6 days Creation

[Kevinb]

6 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Richard Dawkins saying aliens made us... What is nature when nothing existed before it? I'm sorry you can't understand me, I tried to use an analogy, but one must be teachable to learn. To find the truth, one must first have no opinion.

Absolutely he said no such thing. I've read his books and seen hours and hours of you tube vids.

Please provide the link where he said this to make your assertion credible.

I'm teachable if the lesson is credible. An argument from a false analogy isn't evidence..its fallacious.

[HAZARD]

41 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

Absolutely he said no such thing. I've read his books and seen hours and hours of you tube vids.

Please provide the link where he said this to make your assertion credible.

I'm teachable if the lesson is credible. An argument from a false analogy isn't evidence..its fallacious.

Here;

Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man!

 

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, Kevinb said:

Okay.. I'll try again. The scientific view doesn't work on assertion....we need evidence.

Hey Kevin,

“Okay.. I'll try again”

Condescension represents another departure from rational argument

 

“The scientific view doesn't work on assertion....we need evidence. You could accuse me of appealing to populism fallacy or authority if I support the germ theory of disease right?”

Not if you support it with rational argument and evidence.

 

“Again this theory and stance isn't assertion”

If you assert it, it’s an assertion. If you assert something without rational support, it’s an unsupported or empty assertion.

 

“its based on evidence...via other scientists and other labs. If it wasn't I'd have little or no trust in it”

That’s great. The problem is, when you presented these ideas to me, you didn’t support them with any “evidence” or information from “other scientists and other labs”. I don’t doubt your “trust in it”, but am critical of the way you expect me to take your word for it. By making unsupported assertions, you give me nothing of rational substance to consider. So I can’t directly address your claims, only their fallacious nature.

 

“Biblical texts are assertions/statements”

Anything which is asserted/stated is an assertion/statement.

 

“You must believe on faith or provide evidence to substantiate”

Sure – the Bible makes supernatural claims (which are beyond the scope of science) and therefore require faith. The Bible also makes temporal historical (and therefore testable) claims by which the model can be subjected to scrutiny.

 

“Evidence for Genesis or Adam and eve”

As with all claims about the past, we can only ever compare the available evidence we have to the model. Where is the evidence of cosmological inflation (an essential component of the secular standard cosmology)? It’s a just-so story that is accepted because it fits the model, not because there are any facts supporting it. Common Ancestry requires a universal common ancestor – where is the evidence of the existence of that species? So do you think it’s reasonable to ask for evidence of 2 specific people who lived 6000 years ago? And “Genesis” – I would only expect there to be evidence of a post-flood world. We can go start with flood evidence if you like, and work from there through the archaeological evidence of civilisations and places and events described in the Biblical model since then. We can look at the large morphologic and genomic gaps between broad groups of organisms, which is consistent with the claim that God created various kinds of creatures (my preferred interpretation), but doesn’t logically undermine the possibility of Common Ancestry (the preferred secular interpretation). There is so much we could look at when you ask for evidence of “Genesis”.

 

“If the scientific community swayed or tweaked the theory of gravity...germ theory of disease..evolution or anything else based upon new evidence that was scrutinised by the scientific community and upheld I'd have to change my world view”

Claims about the unobserved past (and supernatural claims) are unfalsifiable (and technically beyond the scope of the scientific method). You will never be obligated by any fact to change your faith perspective (whatever it is). Even if a fact is found that seems to directly contradict the evolution story, you would have every right to simply say, “I don’t yet know how to reconcile these facts to Common Ancestry, but that doesn’t mean Common Ancestry isn’t true. It just means I don’t currently have an answer”. This is why claims about the unobserved past are unfalsifiable. We cannot go back in time to make the necessary observations to generate legitimate scientific confidence.

It is concerning that you think the role of science is to tell you what to think. Every scientific claim, no matter how popular, remains subject to scrutiny. Scientific logic encourages us to approach scientific claims with scepticism, not just accept them because some scientists claims to have “new evidence”.

 

“We've day and night appearing on day 1 before the sun on day 4 if memory serves? Evidence?”

Here you ask for facts supporting supernatural claims – which is unreasonable.

 

“Pick something?”

Ok then. I’ll start with the fossil record.

Firstly, for fossilisation to occur requires quick burial so as to avoid scavenging and decay – and so in a general sense, the abundance of fossils reflects billions creatures buried quickly in sediment being moved by running water (i.e. flood conditions).

