|
Post by Shirley on Mar 28, 2004 19:24:03 GMT -5
I have but one random thought to add..as I often have random thoughts..
It states: "In the beginning...." it does not state when that beginning was..nor does it state how long the earth was void..there are but a few actual timelines in the bible..but I am certain..there is not one between "In the beginning"...and the creation..
Ok..go ahead..punch away...
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 28, 2004 19:48:40 GMT -5
Yes, there was some length of time before the creation of the world as can be seen in Proverbs 8:22-23 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was"
The speaker here would be wisdom, which is actually Christ Himself - and He existed for an everlasting amount of time before the beginning.
In Hebrews 1:10 we find, "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands" that Jesus was the Creator (as well as in Col. 1) but we also see that the phrase "in the beginning" was to designate the beginning of time - not of eternity.
In the future state of eternity, time will again cease to exist.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 28, 2004 19:58:01 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "How do you suggest that one empirically display 'faith?'"We display faith by believing the Bible to be God's Word, and believing Him to be truthful. Having faith does not necessitate that one believe a falsehood. "If GOD said it, and recorded it in His inspired Word, why is there such a gleeful sense of satisfaction that we cannot produce your sops of evidence?"The Creation parable shows that God created, but it takes the physical evidence to show how He created. My satisfaction comes from the fact that my every shred of that evidence is on the side of the presently accepted scientific models, while my opponents' model has none. "We were not there when God laid the foundation of the world"Nor did we need to be in order to determine God's means of creating. "but He told His servant Moses who faithfully recorded it all in Genesis"Once again, if Moses wrote any of Genesis, he was certainly not its only author. "how can you account for your disbelief in God the Creator?"What disbelief? I have never disputed that God is the Creator of all that we experience, it is the young Earth creationists' interpretation of the Creation parable that I dispute, and through the physical evidence, have falsified. "I read where one informed you that God created the world with the 'appearance of age,' and then you turned his statement back on him by suggesting then that God is the deceiver because Creation then is a lie."Because causing a thing to appear other than it is is an act of deception. That statement was not intended to in any way suggest that God is lying to us, but to demonstrate that since He cannot be lying to us, the truth of His Word must be consistent with the truth of His Creation. Since that is the case, and all evidence of His Creation is consistent with the presently accepted scientific models, Scripture must in turn be consistent with those models. Was it a lie when God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed life into his nostrils -- as a fully grown man?"The problem here is that you are asking the wrong question. Since the first humans were certainly not formed "out of the dust of the Earth" but instead evolved from our ape-like ancestors, there is no basis for asking if God was lying in that Creation. "You see, you have set yourself up as the authority over the Author of the Scriptues and have proclaimed, 'I don't believe it - you can't prove it! Therefore, it is not possible!'"I have done no such thing. What I have done is present physical evidence of God's Creation and demonstrate that since a literal interpretation of the Creation parable is inconsistent with that evidence, a non-literal interpretation must be adopted. "Is this not an open calling-out of God, and a challenge to His credibility?"No, it is an "open calling-out" of the young Earth creationists, and a challenge to their credibility. "And are you not worshipping and serving the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever and above all?"No. "I suggest that, despite all of your training and letters behind your name, you are playing a very dangerous game."I suggest that you have not actually understood what I have been saying all along. "I think it best that the rest continue to be reminded of what it is you are doing here - and to advise them to stay as far away as possible from 'science falsely so-called.'"What I am doing is showing how the Creation parable can, and must be, interpreted in a non-literal manner to resolve an apparent conflict between the truth of God's Word and the truth of God's Creation. As for your claim that the presently accepted scientific models are "science falsely so-called," if you would have your doubts as to the validity of those models carry any weight, you cannot do so without presenting physical evidence to that effect. Since you have no such evidence, your claims are meaningless. "For we walk by faith, and not by sight."Belief supported by evidence is logic, belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion.** SJudy - "It states: 'In the beginning....' it does not state when that beginning was..nor does it state how long the earth was void..there are but a few actual timelines in the bible..but I am certain..there is not one between 'In the beginning'...and the creation.."Which is just another reason that if we are to determine the age of God's Creation, we can only do so through the examination of that Creation. --Traf E. Traf **The statement "Belief supported by evidence is logic, belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in the absence of evidence is delusion" should instead read "Belief supported by evidence is logic, belief in the absence of evidence is faith, but belief in spite of the evidence is delusion. I apologize for any confusion that has resulted from this misstatement.
