Chance or Design (Evolution or Creation)

[6days]

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass, that in those days there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that the whole world should be enrolled.
"Whole world" in the NT, meaning "extent of the Roman Empire."

Uh.... No.

The Bible is like other literature.... You need context. If President Putin issued a decree to tax everyone in the land, we would know what that means because of context.

In John 3:16 God loves the whole world...no translation says God loves the Roman Empire. However, context in Luke 2 is obvious it is Roman Empire, and that is exactly what some translations say. Likewise in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen"...We know from context, that the word 'world' in scripture is not just the Roman Empire .

 

[Stripe]

The Bible says "erets" which was used the context of "land", "hereabouts", "this region or nation", but never for the entire globe.

As you learned: Nope.

Erets can indeed mean the entire globe.

Strong's H776 - 'erets. אֶרֶץ From an unused root probably meaning to be firm Outline of Biblical usage: land, earth — whole earth (as opposed to a part) https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H776&t=NKJV

You've been embarrassed on this topic before because you got lied to. There's an easy fix, just do a little research. Lashing out in anger won't help.

 

[Stripe]

That would never include you, um?

:chuckle:

It's always easy to tell when Barbarian is flustered.

 

[The Barbarian]

So, not only are you off by about 5,000 years, you justify it because "there's a rock layer that shows a flood."

No, that's wrong. There's no precise agreement among those who suppose there was a worldwide flood. Most go with 6,000 years, which makes it about 2,000 years older than the most popular guess. But others put it out around 10,000 years based on the same Biblical assumptions.

Here's the thing, Barb, the ENTIRE GEOLOGIC COLUMN is my evidence for a worldwide flood,

If that were true, we'd see it over most of the Earth. But it's only complete in a few spots, which completely rules out a worldwide flood while it was all being laid down. Even worse, in many of the layers we find entire desert or forest ecosystems. Explaining how all those formed and were buried in the middle of a worldwide flood is an impossible task. How do you think they did?

not just one layer, it was all laid down within roughly half a year, 3290 BC, +/- 100 years.

Not even all YE creationists accept your assumptions. Not to mention all those cultures building structures, farming, and carrying on, oblivious to the waters supposedly engulfing them.

These are devastating problems for those who invented the unscriptural idea of a global flood.

 

[The Barbarian]

Uh.... No.

The Bible is like other literature.... You need context. If President Putin issued a decree to tax everyone in the land, we would know what that means because of context.

On the other hand, if he decreed to tax everyone the world, we'd know he meant the extent of the Russian Federation. And you're right back where you are with the Bible.

As you now realize, "world" is used rather flexibly in scripture.

 

[Stripe]

There's no precise agreement.

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over the popularity of an idea. They think it is evidence.

If that were true, we'd see it over most of the Earth.

You got lied to about that.

Would you like to find out where you've gone wrong?

It can be explained to you in a few sentences, but it will take some humility to work.

It's only complete in a few spots, which completely rules out a worldwide flood while it was all being laid down.

It makes it necessary that at the time there was a large column of water above that spot with a huge supply of the two other rock-making ingredients. Give us two locations and physics dictates that everything in between at equal or lower elevation suffered the same fate.

So you're just wrong. It's not evil to be misled, but it's a sign of weakness when people don't admit that they might have something to learn.

Perhaps a little humility would help your situation. :up:

In many of the layers we find entire desert or forest ecosystems.

You've been misled on this as well. The coconino sandstone was not a desert, as you've been shown. Would you like to learn how we know that again?

Not even all Darwinists accept your assumptions.

Not to mention all those cultures building structures, farming, and carrying on, oblivious to the waters supposedly engulfing them.

Scripture tells us that this is exactly what hapened. Would you like the verses presented to you again?

These are devastating problems for those who invented the unscriptural idea of only a local flood.

 

[Stripe]

On the other hand, if he decreed to tax everyone the world, we'd know he meant the extent of the Russian Federation. And you're right back where you are with the Bible.

As you now realize, "world" is used to mean the whole Earth in scripture.

Would you like to learn how we know that in reference to the flood, that's exactly the right meaning?

 

[Guyver]

I am interested in reading your observations. Please provide me with a link to your work when it is complete.

Thank you Kode. It's just that I don't think I will ever publish my work or make any link available. The reason is that what I'm doing by observing and recording the setting position of the sun over the course of one year has probably already been done by scientists. They probably already have it figured out. I'm just doing it for my own learning activity. I predict that the sun sets north of west during the summer, and south of west during the winter in the Northern Hemisphere. I must continue the experiment to see if my predictions are accurate.

Some years ago I repeated an experiment first done by Van Leeuwenhoek in the 1670's. He took a single drop of water from a clay pot in his yard and looked at it under a microscope that he himself had made. He discovered microscopic organisms, that he called "little animals." In a single drop of water there are hundreds or thousands of these little critters swimming around, living, just as we do.

I took a sample of water from a clay pot in my backyard (birdbath) and did the same thing with a modern microscope. I found the little animals that Van Leeuwenhoek had first discovered centuries before. It's one thing to know that they are there, it's another thing to observe them swimming around in a single drop of water for yourself.

 

[Guyver]

Fusion cannot form elements heavier than iron.

No, not even stellar fusion.

See "Ye Olde Supernova Chemical Evolution Story" on https://kgov.com/spike-psarris-and-phil-plait.

Right. Well, iron exists in our bodies as an essential element. Link Body Composition

You'll notice that there exist trace elements in the human body, at least one of which has a half life of 14.5 billion years which is about as old as the universe itself.

Regarding the formation of these heavy elements, new research has shown other explanations for how they could have formed.

