“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”

[one.opinion]

58 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

Brother, there is only ONE TRUTH, Jesus Christ is not "the" Truth, He "is" TRUTH!

Yes! And His truth is revealed in both His Word and His creation. In the past, evidence in His creation has required  re-thinking what the Bible said about things like the immobility of the earth (among others). The truth revealed in His creation about the age of the planet and development of living things may lead to a different understanding of the truth in His Word. Regardless, the truth of God as Creator established at the beginning of Genesis remains.

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

No, ...I do not see where the stalactite "story" is a fraud[/quote]

It was based on a lie, as we showed you.   The guys who put that story together correctly assumed a lot of people wouldn't know better.

...I just asked the question,"how a Bible believing, born again child of God can doubt God's Word in the Creation account?"

He becomes a YE creationist, and puts his faith in man's YE revision of Scripture instead of God's word.

8 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

So now then, ...the onus is on you, ...please show us where what you believe is found in God's Word,

Easily done.   As even early Christians noted, it's logically absurd to talk  about literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

 

[one.opinion]

10 hours ago, Alive said:

I do understand adaptation within 'kind', which is entirely different.

It is not entirely different. The same changes we can see happen in front of our eyes logically result in larger changes over longer periods of time. The long periods of time (millions of years) is established by evidence such as radioisotopic dating right here on the planet and by evidence in the field of astronomy that clearly shows a universe billions of years old.

10 hours ago, Alive said:

This is due to the law of entropy.

First, the law of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) applies to closed systems - and a living organism is NOT a closed system. Since energy is constantly being supplied to cells, the necessary breakdown required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics is held at bay. Watch a roadkill sample or some other dead organism for a few days to see entropy in action.

10 hours ago, Alive said:

In biological forms, one tool of entropy is mutation. Nearly all mutation is deleterious.

I'm not sure what you are basing  your information on, but it is just not true. Nearly all mutations are neutral - neither beneficial nor deleterious. Absolutely, some are deleterious, and these are typically lost from gene pools due to loss of fitness. However, those mutations that add fitness (and these do definitely occur) are maintained in the gene pool. The implications are clear, but somehow missed by opponents of evolution (as in Michael Behe's "Darwin Devolves").

10 hours ago, Alive said:

Recent studies have even show that the 'rate' of mutation in the human genome is increasing in each generation

Do you have some peer-reviewed literature to show this is the case?

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Xavier said:

Before about 25 years ago, when DNA (whose half-life Nature calculates at about 521 years) was demonstrably and repeatedly found in several of planet Earth's most ancient fossils, it was almost universally agreed (and still is largely agreed) that DNA could not survive for more than about 10,000 years. Like soft tissues in ancient fossils, C14 in rocks, minerals, living organisms and all the places it shouldn't be, Helium still being in radioactive rocks (all of which would have diffused out long ago, Helium being the second lightest element in the periodic table), this aDNA (antediluvian or ancient DNA) as it is now called, presents a serious challenge for long-agers and for evolutionists

Please reference this quote. It is true that there are extremely rare circumstances under which soft tissue can be protected from degradation. However, for the presence of soft tissue to be evidence of a 6,000 year old earth, this soft tissue should be present in ALL samples, not just a few. A single rock sample with Helium inside is also insufficient to outweigh consistent evidence of an ancient planet and universe. Helium was apparently trapped in some rock samples, and would only diffuse out under extremely high temperatures.

The likely explanation for Gentry's findings seems to be that the formation from which he drew his samples has only recently been subjected to temperatures high enough to cause diffusion. If so, the lack of diffusion then would not date the rock formation itself, but rather the onset of high temperatures. This is especially indicated by the complete diffusion of helium in his deeper samples, since helium diffuses more easily than lead, and the deeper parts of the formation would be expected to experience higher temperatures earlier than the shallower parts. In fact, Gentry acknowledges in the above-cited Science article that temperatures in the formation are indeed thought to be rising. Need confirmed rebuttal from knowledgable source. These claims are not present in the Defender's Bible, indicating that they have been abandoned by ICR as weak.¹

https://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/OEC-refutes-YEC.htm#lead