|
|
Rock
New Member
Posts: 23
|
Post by Rock on Mar 29, 2004 11:46:17 GMT -5
Evolutionists Admit Flaws in Their Theory "As molecular genetics professor Michael Denton wrote in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many world-cpkmtyoll biologists never fully accepted the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. This is because its claims to explain biological diversity were clearly contradicted by the enormous complexity and ingenuity they discovered in their own research. Francis Hitching wrote The neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, which documented that many evolutionary scientists concluded the theory of evolution was incompatible with their new knowledge of DNA and genetic complexity. Hitching said, "Computer scientists, especially, were baffled as to how random mutations alone could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation, they repeatedly pointed out, is a mistake - the equivalent of a copying error. And how could mistakes build up into a new body of complicated ordered information?" Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information, as the theory of evolution demands. Copying errors can only lose or corrupt information. Therefore, mutations cannot add information to generate positive change to an organism." Rock
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Mar 29, 2004 13:37:01 GMT -5
Amen, sismmm!! Mmmmm mmmm mm mmmmmmm mmmm, mm mmmmmmmm mmm mmmmm mmmmm!! Mmm mmmm mmmmmm mmmm mmmmmmmmm mm mmmm!!!!
(keikikoka puts hand over my mouth as I attempt to add commentary to Rock's words.)
|
|
|
Post by keikikoka on Mar 29, 2004 15:31:00 GMT -5
Are any names given? Any quotes? What was the research? Was the research documented? Hearsay isn't evidence? Many, infact most, scientists conclude that the evidence is compatable. That isn't imporant, though. Having a few scientists disagree with theory doesn't make it wrong. Computer scientists are not specialized in the feild of biology A mutation isn't a mistake. It can only be viewed as a mistake when a human gives value to the effects of the mutation. Most mutations are neither harmful or helpful. What you may view as a bad mistake can be helpful. Take sickle cell anemia. It's mutation causes hemoglobin to be abnormally shaped. However it also builds a resistance to malaria. What is this based on? Addition mutations are comonly observed mutations. 'corrupt' is a bad term, in my opinion. The new DNA may be different and produce different results, but this doesn't make it bad.
|
|
|
Post by k8reader on Mar 29, 2004 19:00:11 GMT -5
Romans 14
The Weak and the Strong
1Accept him whose faith is weak, without pkmtyolping judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.' "[1] 12So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13Therefore let us stop pkmtyolping judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. 14As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[2] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. 19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall. 22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.
|
|
|
Post by RodP on Mar 29, 2004 20:16:17 GMT -5
Evolutionists Admit Flaws in Their Theory "As molecular genetics professor Michael Denton wrote in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, many world-cpkmtyoll biologists never fully accepted the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution. This is because its claims to explain biological diversity were clearly contradicted by the enormous complexity and ingenuity they discovered in their own research. Francis Hitching wrote The neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, which documented that many evolutionary scientists concluded the theory of evolution was incompatible with their new knowledge of DNA and genetic complexity. Hitching said, "Computer scientists, especially, were baffled as to how random mutations alone could possibly enrich the library of genetic information. A mutation, they repeatedly pointed out, is a mistake - the equivalent of a copying error. And how could mistakes build up into a new body of complicated ordered information?" Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory or in nature that adds information to an organism. Copying errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information, as the theory of evolution demands. Copying errors can only lose or corrupt information. Therefore, mutations cannot add information to generate positive change to an organism." Rock You know what is amazing to me is how Science finally "proves" or accepts what the bible has said was true all along. Now, I say... What has actually "hindered" the forces of the world? It is not God.. Rather man.. in his search to prove why an apple falls. God clearly says what is.. how is it that man seems to focus on "why" is???
