News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Because I would like to see both sides of the creationist-evolutionist debate have their fair share of presentation, I have made this thread for CREATIONISTS to post their side of the story. I kindly ask that the evolutionists of the forum refrain from posting evolution evidence, facts, or research, as that is not the purpose of this particular thread. This thread is for creationist evidence only.

To open this presentation I would like to post a quote from LinearAq, asking a creationist to answer the following:

LinearAq wrote:



Now, this particular question was posed to the poster CTD, whom, if we're lucky, (s)he will have the time available to respond -- as well as other creationist posters -- and thus contribute to the mountainous evidence supporting creation. After answering the above questions with clear and testable evidence, we can then expand on the presentation by adding additional creationist research, but it would be fair to start by answering the above questions before moving forward.

I kindly ask that the evolutionists of this forum not retort with snide remarks or tell me to simply go do my homework, or that they're an expert in the field of evolution and I should trust that they know what they're talking about and to leave it at that. Please, simply allow the creationist side of the debate their chance to speak and present evidence supporting their claims. When the creationist side of the argument has offered its evidence of creationism and not mere attempts at disproving evolution without any proof to back up its own argument alone, I promise you the presentation will be a compelling one for all readers here. You will be wowed when you see the creationist evidence doesn't even need to waste time talking about evolution but instead goes straight to the point by presenting its numerous tried and tested theories and facts.

Pwcca, at the moment I am on the last stages of a course and am not even able to fully answer Linear's post as I would like. My attention I guess is mostly 'elsewhere" so debates are not my priority and if anything, distract and at times cause me upset. I am trying to take a break.

BUT, seeing this post here of yours, I really do want to answer this. Unfortunate timing for me though. I think your post here deserves an answer and thank you for posting it! If I cannot answer it as fast as you might expect, you'll have to excuse me and understand my circumstances.

NOTE: No creationist on here (as far as I know?) has made such bold claims as mountainous evidence supporting creation I have always maintained I am simply a layperson, but have a strong faith in Christ, I strongly believe in His word from the beginning of the bible to end. And as I find evolution is debatable, there is no reason for me to doubt otherwise.

I hope that I will be able to post something here that might give more "scientific" insight too, but I can't promise that the reader will be as compelled as I am! But I'll do my best when I can.

Just a note: Though one should try and give people the benefit of the doubt, I find that quite hard to do in light of the tone of the original post. I'll start this by exposing what I believe is the real intent here. The sarcastic comments of "mountainous evidence" or "clear testable evidence" etc, when I have no recall of anybody having made such claims, is simply an attempt to set creationists up for a "big fall", should their responses here (in his eyes) fail to stand up to such exaggerated claims. I will remind anybody here that creation is not being taught in science classrooms and that the burden of proof does not lie with us! This is something Pwcca needs to seriously consider before using such tactics in future. Therefore, nobody is "obliged" to prove anything on this thread, unless they are indoctrinating students with their theory in a science classroom. Though I thank Pwcca for the opportunity to express the reasons that I believe in intelligent design, I do not thank him for setting up and starting a thread with a veiled sting attached that eventually undoes or lessens any genuine intent of what "could" have been an open invitation without the usual hidden jabs . What a pity! (but no surprise).

However, Im going to simply share why I believe in intelligent design is the only way to explain our origins, this is not so much for Pwcca, but for anybody else. One can make of it what they will. My post below may have already been mentioned by me or others in one way or another through different posts when have been debating evolution. Sorry for any repitition, but I' and other creationists have been accused of not providing anything in support of intelligent design by Pwcca. You (the reader) can make up your own mind about that, just read the threads on here, view the videos, and see whether we've provided little to nothing in support of intelligent design. I consider evolution and creation polar opposites and if things did not arise spontaneously, the only alternative is that they arose purposely! in debating evolution, design is automatically the next consideration. So disproving one, is in effect stating the obvious - letting one consider the alternative and what may point instead to design. I will however, try here to keep focus on my reasons for believing in creation.

Our origins:

The British professor of the theoretical physics, Paul Davies, clearly outlined the problematical questions concerning the origins of the universe:

"if the universe had no origin in time - if it has alwyas existed - then it is of infinite age. The concept of infinity leaves many people reeling. If there has been an infinite number of events already, why do we find ourselves living now? Did the universe remain quiescent for all of eternity only to spring into action relatively recently, or has there been some activity going on forever and ever? On the other hand, if the universe began, that means accepting it appeared suddenly out of nothing. This seems to imply that there was a first event. if so, what caused it?".

The earth possesses a large number of astronomical and physical peculiarities which make life on earth possible. In additon, the exact values of very many properties must fall inside very restricted bounds, all at the same time. The following pre- requirements are exceedingly improbable without intention/intelligence/exactness.

*the correct distance between earth and sun
*the elliptical orbit of the earth around the sun with its small eccentricity
*the constant energy output of the sun
*the correct rate of rotation of the earth
*the optimum tilt angle between the axis of the earth
and the ecliptic
*the correct size and mass of the earth
*the correct quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the earth
*the correct quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere of the earth
*the correct distance of the moon from the earth.

What are the chances of this all occuring outside of intelligent intent/design? The physical law of the conservation of energy states that our universe energy cannot be created out of nothing, neither can it be destroyed. Now what was the origin of the energy in the universe, and every aspect of precise balance/function, if not an act of creation? Any of these things that do not perform in exactly the right way, at the right times, is a recipe not only for disaster, but non occurance/sustainance.

During a conversation with Job (in the bible), God clearly explained to him the foundation of all astronomical and physical data and the geometrical dimensions of the establishment of the earth. "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? (or: drew up constructional plans) Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?" (Job 38.4). The book of Job is very interesting in regards to the origins of the foundations of the earth and the creatures God created to inhabit it.

Do living things show evidence of design?

The late Issac Asimov (an ardent anti-creationist) decleared that "in man, is a three-pound brain, which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe. It is much more complex that the most complicated computer ever built. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that if man's highly intelligent brain designed the computer, then the human brain was also the product of design?"

Life is built on information. This information is contained in the incredibly complex DNA. To argue that natural selection and mutations are the basic mechanisms of the evolutionary process, one must show that these processes produce the information responsible for the design that is evident in living things. What machine, already been designed (by man) can match the complexity of DNA? There is a clear difference between living organisms and non-living matter. Matter and energy are necessary fundamental qualities of life, but they do not distinguish living systems from non-living systems. One of the central characteristics of all living creatures is teh inherent information required for alll life processes and the genetic information required for procreation. Information is an essential aspect of all life forms. In the extreme case, submiscroscopic viroids are no more than bearers of information. One the other hand, even very complex organic compounds like proteins are not alive, because tehy do not contain encoded information. It should be obvious that information distinguishes between living and inanimate substances. Pasteur's statement that life can only come from life (omne vivum ex vivo), can thus be expressed as follows: Information must have a source.

Natural selection is a logical process that one can observed. However, natural selection only operates on the information that is ALREADY CONTAINED in the genes - it does NOT produce new information. It is true that one can observe great variation in a "kind", and see the results of natural selection/breeding. For instance, wolves, coyotes and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection/breeding operating on the information found in the genes of the wolf/dog "kind". But the point here is that NO new information was produced - these varieties of dogs have resulted from a rearrangement, sorting out, and separation of the information in the original dog kind. One "kind" has never been observed to change into a totally different "kind" with information that previously did not exist. Without intelligent input to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Therefore, what then is the alternative?

The construction of a 747 airplane is apparently made up of six million parts. Try and imagine that not one part by itself flies! But you know that as a complete machine, it flies! So, to understand the basic mechanisms of the biochemistry of cells that enables organisms to function, consider what scientists have found within the cell. There are thousands of what can be called "biochemical machines". For example, one could cite the cell's ability to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses. But what scientists once thought was a simple process within a cell, such as being able to sense light and turn it into electrical impulses, is in fact a highly complicated event. For just this one example alone to even work, there have to be numerous compounds in all the right places and the right time in the right concentration for it to work - or it just cannot happen. In other words, just as all the parts of the 747 need to be assembled before it can fly, so all the parts of these "biochemical machines" in cells need to be in place or they cannot function (let alone replicate). And there are literally thousands of such "machines" in a single cell that are vital for it to operate.

Life is built on these "machines". The simplicity that was once expected to be the fountain of life has proven Instead, to be a system of horrendous, irreducible complexity that inhabit the cell itself. At a cellular level, there are literally thousands of "machines" that need to exist before life ever becomes possible. The more one looks into the workings of life, the more complicated it becomes and the more we see that life could not have arisen by itself. Not only does life require a source of information, but the complex "machines" of the chemistry of life must be in existence, right from the start.

In just one of the trillions of cells that make up the human body, the amount of information in its genes has been estimated to fill at least 1000 books of 500 pages of typewritten information. And this itself maybe underestimated (to say the least).

Where did this information come from? And in the right order? Seeing as the alphabet itself is so simple compared to the information and order of DNA, how then can we admit one is the product of design/language information and the other not? The order of letters is meaningless unless there is a language system and a translation system already in place to make the order meaningful! In the DNA of a cell, the order of its molecules is also meaningless, except that in the biochemistry of a cell, there is a language system (other molecules) that makes the order meaningful! DNA without the language system is meaningless, and the language system without DNA wouldn't work either. The other complication is that the language system that reads the order of the molecules in the DNA is itself specified by the DNA! This is another one of those "machines" that must already be in existence and fully formed or life will not work. DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative/intelligent force. So far, life has not been created in a lab. The only thing scientists can do is "clone" (already available complete information).

Here is an interview with a molecular biologist:

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G: (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joint the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?"
J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.
G: I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.
J: The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.
G: What elephant?
J: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

Taken from - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-scientists.html


Can information arise from non-information?

Dr. Werner Gitt (In the beginning was information), makes it clear that one of the things we know for sure from science is that information cannot arise from disorder by chance. It always takes (greater) information to produce information and ultimately information is the result of intelligence.

"A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires intelligent origin or inventor)...It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being volunarily exercising his own free will, cognition and creativity, is required".

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this"..

"....there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter".

What then is the source of the information?

The huge amount of information in living things must originally have come from an intelligence, which had to have been far superior to ours. But then some might say that such a source would have to be caused by something with even greater information/intelligence. However, if they reason this way, one could ask, where even this greater information/intelligence came from? One could continue doing this to infinity...unless... there was a source of infinite intelligence, beyond our finite understanding.

Dr Gary Parker (creationist - ex evolutionist) argues that natural selection does occur, but operates as a "preservative", and has nothing to do with one organism changing into another!

"Natural selection is just one of the processes that operates in our present corrupted world to insure that the created kinds can indeed spread throughout the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety (often, nowadays, in spite of human pollution)".

