Scientists Question Darwinism

[Stripe]

"The whole Earth" is your addition.

Nope.

So the Lord said: “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”
Genesis 6:7 NKJV
​

As you learned, even 1,500 years ago, Christians knew the days were periods that have evenings and mornings. Even without a sun.

Do most Christians believe that? Yes, they do.

Darwinists love believing they are in the majority. It's their No. 1 argument.

It doesn't matter how old your modern revision is. The Bible says "evening and morning," "six days" and "the whole Earth."

And you'll likely keep ignoring Fred's request. The thousands of times you got asked to describe what verses mean if they don't mean what they plainly say were also ignored.

 

[The Barbarian]

To cut down on confusion, would you mind telling us what you think the bible is saying in the creation story. Please don't spare the details. If the whole story is too big a chunk to bite off at one time, can I suggest a couple verses?

Sure.
God made all things, including all living things.

He made man's body naturally, as He made the bodies of all living things.

But He directly gives each of us a living soul that makes all the difference.

Humans were once innocent and did not know about good or evil.

But the first two people who had living souls, defied God, and while gaining that knowledge and becoming like God, we were unable to be with God, because we unable to be fully good.

Humans are thereby forced to work the land for our food, and human females have considerable pain in childbirth. Both consequences of becoming aware and like God.

But we were left with the promise of a Redeemer.

That's the message He intended for us. What the "days" were intended to represent, or the physical details of how Eve came to be, are not what He wants us to know.

I disturbs me a bit that we as brothers in Christ are both saying that we are reading the words as written, but we are coming to completely different interpretations.

It doesn't bother me, since we seem to be pretty close on the things that matter. If you or I don't get the other stuff exactly right, it really doesn't matter to our salvation.

So, Barbarian, what do those three verses say, and on what points are you and YE creationists in conflict over them?

[Gen 1:11 KJV] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[Gen 1:12 KJV] And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
[Gen 1:13 KJV] And the evening and the morning were the third day.

God created life on Earth, by natural means, using pre-existing creation. Plants and animals. He created the other kingdoms as well, but of course no one at the time knew about them.

And the "days" were about categories of creation, not literal days.

Here's a question that might mean something. The Apostle's Creed is the statement of faith formulated by early Christians to identify what a real Christian was, in contrast to the gnostics and many other groups also claiming to follow Jesus.

And yet, it has nothing about the fall,and nothing about why Jesus came to die for us. Keep in mind, this was first formulated during the persecutions.

What does that have to do with the message in the creation story? I'd like to hear your ideas before I offer mine.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
"The whole Earth" is your addition.

Nope.

Yep. It's true. Here's the best excuse you could come up with:

Genesis 6:7 So the Lord said: “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

As you already know, it doesn't say the whole earth. In fact, it says in the orginal "erets", which means "land" "this land", "a particular nation, such as "erets Israel" and so on. But it doesn't say "the whole Earth."

You added that to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[Right Divider]

No. YE creationists are a small minority.

I said nothing about that. Why do you reply to me with something that I did not say?

Most Christians believe that the Bible means what it says.

That is clearly false.

Even YE creationists say that, but they don't mean it. They prefer their new revisions of the Bible to the way God did it.

Nonsense, per your usual.

I'm an old earth creationist... I think that the earth is very old. Perhaps even 10,000 years old.

 

[Stripe]

Excuse.

Scripture.

It says "the whole Earth."

Sorry, the Bible trumps your modern interpretation.

Erets.

"Adamah," actually, which — as luck would have it — can indeed mean "the whole Earth." Just like "erets" can.

The Bible trumps your modern interpretation.

It says "evening and morning," "six days" and "the whole Earth."

Do you need people to show you that again? :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

Scripture.

It says "the whole Earth."

Sorry, the Bible trumps your modern interpretation.



"Adamah," actually, which — as luck would have it — can indeed mean "the whole Earth." Just like "erets" can.

The Bible trumps your modern interpretation.

It says "evening and morning," "six days" and "the whole Earth."

Do you need people to show you that again? :chuckle:

If not the whole earth, then not all men need redemption?

 

[Stripe]

If not the whole earth, then not all men need redemption?

