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.

Typically you haven't said why Genesis should be considered to be so historically accurate

I don't think I said that Genesis should be considered so historically accurate. What I said was that as literature and art and history, it should be considered as evidence, no less so than rock art might be. I think it should be given more weight than rock art, because it is easier to interpret its meaning, as it is written in a language we understand with a message we can more or less discern.

Yes but your holy scripture was actually written by people with sophisticated language skills who were just as able as we are to "spin a yarn", to use allegory, to embellish, to use folklore myth and legend. They wanted to be heard and to be entertaining, they weren't simply putting down what they saw outside, they had an agenda as we all do.

and why evidence based science seems to have universally conspired to present peer reviewed conclusions from all its branches that compliments rather than contradicts, which natural scientists pretty much wholly endorse.

I don't believe I said this either. But as long long as you agree that natural scientists only "pretty much wholly" endorse those conclusions, it seems we can have an intelligent conversation about it. "Pretty much" being a relative adverbial phrase, it seems to effectively cancel the more absolute "wholly".

There are always a few with strong personal opinions outside the herd perhaps, which is a good thing too, but as I say it's evidence and facts that usually forces science together in the end, not doctrinal beliefs.

If you are going to wave a literally interpreted Genesis at me to trump anything I say whatever science may conclude then yes of course there is nothing left to talk about.

I agree with you here! (surprised?). But it works both ways. If you are going to wave the "all peer reviewed conclusions are settled science" at me, then there is nothing left to talk about. And before you disagree with me on this point, think long and hard about what might be included in those peer-reviewed conclusions and how they often disagree with each other.

Science provides conclusions that we can compare with the evidence to judge for ourselves how believable or not it is. Nothing is deemed to be proven truth.

I'm not sure you are right about the last part.

You are absolutely right--I misread my source and confused paragraphs on two different fossil/bone sources. Good catch!

An honest creationist.

I know about the T-Rex bone with supposedly soft tissue but even that isn't entirely true since the bone had to be cut open and the remains of blood vessels were identified as preserved by the iron in the blood apparently.

That's the most recent hypothesis, anyway. Time will tell on that one. (pun only somewhat intended)

Science at least isn't written in tablets of stone.

"Fresh Meat" is only a creationist creation imo, but do cite any evidence that I may be unaware of.

I don't know about any fresh meat claim.

There was, a couple of years ago, but now seems to have largely gone away. The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue" that excited YECs is very much a Christian but nevertheless dates the demise of her dinosaur to well over 60 million years ago iirc, despite her findings.

If you want to cite your claimed scientific dispute then I'll take a look but to my knowledge there is no real dispute unless engineered by creationist websites perhaps.

This sounds a bit disingenuous--are you saying that anything on a creationist website is unworthy of your perusal? Then we're back to that waving a peer reviewed flag that makes this conversation pointless, don't you think?

Firstly I will concede my bias that imo if anything of scientific value is to be found on creationist websites then it is purely coincidental, or perhaps taken from a more scientific source if they think something helpful to YECism exists. Say if it can be pointed to as a possible contradiction or can be quote mined. I accept my bias here and will try to keep an open mind, but for them a literal Genesis will always trump any science that seems to contradict it, there are no open minds to be found there.
Science otoh isn't a religion and it expects to be wrong sometimes.

I really don't see how Genesis is somehow self-evidenced while I don't know of any particular contention with animals depicted in ancient cave art so please do enlighten me on my supposed bias. Ancient men painting what they saw around them did not require any miraculous events to take place, they appear to be simple observations of daily life which I have not been asked to suspend my belief in the natural world, so why would I doubt?

Good. I agree. And since written words are much better than art, as I described earlier, then I hope you won't mind me referring not to Genesis, but to the book of Job, considered by some to be the oldest book of the bible (thus fitting your description of ancient, I hope). In no case is it any younger than when the septuagint was written somewhere around 285 BC. And just as ancient man might paint what they saw around them, so might ancient man write about what they saw around them. So when the book of Job describes behemoth in Job 40:15-24, which seems to be very similar to things we call dinosaurs, shouldn't we recognize it as evidence? We can argue as to what it is evidence of, but the fact that an ancient writer described something is just as telling as that an ancient artist depicted something. Something that modern science claims is impossible--that man coexisted with creatures that supposedly went extinct 10s of millions of years ago.

Not too sure what you mean by "better than art". A painting is what it is, but clever words can be used to paint a mental picture that needn't always relate to facts. Many legends and myths are part of many cultures, it's just human nature to tell stories and to embellish.
I can perhaps tell that for you a behemoth could only mean dinosaur? But if it were true then it seems to have been a herbivore maybe a hippo which the author has used his own word for.
Job seems to have been intended as a moral tale which like it or hate it shows that not everything in the Bible was intended to be taken literally.