"It seems to me that natural selection works only because each kind was created with sufficient variety to multiply and fill the earth in all its ecologic and geographic variety".

We are no doubt similar in many respects to animals, especially the apes, but did we arise from a common ancestor? The bible states that man was created in His image, not in the image of the other animals. This could be argued that all living things come from a common designer. Just as material things that are created come from designers. Whether the similarity is shape/form or biochemical is of no consequence. We see the same this throughout our lives from any author/designer/programmer.

What about origin and formation of speech?

The formations for speech do not rely on the existance of a single organ, but depend on the simultaneous availability of a voice-producing mechanicism, a suitable throat cavity (together with the tongue), and a highly complex control system (the brain). how is it possible that such a diverse and exactly matching set of components could have developed together? It is totally unreasonable to believe that such a marvellous structure could have originated without purpose.

When a child is born, it has no command of language, but it is able to learn the language of its parents. The language "supply" is available, and must be "installed" in the baby's brain. But the "so-called" primitive people, as put forth by evolution, did not have a language source. The situation can be compared to a computer with no software - it can accomplish nothing; no speech could have developed.

You cannot compare the specifics of human speech with the communication systems of animals. It can be stated emphatically that the essence of human speech is not communication. Communication exists everywhere in the animal kingdom. But human language is in the first place a knowledge medium; this encompasses an intellectual/spiritual access to the observable world. The essence of speech lies in the possibility of assigning specific meanings to articulated sounds, thereby making them mentally accessible.

Even the most diligent training of apes (experiments) never resulted in anything possessing the essential characteristics of human speech. Certain concepts could only be developed in cases where the primary survival instincts of the animals were involved.

Everything in space displays circular motion. How or what/who put these in motion and in just the right way and speed? "Man cannot alter the motions of the heavens" (Job 38:31 - 33).

Rotation the turning of an object on its axis. The rotation of our earth provides the obvious day/night cycle. One pupose of all the circular motion of all objects in space is to provide stability. If planets and moons did not have orbital motion, gravity would cause them to crash inward. If the milky way was a stationary group of stars, then the stars would also begin moving toward the center. The galaxy's rotation prevents this unstable situation.

What about gravity? The earth's gravity keeps the moon in orbit; the moon's gravity pulls back and causes the tides. The earth also pulls downard on surface objects and gives them their "weight". On the moon we'd weigh six times less than on earth, because of the lunah gravity being less than the earth's.

On earth, gravity causes the rain to "fall". It also makes us tired, since we work against its downard force all day. Gravity cannot be turned off; no antigravity machine has yet been invented. I wonder what life on earth would be like if gravity as stronger than it actually is or less!

If it was stronger, no birds or planes could fly.
Ink would drain from your pen.
No tall trees or buildings could stand.
Neither evaporation nor rain would occur.
Clouds would like on the ground as permanent fog.
STanding up would be a difficult task.

What about a less force?

We would weigh less
A home-run baseball might fly for miles
Eath's atmosphere would escape into space
Oceans would evaporate

Clearly the gravity we have is at just the right strength to make life possible on earth. Issac Newston studied gravity three centuries ago, but modern science still does not known what really causes its force. What a mystery! How do the earth and moon "know" exactly where the other is at at all times and pull accordingly? Whatever the mechanism, aren't we lucky that we can sit here on our computers and even debate about it?

Does the seven day week support creation?

The earth's motion provides two natural divisions of time. One rotation or complete turn of the earth defines the 24 hour day. One orbital revolution around the sun defines our year. The week is a third, intermediate time segment that is not readily derived from observations. There is no obvious seven-day rhythm in the solar system or space beyond. Attempts to find an orgin for the week in moon phases or in seven distinct astronomical objects are unconvincing. Our week appears to be a direct reflection of the calendar cycle (Gen. 2:2 - 3).

Alternate calender groupings have been attempted in the past. In 1792 France instituted a new decimal calendar with a ten-day week. Each day was further divided into decimal parts instad of hours and minutes. This calender failed to satisfy French citizens and disappeared after just 14 years of use. In 1929 Russia also attempted to dissociate the week from its religious basis by simply eliminating Saturdays and Sundays from the calendar. Soviet people enjoy weekends just like everyone else and this unpopular calendar was also short-lived, lasting only one year. Surely the enduring seven-day week is a strong testimony to the reliability of the creation account.

Job 26:7 explains that the earth is suspended in space, the obvious comparison being with the spherical sun and moon.

Dr. Gentry claims to have discovered evidence of primordial polonium in the earth's bedrock. Such evidence requires that the polonium be present in hardened bedrock. But in order for this to occur, the earth's formation would require an instantaneous creation of rock and not a billion years worth of cooling from a molten state.
Dr. Kazmann wrote, "The polonium halos, especially those produced by Polonium 218, are the center of a mystery. The half-life of the isotope is only 3 minutes. Yet the halos have been found in granitic rocks ... in all parts of the world, including Scandinavia, India, Canada, and the United States. The difficulty arises from observation that there is no identifiable precursor to the polonium; it appears to be primordial polonium. If so, how did the surrounding rocks crystallize rapidly enough so that there were crystals available ready to be imprinted with radiohalos by alpha particles from Po? This would imply almost instantaneous cooling and crystallization of these granitic minerals, and we know of no mechanisms that will remove heat so rapidly; the rocks are supposed to have cooled over millennia, if not tens of millennia." (R.G. Kazmann, 1979, summary of R.V. Gentry's symposium presentation at Louisiana State University, April 1978, quoted in CTM, p. 61).

I believe in creation, but also in six literal days to create the world. God is not limited at all, we are! There have been many attempts to stretch creation days into vast periods of time to accommodate scripture with secular science. However, the problem is not with scripture but with our attempts to rationalise and understand the creation week, something that cannot be done by finite minds! If God is the Creator of the laws of nature, then He Himself is not subject to them. He can use them freely, and can, through his omnipotence, limit their effects or even nullify them. There are many details of God's creative plan that simply cannot be compromised with current scientific opinion. Some of the unanswered questions are:

1. How could plants exist on the third day, before the sun was present? (if "days" are "eons" long).
2. "light" existed before the sun (Gen 1:3). What light source did God use to mark the first three days?
3. Since the seas were also formed before the sun (Gen. 1:9 - 10), why didn't they quickly freeze? why didn't the "water above" fall to the ground as snow? (Gen. 1:9)
4. Did the earth initially move in a straight line, or did it orbit the position of the yet-to-be-created sun?

Scripture:

All elements made together
Earth before the sun and stars
Earth covered in water intially
Oceans first, then dry land
Life first created on the land
Plants created before the sun
Land animals created after birds
Whales before land animals
Birds created before reptiles
Sun, moon and stars formed together

Evolution:

Elements beyond hydrogen and helium formed after millions of years
Earth formed long after the stars
Earth a molten blob initially
Dry land, then the oceans
Life started in the oceans
Plants came long after the sun
Land animals existed before birds
Land animals before whales.
Birds evolved from reptiles
Sun formed from older stars

All ideas which try to put eons of time into, or before, Creation undermine the Gospel by putting death, bloodshed, disease, thorns and suffering before sin and the Fall. When the bible makes it clear that all things were made good in the very beginning! When one accepts the first part of the bible, they usually have no problems accepting and making sense of the rest of the bible. Scholars have shown that 24 hour periods is the intended meaning of the text. The week of 24 hour days, so familiar to us, had its beginning in the creation week. God's ways are not our ways and how can one possibly determine exactly how it was done when speaking about a infinite, unlimited supernatural power? "The human mind cannot know all there is to know"(Col. 2:3).

Therefore, it really is up to the person to decide who/what is ultimately responsible for the universe and all it's balance and wonder and vast creative inhabitants!

Does the bible itself give any quotes regarding these beliefs or lack of? If anybody is interested, here is some such examples.

Romans 1:20 states "for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse".

We also read in Ephesians 4:18 "Having their understanding darkened, being alientated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart'.

In 2 Peter 3:5, the Apostle tells us that man is "willingly ignorant' - he deliberately rejects the truth about creation. "They deliberately ignore the fact that long ago there were the heavens and the earth, formed out of water and through water by the Word of God, and that it was through these same factors that the world of those days was destroyed by the floodwaters".

To avoid the truth, man has "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things' (Romans 1:23).

As Romans 1:21 states, "When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were they thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened".

Pwcca-

Are we allowed to reply to the creationists with rebuttals or is this just a thread for them to present their evidence?

I was wondering exactly which branch of scientific study actually looks for God so as to compel your scientific minds to a serious discussion of God as the creator.

I do think it's interesting that man is still doing exactly as God first told man (Adam) to do in regard to the life of this earth... that is to name it. He doesn't seem to have moved very far beyond that yet in this regard, observing, naming... but if you know something I don't like he has found the secret of life, has begun creating life and taking his own notes in that regard, you should let us all know because then you might actually begin to settle the matter.

... the matter.. pun intended.

Did anyone want to try to have a serious discussion about alchemy?

Science doesn't look for the supernatural but it does look for what the supernatural is said to have done. If there is evidence to support the Universe coming into existence less than 10,000 years ago then that would lend support to God having done it the way Genesis says. Therefore, scientists who are supporters of the Genesis record should be asking questions like:
"What should be present in the geologic strata if the world were poofed into existence only 10,000 years ago?"
Then they should go out and look for the things that they predicted would be there.

That stuff can't be presented here since this thread is about creationism evidence.

I thought you believed that 7-day creationism was a theory at the level of the Theory of Gravitational Attraction not a pseudo-science on the level of alchemy.

Far as I know, 7 (6 actually, 7th day is rest) day creation is not a theory at all. What branch of science would that be?

Alchemists don't consider alchemy a psuedo science do they? It's a science. They work with theories, they mix stuff together, sort of like chemistry. Alchemy is to chemistry like evolution is to biology. They just haven't figured out the formula for gold, or whatever, yet. But they keep trying.

I just thought we would count the day He rested, since the week seems to come from that.

Well, since the Genesis creation story is not considered a theory by creationists then I guess there wouldn't be any attempt to provide scientific evidence for it. So, we can probably close this thread.

Are you sure you're not a time traveler? Alchemy went out when chemistry came into its own during the Age of Reason. Maybe you're just wistful about the "good old days".

Really Linear, you are wrong. Alchemy is a precursor to chemistry just like evolution is (sort of) a precursor to modern genetics. But alchemy is based on facts in that regard, proven things, chemical reactions, not just theories.

