Chicken or Egg

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#16

Post by Reactionary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:56 am

Legatus wrote:This basic idea, that if evolution is shown true it would disprove theism is based on a deliberatly false interpreation of the first chapter of Genesis (by Satan, based on the idea that "you have to stop those evolutionists!"). The false interpretation is saying that God made the life by miracle, it is false because no such method is specified in the bible.
I followed you until here. That method was not clearly specified in the Bible, but how do you know it's false? You seem to be suggesting that your interpretation is right, while mine is wrong. Not only that, you are suggesting that my interpretation is influenced by Satan. That's a little offensive, you know, and ironic as well, because we know that evolutionary teachings have been responsible for most of the atrocities committed in the previous century.
Legatus wrote:The bible itself does NOT specify any method of creation except for Adam and Eve, where it very definatly does specify a method. Now, any God, who can and did in the presence of many witnesses walk on water, feed 5000 with a few loaves and fish, and raise others and himself from the dead, could indeed create life out of nothing.
He could indeed. That's why I'm suggesting that such an almighty God wouldn't need billions of years of mutations to create the living beings as we know them today. God's creation is perfect, mutations are mostly harmful.
Legatus wrote:Since the bible only specifies a method of creating Adam and Eve however, we cannot say that God DID do a miracle, a breaking of natural law, when God created the plants, and later the fish and birds and animals. Basically speaking, we cannot put words in Gods mouth that God did not say. Therefore we cannot say that God is shown false if life did not happen by miricale, or if life did happen by naturalistic, ie natural laws, ie non miraculous, ways, since God DID NOT SAY that he created the first life by miracle, by breaking natural laws. All it says is "let the earth bring forth grass", that sounds like an "earthly" ie. a natural, method, one that follows natural laws, rather than breaks them (known as a miracle).It is talkling about things we know today, the way we know them, when it talkes about the first plants, it talks to us about plants we know, it does not specify what process they may have gone through or how long that took to arrive at the forms of grass and trees we the readers know. It does NOT say "and God fashioned grass out of clay, and breathed life into it, and it became living grass", therefore WE cannot say that either. If you insist on putting words in Gods mouth that God did not say, go write your own bible.
I'm shocked. You're the one who is distorting the Genesis account in order to make it fit into your evolutionary beliefs, so that you don't have to say, "I disagree with the consensus of the present day's scientific community." Is it that hard?
Legatus wrote:And above " it would be dangerous to rely our faith on something we don't know, because we may discover it in the future", you are basically expecting that God will be disproved by science in the future. You are acting as if we must reject, even fear science, because any day now it could prove our faith wrong.
Wrong. How did you come to that conclusion? Now you're putting the words in my mouth. I'm saying that we shouldn't attribute to God things or processes that we don't know, because in the future, we may discover a naturalistic method of them working. It's the same like in the far past, when some people believed that the Sun was actually a "God of the sky" or whatever, who drove a carriage across the sky, bringing light. They did so because they didn't know what the Sun was, or how it emitted light and warmth. Today we know how it happens, by naturalistic means.