I'm sure you would recognize the coelacanth as a modern-day example of this kind of phenomenon, where coelecanths were considered extinct for 65 million years until they were found alive and well. Such doesn't prove anything about the Job reference, except to show the power of human observation (and recording, since I only knew about live coelecanths from someone writing about them) over scientific conclusions in peer reviewed journals. Remember--this is evidence, and the conclusions we reach from it are the thing we disagree on.

Would you like to claim then that coelacanths are only a few thousand years old, and tell me why you and scientists seem to disagree about that?
Has science conspired against YECs and perhaps God, or perhaps sometimes they may also believe in God but just don't see any good reason to adhere to a literal Genesis time scale as YECs seem so compelled to?

 

[Derf]

1) Genesis isn't special, all religious scripture from around the world is suspect

But some is more special than others, wouldn't you think? see next quote response.

2) Evidence can be drawn from it: about history, culture etc.

Some religious texts give better information about history, culture, etc. than others, right?

3) It is literally a massive leap of faith to infer that because some realistic events seem plausible, all the supernatural mumbo-jumbo should be taken seriously too.

But plausibility of one part of a document tends toward the credibility of the document as a whole--doesn't prove it, but supports it.

4) Ask yourself: Are you ready to change your mind, like ever? Or are you so scared of being wrong that you would rather stick your head into the ground at a mere sniff of a physical fact.

I've changed my mind on a number of things through the years, including how to interpret Genesis. And physical facts don't scare me--it's the interpretations that you have to watch out for. You seem to confuse the two (see next quote)

I know what my position is: open-minded scepticism. Any new evidence - I embrace. When someone shows me wrong - I'm forever grateful.
Just give it a try, I promise it won't hurt.

I've been trying, and you still don't seem grateful.

PS: The image of the sivatherium is from a Polish museum, I believe. But much more important was the first part of the video series, hope you liked it.

The video series was indeed interesting, but MAJOR propaganda, both in content and in style. I don't see much difference in style between that and some of the creationist stuff that was caricatured in the series.

So here's a thought for you: Throughout history up until, say, the Renaissance, science and religion have been inextricably linked (for better or worse). Think Celtic druids with their henges, or Mayan temples and their calendars. You believe that science has somehow severed those links and is no longer chained to religion, do you not?

Would you consider the possibility that the science of today is no better disconnected from the religion of today than were the Celts and Mayans?

 

[6days]

Creationists however have a fixed predetermined doctrinal time limit in which everything has to be made to fit into, wherea science takes whatever time the evidence seems to require which strangely enough always seems to dovetail well with other scientific disciplines without too much fettling.

surely you know that isn,t true at all.
evolutionists adjust dates upwards and downwards continually trying to make their beliefs dovetail. Dates are often assigned based on beliefs only.

Do you really think that the Earth is young because real facts and evidence indicate that is so, or are you more compelled to presuppose that the Earth is young because that's what Genesis would have us believe, if presumed to be an inerrant historical narrative? You can't really have it both ways.

Yes, Gods word tells us we live in a young universe, and science helps confirm that.

Science is being constantly challenged by science itself but creationism doesn't contribute anything of value to that process.

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past not science. Evolutionism has never contributed a single new technology or medical advancement but has at times hindered science.

The scientist in charge who found the supposed "soft tissue"

Evolutionists still hate admitting that soft tissue has been found numerous times.

Would you like to claim then that coelacanths are only a few thousand years old, and tell me why you and scientists seem to disagree about that?

Evolutionists said coelacanths had gone extinct 65 million years ago. Science proved them wrong.
Yes God created the fish and sea creatures about 6000 years ago. Fortunately not all scientists believed the 'just so story' of the 65 million years.

 

[iouae]

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This could have been 7000 years ago or this could have been 13.75 billion years ago or this could be 5 billion years ago. The Bible does not say. Neither does the Bible say this occurred on the first day. Light was made on the first day. So this is before the first day.

I set out now to prove that this is a RECREATION of earth which occurred 7000 years ago. This is not the original big Bang creation 13.75 billion years ago, neither is this the 5 billion years ago creation of earth.


2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.

Either God had created the world "without form and void" as an intermediate stage, or earth had become "without form and void" due to a prior mass extinction. Again the Bible does not say. The Hebrew supports both "WAS without form and void" or BECAME so.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The earth's surface is completely covered with water, and a thick nuclear-winter like cloud enshrouds the earth right down to the surface of the water. There is just a chokingly thick atmosphere.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

God is speaking from the perspective of the surface of the waters, where His Spirit fluttered. From here, the sky is seen to thin out so that one can make out day from night. God has thinned the atmosphere so that day and night can be differentiated.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

I now want to prove by logic, that an old earth, probably 5 billion years old is being renewed after a mass extinction.

1) If the sun, moon and stars are only created on day 4, how can there be day and night without the sun, and a rotating earth? It is impossible.
So the sun exists at this stage, but from the perspective of the surface of the earth, no day or night could be differentiated till the end of day one. God has thinned the chokingly thick atmosphere to a point that sunlight penetrates right down to the watery surface of earth. That is what occurred on day one.