Alchemy has been far more successful at proving little things than the theory of evolution has been. Funny you would consider it a pseudo science. maybe you are reading some weird stuff that has been done in the name of alchemy in witchcraft and areas like that, that is not really alchemy, they just like to call it that for some strange reason.

here's a tad of history about alchemy for you:

Turning Lead into Gold
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

I guess your knowledge of science isn't everything I had hoped for. Maybe that is why you keep trying to figure out which branch of science is searching for God. There isn't one. That is called theology. It's kind of like... you want to use evolution or science to create an argument that says God didn't create the world but you never mention the fact that science has never searched for God. So, I don't really understand what you are basing your 'scientific' assumptions on.

But anyway, alchemy is to chemistry what evolution, shall we say tries to be, to biology, no question about it, Linear. Early chemists proved all sorts of things with alchemy. If evolution could do the same it might have as much respect in other scientific fields. But since evolution has never yet begun a search for god, only for fossils and stuff, where exactly do you expect your argument to go? You really don't seem to have any information to either accept, or reject, any evidence of God.

I suppose you could head in the direction of paranormal sciences and studies. see exactly how all that evidence fits in with the theory of evolution. There is more evidence for paranormal activity than there is for evolution too. I expect you'll call those areas pseudo sciences as well for no other reason except that they prove there is more to life than what meets the eye. Science doesn't outright reject paranormal studies you know, it simply cannot prove a lot of them on a material level so it's an area that keeps people wondering.

It also scares a lot of people, just like the idea of God, so hard, materialistic science shies away from it.

Alchemy also provided the foundation for the modern pharmaceutical industry, if you were not aware. Except for it's ties with witchcraft here and there, the pharmaceutical industry could still be called alchemy but they probably don't like the outright connection that is connotated to witchcraft by the term alchemy.

Hard science, materialistic science, says... this is what we know, this is what we have observed with our eyes and ears, touch and taste... these are our notes...these are the name of what we have found.. this is what we can do with these materials.. that's it. That's all it does.

when science makes that great leap and someone invents a device to let me know when a ghost walks through my neighborhood, then, and only then will science even be on the right track to begin a discussion of the possibility of creation, by God.

till then though, science is not denying ghosts and what have you things of that nature either you know, it just doesn't know what to do with the information is has so far about that type of stuff. Physics acknowledges dozens of dimensions, but most science only works with 4 of them at most.

LinearAq wrote:


I don't mind rebuttals from the evolutionist side. But please just keep in mind that this thread was created for the purpose of presenting creationist evidence: provided that this can be done using existing definitions. Allow me to expound on what I mean.

Creationist science does not equate Christianity. Therefore biblical references do not constitute as evidence, since creationism, by definition, is not and has absolutely nothing to do with the Christian faith. There is many a non-Christian amongst the creationist movement, after all. This being a creationist-devoted topic, if you want to use Christianity as part of your argument I kindly ask that you do this in another thread.

Another incidental is that arguing about such topics as the Big Bang Theory do not belong in this thread, as evolution is in no way connected with the explanation of the universe and its origins.

Lastly, creationism as a school of thought does not, arguendo, oppose evolution. It can, according to some, but it doesn't have to. Creation science says the universe, life and existence at large are too "irriducibly complex" to have come into existence without some form of intelligent design. That doesn't preclude evolution from being part of said designer's plan, as far as I'm concerned. Again, yes, it can, if you want to argue in that fashion - but it doesn't have to. They are not polar opposites, per se.

Evolution has everything to do with our origins. You are incorrect, it's what is proposed/taught. If evolution has nothing to do with our origins, how do you explain then where we came from if we "evolved"? It must go back to "something" and if it goes back to "something" then "what"? If not a designer, then what? It's not a problem at all to leave the big bang out of it if you wish, but I want to make it clear that all these beliefs go right back to origins. They don't just spring out of nowhere. Every book has a beginning. You can't just start halfway through.

Fer sure, it was. However, the processes involved in chemistry are more refined. I guess we have to thank those gold seekers for making the mistakes that got us where we are today.


Amazingly, lead has been turned to gold but, as the reference you provide says, it was done with nuclear physics, which is not chemistry. Unless those old alchemists made their own nuclear reactors or accelerators, it's not alchemy either.

I already said that science doesn't search for God.
Look, the Bible supposedly says what God did, so why can't we search for evidence of the things it says He did. Like, maybe, evidence of a world wide flood. Maybe some evidence that all the animal species of the earth lived at the same time. Things like that should leave evidence behind, unless God is hiding His tracks. But, why would He do that?

BTW, this isn't another "bash evolution with bare assertions" thread. I have not insulted your pet theories.

BTW, this isn't another "bash evolution with bare assertions" thread. I have not insulted your pet theories.

Actually I am not bashing, I am quite serious. You ask where is the evidence of God, yet you surely know that the bible tells us God is spirit. So, exactly how do you expect to find God, scientifically, with a science that only works with matter? And,,, that same science only works with what matter can do... so exactly where in there at all is there even a frame of reference for what God, who is not matter as we know it anyway, can possibly do?

and the evidence of his creation, as the bible tells us, is everywhere. I get the impression you have not done very much research. btw, the fact that man continues to this day to do mainly the things God told him he could do or would, is evidence of his plan.

He does hide, for sure. But, if you seek him... you find him. Rather he finds you. I guess that's the way he likes it. He's really never very far off.

Just thought I'd throw the alchemy idea into there as an option, there was a branch of it once that sought the secret of life. Call it what you like but an awful lot of western science as we know it today, chemistry etc, is evolved from alchemy. It still is alchemy in many ways, we just don't call it that anymore. Just a name change really, progression of accumulated knowledge... European culture really is not all that advanced as darwin presupposed. It would appear he didnt even realize that the gun powder that fired the british muskets that ruled India and the americas actually was developed in china while many of his greatgreatgrandpappies ancestors were still hunting with bows and arrows and living like indian savages. if it weren't for that gunpowder, discovered in the 9th ce...] searching for an elixir of immortality, the normans/brits would have never ventured far from home for fear of the roving and maurading Vikings or Mongols or muslims or whatever else.. . Amazing that Darwin seems to have never even known his own history but anyway.... I guess thats why they call it hubris.

It can be a time-consuming task, extracting truth from evospeak. Likewise, I'm not sure anyone who is predisposed to accept the inevitable spin which accompanies many discussions of unwelcome discoveries will consider the evidence "compelling". I haven't spent my time trying to answer LinearAQ's question; but I came across something:

DNA research has resulted in a new make-believe clade called Whippomorpha. Whale evolution stories are in disarray because the hippo is "closer" to whales than the old "tree" allows. But the hippo can't just be plugged in as a whale ancestor, so... Well, they're trying to backtrack without appearing to backtrack. Arguing about the new tree, etc.

Anyone other than a committed evolutionist should have no problem understanding that there is no tree.

I didn't find out on my own, but thanks to rbarclay I am now hep to this jive.
As evidence of doubletalk, I submit indohyus. They make out that this creature "Known mostly through a few fossil teeth" is the earliest of whippokind. But they've tacked on this disclaimer
Now then. What are the pretty pictures for? Why does the headline say "Whales evolved from small aquatic hoofed ancestors"? Why even bring this critter into the conversation?

Please accept my apologies for ignoring this forum for so long. My father-in-law passed away suddenly and I was required to help with putting his estate in order.

One of CTD's evidences
CTD,

I don't see how this example, or any of the others you provided, can be considered any kind of evidence at all in support of 7-day creation, much less compelling evidence. I would appreciate it if you would expound upon any one of these and show the logical and evidence-laden connection to 7-day creationism.

I guess I didn't elaborate enough when I said

No tree = no non-whale ancestor for the whale. Hippos didn't become whippos didn't become whales. Whales have always been whales, just as bats have always been bats, crocodiles have always been crocodiles, pterosaurs have always been pterosaurs, and every other kind of lifeform has always been what it's been.

Now, since whales have always been whales, either God made whales, or they came into being spontaneously. While some may believe in spontaneous generation of whales, such an event runs contrary to science. It is scientific and rational to conclude that whales were made by God.

The only reliable record which speaks of God's early activities indicates that everything was made during the first week. As science confirms that God made creatures, there is no conflict.

Nope. Still clear as mud to me.

It appears that you are saying that since new evidence causes changes in the understanding of the ancestral relationships between species, that there actually is no ancestral relationship (ie...no "tree") between species and each species was specially created all at the same time in a 3 day span 6000 years ago.

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion based on the evidence you provided. Please lead me through the logic you are using. Let's start with your conclusion that since new evidence shows a different ancestral relationship than was previously thought then there is really no ancestral relationship.

No apology required Linear. I'm very sorry to hear of this news <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Sorry to hear the news, LinearAQ. It's nice to see you back here. I haven't had the time myself to research the recent claims here and I'm battling an ongoing illness not very successfully, but I'm popping by when I can. Take care.

I'm saying since the evidence shows there can be no ancestor, there is no tree.

The hippo can't be the ancestor. The 99% make-believe critter extrapolated from teeth can't be the ancestor. The "old model ancestor" can't be the ancestor. Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'. Ya gotta have something, if ya wanna become a whale. And quantitywise, whales are a pretty tall order for abiogenesis.

It's starting to look like I'll have to wait 'til I stumble across something else. I don't see room for much more clarification or elaboration.

I read the articles you presented and I don't see any conclusions by the scientists that there is no ancestor to the whale. Please point it out for me.

Saying the hippo and whale are related is not saying that one is the ancestor of the other. Your cousin is not your ancestor but he is related to you. What evidence shows you this? Please show me where the articles say this.

You haven't clarified anything. All you've done is say that since there is a bit of controversy concerning the relationships, that there is no relationship.

That would be like me saying that since there is a bit of controversy concerning the use of "tongues" in modern times that Christianity is a false religion. In other words, your conclusion seems nonsensical unless you can provide clearer evidence to support it.

I'm done wasting time on this. You don't care whether the whale has an ancestor or not, and we both know it. I'll play no double-talk games.

It's the same as abiogenesis. One group clearly sees the old model's dead & hopes to find something else. One group sees the hippo & tooth fantasy don't work, and are gambling that the mainstream will let things fall back to the old model since there's nothing better. The last group's banking on the imaginary ancestor because the old one's dead and the hippo won't work; but even they themselves say this critter's not right & they hope to find something better.

That's a big paragraph, but the DNA says the hippo is the candidate, and the evodates rule out the hippo.

Your position is that you don't give a crap that NONE of these are viable options, so long as there's "controversy". You'll accept any totally bogus option they choose in spite of the evidence. When homology doesn't work, you overlook it. When DNA homology doesn't work, you'll overlook it. If you cared seriously about honestly applying homology of any type, you wouldn't be an evolutionist. I know from my own experience because I tried really hard to make it work. It can't be done. And the situation has become much, much more difficult since I gave up trying.

My position is: I'm finished wasting time with the mess. I've demonstrated my point clearly enough for anyone to understand, and I'm done.