As for science, I'm acting as we must reject bad science, not science in general. I'm saying that we shouldn't hurry to adjust the creation account to the most recent "discoveries", which aren't proven by the way, and are used to promote an atheist agenda.
Legatus wrote:1. Evolution is impossible by random chance
It sure is.
Legatus wrote:2. Evolution seems to have happened anyway
No, it doesn't.
Legatus wrote:3. Conclusion, there must be a God, since it must have happened by non random, by planned, chance, Rom 1:20 is shown true. That being true, what, exactly, are you "afraid" of?
I'm not afraid of anything. It's you who should be concerned with how to make your faith fit the newest products of the atheist workshop.
Legatus wrote:Are you going to go through your life always afraid that some newly discoverd fact is going to disprove God? That would mean that, secretly, you beleive that such a fact exists, right? Otherwise, why are you afraid, why are you willing to reject science, which is Rom 1:20 "that which has been made"? If you say you beleive in God, why is it that you do not believe God, what God said?
What a distortion of my words. Now, I know that English is my second language, but I don't think I write in such a way that people can't understand me. But how else to explain the fact that you misunderstood everything I wrote by now. Again, I'm not rejecting science. Evolution is not science, it's a philosophy, which I rightfully reject on the basis of the lack of evidence. I believe what God said, in a different way than you. That doesn't automatically make you right.
Legatus wrote:Here is what I mean by "planned chance", and it also sorta answers the question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. Once, long ago, there was a birdlike dinosaur (hollow bones, relatively small, that sort of thing). It laid an agg.
Sure. It is believed that it was a distant descendant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 8-}2
Legatus wrote:and it only has to happen ONCE (or a relatively small number of times, too small to be likely to find the transitional fossils), so the desired mutation can happen quickly, one fossil can show dinosaur, the next bird, with no transitional fossil or missing link needed (in the case where God knew that there was no viable transitional form).
How predictable.
Legatus wrote:Of course, God could do it by miracle, but there are several problems with that. First, if you do it by miracle, why take millions, even billions of years, to do it, when you could do it instantly?
Interesting question. Tell me, why?
Legatus wrote:Despite what the young earthers say, there is tons of evidence that it really did take that long for life to arrive here,
Well, there is, but only if you use uniformitarian presuppositions. Radiometric dating, for instance, needs a few input information, such as the amount of C-14 originally present, the rate of decay, whether the "clock" was disturbed etc. Of course, we can't know all the data, so the long-age proponents will make sure that all the inputs are well "adjusted". If they don't, the result will be pushed under the carpet.
Legatus wrote:If you are God and decdide to do it without breaking natural laws, thus leaving evidence of your existnace and nature as seen in Rom 1:20 by the physical evidence that it could not happen unless you existed, you might have to take millions and billions of years, becaus even for you, doing it "by the rules", without breaking natural laws, would take a lot of time for setup of all those billiard balls (cosmic rays, atoms, moleceuls, stars etc) and then carefull timeing of that cueball.
You seem to be forgetting that God made those "rules", along with everything else, as seen in John 1:1-3. So, it would be strange if the laws He made himself delay His plans.

By the way, do you believe in the Resurrection? Life after death? I assume you do, but you need to break the natural laws to achieve those. To rise from the dead is naturally impossible. I don't need a god who strictly obeys the natural laws. Such a god can't save me, that's not a god at all. The Christian God sends His Son to the Earth, via immaculate conception (a miracle for a start), heals people, walks on water, multiplies food, and in the end - rises from the dead and ascends to Heaven. Obviously, He does things in style, doesn't He? When a sick person came to Jesus, He didn't say, "I need to wait 1900 years for antibiotics to be invented, so I can cure you?" We don't call God omnipotent for no reason. He works swiftly and clearly, and He certainly wouldn't need 15 billion years to create mankind (the center of Creation, as seen in Genesis 1:27-28), which has lasted less than 10,000 years.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#17

Post by Reactionary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:08 am

neo-x wrote:Leg, I think reactionary meant we should not rely on our faith on theories that are not proven, and although I believe it, evolution still is a theory. I don't think he meant we should shun science, just that we should not be moving our faith goal post to adjust every new theory.
So, it's not my English after all... :esmile:

Legatus obviously made a few wrong presuppositions about me, some of which I found offensive, which is a reason why my last post was slightly more aggressive than it's usual.
neo-x wrote:I actually think the same...but to be honest I still have some things nagging me. for example, if you can do it instantly, why wait for billions of years. I know we have a heap of evidence that earth is not young. But still what makes me wonder is the fact that why didn't God do it instantly, to be candid, he can.
Have a look at these. If nothing else, at least it's thought-provoking:
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#18

Post by Legatus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:07 pm

Murray wrote:I think a mutated Fish-squirrel laid the egg, just sayin.
Found some new 'scientific" stuff on the web about evoluion, genses, etc.
http://reocities.com/Athens/Aegean/1835/kandide.html

The Doctor achieved renown initially when he published a paper establishing that criminality was hereditary. This hypothesis was supported by researchers who subsequently discovered the criminal gene and many mysteries of human behaviour were thereby illuminated: from the snake of Genesis, which could now be interpreted as an allegorical virus, to the disappearance of the dinosaurs unable to compete with small, sneaky creatures with criminal tendencies. It was proposed that random mutation had produced the first single-celled creature with a criminal gene sometime during the Cretinous Period of the Archaeozoic Era.