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 29, 2004 23:40:23 GMT -5
Rock - You must be exhausted from such rapid posting.
"many world-cpkmtyoll biologists never fully accepted the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Many is a relative term here. The number of legitimate scientists who do not recognize evolutionary theory as accurate composes only a fraction of a percent of the scientific community.
"Francis Hitching wrote The neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, which documented that many evolutionary scientists concluded the theory of evolution was incompatible with their new knowledge of DNA and genetic complexity."
Actually, the book only disagreed with the mechanism by which evolution occurs, it did not disagree with the fact that evolution has occurred. In The neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Hitching wrote
Furthermore, that Jeffrey cites Hitching does nothing to support his arguments, as Hitching is not himself a scientist but a television script writer with no credibility within the scientific community. Such bad scholarship could easily have avoided if Jeffrey had bothered to look into his source. Then again, such poor quality is a hallmark of the young Earth creationists, and comes as no surprise here.
"Computer scientists, especially, were baffled as to how random mutations alone could possibly enrich the library of genetic information."
And what was the purpose of asking computer scientists about a biological topic? Certainly not because of any expertise they might have in the field. If you want to understand the Cover 2 defense, ask a defensive coordinator, if you want to understand calculus, ask a math teacher, and if you want to understand evolutionary theory, ask a biologist.
"And how could mistakes build up into a new body of complicated ordered information?"
They can build up because those "mistakes" can be pkmtyolped on to one's offspring. Problem solved.
"Scientists have never observed a single mutation in the laboratory or in nature that adds information to an organism."
This is one of the biggest problems with young Earth creationists, that they are so quick to believe each other's claims without once thinking about whether or not they are true. Any freshman in biology could tell you that this claim is a complete falsehood, as any mutation adds new information to the gene pool of its population. The three most common forms of mutation are shown below.
Point mutations, where one nucleotide is substituted for another:
TAGGATTACACC mutates to TAGTATTACACC
Deletion mutations, where a sequence of nucleotides is skipped during transcription:
TAGGATTACACC mutates to TAGTACACC
Duplication mutations, where a sequence of nucleotides is repeated during transcription:
TAGGATTACACC mutates to TAGGATGATTACACC
In each of the above mutations, regardless of whether nucleotides are changed, subtracted from, or added to the genetic code of the individual, a new combination of genetic material is added to the gene pool of the population, increasing the amount of genetic diversity present.
"Copying errors through mutation cannot possibly add new information, as the theory of evolution demands."
Happily, the above observations render Jeffrey's claim wholly false.
SonWorshiper - "Amen, sismmm!!"
As I asked before, do you have anything of any substance to contribute to the thread, or are you nothing more than a yes-man who will blindly follow anybody who marches beneath a young Earth creationist flag?
k8reader - Same question, do you have anything relevant to the discussion to contribute?
RodP - "You know what is amazing to me is how Science finally 'proves' or accepts what the bible has said was true all along."
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, as science has certainly neither proven nor accepted any of the claims of the young Earth creationists. Just the opposite is true, through science, those claims have been wholly falsified.
Rock, after all the hype, your performance so far has been incredibly disappointing. All you've been able to show is that Jeffrey says that there is no evidence supporting evolutionary theory, while I have responded to each such claim by presenting exactly that evidence. If you would demonstrate the young Earth creationist model to be accurate or falsify the presently accepted scientific models, you cannot do so except through the presentation of physical evidence. So far, like all the rest of the young Earth creationists, you have presented no such evidence.
--Y2Traf Pretty. So pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 31, 2004 17:03:01 GMT -5
Come on Rock, please tell me that all the hype wasn't just over two posts. Surely you had some actual evidence to present to support your case, right? Oh, that's right, you're a young Earth creationist, and they just don't do evidence.