I asked you a straight question and you accuse me of double-talk? How usual for you.
No, I don't care if the whale has an ancestor or not...all I care is what the truth is and the evidence for it. Show your evidence for 7-day creation...if you can!!!

Doesn't matter if they are shown to be incorrect, because that's NOT evidence for 7-day creation.

Neither your opinion of my position and motives, nor your inability to reconcile the science with your religion, nor your lack of perseverance can be considered evidence in support of 7-day creation.

Then the problem is with my ability to comprehend what anyone else can clearly understand. Since anyone can understand, then maybe someone else can step up and interpret your explanation for me. Bex? Russ? SoSick? Would any of you like to help me out and provide the logical connection that so eludes me here? Pwcca or Linda? Did you see the evidence that CTD thinks is so clearly rendered in his past posts? I have severely taxed his tremendous patience with my flagging ability to decipher his statements.

CTD wrote:


What about a Neanderthal? Have they always been a Neanderthal? Oh wait, sorry -- I forgot. Cavemen never really existed. It's all one big conspiracy by the scientists to .. uhm .. do something. And stuff.

Like LinearAq, I too am patiently waiting on evidence for 7-day creation. I'll be happy to give the evidence a read just as soon as you're willing to provide us with it. It would actually be quite neat to read, and I'm not being sarcastic in any way.

Neanderthal is just a label given by evolutionists. I'm surprised by your ignorance here, who on earth has disputed cavemen? In fact, anybody can be a caveman and it takes only one generation to pretty much become pretty uncivilised (at least by our standards). You just have to show your offspring only one way of life and they'll do the same thing, unless they know or see otherwise. There is actually nothing monkey about the "neanderthals" (though a few were suffering badly from vitamin/mineral deficiencies and old age). Now, one can start pointing fingers at other races and deciding they are not quite evolved yet based on their lifestyle, but any intelligent person would know this is racist and also completely silly! You only have to check out some tribes around the world to see how they live in certain areas to know that many have not really changed from their ancestral lifestyles. Interpreting fossils to fit in with your belief system is dishonest. We have seen this with the ape to man theories and the hoaxes involved. The animal/fish/plant fossils I posted have shown NO signs of ever being any different than they are today. If anything, some have shown to be bigger and better, but no real change otherwise. Most of that is simply based on the environment. Given the right environment (tropics for example), Plants and insects are prime examples of increased growth.



Please scroll up. I think your request here has already been answered and turned down by CTD, it seems you're not really reading the posts properly or choosing not to. Either way, this trend winds up becoming a waste of time to others on here. I'll remind you for the umpteenth time, as tiring as this is, that no creationist on this forum has made great claims of scientific evidence for 7 day creation (unless I'm mistaken and have missed a post?). One can provide their view as to why they believe it or any area at their leisure if they choose to put something together. Isn't that was this is about? An invitation.....or is this a command?
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/chiefwiggum.jpg" alt="" />

At any rate, I am not out to "convince" the "unconvincable", but I'll post a link to this free video download (which is quick, even on dial-up), to anybody that is interested and I emphasize the word interested in hearing this view for a young earth and 7 day creation. Please, if you haven't watched this video, don't claim you were not given anything in favour of this belief. Whether or not you think it's evidence is another story.
http://nwcreation.net/videos/evidence_for_youngearth.html

Bex wrote"


Who on Earth said anything about Neanderthals being monkey-like? I certainly didn't. They're as different as Persian kittens are to Siberian tigers.


Ah, so there is evidence supporting 7-day creationism? Thanks for the clarification.


Ah, then there is no evidence for 7-day creationism. Thanks for the clarification.

It's like asking if astronauts have always been astronauts. Men have always been men. Where & how they live, that's another subject.

There is a thread on the known conspiracy of the X Club, and the actions of their affiliates. If & how they reacted to the discovery of Neanderthals, that might be a good place to discuss it.


Let's just set the record straight, shall we? Here's the first post in the thread
You're asking me to answer LinearAQ's question, which was presented in another thread under circumstances which would distract the discussion.

The question you plucked from the other thread is poorly put together, since nobody's claimed the new DNA homological evidence is evidence of a 7-day creation. However, as I just got done explaining, some of this DNA evidence does indeed support the historical record.

I never maintained that this evidence would convince those who don't want to be convinced. But I have thoroughly answered the question, and I don't care to repeat myself.

Now your question in the more recent post and LinearAQ's question are phrased differently. You do not specify that the evidence must be from recent DNA research. Have you been following the "History Rules!" thread? If so, you may understand that historical evidence does exist. If you think such evidence should be dismissed, I'd like to know on what grounds one can do so (in the appropriate thread).

Meanwhile, I do have a brief summary of evidence to submit.
Along with a more detaile & organized look at radiohalos. The radiohalo phenomenon indicates that granite was created in a very, very brief timespan which is incompatible with any naturalistic explanation. Nobody has even come up with a way to replicate the critical variety of radiohalos in a lab.

Evolutionists once tried to pin neandethals as a missing link, or did you miss that somehow? The monkey comment was an exaggeration, but not too far off! Considering they were supposedly on their way to becoming fully human (ascending from the ape-like ancestor).



Ahhh, try reading my whole quote, instead of breaking it up and making a fool out of yourself <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Or is this about the only contribituion you can make on this forum?

I gave you a link to a video that gives evidence for a young earth and 7 day creation, or did you "conveniently" bypass that too? It's there, ignore it and keep quibbling, or watch it and hear the other side. The choice is yours.

Actually Bex, this isn't an exaggeration. Evolutionist nit-pickers might like to say so, but they'd be wrong.

There are 2 kinds of monkey: old world & new world. Apes are old world monkeys. According to evolutionism, humans are apes. Thus humans = apes = old world monkeys.

Neither is it a distortion to say the imaginary "common ancestor" was an ape. Clearly whatever it was supposed to be would have to be classed as an old world monkey (ape). No proposed candidate has ever been a new world monkey or non-monkey.

These are just things they say to make themselves out to be smarter, or start an argument which will distract from the discussion. I don't care if the fool saying it has a PhD - he's still dead wrong, and likely is up to no good.

That was a very good video. Early part wasn't my cup of tea since my interest in cosmology has faded. But after that I really enjoyed it. I'd forgotten about flowstone, and I wasn't aware how much ground the evolutionists have recently conceded on the topic.

I may look into the guy who discovered how to make opals also. Science is ready & waiting for anyone willing to cast aside the goggles & do some research. This is a splendid contrast to the picture LindaLou tried to paint.

You're quite right - Similar to the rocks to men senario <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Once you break down the pretence of course, what's left?


It's a form of deception, though they are in actual fact ultimately self deceived. Even the bible said that God would send them strong delusion...as they profess to be wise, they become fools.

I thought so too. I had a look at a few of them, and this to me was a stand out simply because it was so clear, to the point and informative from start to finish. Didn't leave me jaded or flagging. I have actually ordered this one on DVD. I liked it very much. Glad you found it a good one too. It helps to hear the feedback. There are others on there too, but I haven't really been through them all. I just found this one consistent the whole way through! Brilliant actually and not over long. He packed in a lot.

Ah, so God can be a deceiver. I guess we can't trust any evidence in nature since God made nature and may have set it up to deceive us into believing in evolution. Not sure what to trust now.

Thanks for the demo.

What kind of exercise does one do to trim one's attention span so effectively?

This is exactly the comment I expected Linear. Once again, willingly misinterprets and misrepresents, without even wanting to understand this from God's perspective. I feel you are personally looking for reasons to keep yourself in a critical state of mind towards God or any belief thereof. Does believing the worst of God somehow give confirmation and comfort to a personal lack of faith and possibly pride too when people choose to do this?

Those who have rejected God and His word and have already set themselves up for an alternative (even if it means believing in strong delusion). The bible says they are without excuse, the evidence for creation is all around them. They prefer instead to deceive themselves and one-another.

To send a strong delusion (to allow it, even if it stems from man or the Devil), is to separate the sheep from the goats in my opinion as the delusion stems from pride. It allows those who have rejected God and His word, to instead hold onto an anti god philosophy and in a sense forces people to make a choice, whilst causing those who do believe in God and are loyal to have their faith put to the test (Refining believers like gold is refined).

God has already made it clear that the evidence for creation is all around us and I will repeat "They are without excuse". He hasn't let anybody down in regards to evidence. If you wish to interpret it from an anti god philosophy, then remain deceived, but you have nobody to blame and nor does anybody.

Nobody is immune to deception, but the grace of God is a great eye opener and protection against it.

Apparently the same one you use since you have yet to even provide one ounce of evidence in favor of 7-day creationism despite that being the subject of this thread.
Then again, maybe you did provide evidence, but I didn't understand it.

Maybe you or another of the posters here could point out where you provided that evidence.

I started to suspect you hadn't read the thread. Bex responded with several points, including the fact that information requires a source. I know I provided radiohalos in addition to the DNA evidence you don't seem to understand.

But then it occurred to me that between the time you surveyed the thread and the time you posted, you had ample opportunity to forget the contents of the thread.

I don't see a handy remedy for this, but I'll let you know if I think of something. Maybe it's a mercury symptom?

I don't believe the worst of God. I believe that the statements in the Bible literally mean what they say.
If the Bible says God sent the delusion, then it means that God sent the delusion.
If the Bible says that God repented of something He had done, then it means God was sorry for something He had done.
If the Bible says that rabbits chew cud, then it means that rabbits chew cud.

etc...etc...etc...

Those who don't believe in your God have not rejected Him any more than you have rejected their God. So, suppose I don't know which god to believe in, what can you provide to me that shows your god to be the one and only? 1Peter 3:15 states ".....Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect," (NIV)

Which definition of "send" means allow something to happen.

How does His sending a delusion, supporting a rejection of God, cause people to come to God as He desires (John 3:16..et al)

It doesn't say He sends the delusion to the believers....unless that is written somewhere other than 2 Thessalonians 2:11


Actually, Paul wrote that in his letter to the Romans. I have already stated that I am not an atheist. Just because I believe God did His creating through evolution, you label me as anti-God.

Since you brought it up, let us suppose that a man realizes that the universe had to have been created by a god. What do you provide to him in order to prove your God is the one he should choose to worship?

Is that "protection" what allows you to declare false any evidence contradicting your interpretation of what your God did?

Back to neanderthals -- if they are "just like us," then why have creationist organisations been compelled to claim that they are people who were in advanced old age, or diseased? Also, where do homo erectus or homo habilis fit in, which are morpholigically even further removed from us? Yet when we get to australopithecus, suddenly these are nothing but apes? I think the people who make these claims need to actually have a look at some fossils. You can look here for further info about neanderthals and creationist claims about them, as well as scientists' findings.