"Science" marches on.

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#19

Post by Reactionary » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:33 pm

Legatus, I'm still waiting for a proper answer from you. Without just-so story telling, evolutionary fairytales, and similar nonsense. I'll sum up:

1) Why do you consider only your interpretation of the Bible the correct one, while everyone else is, according to you, either deceived or ignorant?

2) Why would God spend 15 billion years creating the "stage" for a "show" that has lasted 10,000 years?

3) Why would God strictly look not to break the natural laws for 15 billion years, and then send Jesus, who was conceived immaculately, did miracles, and finally rose from the dead?

4) Do you believe in the Resurrection and life after death, as those things obviously break the natural laws?

5) Why do you equate evolution with science?

6) What's the point of your last post??? y:-/

7) Are you really a follower of Christ, or is there some other reason why you're here?

P.S. I'm not expecting you to honestly answer the last question.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#20

Post by Legatus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:07 pm

Evidences of an old universe:
God's Creation Proclaims Minimum Age of the Universe (yrs.)
Deuterium abundance and mass density 19 billion
Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect 18 billion
Nucleochronology (decay of radioactive nuclides) 17 billion
Anthropic principles 17 billion
Star color luminosity fitting (Chaboyer) 14 billion
Expansion of the universe (WMAP) 13.7 billion
Galaxy lenses time delay (Saha) 13.5 billion
Age of oldest stars (U/Th, U/Ir, Th/Eu, and Th/Os dating) 13.2 billion
Spectral line of Uranium-238 (half-life=4.5 billion years) (Cayrel) 12.5 billion
Supernova standard candles (Watson) 12 billion
Globular Clusters (Chaboyer, Peterson, D'Antona) 12 billion
Gravitational lensing (Kundic, Falco) 11 billion
Light travel-time based on quasar-light source 10 billion
Cepheids (Freedman) 9 billion
Expanding photosphere (Schmidt) 9 billion
Star stream interactions in galaxies 8 billion
Geometric measurement to the quasar 3C 279 (Homan) 5.9 billion
Age of moon rocks 4.5 billion
Age of meteorites 4.5 billion
Accumulation of space dust on the moon (at the measured rate of about 2 nanograms per square centimeter per year) 4.5 billion
Relaxation times of star clusters 4 billion
Erosion on Mercury Mars, and Moon 4 billion
Age of earth rocks 4 billion
Length of days of coral fossils (coral reference) 370 million
Accumulation of sodium in the oceans (sodium reference) 260 million
Rate of continental drift to form the the Atlantic Ocean 200 million
Reversals of the earth's magnetic pole recorded in the Atlantic Ocean sea bottom 80 million
Erosion of the Grand Canyon 25 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy NGC4258 (Hernstein) 23.5 million
Carbonate deposits: The Great Bahama Bank, off the coast of Florida, has multiple layers over 14,500 feet thick (Anselmetti) 12.4 million
There are sedimentary rock formations on Mars that are over 4 kilometers thick. Such layers would require tens to hundreds of millions of years of running water to form. In addition there must have been millions of years for all the water to have disappeared, since Mars is now extremely dry. (View pictures from the article) (Malin) 10 million
Ooids (small spheroidal bodies): Formation for adding many layers of mineral deposits involves massive time elements. (Algeo) >7 million
The Green River annual layers (alternating Summer calcium carbonate and Winter organic layers) 4 million
Geometric measurement to the galaxy M33 (Brunthaler) 2.4 million
Evaporites: When bodies of salt water are trapped so that circulation is limited, evaporation produces precipitation of calcium carbonate, then calcium sulfate and finally calcium chloride out of the water. Each layer takes several years to form. The Delaware Basin formation is 1,300 feet thick, consisting of 200,000 layers, requiring at least 600,000 years to form. The Mediterranean Sea floor is underlain by about 7,000 feet of evaporites, requiring millions of years to form and evaporation of a 60 miles depth of salt water. >3 million
Length of time that surface rocks have been exposed to cosmic rays (extinct volcanoes in Nevada) 830,000
Huge stalactites, stalagmites, and columns in the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico (Carlsbad reference) 500,000
Vostok ice core in Antarctica (Petit) 420,000
Thickness of coral reefs 130,000
Organic banks (The Capitan Reef of West Texas, 2,000 feet thick in places, with fossilized remains of organisms.) 100,000
Radiocarbon dating of wood (upper limit of dating method) 50,000
Bristlecone pine trees in California 10,000
Dolomite formation: Replacement of calcium carbonate particles in lime sediment or lime rock gives strong evidence of vast amounts of time required. Rate is as slow as 200 million years/mm. (Arvidson) millions