Cosmic Crashes Forge Gold

 

[Guyver]

If you just follow the links I post, you would have come across this page:

http://www.sciencenewsdigital.org/sciencenews/20130309/MobilePagedReplica.action?pm=1&folio=17#pg19

Bottom of the middle column, last full sentence.

Scientists want the heavy elements to originate in stars, but they don't.

Your link doesn't work unless by subscription. In any event, you are correct and I confirmed it by doing additional research. I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[Guyver]

Of course God created a perfect genome. Various verses tell us God and His works are perfect. God's Word tell us... Science helps confirm it.

Yes....but you are confirming my point. You do assume the existence of the perfect genome. The fact is that all humans die, and our genomes are not "perfect" if you can even define that word. One thing we know is that "Adam" is a hypothetical man with a hypothetical "perfect genome" because all the evidence shows us that all humans die and always have.

So, we were created by God (if he made us) to live and die here on this planet.

The story of Genesis is a "Creation Myth" and these are common to nearly every people group that I am aware. These are localized ideas held by people living in a given area, and they are used to help them make some sense of why we are here and where we go when we die.

Here is a list.

 

[Bee1]

John 1:3-4 King James Version (KJV)
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men."

To most scientists in the world today, the theory of evolution is no longer just a theory but is regarded as a fact. There are differences of opinion regarding the tempo, mode, and mechanisms of evolution, but the basic concepts of the theory have become an established philosophy. Even the educational systems of the world teach evolution by natural selection and the big bang as the only feasible theory of origin, to the exclusion of anything else especially creative design.

Now natural selection in itself is not a scientific principle, as it is based on circular reasoning. By natural selection, the weaker are eliminated and the stronger survive to propagate the species. It is all started by chance, the idea of the big bang was that a tiny point of nothing started the universe and somehow life started by chance.

The evidence for evolution is based largely on interpretation and a rationale for the long ages required for the evolutionary events to have taken place. However, each of these parameters is open to alternative explanations which also happen to be in harmony with the biblical account.

Evolutionary scientists argue that creationism is not science, that it is based on a preconceived ideology, which excludes it from the realms of science. However, if the facts fit the biblical creation account, is it excluded?

So is there evidence for Creation by design, was the DNA by purpose, and the form of mankind and domain made by a Creator?

Scientists has discover in our DNA, patterns of design. Which taken one step further, a designer.

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Right. Well, iron exists in our bodies as an essential element. Link Body Composition

And?

You'll notice that there exist trace elements in the human body, at least one of which has a half life of 14.5 billion years which is about as old as the universe itself.

Older, actually, if this is to be believed...

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...younger-we-thought-scientists-are-ncna1005541

So (if the above is true), how can those elements be 2 billion years older than the universe in which it was made?

Either way, radioactivity is not something that has been around since the beginning of the universe. You'll get to that in the "Origin of Earth's Radioactivity" section of In the Beginning.

Regarding the formation of these heavy elements, new research has shown other explanations for how they could have formed.

Cosmic Crashes Forge Gold

See above.

Your link doesn't work unless by subscription.

I have no subscription to that site, and I'm able to view it just fine.

In any event, you are correct and I confirmed it by doing additional research. I stand corrected. Thank you.

:thumb:

 

[Guyver]

And?

And so some elements of our bodies are formed by stellar fusion.

Older, actually, if this is to be believed...

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...younger-we-thought-scientists-are-ncna1005541

So (if the above is true), how can those elements be 2 billion years older than the universe in which it was made?

Well, there would be an explanation for that. What that actually is, IDK....but I would of course have some ideas about it. What do you think?

Either way, radioactivity is not something that has been around since the beginning of the universe. You'll get to that in the "Origin of Earth's Radioactivity" section of In the Beginning.

The research I have done indicates heavy radioactive elements were formed in the cores of stars. So that would indicate that radioactivity has been around for a very long time. I'll read the section that you referenced when time permits.

 

[7djengo7]

...and our genomes are not "perfect" if you can even define that word.

You're not sure whether the word, "perfect", can be defined, but you're sure that something is not perfect? For something to be not perfect is for it to be imperfect. If you can't define the word, "perfect", how can you define the word, "imperfect", or the phrase, "not perfect"? That's right: you can't. And, if you cannot define the phrase, "not perfect", what business do you really have saying that one thing is not perfect, and/or that another thing is perfect?

 

[6days]

You do assume the existence of the perfect genome. The fact is that all humans die, and our genomes are not "perfect" if you can even define that word.

As mentioned before....the evidence from genetics is consistent with God's Word, the Bible. From the Bible we expect a perfect genome that has been subjected to several thousand years of corruption. The evidence and the Bible align perfectly.

Common ancestry beliefs do not align with the evidence, and that is why secular geneticists call it a paradox (and propose various hypothetical rescue devices trying to shoehorn the evidence to fit the data)

So, we were created by God (if he made us) to live and die here on this planet.

We were created by God for relationships with Him, and others. As the Bible says "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

The story of Genesis is a "Creation Myth"

The creation account in Genesis is not just of our beginnings, but the beginning of an amazing book written by over 40 authors over the course of 1400+ years. Genesis is the foundation of the Gospel explaining why we need a Savior. Genesis also helps us understand why evil, sickness, pain and death exist in our world.

 

[ok doser]

The story of Genesis is a "Creation Myth" ....

The mythical tale of "goo to you" is the true creation myth

 

[Guyver]

The mythical tale of "goo to you" is the true creation myth

It is truly one of many. The only difference is that there is a lot of science behind this one. Yet, like so many Young Earth Creationists, you seem to confuse evolution and abiogenesis.

 

[ok doser]

Well, no

And there's nothing I wrote to suggest that

 

[ok doser]

Abiogenisis is the myth that somehow, life sprang from inorganic material

Evolution is the fairy tale that, from that first incredibly primitive beginning came all the diversity of life we see today