It's pretty easy to take a single word, look at its range of meanings, pick one you like and distort or completely reverse the sentence it came from.

But only if you don't read the story. :chuckle:

God created the world (erets), then He flooded it (erets, in other passages). As you say, He also redeemed it.

And His salvation is indeed offered to the whole world. :up:

 

[ok doser]

I just don't understand why barbie thinks that

Genesis 7:4 For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing that I have made.

really means

Genesis 7:4 For after seven more days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will blot out from the face of the land every living thing** that I have made. **lol jk - not really every living thing

similarly

The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere** under the heavens were covered **lol jk

 

[Stripe]

I just don't understand why barbie thinks.

That's the problem: He doesn't.

 

[Derf]

Hi Barbarian,
I apologize for the rather extended pause, after you answered my question. I got real busy. And I can't guarantee I'm done being busy, but I sure hate to have left you hanging so long.

Sure.
God made all things, including all living things.

He made man's body naturally, as He made the bodies of all living things.

I need some help with definitions here. What do you mean by "naturally"?

But He directly gives each of us a living soul that makes all the difference.

All the difference between what and what? Between life and death, or between animal and human?

Humans were once innocent and did not know about good or evil.

How many humans? More than 2?

But the first two people who had living souls, defied God, and while gaining that knowledge and becoming like God, we were unable to be with God, because we unable to be fully good.

I'm a bit confused here. This sounds like you think there were people before Adam and Eve, but they didn't have "living souls". Am I understanding you correctly? And are these "people" humans or not humans?

Humans are thereby forced to work the land for our food, and human females have considerable pain in childbirth. Both consequences of becoming aware and like God.

God has pain in childbirth?

But we were left with the promise of a Redeemer.

Anything about how that would come about?

That's the message He intended for us. What the "days" were intended to represent, or the physical details of how Eve came to be, are not what He wants us to know.

So "pain" is literal, but "days" with evening and morning are subjective?

It doesn't bother me, since we seem to be pretty close on the things that matter. If you or I don't get the other stuff exactly right, it really doesn't matter to our salvation.

Who gets to draw the line? What if we are wrong on what effects our salvation? What if salvation requires believing what God tells us?

At some points in this conversation, I think we are "pretty close on things that matter" and at other times far away. If the original sin was that Adam and Eve didn't listen to God to obey Him, and if Jesus Christ showed perfect obedience by putting aside what He wanted in favor of what God wanted Him to do, it seems like salvation is EXACTLY about hearing what God says to us and believing it. And if we decide that we can make God's words say something besides what He was intending to say, we aren't really believing God, are we?

At this point, then, I hope we are in agreement--that believing what God says is a monumental part of salvation. And then we are left to decipher what God actually has said to us. I think you agree here, because you have stated that you believe the creation story as written, and even though you came to a different conclusion about what "as written" means, you still seem to hold the first few chapters of Genesis to be words God wrote to us with some intention of passing usable information to us (communicating, in other words).

God created life on Earth, by natural means, using pre-existing creation. Plants and animals. He created the other kingdoms as well, but of course no one at the time knew about them.

There's that "natural" word again. You do realize it's a tautology, right? God created nature, and therefore whatever happens in nature is "natural". But whatever God has a hand in that is not just left to nature to carry on as it was originally created would be "supernatural". So not only do you appeal to a tautology, you then contradict yourself by claiming God did something by not doing anything--"God created...by natural means". You seem conflicted.

And the "days" were about categories of creation, not literal days.

I'll need more detail here. And I would appreciate some references to back up your statement. Where does the bible explain that the days are not literal, but categorical? Where are you getting your information for such assertions?

Here's a question that might mean something.

As opposed to my questions, I suppose.

The Apostle's Creed is the statement of faith formulated by early Christians to identify what a real Christian was, in contrast to the gnostics and many other groups also claiming to follow Jesus.

And yet, it has nothing about the fall,and nothing about why Jesus came to die for us. Keep in mind, this was first formulated during the persecutions.

What does that have to do with the message in the creation story? I'd like to hear your ideas before I offer mine.