Look at all that evidence that the earth is old! This is what I mean by easily disproven, for that young earth idea. This is what I mean by so easily disproven that it brings discredit to the name of Christ, since it makes Chrisianity look like a myth, not true, something only people who check their brains at the church door can believe. You can only ignore and even twist and even cover up, from yourself as well as others, all this evidence if you really want, for some reason, to lie to yourself about the truth. The most charitable thing that could be said, if you ignore all the above, is that you are lazy and have never bothered to LOOK IT UP. You are so busy enjoying the fealing of "us versus them", and feeling superior and holier than those "evil, godless evolutionists", so busy in what is known as "noble cause corruption", where you are willing to beleive ANYTHING to stop "them", you have never botherwed once to actually check it out for yourself. , be like these folks Acts 17:11, "of more noble caracter".

Lots more evidences that the earth is old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium In nature, uranium is found as uranium-238 (99.2742%), uranium-235 (0.7204%), and a very small amount of uranium-234 (0.0054%). Uranium decays slowly by emitting an alpha particle. The half-life of uranium-238 is about 4.47 billion years and that of uranium-235 is 704 million years,[4] making them useful in dating the age of the Earth
Simply put, the ratios of different uranium types, and the amount of the different isotopes and lead (as well as lead/kead decays http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/cu ... topes.html ) that it decays to in samples of uranium and rock, show the earths age quite accurately, so accurate that there really isnt any doubt of the earths age.

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html for LOTS more.

And about this, just looking at a few http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth, Many of these "evidences" are called "cherry picking", where, say, you look at just one rock formation that can support your idea while carefully avoiding mention of the many many rock formations that comepletly disprove your idea. That is not science, that is bald faced lies. I see a LOT of that on this site, a LOT. lets look at some:

Amount of salt in the sea. Even ignoring the effect of the biblical Flood and assuming zero starting salinity and all rates of input and removal so as to maximize the time taken to accumulate all the salt, the maximum age of the oceans, 62 million years, is less than 1/50 of the age evolutionists claim for the oceans. This suggests that the age of the earth is radically less also.

Completly disproven. I used to believe that stuff, then I did something radical, I LOOKED INTO IT, I decided to actually SEE if this was true. Conclusion, there are many places in the sea where due to continental drift, the ocean bed is folding under and dissapearing back under the crust of the earth. At these places, salt is absorbed into the rock there quite deeply, a mile deep in some places if I remember right, and then is folded under and removed from the sea. There are also other processes removing salt from th sea. I am amazed that they are stll even printing this old disproven stuff, must be really desperate. frankly, to even dare to use this one, after it has been so thoroughly disproven, is a mark of just plain dishonesty, are at the very most charitable, complete laziness in actually bothering to check out if it was even so. Either way, it is plain 'ol sin.

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/fa ... inity.html Ocean Salinity as a Failed Scientific Clock The dates calculated by all who attempted this method were wrong because of several fundamental flaws in the system. First of all, to use the salt clock as an actually clock, you must assume that the starting point would be 0% salinity. This, of course, could never be known because no one was around to measure the salinity of the oceans right when they formed. Also, people assumed that the ocean is an eternal reservoir, and when the salt is dumped in the ocean, it stays there permanently. This assumption is false as it has been later proved that elements of the ocean are being constantly recycled and leave the water. As plate tectonics shapes our Earth, sea beds rise and evaporate, leaving large salt deposits. Oceanic plates subduct and melt into the Earth which causes volcanoes to erupt which spew material containing salt that becomes incorporated into the land, which then starts the process all over again.