There really is no solid evidence FOR the specific age of the earth somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. The only scientific arguments that are made attempt to refute the standard age of the earth as accepted by the scientific community. And these consist of very rare outliers and not to entire bodies of evidence. Just as we see over and over in YEC arguments, here is a single outlier:

9 hours ago, Xavier said:

In August of this year, paleontologists in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England, made a discovery that astounded the evolutionary community. A "150 million-year-old" squid was discovered with an intact ink sac. "It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac…inside a rock that is 150 million years old," said Dr. Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey.1 Creationists agree and see this as physical evidence that clearly points to its recent burial and preservation."

These arguments are mysteries, of course, but insufficient to refute the remainder of the overwhelming evidence.

[JustPassingThru]

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Easily done.   As even early Christians noted, it's logically absurd to talk  about literal mornings and evenings without a sun to have them.

What early Christians are you talking about, ...give us  chapter and verse instead of opinions, ...opinions are like elbows and knees, ...everyone has two of them!

I'm confused, ...have you even read the first 13 verses of Genesis 1, ...God "spoke light into existence in verse 3:

And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 

...and then He divided the existing light in verse 4:

And God saw the light that it was good. And God divided between the light and the darkness.

And then we read on the third day He caused plants and trees to sprout out of the already irrigated dry earth;

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. 1:11

So then, ...have you ever covered your lawn with something, anything and come back a few days later and find the grass had died, ...so then, ...it's literally absurd to think God created the plants, ...with the necessary chlorophyll in their leaves to convert the Sun's energy by taking the carbon dioxide from the air and mixing it with the water from the soil to produce their nutrients to sustain their life, ...and to sprout, grow and produce fruit, ...and then hold off, ...wait millions and millions of years before He caused the Sun and Moon to exist, ...yep, you're right, ...it's absolutely absurd to believe that... 

 

God separated the "day" into evening and morning, ...so these supposed "early" Christians, living 2,000 years ago, ...experiencing every day of their lives a 24 hour day with a evening and a morning sat around the dinner table, talking with one another, said, "...boy, I sure hope this night doesn't last millions of years," ...yeah right...,  

[The Barbarian]

5 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

What early Christians are you talking about,

St.Augustine, for example.

5 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

I'm confused,

I think so.

5 hours ago, JustPassingThru said:

And God said, Let there be light. And there was light. 

...and then He divided the existing light in verse 4:

But God is not the author of confusion.  So He does not engage in logical absurdities, even if it would otherwise be possible for Him.  It is contrary to His nature to be false in any way.

[The Barbarian]

17 hours ago, Alive said:

Personally, I don't no believe in the theory of evolution. I do understand adaptation within 'kind', which is entirely different.

That's wrong.    Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.    You accept the fact of evolution; you just object to one of the consquences of evolution.   But as even honest YE creationists admit, there is a great deal of evidence for common descent.   Would you like me to show you?

 

 

[The Barbarian]

20 hours ago, Abdicate said:

If you call my trust in the word of God pride, yours is being a fool to reject the word of God which says ALL so a 2-year old can read plainly:

Rather you call your pride "trust in God."

20 hours ago, Abdicate said:

yours is being a fool

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
 

[Xavier]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

St.Augustine, for example.

I'm afraid that's not true, though it's often repeated: "reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed  (City of God, XII, 10).[18]" we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man.”4

See: https://answersingenesis.org/days-of-creation/augustine-on-the-days-of-creation/ and http://kolbecenter.org/st-augustine-rediscovered-a-defense-of-the-literal-interpretation-of-st-augustines-writings-on-the-sacred-history-of-genesis/

God Himself, the Light of the world (Jn 8:12) gave the Light on the First Day. In the Book of Revelation, we read, in Heaven, He will Himself be Light again.

Rev 21:23 "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." I'm reminded of that famous song, "That fair City so Bright, where the Lamb is the Light." etc.