I would expect the pattern of fossils in the record to be a general reflection of the habitat and motility of the organisms – i.e. sea worms and such living under the ocean bed to be buried first, then those plants on the ocean bed, and so on up through land animals and ultimately humans and birds nearer the top (which have a greater capacity to survive impending flooding for longer).

There are many fossils in living proses – e.g. eating, or giving birth, or drowning etc. Indicating a sudden inundation – like from a flood. There are also dino footprints in rock layers that allegedly formed over millions of years, yet preserved the footprints without erosion over that period.

Fast running water stratifies sediments, so a massive flood event should produce flat sediment strata all over the world. Some formations show such strata in a bowed formation. Have you personally ever seen sedimentary rock bending? I would suggest these formations occurred while the strata were all still malleable.

Secularists interpret each stratified layer as millions, or even hundreds of millions of years. Yet in most layers, there is no evidence of natural erosion. And there are fossils the span across layers.

Fossil spores in Mt Roraima were found in rock dated to 1.3 billion years before pollen is supposed to have existed.

Soft tissue has been found in dinosaurs that supposedly died out 65 million years ago (in the case of one hadrosaur, over 200 million years ago). There is no plausible, testable way for such tissue to survive even a fraction of that time. Yet it’s shrugged off by biologists as ‘nature found a way’. Giant reptiles are mentioned in just about every ancient culture on earth, however science didn’t discover the existence of dinosaurs until about 200 years ago – indicating that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

I don’t know how far you want me to take this. I’ve barely touched the surface – which is why such a general question is so unreasonable.

 

“This being flat earth and associated. Absolutely wrong... there are those here who believe in a flat earth as per the bible..columns..firmanent the works. Even quoting passages”

I chose my words carefully. I didn’t say there were no individuals who have ever believed these things. If you search hard enough throughout church history, you’ll find two obscure monks who independently wrote dissertations in support of a flat earth. Their position was publically rejected by the church. All of the thousands of other documents dealing with this issue are clear regarding the churches position that the earth is a globe.

I haven’t seen the quotes you refer to, so can’t ascertain the seriousness or rationality of the claims. I am aware of the recent increase in popularity of the flat earth society. I know that the head is not Christian, but I am not familiar with their motives. I have been a Christian approaching three decades and have never met a Christian who thinks the world is flat (or the other things you claim).

 

“This is all part of why there are so many denominations of Christianity.. can't even agree on 1 book”

Which “book”? If you were familiar with these claims you’d be aware that they are not supported by anything in Genesis.

“Denominations” are not a problem for Christianity – though you seem to be under the false impression that every denomination represents some kind of conflict. That impression is based more in anti-Christian propaganda than reality. Many denominations believe exactly the same things, but were simply started by different organisations. Most Christian denominations consider other denominations equally Christian.

And the Bible was not written by the Riddler. It is human communication for humans, and can be interpreted reasonably according to common sense rules of interpretation. The reason people come to different conclusions is because people approach the Bible with agendas and biases, not because the Bible is unclear.

 

“Make the argument. Convince me on creationism and genesis.”

You “convince me” of Common Ancestry. When something is unobserved, it is unfalsifiable. Therefore you will never be under any logical obligation to change your views – no matter what is presented. And I have no control over how you let your biases filter the information I present. So it is not my goal to “convince” you of the truth of Biblical creationism – only to show you that the model is in every way as rationally valid as the secular models.

 

“why did the Egyptians and other civilisations exist before and after without reference and they didn't even seem to notice in fact”

I’ll deal with what you present here, here, rather than jump threads. The traditional chronology of Egypt is based largely on ancient propaganda documents (trying to promote the legitimacy of their Pharaoh). The problem we’ve found is that there are many evidence gaps hundreds of years long in the record. This yet again demonstrates the problem with claims about the past. Some Egyptologists have proposed a new chronology disregarding those gaps. I prefer the new chronology because it brings a few things in line with the Bible (including the time frame of a post-flood civilisation).

 

“Then you've problems of how the animals got to the ark. Some needing precise conditions and diets. Animals travelling huge distance that can't swim or fly”

I don’t see any issue here. Perhaps you are making secular assumptions about the pre-flood world. The flood would have changed the surface of the planet beyond recognition. The original animals dispersed from Adam (after he named them). There is no reason to assume they would have had trouble legging it to Noah. There is a possibility that the original terrestrial surface of the earth was a single continent.