--Traf Daddy
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 31, 2004 19:38:15 GMT -5
Come on Rock, please tell me that all the hype wasn't just over two posts. Surely you had some actual evidence to present to support your case, right? Oh, that's right, you're a young Earth creationist, and they just don't do evidence. --Traf Daddy Do you have any idea how silly you look badgering the witness like this? Have you lost your decorum?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 31, 2004 20:55:33 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "Do you have any idea how silly you look badgering the witness like this?"
Certainly no less silly than those who announced Rock's imminent arrival over a month ago only to have her disappoint worse than the last episode of Seinfeld, or those who continue to insist that the young Earth creationist model is accurate despite the complete lack of evidence to support it, and the fact that it is contradicted by countless observations.
"Have you lost your decorum?"
No, I'm just enjoying being on the side with all the evidence.
--The Traf
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 31, 2004 21:18:14 GMT -5
The noted Evangelist, Dr. R.A. Torry, once said,
"Robert Ingersoll was not the most dangerous enemy of the Bible. There were more dangerous enemies of the Bible even during his lifetime than he himself was, and there are far more dangerous enemies of the Bible than he today.
They claim, in some sense, to believe in the Bible, but all the while they claim to believe in it they are seeking, consciously or unconsciously, to undermine the faith of others in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible.
The most dangerous enemies of the Bible today are those college professors and principals of high schools, and even theological professors, who, while they claim to establish faith upon a broader and therefore better basis, are all the time attempting to show that the bible is full of errors and not in accord with the assured results of modern science and history.
These enemies are legion; they are found practically everywhere, many of them able men, and they have formed a skillfully planned campaign against the Bible.
Nevertheless, the Bible stands in no danger."
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Mar 31, 2004 22:40:32 GMT -5
Nicodemus - "They claim, in some sense, to believe in the Bible, but all the while they claim to believe in it they are seeking, consciously or unconsciously, to undermine the faith of others in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible."
Yet my goal is not to undermine anybody's faith, but to show how the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 can be interpreted in a manner consistent with the reality of the physical evidence. My insistence that those events remain true in some way in the face of evidence which falsifies a literal interpretation of them is not an attack on faith, but the utmost expression of faith.
"The most dangerous enemies... are all the time attempting to show that the bible is full of errors and not in accord with the assured results of modern science and history."
You obviously haven't been understanding what I have been saying. I am doing just the opposite of this, insisting that the Bible, when properly interpreted, neither contains errors nor is in any way inconsistent with modern science or history. I have only set out to demonstrate the impossibility of the fantastic events of Gen. 1-11 being literal, throughout every one of these threads, I have insisted that they remain true in a non-literal manner.
"Nevertheless, the Bible stands in no danger."
I have never claimed that it did.
The simple fact is that the literal interpretation of the events of Gen. 1-11 that the young Earth creationists insist on is falsified at every turn by the physical evidence of God's Creation. Unless God is lying to us, the truth of His Creation cannot be inconsistent with the truth of His Word. Therefore, three possibilities exist: 1) That God actually lying to us, either through His Word, His Creation, or both 2) That a literal interpretation of those pkmtyolpages is accurate and that the scientific conclusions of the last two hundred years are completely wrong 3) That those scientific conclusions are accurate, and that a literal interpretation of those pkmtyolpages is false
Since the first possibility is contradictory to a Christian belief, only the second and third possibilities warrant consideration. The second possibility cannot be logically considered because there exists no evidence which would contradict those scientific conclusions in any way, leaving only the third. Since this possiblility leaves an apparent conflict between God's Word and God's Creation that must be resolved, and there is no logical reason for claiming that our understanding of God's Creation is incorrect, our interpretation of those pkmtyolpages of Scripture must therefore be re-examined. Having demonstrated through the physical evidence that a literal interpretation cannot remain true, the only remaining means of resolving this conflict is to adopt a non-literal interpretation. --Big Daddy Traf
|
|
|
Post by Nicodemus on Mar 31, 2004 22:46:44 GMT -5
Were the personages of Genesis 1 thorugh 11 literal, or figurative. You have already indicated that Adam and Eve were figurative. What of Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, the sons of Noah, Nimrod, and Abraham?
|
|