I want to point out one universally known Evolutionist Hoax, Piltdown man, very likely a deliberate fraud on unsuspecting Christians, first attacked by Creation Scientists, now universally admitted to be fraudulent: ""Piltdown man was extremely influential in shaping evolutionary thinking and early research on human evolutionary theory. For the four decades before it was exposed, Piltdown man was considered the ‘missing link’. It was used as one of the key evidences against creation in the Scopes trial. It altered the education in the United States for a whole generation and found its way into major science textbooks and encyclopedias—and it was a hoax. There were over 250 publications on Piltdown man alone!1 The implications for evolutionary theory were tremendous. Entire evolutionary-developmental theories about hominid evolution were based on Piltdown and many of those were demolished when the fraud was exposed. 250 publications! It would be nothing short of historical revisionism to downplay its significance." https://creation.com/evolution-fraud

One.Opinion, sources? The ones for A-DNA (Ancient DNA, a total contradiction in terms; if DNA still exists in "ancient organisms", that is an incontrovertible scientific proof that millions of years simply never passed) were given there in the Wiki link, and are widely admitted today. 

Here are some on soft tissue, from mainstream publications: "Science Mag: "One study, led by Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist from North Carolina State University in Raleigh who has chased dinosaur proteins for de­cades, confirms her highly controversial claim to have recovered 80-million-year-old dinosaur collagen. The other paper suggests that protein may even have sur­vived in a 195-million-year-old dino fossil." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/scientists-retrieve-80-million-year-old-dinosaur-protein-milestone-paper

Science Daily: "Utilizing the most rigorous testing methods to date, researchers from North Carolina State University have isolated additional collagen peptides from an 80-million-year-old Brachylophosaurus."https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170123145210.htm

Soft tissue, collagen, protein, haemoglobin, blood cells etc, will hardly survive tens of thousands of years. Therefore, those specimens are not millions of years old. 

Peace and Grace. 
In Our Lord Jesus.

 

[Xavier]

Here is a Creation Science Textbook (from about 1920) that exposed the Piltdown Fraud before evolutionists and secularists caught up some 33 years later.

We know bad doctrine by its fruits. When ideas produce atheism, godless and hedonistic living, we know from those bad fruits that it is not True or Good.

"So baneful has been the effect of teaching evolution as a proven hypothesis, that multitudes have been led into infidelity and atheism. Prof. James H. Leuba, of Bryn Mawr College, Pa. sent a questionnaire to 1000 of the most prominent scientists teaching sciences relating to evolution. The replies indicate that more than one-half do not believe in a personal God, nor the immortality of the soul--beliefs almost universal even in the heathen world. So pernicious is this doctrine of evolution that more than one-half of the professors who teach it and kindred subjects, are infidels and atheists and farther from God than the ignorant heathen. And while we are happy in the conviction that the great majority of professors and teachers of other subjects are Christians, yet one or two atheists or infidels are sufficient to make havoc of the faith of many, in a great college or university.

A doctrine so abhorrent to the conscience, so contrary to the well nigh universal belief, and so fruitful of evil, certainly can not be true. Small wonder is it that students are fast becoming infidels and atheists, and we shudder as we think of the coming generation. A great responsibility rests upon the authorities who employ such teachers.

The answers of the students in seven large representative colleges and universities to Prof. Leuba's questionnaire, show that while only 15% of the Freshmen have abandoned the Christian religion, 30% of the Juniors and over 40% of the Seniors have abandoned the Christian faith. Note the steady and rapid growth of infidelity and atheism as a result of this pernicious theory.

Will Christian parents patronize or support or endow institutions that give an education that is worse than worthless? What the colleges teach today the world will believe tomorrow. 

It is the privilege and duty of parents to send their children to institutions that are safe.

Atheism, under its own name, has never had many to embrace it. Its only hope is to be tolerated and believed under some other name. In Russia, no man is allowed to belong to the ruling (Communist) party unless he is an atheist. It will be a sorry world when "scientific" atheism wins, under the name of evolution.No one has a moral right to believe what is false, much less to teach it, under the specious plea of freedom of thought ... Most of the writers who advocated evolution became atheists or infidels; most of the professors who teach it, believe neither in God nor the immortality of the soul; and the number of students discarding Christianity rose from 15% in the Freshman year to 40% in the Senior. What more proof is needed?" http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html