None of the “problems” you describe are insurmountable.

 

“It's still bizarre to me you accept micro evolution but not smaller changes can't add up to bigger ones”

With that statement you’ve demonstrated why this terminology should be avoided. The concept of macro-evolution is NOT micro-evolution on a larger scale. What is unwisely called micro-evolution refers to changes in the existing genetic information – most often resulting from a corruption (and therefore a loss) of the existing information. This kind of change occurs within species, and does not add any weight of evidence to Common Ancestry. What is unwisely called macro-evolution requires the addition to the existing genome of completely new, functional information – for every gene that has ever existed.

 

“why do whales and dolphins have vestigial pelvis and hind leg remnants buried in their bodies?”

They don’t. These bones anchor the whale’s genitals (and are different in males and females – which should have been a hint).

But consider the logic. We find a couple of ~10cm bones attached to the vertebral column of a 20m animal. Since we don’t know what they are, they must be evolutionary leftovers; legs to be specific (since our story tells us that whales evolved from land animals). Surely you can see the folly of this entire path of reasoning.

 

“Evolution will point to common ancestry with animals breathing air... running on land in a spinal up and down motion as spines of dolphins still move in water”

This is where you confuse interpretation with fact. Features in common speak as much to common design as they do to inheritance from a common ancestor. These are simply competing explanations of the same facts. If God created animals (as the Biblical model proposes) then there is no reason to assume He’d have to make every factor in every organism completely unique. He’d design an efficient and flexible information system to accommodate the full range of environments He intended to fill. Organisms occupying similar niches would possess similar information and structures.

 

“We've a fossil record”

Again, you are so confident that yours is the only explanation of this evidence that you think just stating it is enough. I’ve presented some of an alternate interpretations above.

 

“If you don't like the peer review process. Essentially someone publishes their data/theory then other experts in the relevant field try to repeat their experiments to corroberative or falsify. What's the better alternative?”

I do like the peer review process (though it very rarely involves “experts in the relevant field try[ing] to repeat their experiments to corroberative or falsify” – it’s a critical examination of the report by experts for scientific soundness. If you think a journal is going to pay to repeat the experiments of all their submissions, you’re on another planet).

The peer review process has weaknesses, and is highly criticised in peer-reviewed literature for various biases, and therefore does not warrant the uncritical acceptance you suggest. Anytime you involve humans in a process, this will be an issue. I recall reading an editor’s letter where he was asked, “what if you switch out the accepted manuscripts and published the rejected ones to see if anyone would notice the difference?” The editor replied “How do you know I haven’t?”

 

[Kevinb]

6 hours ago, HAZARD said:

Here;

Richard Dawkins believes extraterrestrials created man!

Nice try. I've seen conversations like this. Note he said perhaps...he doesn't demonstrate evidence because we don't have evidence for aliens seeding. He's also said maybe comets or asteroids deposited the building blocks of like. Also he says if so the aliens would need to have evolved via Darwinian natural selection. This doesn't need us to suspend the laws of natural..physics and biology to believe in a magic creator too?. He's also said it's incredibly unlikely as the chances of life appear slim...intelligent life even slimer so pockets of intelligent life could be so dispersed as to never meet. This is just theorizing possibility. He didn't say it was the truth of our origins.

Also remember scientific understanding doesn't persist on one view without evidence. This faith in authority is what we need religions for. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Zoltan777]

10 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

However, by adhering to this 'belief'... you Ipso Facto render NULL The Doctrine of Salvation:

 

If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al BEFORE The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

 

(Genesis 1:31) "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

 

(1 Corinthians 15:26) "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

 

You must show "DEATH" in Genesis Chapter 1-2 or... show how DEATH is "Very Good".

 

(Genesis 3:17) "And unto Adam he said, BECAUSE thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: CURSED is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;"

 

As in, Because you have done this... "NOW" the ground (EARTH --- not just Man) is CURSED; not before 'The Fall'.

 

(Genesis 3:18) "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;"

 

"NOW" Thorns and Thistles (There are Thorn and Thistle Fossils); not before 'The Fall'.

 

(Genesis 3:19) "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

 

"NOW" Adam and Eve's fate will be DEATH, Adam and Eve were Immortal before the Fall (Tree of Life)...