I have a few bones to pick with your question, and the intro to it. The Apostle's Creed is A statement of faith formulated by early Christians, not THE statement of faith. Paul's was even shorter and considerably earlier:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [1Co 15:3-4 KJV]

It doesn't talk about a lot of things the Apostle's creed talks about. Does that make the Apostle's Creed inaccurate or not important? It might by your logic. But the focus was on different things, as you said--to combat gnostic teachings and other heresies.

In fact, this is what creeds are usually for--tom combat particular problems of the time period they are developed in. You seem to be arguing for a new creed to combat YE creationism.

What would your creed say?

it has nothing about the fall,and nothing about why Jesus came to die for us...
What does that have to do with the message in the creation story?

How much material do you need to consider to be more than "nothing"? The first thing we say we believe (from the creed) is that the Father is "Maker of heaven and earth"--that's the foundational principal in the creation story, and possibly in the whole entire bible: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Since the creed is short, it doesn't have much real estate to go into great detail about each thing, but surely even you must admit that the header to the creation story is quoted almost verbatim in the Apostles' Creed.

Nothing to do with the fall? nothing about why Jesus came to die for us? I beg to differ. Do these phrases mean nothing to you:
"I believe in ...
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting."

Why do you point out that it was formulated during "the" persecutions? Perhaps you will answer this in your idea offerings. The church is still under intense persecution in many areas. Does that help or hurt the formulation of accurate creeds?

 

[Gary K]

perhaps because they don't understand how science works? :idunno:

That is actually pretty funny, in the sense of irony. Science says the it's foundation is based in observation. Now tell me how many scientists have observed the mutation of one species into another species. That has never been observed yet it is claimed that evolution is scientific. If you cannot point to actual observation to support a theory, then the theory has never been proven according to science.

Much of what evolutionists claim is observation, such as dating methods, are very unreliable. Those dates/ages assigned end up being guesses or arbitrarily designated time frames. And the so-called geological stack in which age is determined by where something is found in the geologic column are also very iffy. The geologic column is very often, in fact the vast majority of the time, either incomplete, out of order, or even backwards of what evolutionists claim it should be. I believe the supposed geologic column is found on only less than 5% of the earth's surface. To make the evidence fit something found in less than 5% of the earth is pretty illogical and very arbitrary.

I would recommend a book on the inconsistencies of evolutionary theory and practice as far as scientists and science goes. The title is Tornado in a Junkyard and the author is James Perloff. He grew up believing in evolution and has studied it thoroughly. He was indoctrinated into it as a kid who hated God by the educational system. Then when he got to be an adult he started his study all over again because he came to see some inconsistencies in it. The more he studied it with an open mind the more problems he found with it. He has now written two books on it's weaknesses, but Tornado in a Junkyard is his best and most thorough eposè on it.

You can order it from the following link. If you buy books totaling $10 or more the shipping is free. I've bought probably 30 books through this site and they are good to deal with. I've never had an issue with them of any kind. The book quality is consistently what they say it is, and the orders usually arrive before their estimated time of arrival. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/torna...s-perloff/308814/#isbn=0966816005&idiq=569192

 

[Gary K]

No. YE creationists are a small minority. Most Christians believe that the Bible means what it says. Even YE creationists say that, but they don't mean it. They prefer their new revisions of the Bible to the way God did it.

Did you ever hear the story of the two flies? If not, well, that's OK. You're about to.

There were two flies hanging off the wall of a farm house. The first fly says to the second fly, Hey, look over there at that thing hanging from the ceiling. It looks like everyone we've ever known is over there. Let's fly over and visit them.

The second fly told him, I think that's a really bad idea. You go over there and you'll never leave. I've been watching that thing for two days now and no fly that ever landed there has left. They seem to land there and stick to it.

The first fly laughed and mocked him. Hey, he said, a million flies can't be wrong, and with that he flew off and landed on the fly paper hanging from the ceiling.

Popularity has never been a good indicator of whether something is a good idea or not, or whether it is true or not. Anyone who points to popularity to support his point of view is using a logical fallacy. This particular fallacy has several names: appeal to popularity, bandwagon fallacy, argument by consensus, arugmentum ad populum, authority of the many, etc....