Bex's first response was a list showing the premise of intelligent design (except for the 7-day week aspect which is simply a cultural/societal invocation). Intelligent design does not rule out evolution or an old earth. He next provided a link to a long video with lots of assertions in it. Am I supposed to respond to all the points in the video. How about Bex providing some evidence in written form so I can respond.

The DNA "evidence" was responded to by me. It only shows that the evolutionary tree changes as new evidence is uncovered. You claim that changing the tree based on new evidence means that there is actually no tree at all and all animals were created as they are right now. Even AIG disagrees with you on that. You also failed to support your assertion so I assumed you had abandoned it.

Po-218 decay halos ALWAYS occur along cracks in the crystal structure of the quartz/granite. Po-218 is a decay product of radon which is itself a decay product of uranium. The uranium decays to radon and the radon gas travels along the crack and collects at another point. Then it decays to Po-218 causing the Polonium Halo effect.

Please restrict your insults to what I say, instead of what you errantly perceive as my physical condition.

Not so fast! You're confusing fantasy with observation. You repeat the fantasy imagined to explain the radiohalos away, but it can never work.

Not until you incorporate a mechanism which will prevent decay while the polonium is traveling through the crack. Otherwise the result of this scenario - which isn't observed - would be a tube shaped halo. Only spheres are found. You'll also need another mechanism to keep the polonium from exiting prior to decay. And you'll need your mechanism to operate quickly. Did you happen to notice the halflife you're dealing with?

Sure, the halflife of Po-218 is 3.04 minutes. So what? The atoms doing the traveling are Radon 222 and it's halflife is 3.8 days. Plenty of time to travel from one point and collect in another before it decays to Po-218 which then quickly decays to Po-214 (halflife 163 microseconds) then to Po-210 (halflife 138 days) to Pb-206 (stable). It isn't difficult to see that once the radon has collected and those 4 decays occur that a significant halo would be observed.

You & your attention span! Time ain't the only problem. Gases flow. A gas flowing through a crack isn't going to stop at a destination and decay when you wish. Some will decay on the way, some - most - will pass through & out the other side of the "collection point". There must be an exit, or the gas won't flow in to begin with. You need a valve & you need to time it somehow & you need to prevent decay everywhere except at the selected location.

Since there's no known way to prevent decay, gas flowing through the system must decay the entire time and the path must show as a tube around the path. Until your gurus concoct a way to prevent undesired decay, their fantasy is a joke.

If they ever come up with a way to prevent undesired decay, they'll be in a position to form an hypothesis combining the path, target location, mystery method, and valve. Then they can test the hypothesis & report the results.

I'm sorry, but I'm unable to condense this post into a single short sentence. If anyone can come up with a way to express what I've said in less than ten words, I think we might be able to make progress.

If you believed this, you would not suggest that someone can have both the God of the bible and evolution. So here you are admitting that you believe the statements in the bible literally mean what they say.....yet you've contradicted this in the past on here by suggesting that one can believe both. Yet you were fully aware that one belief would be compromising the other as they are polar opposites.

As I am a believer, I do not need to reconcile my beliefs with evolution, simply to fit it in with the proponents of evolution. There is no evidence evolution has even occured, therefore I am not obliged to believe it. And as I have said, so far there has been nothing that has contradicted what the bible has already taught. Whether one is an atheist or not, you cannot have it both ways. Fence sitters don't get into Heaven. Christ said you are either for Me, or against Me. Either you accept Him at His word, or you doubt Him and instead take onboard a philosophy that seeks to exclude God completely or at the very least undermine the foundation of the bible, which is the beginning/Genesis, which then throws doubt on every other area of the bible. Even Jesus said "if they believe not Moses, how will they believe that one rose from the dead"? Even Jesus knew the price of compromising the word of God at any stage in the bible.



I don't need to provide anything, God has provided everything. More than enough for anybody to believe. God has provided the bible, His word and HIs son Jesus Christ to die on a cross for our sins, the witnesses and the miracles that have occured down throughout the ages. If we deny Him, He in turn will deny us. It's faith and it's faithfulness. My God IS God. Tell me what other God has died for the sins of His creation and risen from the dead? Has power over life and death, has the keys to eternal life, performed miracles through His son Jesus Christ as a testament to His divinity amongst many witnesses, continues the same work through us with the Holy Spirit to this day. Hey, you can choose to believe it's false if you wish. Again, I am not obliged to provide anything more than what God has already given, one is truly without excuse. You are already quoting from the bible yourself, what more do you need than God's word Linear? Do you need to be spoon-fed? Many people have not even had the chance.



There are people who know God through His creation. They may not know God as "Christ", as their personal savior. God would not reject these people! because they do not know. It is those who KNOW the truth, have heard the truth and have rejected the truth simply because it satisfies their lifestyle and intellectual pride, are the ones I speak of. Not those that are innocent. I believe there is more than enough to draw a person to God, and to draw anybody back to God (if they have gone astray). As I have said to you, God, through His creation has provided more than enough proof that He exists. Rejection of that truth is the choice of the one who rejects. When we get down to "who" this "God" really is (the person of God) is when we share with people the good news of salvation with others. Jesus also said Linear that when you share this with others and they reject it, shake the dust from your feet and move on. The miracles of Christ and those who witnessed them are a reality, not a fable and they continue today as evidence that Christ never left us, but rather sent His Holy Spirit. The workings and miracles still being done in the name of Jesus happen around the world. You must know this? What excuse does anybody have anymore when the technology is at their finger tips? They have a bible in front of them and can get one from anywhere. Some people do not even have this, but you, like most of us do. But again those that are not interested will turn their face away regardless of what they are given. You cannot give answers to a person that does not want them. To those that believe, no explanation is necessary, to those that do not, no explanation is possible.



What evidence? The fossil evidences I have given an example of that shows no sign of any evolution whatsoever. How are you going to refute a fossil? It shows it's no different then than it is today. .. and always have been as far as the evidence shows. So far, nothing has contradicted what the bible has already taught us. I am not immune to deceptions, who hasn't been deceived? But I believe there is greater protection and clarity when one sincerely tries to walk with God. I do not believe that He leaves someone in a state of deception, if they are sincere and searching for truth. If however they are deliberately blocking anything that speaks of design, simply for the sake of saving face or any other reason, the only person they are fooling in the end is themselves. Sometimes this is simply a problem of pride and personal sin, because this can blind a person to God's truth. They can in a sense, deceive themselves.

You are totally correct. Thessalonians 2:11 - And therefore God sends on them
a power that deludes people so that they believe what is false, and so that those who do not believe the truth and take their pleasure in wickedness may all be condemned.

Make sure Linear that you read what was stated earlier than this so you understand why and what it is actually directed at. Can evolution be put under the same catagory? I don't know, as it is not directly stated, so I could not be certain. Though I do believe evolution has actually been referred to in the bible in certain respects, though not by "name" (as dinosaurs are also referred to in the bible, but they did not have the name dinosaur (no surprise).

I am doubtful that God "sent" the theory of evolution, though I believe it's a deception, I believe it was created by man and allowed by God. Many of it's believers have indeed been deceived, but I do not believe that they are all "condemned". Only God knows a person's heart and that would depend very much on their intention, sincerity, humility etc, but again, they have His word, so it is still down to choice and I believe it is one of the battles and testings of the latter days (which I believe we are living in). Let us not forget the Devil isn't exactly sitting in the background idle either. Many things are being perpetrated to lead a person away from God, whether through intellectual pride, false science, materialism etc.

Some tell themselves that there are many ways to eternal life, yet Christ says there is one way. And it is through Him. He said "I am the way, the truth and the life". (Not a way, a truth and a life) Reject Him? You reject the Father. For He stated "My father and myself are one in the same". There is only one God Linear, not lots of gods. There is only one creator, one mastermind behind the universe. The bible makes it very clear, history makes it very clear.

As Christ told us to share the good news of salvation with others, but those that reject these truths, shake the dust from your feet and move on. He made this very clear and it really is not in a person's good interest to keep throwing their pearls before swine, when there are plenty of other people out there whose hearts are open and ready to receive the light of the gospel.

By the way, why do you want me to type out what that video already contains? It is only 52 minutes long and does not require you to sit there downloading for hours. Even on dial up, you will be able to watch that relatively quickly. You may only have to wait a little while, or push play a few times during the viewing. That's all it takes. I suggest you take the time out of your busy schedule and give it a view. If you really want evidence or at least to hear the young earth/7 day side, then you surely you'd be willing to view this. If however, it's really not something you want to hear, then I fully understand why you would not wish to watch it.

But please don't expect me to sit here typing it out to you when someone qualified and clear who understands this far more than I do, has literally given it to you from the own mouth in only 52 minutes. You have rejected it and instead preferred to state that I've given nothing on here in support of young earth/7 day creation, which is simply a lie.

Linda, I had a look at the link you gave and I am still trying to see the evidence for evolution in the information given. Even the evolutionists there admit the neanderthals are human, yet they say they are not "modern humans'.....(well at least obviously they did not survive)....does this make them any "less" human though? I think a lot of it is simply down to the interpreter's bias for the most part.

I'd imagine they were a particular race of people, like the aboriginies, negroes, asians etc.. If you have a look at the aboriginies, you'd also note the differences in their jaws and brows compared to us, whereas we as whites, tend to have less prominence to our faces, so how does this make neanderthals any different Many interpretations of what these people were like, is based only on the remains, rather than seeing them as they really were. Which can make a big difference on someone's belief. If you've got a skeleton, depending on what belief you have, the end result of what we see in the museums is very much from the evolutionary perspective.

All people have their own distinct features within their races, but they are all fully human. I cannot imagine labelling a human being otherwise to be honest, unless I had irrefutable evidence to prove otherwise.

Now what makes Neanderthals different simply becaues their physical structure/frame is so much more robust? We know some of them were suffering from deficiencies, because some were stooped over. Not all of them were. Having a more robust skeletal frame and heavier brow etc does not make them any less human than anybody else. The lifestyles these people lead could have made a difference to them also, depending on how their bodies were used. You can see that if a person is made to use their jaw enough (I don't mean for talking) the jaw can become more pronounced over time. Exercise anything enough and the same thing will occur. We do not really know all the things that were involved with these people.

Basically Linda, it's one person's word against another on this issue and if the fossil evidence is anything to go by (ones I provided on the other thread), we can see that no evolution has taken place in all the millions of years that evolution has tried to throw on them. And I can imagine it isn't any different with human beings either!

I consider Neanderthals an interesting race of human being. I do not consider them an earlier transitional form from any ape or ape-like creature. Whether it's old age, bone disease, deficiencies, or their general natural appearance or whatever else, it still doesn't take the humanity away from the fact they are human beings.

You list evidence we've provided, so apparently your previous statement that we failed to provide evidence was in error. I expect you've forgotten it by now.

