6000 Years vs. Millions of Years

[EricH]

Every person in this debate has chosen a base-line of truth. For those that chose science as that base-line, they are forced to conclude that Genesis is not literal because it does not agree with the base-line they have chosen. So they screen the Bible through the lens of scientific truth, and if there is a disparity, they side with science and adjust the Bible. For those that hold that the Bible is the final arbiter of truth, they will evaluate scientific findings in the light of what the Bible has to say about creation.

[1Cor6:11Man]

Jukia, you still haven't faced the music. Just because it comes from a creation website, doesn't make it any less reliable.

. But you need to be willing to explore the evidence presented to you, otherwise, why post? Just so you can get some thrill at bashing people, who by the way, have actually done some scientific leg-work and have presented it to you?

In all gentleness in Christ,

1 Cor 6:11 man

Sorry, I have yet to see a reliable creationist website. At the very least they are misleading, at worst dishonest. I have 2 biology degrees, taught bio and chem for a bit. One daughter is an MD, the other a PhD in genetics. Lots of science even around the dinner table.

OK, so WHERE are they misleading, and why? Degrees don't prove that evolution is right; do you see what I'm asking? I'm also pursuing a nursing degree. And the one thing that makes me laugh is Form/Function. Evolution is sloppy and progressive by nature. Oops, basically. And yet, in the human body, there is a complex system of form and function, homeostatic balance through negative feedback operations, selective active sites for amino acids and hormones so that one hormone doesn't trigger every possible response in the human body. The complexity and beauty of it all is staggering. And yet, I'm sure everyone would laugh if I told them my pencil evolved, which is only wood and graphite; lacking any biological significance as the human body. I find myself chuckling to myself, even now. You don't even get a pencil by accident. And yet look how much simpler an object that is.

On top of this, evolution is supposedly a progression upward, yet that defies the very Law of Entropy as well as common sense that information can be supposedly added; but from where? If you would like, I would suggest that you read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behee, professor of biochemistry at Lehi University.

I have to admit, I have never read Darmyple, I will have to examine it. But I will mention this, that Dr. John Polkinghorn, Professor at Cambridge University, who is one of the leading Quatum Physicists in the world, who wrote the book "Quantum" which was acclaimed by Physics Bulletin as one of the best in its genre, he said basically this: "That the ratio between the expansion and contraction of the Universe had to be so precise, so exact, and the margin of error so small, that it would be compared to taking aim at a one square inch target all the way on the furthest side of the Universe, 20-billion light years away, and hitting it bullseye." You can check that out in his book "One World". He actually said this in a lecure class. And then in typical anticlimactic humor said, "There's no free lunch. Somebody has to pay." In other words, you don't get a Universe so densly textured, and information rich by accident.

http://www.amazon.com/One-World-Interactio...6571&sr=8-4

Granted, I may not agree with EVERYTHING he says, but you'll get the basics of what is being said when you read the book.

Plus, you still haven't even commented on the 300 list either. (Which, by the way has been growing, I think its up to 324 so far. But that's only considering those who have actually heard of the list; but look who is on the list.)

Basically, this: #1. Evolution is not proven. It's a theory, and peope claim to have evidence that suggests evolution is correct. But we will both agree that it's not a proven theory. That's why it's still called a theory.

#2. That still doesn't answer the bigger question about the origin of the Universe. Again, evolution is a process after the origin, not the origin itself.

So, I must ask:

Have you ever seen The Priveledged Planet, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Dating Fossils and Rocks by Mike Riddle? There are others, but I can't remember the name of one that talked about the expansion of the Universe, Time, and star position.

And yes, there is evidence of a Noachian flood. Numerous cultures world-wide have stories or legends, plus rock layer evidence.

Up here in Alaska, we have an old coal mine that is no longer in use in a town called Sutton. In that small instance, one could see 3 poly-straight logs (sp?) in the area where miners had dug over 200 feet in depth. They were about 30 feet below the surface, and clear as a bell. Plus, they were at the top of a hill, not in a valley.

So when a tree dies, it falls over, or decays within a few decades. But if you watched footage of the Mt. St. Helen eruption, you would have seen what happened to all the logs that were floating in the new lake created by the landslide. They were standing upright in the water. The video clearly shows this, which is evidence of poly-straight logs occurring in flood conditions. Furthermore, if you happened to catch Planet Earth the series, you would have seen that trees get taller in areas further away from the North Pole. I know, because I live relatively close to it. :-) Trees also disappear in places like Barrow, which also never sees the actual sun for 2 months out of the year. Hmmm, maybe that's why there are few trees up there.

