6 days Creation

[SavedOnebyGrace]

1 hour ago, Zoltan777 said:

Some people believes the earth flat, some people says it's a globe. Some people says the earth was created 6000 years ago some people says longer than that. The thing is whatever you think it's not the faith by which we are saved. Bible is not a science book and doesn't explain everything but let us think. You are judging us because some people think x+y=4 other says it's 5. Does it make any difference? I believe the earth is a globe and was created more than 6000 years ago. Would it make me a better person if I say the opposite? In this topic - which I started - we wanted to understand deeper how the universe was created. Nobody has perfect knowledge. Whatever you think at some point is false or missing something. 

God loves me not because of my limited knowledge. I am His not because the theories in my head. False or right?? Who knows and who cares? As long as I am in His will and doing His work it doesn't matter. 

I just don't understand one thing: why do women always ruin men parties?  That's the question. I tend to believe it come by nature.

You need to do a word study of Genesis to really understand the way it is expressed.  An Amplified Bible may help you there.  Also your selected translation helps.  I started with the King James Version first, and switched back and forth between the New International Version and the New American Standard Bible. 

[HAZARD]

12 hours ago, Kevinb said:

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. 

Never tried anything, just found the link and placed it. Personally, I don't care what Richard Dawkins says or thinks about creation. I' believe what God has shown us in His Word.

[Kevinb]

4 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

 

10 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I don't accept views on faith being a non believer.

Oh but you do, you really do.

 

Really what's my position on faith? 

[Kevinb]

38 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

When you flip a switch in your house you have faith it'll turn on the lights

Erm no. I think you've a confused view on a faith definition. Faith is belief in a position in the absence of evidence...else you'd have the evidence and corresponding theory. You have faith in a virgin birth for example as per Mary and Jesus. You can't possible have evidence to validate that or people in the bible living for hundreds and hundreds of years and more.

So my position in my lights coming on is a position of high confidence based upon evidence of having switched said light on many times before. I've recently in fact had an accredited electrician inspect my electrics as we recently moved..he's passed to me an inspection certificate. I'm aware of his qualifications. I've energy efficient bulbs that last longer. I would approach your other examples in the same kinda way but I hope you get the idea. This is very different to I have faith as you suggest and compare. Hope this clarifies the distinction.

38 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Listen, if you're right and all this God stuff is a joke, no problem, we'll all be nothing when we die. But if I'm right and the word of God is real, wouldn't you want to read the owner's manual to you life and thereafter? You have faith God isn't real and His words are fake.

Ah Pascals wager? Believe in belief...believe regardless.

You may be right. My position is not there definitely is no God. My position is religions havent met their burden of proof on God claims. Also that there's overwhelming evidence and theory for the natural world that I can't falsify yet and I'd have to just bin that's a more credible alternative that doesn't require me to have faith..believe in supernatural stuff..miracles and the rest. 

38 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Hell and Heaven are in another dimension, the spirit realm, which even science is saying we live in a matrix-type system and that all of this isn't real. Funny, that's exactly what the bible says.

Really...evidence for hell and heaven? The matrix stuff is just something thrown out there. I've heard it. It's not taken seriously by science and hasn't been demonstrated.. you're reading in the wrong areas if you think scientists take this seriously and think this is our reality in the total absence of evidence.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

I've energy efficient bulbs that last longer.

You have faith they'll last longer. Did you make them? Did you verify that the electrician is actually certified

I've observed myself they last longer than the older style. I'm aware of his certification and training yes. I can buy them hold them. I could time the individual bulbs lifespan if i could be bothered. If you think this is analogous to the bible saying Enoch was 900 or whatever it was that's ridiculous. Otherwise demonstrate Enoch actually existed..is he in your house like my bulbs and switches. Demonstrate that he actually lived that long...could you time it if you wanted?  Not sure what I can add if you can't see the difference.

Faiths definition in line 2 since we are on a religious chat site. Just below the one you searched. 

2.

strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

George Washington....i don't know. I've heard the name that's all... I'm not american.

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Prove to me you're not a robot

Well I'll give you credit that you believe I'm of the same human species as you. We grow after we are born...we breed..we occur naturally in nature. We're not made of composite materials by other humans in a factory. We've evidence of this that we can test right. Or do you think we are robots? 

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Do you believe we made it to the moon or mars

Okay.. I'll try something different here. In order for me to believe we did I wouldn't need supernatural assertions and miracles that suspend the laws of physics to do it. Where as I must do these things to believe in some of the bible claims. 

 

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Do you hate God because He's all powerful and allows wrong and evil to exist? Why do you dismiss Him?