You also misstate my claim. I don't claim the tree has simply changed regarding the whales. I claim the old tree has been invalidated by DNA evidence and I drew attention to the absence of plausible alternatives. There's no valid tree available where whales are concerned. It's gone, kaput, destroyed. All thanks to DNA research, which means it meets the restriction of your question from the other thread.

I'm not aware of AIG disagreeing with anything I actually said. They may not have updated their whale pages, but that wouldn't constitute a genuine disagreement now, would it?

Please post in a manner which will permit me to hope my perception is in error.

Personal Experiences with the Living Jesus Christ

This is a link http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
showing the studies of Dr Weston Price in regards to lifestyle/diet and the changes it can make to physical bone/tooth/jaw structure. Far from evolving, I believe that many of us have gone so far away from nature, that we are in a way deteriorating/devolving. Take a look at how many problems the westerners now suffer with their teeth and health (overcrowding, narrow jaws etc). And the differences that one will encounter when they observe the changes that take place when one returns to nature. Returns to the truly natural diets of our ancestors (you know, the "primitive" people). And those that return to their roots appear to achieve the same to this day. Isn't it amazing that we so often have to return to the wisdom of our long since past ancestors? No matter how advanced we get in technology, somehow we seem to be gaining in stupidity at the sametime.

Whatever this race of "neanderthals" were, I'd say that were they alive today, they could possibly put us to shame in their physical structure if I'm correct that they have a much more robust skeletal structure. As I cannot observe them, I cannot really pin a label on them for certain. Though I doubt they'd remain the same, given the western diet has spread further around the world and now other races are suffering from many of the same problems the westerners are and a narrowing of the facial structure. Bravo for moderners . Such a wonderful example of evolution and how far we have advanced in physical supremacy! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twothumbsup.gif" alt="" /> Our apparent "ape-like" apecestors (sorry ancestors) would be proud at the wonders evolution has produced.

Bex wrote:

This is admittedly little more than a stab in the dark here, and I don't wish to speak on LinearAq's behalf, but I think what he may be implying when saying the bible means what it says is simply that. It means what it says -- whether 100% true or not is entirely a different story. If you mean what you say it doesn't mean you are accurate.



That is a matter of interpretation and individual belief, not fact. There are countless Christians who see much of the bible as storytelling designed to teach an important lesson in life and not as something which necessarily actually happened. In this sense, these people very likely believe that, like you, the bible "means what it says" - just not in a literal sense of the word.




Now you're more than welcome to argue against this but you'd be arguing against the thousands of Christians who look at their faith from this vantage point and not me as I am not a Christian at all. I live in a pretty heavily Christian dominated area and I know first hand what some of them believe as regards the bible and its interpretation. There are entire websites devoted to interpreting the bible in this way. Ultimately the events foretold in the bible are meant to teach a certain lesson in life and in this light I side with the Christians mentioned above - it doesn't matter whether the events actually happened or not. It matters if people are learning from what the lesson teaches.





I do, however -- and I admit I may be wrong -- get the distinct impression that some people actually want the bible and evolution to be polar opposites, they need to be, not beceause it necessarily is but to help them make sense of their own beliefs. These people seem, to me, to be pushing this agenda forcefully. I've witnessed Christian creationists (not that there's much in the way of non-Christian creationists out there though admittedly some) blatantly tune out a Christian who states they believe in evolution. It's like they don't want to even acknowledge that there are some amongst the Christian fold who accept evolution. It's seems a very "my way or the highway" mentality, a very black-and-white-and-nothing-else-in-between (and thus narrow) perception.

Bex wrote:

To be more precise, it makes them less homo sapien, as according to scientific definition.

What you're saying just shows a lack of understanding about the various hominids. The differences Neanderthals possess are a difference in species, not in race. And it's a far cry more than simply a protruding brow. All races of homo sapien possess certain traits, every single one whether of Asian of Eurpean decent, whereas the differences with Neanderthals are traits which no homo sapien possesses. When you learn about how a species is defined and what, for example, is the difference between a mouse and a rat or a cheetah and a tiger (read: a different species) it becomes clear that Neanderthals, and all other hominids, are far from being merely different "races" of humans. They were a different stock of human entirely: they were a different species (known scientifcally as Homo neanderthalensis).

We are all, of course, quite welcome to go on believing whatever we wish, but only someone dedicated to truth and maintaining integrity will take the time and effort requried to understand what the definition of a term means (i.e., species). If you believe Neanderthals to be merely a different race and not a different species, you may need to apply your own definition to race and species, as they are not the universal definitions of the word.

As an addendum, there really is no difference in saying Neanderthals are a different race of homo sapien than there is in saying vultures are a different "race" of parrot. When we understand the definitions, we then can understand that vultures are not a form of parrot and why.

Scientific definition? The term species has not yet been well-defined, and it's getting worse.

Cryptic Species Ref 1
Cryptic Species Ref 2
Cryptic Species Ref 3

While they try for all they're worth to make the "cryptic species" schemes work, they're clearly going to cause nothing but confusion. Basically, 2 groups are to be considered different species if they don't interbreed, even if they have the capacity to do so.

By this reasoning, one could chop up humans into thousands of species right now. Any "reproductively isolated" group qualifies. Either they haven't thought of this, or they're hoping nobody will understand.

And for what it's worth, I met a man once who had a brow ridge. He looked normal, and I didn't even notice until he pointed it out to me. The know-it-alls don't seem to have taken a complete enough survey of present-day humans. I've seen all I need to see with my own eyes (and I did give thanks for the privilege).

It would benefit posters to understand the full scale of differences between other hominids and homo sapiens, as "brow protrusions" are just the tip of the ice berg. Pretending other differences do not exist does not mean they are not there.

Taking a brisk glance at a skull and saying "Welp, it looks the same as a human's to me so therefore it must be" is not an intelligent reaction. Certain monkey skulls look similar to a homo sapiens' as well. A human embryo and a pig embryo also look remarkably alike at certain stages of development but nobody contends that "pigs are just another race of human since the scientists have got it all wrong".

If Neanderthals are simply a different "race" of homo sapien then so are orangutans.

I have said that the Bible means what it says but it may be inaccurate.

Rabbits don't chew cud...the Bible is wrong about that.
It is internally inconsistent in its description of the number of stables that Solomon had.
It says that God hated Esau but also says God loves everyone.

There are a number of others that I can mention.

So the Bible is capable of being inaccurate if you take it completely literally.


Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." Are you saying that in this statement Jesus meant that everyone who doesn't believe that rabbits chew cud is against Him? You seem to be when you state that literal belief in the Bible is required to be on Jesus' side. I thought Paul said in Romans that simple belief in Jesus as God's son and turning your life over to Him was necessary for salvation. This is contradicted by the parable of the sheep and goats BTW.

What words of Moses did Jesus mean? All of them? So I do have to believe that rabbits chew cud in order to believe in Jesus?

I'm sorry, but the only thing that provides evidence of Christ's sacrifice is a set of scrolls that eventually became a set of books after much wrangling about which scrolls to include (Council of Nicea) and then some of those were removed by Protestant leaders (in violation of what many of those leaders claim Revelations says is not allowed).
At least I haven't seen Jesus' name written in the stars and no rocks have cried out around me....how about you? Even if the heavens declare God's glory they don't declare which God it is.

When do you KNOW that Christ is God? As soon as you are told it? Is that the point where you are no longer innocent? So as soon as I see a bumper sticker that says Jesus Saves, I KNOW Christ is God and am now held accountable?
How does this idea that those who never heard of Christ are heaven-bound line up with Christ's own statement that the only way to the Father is through Him?

Show me one.

Are you sure you stated this the way you intended? You are saying that God is deluding people to believe what is false and then condemning them for holding that belief. Doesn't sound like Christ's father to me.

Take another look at that passage in Job. Even the NIV claims that is may refer to Hippopotamus.

Yet you claim that those who don't know about Him still can go to heaven. Biblical support for that claim would be nice.


I did watch it. He makes all sorts of claims, an number of them false, with little or no evidence to support.
He starts out saying that God could do anything He wants, even violate the laws of physics. Maybe so, but that just puts in an excuse to avoid investigating how things started.

Light speed faster in the past? How would that affect what we see billions of light years away? He doesn't even address that. Besides that is easily refuted by looking at supernova SN-1987A. Google it sometime.

Time moves faster at the edge of the universe? How would that affect what we see billions of light years away? Nuclear reactions and radioactive decay would happen faster. Do we see that....nope.

Spiral galaxies should have turned into an amorphous disk by now? If time moved faster in at the edge of the universe, then the spiral galaxies there shouldn't exist....but they do.

So which is it, faster time so we can see those spiral galaxies that shouldn't exist billions of light years away or faster light so that SN-1987A is actually farther than 160,000 light years away and thus must have exploded before God created it? You tell me.

Should I really go through the entire video in this manner or would you like to bring up his claims one at a time to discuss in detail?

It seems like I am being too adamant about pointing out how silly these claims seem to be. I am not trying to say you are not intelligent, just misinformed by people you trust. Maybe they are misinformed, too. However, their claims to be scientists along with how easily a non-scientist like me can look up the information, makes it seem that they are being willfully ignorant...just as you claim I am being about the truth of the Bible.

I already said that the video was evidence that you have put forth. It is just not compelling. In fact, it is mainly bare assertions that amount to a load of baloney.

Bex, may I ask if you read the entire article I linked to, including archaeologists saying that no modern human possesses all of the characteristics of a neanderthal? Have you done some research to find out how neanderthals and modern humans differ from each other? Presumably you would like to learn about what science has discovered before claiming that neanderthals are humans with heavy brow ridges?

from a blog called "Forms Most Beautiful", linking to an article in Science Daily:


In order to claim that neanderthals are as human as we are, then in light of the evidence above, you'd have to go back to the old saw that archaeologists and geneticists are liars in a giant conspiracy.

Also, would you like to answer my question about homo erectus, homo habilis, and australopithecus? How is one fully ape and how are the others fully human?

You know... there are bible scholars who can tell you exactly where every word, every line of every translation can be found in every version of the bible, how each text was decended from the previous etc and so on... thing is not every bible scholar believes in God, some just study the bible academically, it's a living to them, makes a few bucks pays the bills... yet they know the bible better than a lot of Christians. And when they die, what irony it will be if they find themselves in hell.

That's a lot very much like this discussion overall. Points and facts and dates and places etc etc etc.. but what does it all mean? does it have any meaning, any purpose at all past existing for it's own sake? Is there a single evo among you who desires to actually know if God is real? Or is this just an argument for argument's sake?

If you need evidence of creation, all you have to do is ask God. Knowing, truly knowing he exists will answer all your questions, he will answer all your questions. Many have gone before and done that, had an experience or 10 with God, and they don't need to ask all these repititious questions you ask, because they know He is real.