But I say this to show that these poly-straight logs could not have occurred during the "ice-age", because of the weather being too cold, and also something called permafrost, which every home owner in Alaska is highly familiar with. Permafrost is a layer of ice only about 6 or more feet under the ground, which prevents roots from going as deep; which prevents the trees from reaching such heights as the Redwoods, for example.

So the question is, how did these logs get the way they did? It had to happen in a flood condition that pre-dated the Ice-age.

Edited December 13, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man

[Jorge S]

Nice try. Are you suggesting that it is a science book???

More than that: it is a Book of Truth, the Testimony of the Creator.

Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. (Pro 30:5)

For the Word of Jehovah is right; and all His works are in truth. (Psa 33:4)

Your Word is true from the beginning; and every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. (Psa 119:160)

By the Word of Jehovah were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. (Psa 33:6)

And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made. And He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He had rested from all His work which God created to make.

[1Cor6:11Man]

Jukia, could you give a reference to this Darmyple person? I must be spelling it wrong, cause I can't find it. Plus, I don't know what title to be able to find it to read/watch it.

[1Cor6:11Man]

More than that: it is a Book of Truth, the Testimony of the Creator.

[

Got a cite to an original copy? I think not. Your reasoning is circular.

Just so you know, there are more copies/originals of the New Testament in the original Greek than there are references to Homer's Oddessey. But you don't doubt the accuracy of The Oddessey, do you?

Again, just more hostility towards the Bible, rather than real investigation. By the way, orginial copies are available, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and many others. We just don't keep them in the US. Get ready to travel to the Middle East, Britain, and other places if you wish to see some orginals.

Edited December 13, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man

[1Cor6:11Man]

If you would like to see some originals without having to travel there, try this site:

http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html

Again, you would have to travel to other places if you wanted to personally view the originals.

[1Cor6:11Man]

#1. I know that The Oddessey is factual. I'm talking about the translation silly, not its factual-ness.

#2. What difference does it make if its Old or New Testament? Besides, these are Original copies none the less. And Jesus Himself testified of the Old Testament, so really what kind of argument is that? What date is it today? Oh, yeah. December 13th, 2007 AD. Only Jesus Christ had the power to split time (B.C. vs A.D.) when it came to His influence in human history.

#3. You've never spent time with a Jewish scribe, have you? Do you even know the laws and conditions and regulations the Jewish people have over making copies of Scripture? You really need to bone up on this, because stoning would have been kind to one who purposely changed one jot or tittle of the Manuscripts.

Would you doubt the accuracy of the Translation of the Oddessey? It's pretty clear in what it has to say, and look how old it is. Why is that any different of the Old Testament? Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

[Jorge S]

Got a cite to an original copy? I think not. Your reasoning is circular.

(This will cause us to digress further from the main topic. Sorry.)

My reasoning about Genesis is so little that I don't know whether it qualifies as circular, square or triangular, although I suspect it must be CROSS-shaped because after a lifetime of atheism Jesus led me to the understanding that the epistemic value of Genesis on ontology and early history is as good as sure is the Salvation he extends to all who believe in Him.

Your superior reasoning will undoubtedly reckon with the improbability of finding originals that were written in perishable materials, unless we archeologically hit the jackpot of recovering some of the clay tablets used during the times of the Exodus or earlier still.

We can only judge the authenticity of the originals by the fidelity of their transmission and in that regard The Septuagint, the Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls show an astounding concurrence. Most importantly, Jesus Himself approved of the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible during His earthly Ministry by quoting from the majority of the Old Testament books and referring to people and events narrated in Genesis as historic persons and incidents.

[Ovedya]

Jukia,

Would you doubt the testimony of the man responsible for the foundational principals of legal evidence, Simon Greenleaf? I would think that, as a lawyer, you would appreciate reading his conclusions with regard to the resurrection of Christ, called "Testimony of the Evangelists." If Simon Greenleaf, whose unimpeachable work and character, concluded that evidence for the resurrection of Christ is real, then that certainly validates the Bible as an historically accurate book.

So the question is, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

[1Cor6:11Man]

1Cor:

some comments.

1. I did not give you my kids education to suggest it showed anything other than my family as a whole is pretty well versed in science.

Ok. I will grant you that.

2. However, you are the one who brought up the list of 300. But check out Project Steve. PhDs with the first name of Steve (in honor of Gould), at present there are over 800 on that list. 800 trumps 300.

Personally, I believe that that one reason there aren't more, is because they'd lost funding if they ever came close to refuting it. Which, by the way is what happened to Guillermo Gonzales, who only stated that he believed that ID was a possiblity. He lost not necessarily funding, but tenure at ISU. And this guy's an Astrobiologist.