 Do I hate God? This makes no sense to someone who doesn't accept biblical and god claims as true because they haven't met their burden of proof and rest I said in previous post. Lets say you dont believe in fairies okay..although some do and historically used to. Before fairies were nice little things at the bottom of your garden they were evil creatures that swapped themselves with your family members but had the same appearance. I don't believe any of that either btw. Anyway a digression. So let's say you dont believe fairies exist and I say but why do you hate fairies. It makes no sense. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Prove heaven and hell DON'T exist

You really don't get it. By the way science has no proof of heaven and hell. Else please give the evidence. Just stating metaphysics doesn't do this. 

Again I don't need to prove hell doesn't exist and if I can't then its true. YOU are making the claim...YOU have a burden of proof. So prove it.

Otherwise  I could say invisible fairies in my garden exist..if you can't prove they don't then it's true. That's crazy right?  I would have to prove to you they do... I've made the claim... I've the burden of proof.

Islamic faith says Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse. Do I believe that... no.. again that's faith. Can they demonstrate that's true.. no...can I demonstrate he didn't so therefore he must have... no and that doesn't mean it's true. They make the claim... they have the burden of proof and must prove it. What mechanism must I accept your faith claims and dismiss others. Also how do you accept your faith claims and dismiss others. Logical fallacy special pleading perhaps? I dismiss all without evidence and I suspect you dismiss all except your religions. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Kevinb]

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

I ask on this matter again: why did evolution stop?

 Who said evolution stopped?  I fear you don't understand it  at all to say that.

I've answered your dawkins thing the 1st time you posted it btw and ignored subsequent repeats.

Edited August 10, 2017 by Kevinb

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, Kevinb said:

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. ..

Hi Kevin,

You said “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”

I addressed the specific part of the sentence that was relevant (because you trusting in “theories” and “evidence” is irrelevant to the definition of assertion). An assertion is an assertion whether or not it is supported by “theories” or “evidence”. An Unsupported Assertion is a criticism of the way you argue your point, not whether or not you think your claims can be supported. You made assertions and expected me to uncritically take your word that they were beyond question.

 

“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”

Innuendo regarding my lack of knowledge is further fallacy.

You are debating a creationist, so I am clearly someone who doesn’t uncritically accept claims just because they have been published in scientific journals. I reserve my right to scrutinise claims – as encouraged by scientific logic. If you are going to claim that the kind of genetic change required for Common Ancestry has “been demonstrated”, or that we have a “reptilian heritage” or that DNA evidence “proves common ancestry”, then I, as a creationist, am entitled to scrutinise those claims; especially since I self-evidently don’t accept these claims. It is therefore incumbent upon you to support such claims, rather than simply expecting me to accept them, or assuming I am unfamiliar with them.

 

“If you feel there is no supporting evidence here I suggest you've much investigating and reading to do”

It is not my job to make your arguments for you. You make a claim, you support it. I’d be happy to read any supporting argument or evidence you care to provide. Give me something of substance to analyse so I can respond to your assertions. Otherwise they’re meaningless. By not providing support, you are assuming that everyone agrees with your position and conclusions – which clearly is not the case for creationists.

 

“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.”

When dealing with the past, we can only deal with the facts we have, and compare those available facts to the model. For 3 thousand years, evidence of the existence of the massive Hittite civilisation was lost to humanity, apart from its mention in the Bible. Bible critics asked, “If the Bible is true, where are the remnants of this non-trivial culture?” – Until they found it. So it is logically specious to criticise the Bible for no specific evidence of two people who lived and died 5 to 6 thousand years ago, before a flood that changed the face of the earth.

 

“we're only guessing here right plus you seem to be admitting bias based on your faith interpretation”

I absolutely admit that. When it comes to the unobserved past, we are all “only guessing”. That’s the major point of the whole creation/Common Ancestry debate. We all prefer interpretations that are consistent with our preferred faith perspective. Neither of us can go back in time to make the necessary observations needed to produce legitimate scientific confidence. The problem I see in the debate is that people on the secular side generally don’t recognise this bias influence; they think they are above it all; bastions of objectivity – and thereby feel free to rely on unsupported assertions, or assumptions regarding the lack of knowledge of people with an opposing position.

 

“Not sure if link will work re leg remnants”

The link just points to a google image search.

 

“A dolphin needs that to anchor genitals..evidence?”

So in 2006, Japanese researchers found a bottlenose dolphin with 4 fins (they usually only have 2) which they speculated might be an evolutionary leftover from the past when their ancestors had legs. 4 fins are common in dolphins. Finding 4 fins in a bottlenose dolphin therefore only speaks to speciation within dolphins, not the Common Ancestry of all life. Neither dolphins nor whales have anything resembling anatomical legs.

And so you appear to be missing a couple of points of logic. Even if we don’t know what something does (we know what fins do – but regardless), that doesn’t justify claiming that it must be a vestigial leftover from past evolution. And you don’t seem to be able to recognise that the implications for Common Ancestry are only interpretations of the facts, justified only under the assumption that Common Ancestry is true to begin with. The facts themselves do not speak to Common Ancestry until interpreted to do so.