It's a lot like swimming. If you have never done it the idea may scare you a lot. You might rationalize that there is no possible way a person, you, could survive jumping into 15 feet of water. But you have to take the leap, a leap of faith, and just do it, just ask.

Here are whole bunches of ideas of different ways others have approached that dilemma.


Personal Experiences with the Living Jesus Christ

That is the most compelling evidence you will get, especially if the testimony becomes your own.





... hmmm... interesting thought and process of equating things. I guess that would then make a vulture a parrot. or maybe even a kangaroo a homosapien with a wallet.

This is a noteworthy example, for it show us that God defines a thing based on what it is. His opposition defines a thing based on where it is.

The cow chews partially digested food, and so does the rabbit. The only difference is the route taken by the undigested food. In the cow, the food comes back up the way it went down. In the rabbit, the food exits the rabbit & enters the mouth.

God's method is scientifically sound, and the other method is worthless. Well, not entirely. I see it applied to fool the gullible into thinking babies aren't babies...

The ID = creationists myth has been debunked for some time now. In fact, it was untrue from the very start. Some creationists are members of ID groups, and creationists do form a subset of ID members. But the set containing the whole numbers 2 - 4 is not equal to the set containing the whole numbers 1 - 7.

Unlike those who support the myth, I have evidence. Here are the words of a prominent ID advocate.

ID raises serious questions about abiogenesis. ID says nothing about subsequent events. We're told abiogenesis is a "separate" story, but actions indicate otherwise. Evolutionists wouldn't dispute ID, if abiogenesis was actually dispensable.

Actually there was an attempt to portray a pig as a man. Remember Nebraska Man?

Classic!

Homo Neanderthalis is no closer to Homo Sapiens than Pongo pygmaeus?

You pawned the Talkdeceptions propaganda with that one.
Maybe they'd hire you if you'd be willing to take up serious atheism. Then again, they could become envious of your talent, and it might not work out.

Now if you'd been talking Java Man that'd be different. Java Man actually was part orang.

Nice dodge concerning a difficult passage...and an added insult to evolutionists. I am an anti-abortionist BTW.

Sorry, I can't continue along this vein with you, since you don't want to be drawn off-topic. I think you should continue to present 7-day creation evidence. Oh...I mean you should try to present at least one piece of evidence.

Right! Of course creationists stood right up and proved that the dishonesty of one believer in evolution can be used to label all evolutionists as dishonest.

Does that work with every group?

Perhaps you need a bigger paint brush.

Of course you should not reply to this since it is also off-topic and I know how much you are putting into your research to find positive evidence for 7-day creation.

Seems to me, that if you really wanted evidence for a 7 day creation, the first thing you would need to do, from a scientific standpoint, is determine whether or not the possibility for a 7 day creation even exists eg; does God exist.

I noticed that no evos have had the ability or desire to investigate that. Kind of makes the entire discussion appear disingenuous.

Perhaps you can give us an idea of when you intend to begin serious research into the matter. I gave you whole bunches of proof above via the testimony links. Using the line 'I don't believe in God' is of no value to your argument at all. It's like me or CTD or Bex saying we don't believe in fossils, even though there is plenty of proof, physical proof, of fossils. Fossils and things like that are very important to the idea of evolution, but if you encountered that response (we don't believe in fossils) everywhere you went you'd be very frustrated and would probably say at a certain point, 'I am dealing with blind idiots'. Yet you seem to think it's ok to use the 'I don't believe in God' line when there is more proof of God and his work available to you than there is proof of a fossil record.

I'd say it's pretty obvious by now that you have made a quite conscious decision to ignore and deny the evidence and that at this point your arguments are pretty hollow as a result.

I don't think I ever said that I didn't believe in God. I know I have said that I do. I just don't think that the existence or non-existence of God is relevant when discussing the mechanism of creation. We can both concede that God did it. It is how He did it that is our difference of opinion (for lack of a better word). A 7-day creation event that follows Genesis chapter 1 and 2, should leave things in the geology/biology record that would distinguish it. A world-wide flood would leave a geology/fossil/biology record that should be pretty easy to distinguish. Yet, the Christian geologists looking for that Flood event 150 years ago, couldn't find it, for example.

Does that proof of God's existence consist of those testimonials you provided? Testimonials are not "proof" unless they can be corroborated by other people. They tend to be based on perception of the testifier. I read some of them and they are intriguing at face value. The problem is that when trying to get deeper information other than the perception of the person delivering the testimonial I have gotten stonewalled. There is the assumption that because I want to do more investigation that I think they are lying. That is not the case at all.
I have written to Bill Kent about his healing and to get permission to look at his medical records and talk to all his doctors regarding the healing. I also find it interesting that God decided to only partially heal him. We'll see how this pans out.

Do you have other proof of the existence of the God of the Bible?

If the God of the Bible and the salvation provided by His Son were "proven", would that necessarily prove the 7-day creation 6000 years ago?


Providing counter arguments and rebuttals (with evidence) is not "denying the evidence". It is questioning the validity or interpretation of the evidence. Concerning the 52 minute video that Bex provided, the man making the presentation made one completely incorrect statement by using outdated estimates when actual measurements have already shown those estimates to be incorrect. Those measurements are a matter of public record yet he relied on 50 year-old estimates instead. That doesn't say a lot about his credibility.
Simple investigation of his other claims showed them to be incorrect facts, incomplete (purposely?) facts, or true facts inappropriately applied to the question of the age of the earth.

How does my disagreement with their "evidence" make my arguments "hollow"? What does one have to do with the other except in your perception?

I don't recall you ever making that admission perfectly clear, sorry if I missed that. With all of the ensuing discussion it does appear otherwise.


How can it possibly not be relevant? In order to even begin don't we have to at least have a 'creator' in mind? I mean, to discuss creation without a creator seems rather pointless. That's like saying my paints and canvases somehow churn out masterpieces on their own due the fact of their singular existence. That would be nice, but it's not happening at the moment. If you ever figure out how something can be created without a person to create, please let me know. I would even pay for the information!!! I have lots and lots of ideas but only so much skill... something like that would mean a lot to me.


But lots of those are corraborated, there are even videos. You really do have to stick to items of corroborated evidence in these areas, I agree.


There are times in my life when God, Jesus to be exact, has healed me, more or less completely, but I still wear contact lenses for example. When i was sick with the mercury poisoning, for sure, I leaned heavily on his strength to get through... but I still have issues. do you know why I still have issues as minor as they are, my life is not perfect? I still have issues because I, me, I keep doing things that get me sick. It's a learning process. I have learned whole bunches in the mercury forum here for instance. My knowledge of how to proceed is better than ever. Jesus could heal me completely today, you know I think he has done that a few times in my life... but I'll be sick again in a month... not real sick but never quite right because I keep doing certain things that got me sick in the first place. Hopefully my learning curve is accelerating is all I can hope for. I think by next year at this time, as well as I feel now, I will feel that much better even. Think about this... the bible gives us instructions, a lot in leviticus, on how to live, things to eat, things to avoid. I know for sure, if it were possible in this society (which it isn't), if I had been raised with all these healthy ideas set in stone for my life, I would not be sick, even just a little, today. I am 100% sure of it. But for most of us today, we only start learning after encountering problems, not before. So that's a big issue.



I have plenty of proof in my own life. However, no one can corroborate a lot of that, my daughter perhaps having experinced much of the same, but most of it goes on when I am alone. Since the God of the Bible and the salvation provided by His Son are "proven" in my life... Let put it this way, if he says he is the creator, if he can reach a hand inside me, literally I have experienced that, and fix things, and other ways he has proven to me that he is at least my creator, knowing more about me than I know myself, I certainly do not want to argue with him about it.

I haven't had time to watch Bex's video, maybe I can at least listen to it later.


Well maybe we can disinclude you from the generalization since a seed of faith exists. What it would take to make the seed of faith that you have about God's existence blossom into a self-proven, self-acknowledging fruit bearing thing remains to be answered I guess.

Even I have questions about the book of Genesis, because obviously a lot of that is probably verbal myth, handed down from on generation to another, and we all know what becomes of verbal mythology. Even a person who is a legend in his own time is quite embellished 4 generations later without an exact written history. So in that area we do have to rely on faith, but not neccesarily just what the bible says about it... through God, Jesus, through his actions with us among us today here and now, how he proves himself capable. He has proven himself capable to me. That is exactly where a relationship with him takes you to the next level. Reading the bible only gets you so far, you still need to knwo he is real, in your own life, to you for you etc. Which also proves to me that if he wants you to find a fossil that will keep you deluded for years upon end, he can manage that too. quite easily. oh I am quite sure.

There is lots of evidence for the flood btw, the masses and heaps of bones and fossils they find is quite a bit of evidence for instance. you are always ignoring that. Lots of evidence that these things didn't happen very long ago either, like frozen flesh that hasn't been frozen that long or only half mummified flesh of extinct creatures... you are always ignoring that too.

If you look at the history of a lot of religions, a lot of them force faith. Islam requires the obedience of 'faith', the catholic church has done it. Hinduism does it, they require faith, works that prove the 'believer' is not an infidel etc. Problem with that scheme is that faith cannot really be required. faith is so very personal, whether or not a person really believes. I really don't think God is interested in the type of faith that some religions require because it's not real faith, just a show. As far as him showing us what he wants us to find, to know, whatever, he does do that. There is an awful lot of strange stuff that goes on in this world. No one has an explanation, you'll never ever set so many things in stone because next thing you know, something else shows up where you least expect it. We are only capable of seeing so much, and our understanding is only relevant to the things we, as individuals, can understand. Past that we make bad choices, bad diagnosis, improper suggestions. And most of the time we don't even know how far off we are. But God knows. And agiain that's where faith comes in, in fact that's where you are suppose to become humble enough to say to him, I don't know please help me. Unfortunately a lot of people are incapable of humbling themselves, pride is a big issue among people. I think it's a very very complicated issue.

You're asking people to believe in a god who would knowingly plant false clues such as this? Why would he do that -- does he want a big laugh? And if that's the case, how many other false clues are there? Can I be sure that today is Thursday and that I wasn't born yesterday? He must be rolling in the aisles up there.

Do you remember the Clergy Letter we talked about? These were leaders of Christian congregations who were saying that they believe God actually gave them a brain to use, and that he meant them to ask questions and work things out. I think I like their version of God better. He's not out to fool people for unknown reasons; he gave them the ability to learn about their world.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Let's say you have a painting in front of you. It is a moderately complex watercolor for example. I don't paint (except houses) so I may realize that a talented person painted the watercolor but not have a clue as to how the artist did it. So, I call on a specialist who can point out what the artist did by using clues left behind like brush strokes and color patterns...things like that. If I then asked another specialist about the painting, I might get some differing details because that expert's experience and knowledge is a little different from the first expert.