 

(Genesis 3:22) "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOR EVER:"

(Genesis 3:23-24) "Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. {24} So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the TREE OF LIFE."

 

"NOW" the Tree of Life is guarded; not before 'The Fall'.

 

 

2. If you 'believe' that there were Millions of Years with Death/Disease/Suffering/Thorns et al BEFORE The Fall (Genesis 3) you have some "SERIOUS" (as in "Fatal") Doctrinal and Logical Consistency Problems...

 

Then why the need for a... "KINSMEN REDEEMER", The Goel... (Jesus Christ)

 

(Romans 5:12) "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

(1 Corinthians 15:45) "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the LAST ADAM was made a quickening spirit."

 

The Last Adam: Jesus Christ. The Whole of The DOCTRINE OF SALVATION is "DIS-ANNULLED!" You make HIM a Liar and then have HIM Sacrificing Himself for HIS Kinsmen..."Trilobites !!" 

 

And Yes...it's Really THAT BAD!

GOEL:
He must be near of kin. (Leviticus 25:48; 25:25 Ruth 3:12-13)
He must be able to redeem (Ruth 4:4-“6). He must be free of any calamity or need of redemption himself.
He must be willing to redeem (Ruth 4:6ff)
Redemption was completed when the price was completely paid (Leviticus 25:27; Ruth 4:7-11).

(Job 19:25) "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:" ??

 

regards

Satan rebellion obviously happened before Adam and Eve. So death and all the effects of that event were existing already. They could enter in the earth when Adam and Eve fell. Until then everything was good as it was the paradise. 

[Kevinb]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

“Again this theory and stance isn't assertion”

 

If you assert it, it’s an assertion. If you assert something without rational support, it’s an unsupported or empty assertion.

Don't fragment my sentences to attempt to misquote please. I qualify that with I have confidence in theories of  evolution..gravity and germ theory of disease because of evidence. Correct I've not published evidence for lots of scientific theories here in different fields..I'd given you credit that you had some knowledge of them. If you feel there is no supporting evidence here I suggest you've much investigating and reading to do. 

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

So do you think it’s reasonable to ask for evidence of 2 specific people who lived 6000 years ago? And “Genesis” – I would only expect there to be evidence of a post-flood world. We can go start with flood evidence if you like

Erm... these aren't 2 random people who live just down the road. These two people are alleged to be the precursors of all of humanity. This is a huge claim you'll agree. Magnificent clams require magnificent evidence. Let's not forget too we're adding supernatural on top also. Leaping to a global flood certainly isn't magnificent. Maybe we should leave flood stuff to the flood thread. There I posted a mass of problems that weren't answered. Topics and posts are getting biiigg. Besides many Christians buy local not global..

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

. I prefer the new chronology because it brings a few things in line with the Bible

Yeah I bet.. but we're only guessing here right plus you seem to be admitting bias based on your faith interpretation.

 

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

“why do whales and dolphins have vestigial pelvis and hind leg remnants buried in their bodies?”

 

They don’t. These bones anchor the whale’s genitals (and are different in males and females – which should have been a hint).

 

But consider the logic. We find a couple of ~10cm bones attached to the vertebral column of a 20m animal. Since we don’t know what they are, they must be evolutionary leftovers; legs to be specific

https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=ttSKWdz0Cc3NwQKBzJ-4Bg&q=whales+with+legs+evolution&oq=whales+with++legs&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.1.1.0i67k1j0l2j0i7i30k1j0i5i30k1.82487.82487.0.85302.1.1.0.0.0.0.178.178.0j1.1.0....0...1.1j4.64.mobile-gws-img..0.1.176.Hph1WiIH3JA

Not sure if link will work re leg remnants. A dolphin needs that to anchor genitals..evidence? Why would a female need any of these bones to anchor genitals? In terms of differences yes males and females have different shaped pelvis in humans too. Sharks don't seem to need this "anchoring" assertion

?.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=dolphin+found+with+hind+legs&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOndeo78nVAhWJLlAKHeDTBmEQ_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=fnvVAvR-VMkKzM:

This link shows the vestigial developing further. Incidently snakes can exhibit this too.

Oh on whales. This link if you can follow. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/baleen-whales-a-lovely-transitional-form/amp/

The baleen whale in the early stages of development grow teeth that then revert and disappear. Read the whole page though..interesting. 