In a prior post I asked the question "What was the light God made on day one, if sun, moon and stars only are created on day four"?

The answer is that from the perspective of where God's Spirit moved, from the perspective of earth's watery surface, here could be seen light for the first time since the mass extinction.

My guess would be that a massive comet made of ice had struck earth or a super volcano had erupted at the end of the Pleistocene. We are about to begin the Holocene or modern era. God is about to replenish earth with our modern plants and animals - and modern man.

 

[alwight]

surely you know that isn,t true at all.
evolutionists adjust dates upwards and downwards continually trying to make their beliefs dovetail. Dates are often assigned based on beliefs only.

Thank you for your opinion on what you think "evolutionists" believe, whoever they are exactly.
However the good thing about natural science is that there is plenty of time for rational evidenced events to take place in, say ice ages, all of which need no assumptions of hocus pocus as a short-cut.

Yes, Gods word tells us we live in a young universe, and science helps confirm that.

I'm rather sure 6days that you'd believe that black is white if it were in Genesis. lain:

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past not science. Evolutionism has never contributed a single new technology or medical advancement but has at times hindered science.

Yes but I was talking about what science says, not your supposed "evolutionist" diversion.

Evolutionists still hate admitting that soft tissue has been found numerous times.

Not true, I found some in my lunch today.

Evolutionists said coelacanths had gone extinct 65 million years ago. Science proved them wrong.
Yes God created the fish and sea creatures about 6000 years ago. Fortunately not all scientists believed the 'just so story' of the 65 million years.

Where exactly do you think your "evolutionists" got that idea from and what is it about coelacanths that seems to fascinate them so much, since they aren't scientists apparently? Perhaps it's all just the made up nonsense of a vivid imagination?

 

[DavisBJ]

You are joking, right? It is very easy to see who is walking hand in hand with the prince of darkness. I'm the one walking hand in hand with Jesus Christ. And how about you?? I'm not going to go back into all of these posts and enunciate them for you. One thing I didn't like was your unholy reference about Jesus making bread and fish to feed the people who followed Him. That's not even part of what upset me most.

Michael

I wonder if Michael’s recent intense antipathy for me isn’t just another of his bi-polar type mood swings. I think I will avoid rattling the bars on his cage for a while.

But he does mention one thing I had not expected – his offense at my mention the miracle of the loaves and fishes. As I mentioned, that type of event is squarely in the middle of the type of things that physics deals with. I can’t see why offense should be taken for asking permission to actually measure and understand how some of the miracles attributed to God are accomplished. And I did ask 6days, in a recent post, if he would kindly see if I could get an invite to the next event at which God dramatically demonstrates such supernatural powers. No answer yet from 6days.

In a way, it might be unwise to ask to be allowed to attend a supernatural event, since some such events are reported to have involved the calling down of fire from heaven to immolate the unbelievers. Kinda like requesting a ticket to attend your own assassination. But the request for the invitation still stands. My disbelief in the very existence of the supernatural entity tempers any qualms I might have, and in allegiance to true scientific purity, even the likelihood of my demise can be of value. I know of doctors who spent their careers treating serious diseases, only to find late in life that they themselves had come down with the fatal ailment. One doctor in particular kept detailed records on how his own psyche dealt with the realization that he was going to die. If I am to be immolated, first give me time to strap temperature and pain and heart-rate sensors to my body.

But back to the physics and miracles question, (and with acknowledgement to Neil Tyson), history actually is replete with cases not unlike what I want – a clear case of God doing something that physics can study. For most of man’s history the very motion of the bright pinpoints of light in the sky was often put forth as due to God’s involvement. Yet it was Newton - a good Christian, who was also one of the premier scientists - who turned his thoughts to how the heavenly bodies moved, and not long after he gave the world the law of gravity - a rather simple mathematical equation which obviated the need for thinking how God was involved in orbital motion. It’s not that Newton was adverse to relying on God, and in fact there were details of planetary motion that Newton was unable to explain. And in those gaps in Newton’s own knowledge is where he deemed it necessary to reinsert God as an explanation, while mentioning God not at all in his presentation of the Law of Gravity.

Some time later mathematicians having a command of a new mathematical technique called perturbation theory revisited the orbital anomalies that Newton saw the hand of God in, and found that, just like the Law of Gravity, there was a perfectly sensible mathematical explanation that eliminated the observed orbital motion altogether from relying on supernatural assistance. Nowhere in physics today is God studied as a cause of orbital motion, yet God was, only a few centuries ago, thought to be intimately involved in what we now call orbits.

Maybe Cadry (and 6Days?) want to avoid a repeat performance, wherein physics finds a perfectly natural explanation for something long believed to be evidence of divine action. In other words, maintain ignorance in deference to the fear that belief in God will suffer.