That's what we have with origins. Sure, God made it. However, the details are shrouded in history, and the rocks, and the fossils. How much of Genesis is legend or parable-like stories that teach a lesson about God in clear uncomplicated terms? I don't know. So, we can use the rocks and knowledge about how things work in order to get a glimmer of what a master painter God really is.

Everybody enjoys a laugh. We could not even have humor unless God gave it to us.

In Proverbs chapter 1 it says
[20] Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
[21] She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
[22] How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
[23] Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
[24] Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
[25] But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
[26] I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
[27] When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
[28] Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
[29] For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
[30] They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof

Why shouldn't God mock those that hate truth and knowledge? No matter what one claims to believe, one cannot reasonably hate the truth. It's a self-destructive endeavour, and obviously so. If such persons aren't worthy to be mocked, nobody is.

So if one hates the truth, it's just more evidence that God's Word is true when they become more and more deluded. I don't think He forces them to believe anything - that wouldn't be funny. Rather, He facilitates their desire to delude themselves. That is funny. Not happy funny, but still funny. Could there be a complaint because these people get exactly what they desire? I see no basis for any.

Don't recall it myself. But my God doesn't fool anyone for unknown reasons.

What's more, there's a (conceptually) simple solution for anyone. All they have to do is earnestly and diligently seek the truth.

Luke chapter 11: [9] And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
[10] For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

It's not always quite so easy to do. I've heard the process can take some time. It seemed like forever when I tried it, but I knew there were only a few possible outcomes.

1. God's actually a big liar & just going to punish and torture anyone/everyone and there's no escape anyhow. (This can be ruled out, but it's better for people to figure it out on their own. PM me if you don't want to bother.)
2. God's make-believe and learning the truth will do no harm other than taking away from play time.
3. God's for real & a sincere seeker must find Him.
4. There's some other god, and seeking the truth is the best way to find it.

So no matter what, there's only one reasonable course of action.

I don't know about you, but when a string of people professing to be experts tell me a beautiful work of art is the result of the canvass setting out in the weather (and they can't even agree on which type of weather), I'm going to look for someone who has a clue. Maybe someone who knows the artist; maybe someone who wrote about the artist.

The homo clergy letter you mean? Which god do they worship exactky anyway, do you know? Because it isn't the god of the bible.

Let me put it this way Linda... you are very put off by any mention of God that suggests God has a mind and is in charge, has set the world and universe in motion upon unchanging laws which he decides, he decides Linda... and as far as what you believe, consider what God believes and perhaps that he does not believe in you, that your intentions are honorable insofar as He is concerned. Then consider that God is able to do whatever he wants.

Because he is able.

I actually don't have any problem with the idea tha he rolls in laughter concerning you Linda. It would only be fair considering your likewise attitude toward him.

well watercolors are pretty simple things. there aren't many layers, they are pretty much just colored in drawing so as far as a watercolor is concerned, you might actually get away with that.

However if it were actually that simple in regard to more complex artworks like oil paintings and the working of marble sculptures, we could easily copy the greatest works of art, Leonardo DaVinci's, Rembrandt's, Van Gogh's... imagine being able to decipher every stroke of a Van Gogh painting... the weight of the touch the length of the stroke the layers of color upon color...

but that's why really nice original artworks get such a high price, because it's never been done, it's literally impossible to make a perfect copy, to know exactly how something like that was made.. if it were possible we would have a world full of forgeries. The ability of the individual artist is everything and is unique, always.

You can really only ever view the finished work and take your best guess.

When we use the rocks and knowledge about how things work in order to get a glimmer of what a master painter God really is, we can really only take our best guess which utilizes only the materials and methods we are familar with. Assuming God does not have more knowledge, different methods, or a fuller palette than us is foolishness.

This comment speaks volumes.



Does it put me off? Yes, because I don't believe in a personified god who is up in the sky, actively running everything. You knew this, and you also knew that I'm not going to feel frightened or intimidated by being told that I am a truth-hater, blasphemer, heathen on my way to hell, etc etc. We obviously are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

Just for the record, during the years that I was a Christian, my God was the loving one that the Bible also describes. If people did things to turn away from him then it perhaps made him feel sad or disappointed, but he didn't try to trick them or do anything else vengeful, because he still loved them. I wouldn't have understood this Old testament-style god who punishes and burns the heathen and sends them to hell to rot for all eternity, and I have problems with such an ideology that sets people up to feel that they are righteous while others are sinners who will be condemned. In my eyes, God loved everyone because they were his people. It encourages those who believe this to likewise love others, rather than condemn them. Anyone whose religious encourages them to love others is OK with me.

Right, it's ok for clergy to be gay and marry same sex couples you'll tell me at this moment because it suits you. But later, you'll be the first one to come running jeering and yelling "Hippocryte!!" when someone like Ted Haggard gets caught with a male prostitute or some weird christian cult leader gets caught with his pants down in bed with three young girls. Why is there such a stink about Catholic priests abusing boys and girls if God is defined by our own desires? The hippocryte is you Linda.





oh, you were a Christian were you? Jesus saved you, led you and then dropped you from his list of saved people huh? Perhaps you mean to say, your parents were catholic so they took you to church for a while. Do you want to suggest you are an Oxford scholar because you visited the college a few times or heard a few lectures there too?

God still loves you Linda, but that doesn't mean he will always enable you or your ideas to prosper. Laugh at him and the joke's on you. The bible is full of harsh words for those who hate God. You should read it sometime, without skipping the parts that don't make you feel all warm and cozy in your confusion.

You're so very kind. You might get yourself a dictionary by the way.

I'm not sure you got the point of what I was saying but never mind, maybe someone else will.

Thank you for showing the true "creationist" debate style a la Hovind by misrepresenting what I am saying. I said I acknowledge that God made the universe, the same as I would acknowledge an artist painted the work of art. We just differ in our conclusions on the methodology used by God to create this work.

You still need to provide more evidence that your conclusions concerning the methodology are correct.

I applied your metaphor to life. What's wrong with that? Is there some reason it can only apply to the universe?

More importantly, is there anything at all in your post which indicates that you were applying it to the universe? If there was, I missed it.

The whole second paragraph in that post was to apply the metaphor to the universe and, by extrapolation, to life.

Setting the universe in motion at the beginning such that life arises and Man eventually occurs is still creating life. Making the universe in this manner doesn't prevent God from interacting with it, or with individuals. Do you think it does?

Sorry this is off-topic, but you replied to my post to SoSick.

Still waiting for 7-day or 6-day creation evidence that can withstand scrutiny, since that would be on-topic.

I think we've had an answer of sorts in another thread. Apparently we can know that things were designed because they look like they've been designed.

Also, it says so in the Bible, and everything in the Bible is literally true. There's the evidence for 6-day creation.

Now perhaps we can talk about how far this would withstand scrutiny.

Earlier I said

It may be helpful to provide pictures to demonstrate this. I've found some.
<img src="http://home.hetnet.nl/~genesis/Gentry/Catalogus/Image77.jpg"><img src="http://home.hetnet.nl/~genesis/Gentry/Catalogus/Image72.jpg">
It is said that microscopic cracks could allow gases to flow to a collection point. These pictures are magnified, and some actually do appear to have cracks; but not all. The upper left radiohalo is the best I could find for the scenario imagined.

Even if one imagines radioactive gas flowing along this crack, there's still no reason for it to only decay at the collection point. It should decay the entire time, and leave a trail. There doesn't appear to be any valve mechanism either, so there's no reason for the gas to stop and decay at the collection point, rather than flowing right through.

While one can understand the process of concocting such a just-so story, I don't think one can accept it without first considering the clear implications and requirements. Time is also a factor, as I said before.

Pic source: http://home.hetnet.nl/~genesis/Gentry/Catalogus.htm

The polonium doesn't travel through the crack, the radon gas does and collects in the location and then decays to polonium...which decays...and decays...etc


You, too, have to find a way to "prevent undesired decay". Since the uranium is there and the polonium is there then the radon must be there. The half lives of these elements, radon and polonium, is short enough for the decay to be continuing from the time of creation (6000 years ago?). Where are the "tubes" of radioactivity damage that you say must exist? Perhaps Robert Gentry's explanation is not as airtight as you first thought.

BTW: Your pictures don't "demonstrate" anything except the existence of halos. I did note that they are all on fault lines within crystals. Why didn't God put some of these polonium pieces in the crystal at locations with no cracks? There are halos at places with no cracks but those always show signs of uranium decay or still have uranium in them along with the daughter products of polonium decay.

I don't need to demonstrate that the evofantasy is true. You seem to have your wires crossed. Critics desperately need to come up with a naturalistic explanation for radiohalos, and I could not help them if I tried.

In fact, it looks like some research into this pipe-dream has already been done. According to Chapter 3 of the Evolution Handbook,

Only two of the pictured radiohalos have cracks passing through the center point, a requirement for the imagined scenario. I was trying to find the best possible candidates for this kind of thing.

Halos with no cracks (or worse yet off-center cracks), wouldn't be so helpful in explaining the situation, IMO.

Found a nice, easy-to-read piece explaining mitochondrial DNA calculations.

http://www.thefamily.org/word/actbooks/content.php?chid=17&bkid=10
The results are quite favorable, and match up nicely with history.

Silent Sites Speak is another piece by Dr. David Plaisted. His site has several articles, generally good, but a few are already showing their age as research has continued. News of "junk DNA's" demise hasn't reached everyone, so it's good that they're still available I suppose. The Uniformity Problem is another good one, although off-topic for this thread I think.

Here's some new evidence.

http://fossilhandle.blogspot.com/



There's more detail, and I encourage folks to follow the link.

I chose this disingenuously-titled thread because folks who tune in don't deserve to have their time wasted to the extent some would wish. I freely acknowledge that this evidence does not match up against the laundry list of bogus restrictions supplied in the O.P. These restrictions are not reflected in the title, so the title is misleading.

If anyone thinks this evidence is inappropriate for this thread, I'd be happy to discuss the matter.

As far as the skull goes, 300 million years old is not just another big evonumber. Don't confuse it with 300 thousand years old, or 100 million, or any of the silly numbers one frequently encounters. No. Compare the 300 million to the alleged ages of your favourite dinosaur, or the "earliest mammal" or "earliest bird". The "Carboniferous" is the mythical age during which the first amphibians, reptiles, and winged insects are said to have appeared.

See also:
http://www.edconrad.com/ug/body1.html
http://www.edconrad.com/oldascoal/page4.html
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/lin440315 (I can't see 'em, but this one's supposed to have videos)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.journalism.newspapers/msg/9438be80f29c2fac