Plus, I looked over this site, and I must say, it is impressive in size and content. However, upon initial visitation, speicifically in the Phylogenetic Tree, I'm already seeing a red flag. But, I'm committed to looking at it in it's completeness to make sure I don't miss anything.

My point, however, was not the size of the list, but rather the list itself. We both know that size doesn't matter. What matters is that some scientists DON'T feel that Darwinistic Theory supports the origin of life as we know it.

3. Your statement that "evolution is supposedly a progression upward" shows your lack of knowledge. That statement is simply incorrect.

I'm sorry, I thought humans evolved? Was I wrong? I mean, we all started out somewhere right? I mean, according to the tree, we all come from mitochondria, right? Is that not a progression upward? Maybe my term is incorrect, but I think you know what I'm saying.

4. Please do not play the entropy card. You show your lack of knowledge again. The earth is not a closed system. Ever see that big yellow ball in the day time? Think about it.

Please explain a little more instead of just assuming I know where you're going with this. By the way, the earth is not a closed system...the whole universe is.

5. Also, don't throw "information" into the mix. I will admit I am out of my league talking about information. That topic gets mucho technical. I have yet to see a creationist come close to even explaining what they mean.

If you are out of your league in regards to information, then don't dismiss it, research it like you've told many other people to do. Unlocking the Mystery of Life is a great video which talks about this in detail.

6. Yes evolution is a theory. It is a theory that explains what we see much much better than any other theory. That's just a matter of opinion as well as evidence held to support each side. That's why its still a theory. And explains why I have a pencil to write with. (Sorry, just a little sarcasm to make my point)

7. "Rock layers" are not, repeat not, evidence of Noah and his flood. I didn't say thay were. I was just referencing to the many things related to rock layers and the such. I'm sorry I was not more clear on that one.

8. If you are going to use stories and legends to show the flood? Good luck. There are currently stories of alien abductions, must be true, huh?

Ok. That's a little low, even for your intelligence. Common stories, from different people groups, from different continents, etc. All I'm saying is that there is EVIDENCE.

Which, by the way, I wouldn't make fun of people who believe in aliens; especially coming from someone who believes in evolution. I mean, according to you, what happened here could happen elsewhere, right?

9. There is real info on polystrate trees. Go look it up, suggest you bypass the creos and look for some real science. I must admit my background here is weak but the creo claims are ridiculous.

Mt. St. Helens. That's all I NEED to say. There's plenty of evidence regarding poly straight logs.

Again, just because it comes from a source you don't like, doesn't make it faulty. And since your background is weak on it, how you would know?

10. No have not seen Riddles stuff. No desire to. Not likely to be accurate or contain any real info that means anything. I have read lots of AiG, ICR, watched Hovind videos. I know the drill--it is all garbage. Garbage and untruths and misinformation.

You're kidding me, right? I reference ONE video you haven't seen or heard of, and you dismiss it right off. What is it you are really looking for in this blog? You finally meet someone who actually has a little bit of a brain about this, and now you want to just throw your hands up? At least I have the guts to check your websites, and look for your Delm guy on Dating methods. Whose at least TRYING to be a little objective and open-minded here?

I mean, if I just dismiss everything you give me because it comes from an pro-evolutionary viewpoint, what's the point of even continuing the converstaion. Really.

11. Old or New Testament? Big difference.

Wow. You won that round. I mean, you would have to dismiss the whole Jewish culture on that one.

12. B.C. v A.D. You can't be serious with this statement. Jesus did not do this. People did.

Yes they did. As a result of who, I may ask? My point was one of the historicity of Christ, that's all.

13. You know what, I'll accept, for argument, an accurate translation of Genesis. Does not make it true. The evidence in the real world shows it not to be factual even if the translation is accurate. If the underlying info is not factual then the translation can be accurate but that really makes not a whit of difference.

There is a book, which discusses this in great detail, both from a cultural but also archeological view. The name escapes me, but if I can find it, I will post it. I would recommend that you take a look at Bob Cornuke's video on the Ark of the Covenant and the Real Mount Sinai. Great video footage of the evidence of the Exodus. Not to mention what's underwater.

But look at it this way,

Let's say you lived 4000 years before Christ. You wrote down your "scriptures" on a scroll. Now, think about it....

You open that scroll every Saturday to read from it, and what happens to it over time? It crumbles, or begins to weather. So you carefully make copies, not only to preserve what you have, but to make sure that trascription problems don't happen. But I'm sure you know about transription as it relates to biology, so you have the idea.

Edited December 14, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man