You'll never convince any thinking person that your position is correct by using fallacious logic.

 

[Derf]

[MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION]

A little news story for you.
Old Earth Creationist Interprets Popcorn Instructions As 'Microwave For 1.7 Million Years'

 

[Gary K]

@The Barbarian

A little news story for you.
Old Earth Creationist Interprets Popcorn Instructions As 'Microwave For 1.7 Million Years'

I love it.

 

[Stripe]

[MENTION=92]The Barbarian[/MENTION]

A little news story for you.
Old Earth Creationist Interprets Popcorn Instructions As 'Microwave For 1.7 Million Years'

:rotfl:

 

[Gary K]

I want to point out some of the reasons evolution is actually very unscientific. I've spoken to the first of these reason I'm going to list already, but I couldn't find my resource book at the time and I gave evolutionists way too much credit in that post.

The evolutionists use the geological column in a very arbritrary, and dishonest way. Here are the statistics for how much of it is found in order, partial order, etc.... The following quote is from a geologist named Stephen A. Austin.

The notion that the earth's crust has an "onion skin" structure with with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale is not according to the facts. Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea 7 or more (70% or more) of the strata systems missing beneath: 94% of the earth's surface has 3 or more systems missing beneath: and an estimated 99.6% has one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (.04% of it's area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland).... The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists. "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column" Impact 137 (November 1984)

Science News says the following about the geologic column:

In many places, the oceanic sediments of which mountains are composed are inverted, with the older sediments lying on top of the younger sediments. "Mountain Building in the Mediterranean" October 17,1970

Now let's look at some statments from geologists on the quality of the reasoning used in the field of geology to support evolution.

Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (of which there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we say the fossil record supports this theory. Ronald R. West, assistant professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University "Paleoecology and Uniformitarianism" Compass May 1968

A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of particular theory of evolution, inspect the the interpretation, and then note it supports the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?
Paleontologist Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Puncuated Equilibrea page 52 published by Simon and Schuster 1985

I have several more quotes but as my scanner died writing these all out by hand gets really tedious. However, the two quotes I gave show the logical fallacies employed by evolutionists pretty well. As logical fallacy is a polite way to say someone is lying it's plain that much of the support for evolution taught in schools is just flat out dishonest. And evolutionists say creationists don't understand science? We do. We notice just how poorly constructed the entire theory is and how flawed its mechanisms of explanations are.

All of these quotes, and a whole lot more, are found in James Perloff's book, Tornado in a Junkyard, in the chapter titled Rocks of Ages. This book by Perloff is an excellent resource for anyone who debates with evolutionists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ken Ham Ejected From Theater For Yelling 'WRONG' Every Time 'Jurassic World' Actors Say ‘65 Million Years'
https://babylonbee.com/news/ken-ham...me-jurassic-world-actors-say-65-million-years

Young Earth Creationist Parents Force Child To Play With Human Action Figures, Dinosaurs At Same Time
https://babylonbee.com/news/young-e...h-human-action-figures-dinosaurs-at-same-time

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian thinks these are MSM stories. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

I want to point out some of the reasons evolution is actually very unscientific. I've spoken to the first of these reason I'm going to list already, but I couldn't find my resource book at the time and I gave evolutionists way too much credit in that post.

Since it's directly observed, there really isn't much chance of it being "unscientific." I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is. Most creationists confuse the theory of evolution, with phenomenon of evolution, with the consequences of evolution.

To get you started, how about giving us a testable definition of "evolution" and tell us about the five points of Darwinian theory, and how that was changed by the modern synthesis?

Then we can deal with the errors in your post. Here's one to start:

The entire column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists. "Ten Misconceptions About the Geologic Column" Impact 137 (November 1984)

North Dakota, for example:
The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
Precambrian...................................14945 feet

When you get those answers, we can go on.

 

[Stripe]

[Evolution is] directly observed.

:rotfl:

I suppose you don't actually know what "evolution" is.

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection.

It is Darwinists who refuse to stick to this definition.

The theory of evolution, [the] phenomenon of evolution ... the consequences of evolution.

See.

When you get those answers, we can go on.