7 hours ago, Tristen said:

“We've a fossil record”

 

Again, you are so confident that yours is the only explanation of this evidence that you think just stating it is enough.

The fossil record doesn't prove God created life. We've an evolutionary trail based upon radiometric dating.. that do far doesnt throw up species in the wrong order. The whales example still.  I believe shown via one of the links above. Transitional species in the right order. You can search for fossils showing noses from front of head to blow hole on top if interested. All in date order. Anyway perhaps focus on one or 2 points like the whale tooth to stop the post length getting too large and time consuming.

 

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

I'm done. You can't learn the truth because you don't want to. I showed you how Genesis matches observation but I guess that's too much for you to handle. Have a nice day.

All I care about here is the truth. Bear in mind I don't accept views on faith being a non believer. I'll stand with genesis isn't validated by science. Let's not forget too the bible asserts stars being angels and can be interpreted to say the earth is flat as some have argued in other threads too and quoted verses that support this. Do you think that or pick and choose? The faith supernatural stuff asserted and asserted circularly means nothing to me and is of no use to discover truth and to buy that I've gotta believe in miracles and to suspend the laws of physics and biology on top of throwing out peer reviewed theory based on evidence having not come about by miracle.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

But I must say, you'll be sorry. Good day.

I'll take that as a threat I'll go to hell? Evidence for hell? The notion is a newer concept ...relatively. subsequently many religions now have this idea if you don't follow them you'll go there. They are all different too. How much time do you spend worrying about other religions hells?  I suggest none. Neither do I and I just add the Christian notion too of course.

Anyways i sense your frustration. I don't have to accept your view neither do you mine..Neither do either of us any other religions right?  We're just exploring what people think here. Ultimately we all lean towards one thing or another.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Zoltan777]

13 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I think you've made an excellent point in No. 1 above for the Tree of Life, and the Tree of Knowledge.  It makes sense to me.  As for No. 2, we are entering the field of speculation here.  What you're saying makes sense. 

As for the Gap Theory, the oldest explanation goes back a few hundred years before Jesus and was written by a Jewish Rabbi.  I became a Christian after I read the Genesis account in the Dake KJV Study Bible.  A better account is in Unger's Bible Commentary for the OT (it's impossible to find now unless you find a used copy), and a very good account is in the Bible Knowledge Commentary by some folks from Dallas Theological Seminary.  It gets very controversial when you start adding in Genesis 6:1-4.  The last time I talked about that my thread got split and I just left my part to wither and die.  You can only fight willful ignorance so long.  It takes a lot out of a person.

Anyway, I'll tell you what I think anytime, but I'm thinking you've got an excellent hold of the subject and it does perfectly reconcile the Bible with science.  The two need not be at odds.

Everything is just speculation at some point. I am not scientist just a dreamer.

I didn't know the 'gap theory' goes back so far. That interesting.

Actually, I had an arguments with many people about Genesis 6:1-4. I am wondering what is your point of view.  

You've mentioned evolution in your previous comment. I will like to express my thoughts:

There was an old earth with dinosaurs and all kind of living creatures that we don't know much about. One thing sure that was a different life and different world. God didn't tell us what happened, how they were created or how they died out. So everything is just speculation here.

I believe that world was destroyed which was related to lucifer rebellion. Then later on God decided to make everything new which was about 6000 years ago. As I said that life was different back then and I could possibly accept the theory of evolution in the old world among the dinosaurs. So it MAYBE the scientists are right how the dinosaurs evolved blah blah blah. But wrongly they think humans and this life are originated from the old world.

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, for fossilisation to occur requires quick burial so as to avoid scavenging and decay – and so in a general sense, the abundance of fossils reflects billions creatures buried quickly in sediment being moved by running water (i.e. flood conditions).

I'm not a paleontologist, but it seems that the layering of fossils suggests that organisms didn't die all at once, but at vastly different times. Radiometric dating of these layers also gives very strong support to the idea that fossilized organisms did not die all at once. Also, why do we find no fossil remains of modern humans? If a global flood occurred 4,000 years ago, how did the Australian continent become repopulated with both people and flora/fauna, and why are all the mammals there marsupials?

For the record, I'm a Bible-believing follower of Christ. But there are a lot of scientific problems with Genesis chapters 1-11. It is my opinion that both the earliest chapters in Genesis and the latest chapters in Revelation were written more as lessons of God's sovereignty than accurate record of historical events.