 

“In terms of differences yes males and females have different shaped pelvis in humans too”

And we consider those differences sex-determined traits, not evolutionary leftovers.

 

“Sharks don't seem to need this "anchoring" assertion”

Sharks are not whales. They are designed differently to fill different niches in their respective environments.

 

“This link shows the vestigial developing further.”

The link shows images of 4 fins on dolphins.

 

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

It is interesting. But it only speaks to what some call micro-evolution. These whales once had teeth. Along the way they have lost the ability to produce teeth based on genetic corruptions (i.e. a loss of genetic information). This is all consistent with the creationist model.

 

“The fossil record doesn't prove God created life”

I would never claim such. Proof itself is absolutist, and therefore an unscientific standard. However, the fossil record can be interpreted to support the Biblical model of history; namely, the global flood. It can also be interpreted to support the secular model of Common Ancestry – all depending on which presupposed model one chooses to adhere to.

 

“We've an evolutionary trail based upon radiometric dating.. that do far doesnt throw up species in the wrong order”

A massive claim and yet again with no support – no provided support, that is. You know what this kind of argument is called?

Fossils are commonly found ‘out-of-place’ with the current evolution story. But once the finds are published, the range changes (gets extended or reduced) – i.e. the story gets reworked. So claiming no fossils out-of-place relies on naivety of the process. In some cases (such as the pollen spores in Mt Roraima rocks I mentioned in an earlier post), the fossils are found so far out-of-place that they are left a “paradox” and “an intriguing geological problem” (Stainforth RM (1966) “occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana”, Nature vol 210 p. 294).

 

“Transitional species in the right order”

I’m not sure what this means. Fossilised whales with teeth are older than extant living whales with no teeth – that is unsurprising (to me).

 

“You can search for fossils showing noses from front of head to blow hole on top if interested”

I am happy to consider any evidence you wish to present.

 

 

[HAZARD]

17 hours ago, Kevinb said:

All I care about here is the truth. Bear in mind I don't accept views on faith being a non believer.

I read here that say you are a non believer, I'm assuming you do not believe in God at all. Don't be a fool.

Psalm 14:1, To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.  They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Proverbs 18:2, A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

A dense, stupid, and impious man has no delight in knowledge though he should discover it. His sole desire is to show his own stupidity and emptiness. The wise man will consider himself well paid if he finds the knowledge he seeks for, even though he pays a greater price; but the fool does not appreciate it though it comes to him without toil or expense.

Romans 10:17, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[Tristen]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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.

Hi One,

You said, “it seems that the layering of fossils suggests that organisms didn't die all at once”

The Biblical model doesn’t claim the animals died “all at once”. The floodwaters rose over time.

 

“but at vastly different times”

Your “vastly” here is an interpretation based on assumptions provided by the secular model of how those layers were formed. The uninterpreted fact is that fossils are found in different layers. The rest is interpretation.

 

“Radiometric dating of these layers also gives very strong support to the idea that fossilized organisms did not die all at once”

That depends on how much trust you place in radiometric dating. Radiometric dating relies foundationally on at least 3 unverifiable assumptions, namely 1) that the original conditions of the tested substance is known, 2) that nothing has effected (or can effect) the rates of radiometric decay over time (a secular assumption called uniformitarianism), and 3) that no ancillary process has changed the chemical levels in the ‘dated’ substance over time. The method cannot be logically trusted at all if any of these assumptions fail – and there are various studies showing each of these assumptions to be untrustworthy (which I’d be happy to discuss in more detail if interested).

Radiometric dating is also commonly ‘wrong’ – i.e. the results don’t match up to the evolution story. Do you think these wrong dates make the literature? Rather, they are generally assumed to be contaminated. But you can see how the exclusion of wrong dates gives an artificial impression that radiometric dating always agrees with evolution.

There are also a couple of examples I know of where the one radiometric date was rejected because of a fossil, so they tried different 'dating' methods till they found one that gave a “date” in line with the evolution story.

Consider that we have around a hundred years of observations of radiometric decay. We are extrapolating those observations to millions (and occasionally billions) of years. Extrapolations of such magnitudes would not be accepted in any scientific discipline if it wasn't for the support they provide for the secular paradigm.

 

“why do we find no fossil remains of modern humans?”

We have found “no evidence” of lots of things – until we did. This argument suffers a logic weakness.  

 

“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?”

A popular creationist model has a post-flood ice-age – which would have left temporary land bridges between the Asian and Australian continents. The secular model suggests something similar, but obviously on a different time scale.

 

“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”

I am not comfortable with being able to dismiss the clear reading of scripture in such a seemingly arbitrary manner. Why stop at Genesis and Revelation? Why not say that any passage that makes us uncomfortable was written for some other purpose than the clear reading suggests? Especially when there is no objective scientific reason to reject the clear reading.