The Earth, including the salt in the ocean, is in a constant state of flux, on a very large cycle. In fact, the amount of salt lost from the ocean and the amount it gains are about the same. This means that the salinity of the oceans does not gradually increase, or even change greatly, but is actually in a state of equilibrium. Another fundamental flaw in this system is that the rates of erosion, solution, rainfall, and runoff cannot be measured over large amounts of geologic time. They simply vary too much to yield any constant (41). Also, the fact that different elements tend to spend different amounts of time in the ocean adds to the confusion of the calculations.

The decay of the earth’s magnetic field. Exponential decay is evident from measurements and is consistent with theory of free decay since creation, suggesting an age of the earth of less than 20,000 years.

Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field [DB 1506 (1); OAB 50] Since devices for measuring the Earth's magnetic field were invented a few hundred years ago, measurements have shown that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily decreasing over those few hundred years. It is claimed that these measurements indicate that the Earth's magnetic field has been steadily losing energy ever since it formed. By extrapolating the decay backwards in time, it is then claimed that an age greater than 10,000 years is impossible. However, it is easily shown that such a simple extrapolation is not justified. Scientific instruments are not the only mechanisms that have ever existed for measuring the Earth's magnetic field. Ovens used by ancient civilizations and the igneous rocks making up the ocean floor are two of the more obvious examples. Both record the direction and strength of the magnetic field as it was at the time they were last heated, and both prove conclusively that the hypothetical exponential decay of Earth's magnetic field has not occurred (according to the young-Earth theories, the magnetic field was many times greater only a few thousand years ago, a hypothesis that is clearly at odds with the above-mentioned evidence). Instead, the evidence shows that the magnetic field has fluctuated back and forth in strength as well as direction. These fluctuations are clearly observed in places where the stratigraphy (i.e. which rocks are older than which rocks) is obvious due to either layering or distance from a sea-floor spreading ridge. The decrease measured in the past few hundred years, therefore, is nothing more than a downward trend as part of an overall fluctuation, and has no implication for the age of the Earth (for a more detailed discussion of this issue, see Thompson (1997), http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html).

They are still using that old magnetic feild strength of the earth bit?? There is so much evidence against it it aint funny. They can only be using this already disproven theory if they have carefully avoided seeing any evidence to it's contrary. So far behind the scientific curve they are practically cavemmen. They could only still be using this one if they really WANT the earth to be young, want it so much that they will cover up any evidence to the contrary. That is not science, and that is not honest, it is a bald faced lie. Who do lies come from, God, or Satan, who is called the father of lies?

And why might they want this evidence to be true, want it so much that they will ignore, even cover up, any evidence to the contrary?
"When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth."
So it's all the "evolutionists" fault, is it, those "evil, godless evolutionists" (that it is so much fun to feel superior to, holier than!). Since when did evolutionists dictate to geologists and physicists about magnetic feild strengths or chemists and geologists about ocean salinity? The bible timeline, what do these guys know about bible timeline? Check it out http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth ... fense.html http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html and that is just from this one site. Basically, the idea that a "literal" interpratation must be only of 24 hour days for creation is shown false by the actual words in the original language and how they are used in Genesis and elsewhere. It is only ignorance, in some cases willfull ignorance of these original languages and words (easy to look up yourself http://www.blueletterbible.org/ ) that causes some to assume the word used originally only means 24 hour day.

And don't even get started on this old chestnut "Yom with a number (ordinal) always refers to 24 hour days", that is a flat out LIE. Check this out http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/sixdays.html
The claim has been made that when yom is used with a number, it always refers to a 24-hour day:
"Outside Genesis 1, yom is used with a number 410 times, and each time it means an ordinary day—why would Genesis 1 be the exception?"1
Let's look at some notable exceptions to this "rule," just using the first day as an example. The number used for "first day" is the Hebrew word echad,12 which means "one." The first exception to the "rule" is found in Genesis 29:20, where echad yom refers to a period of seven years that Jacob served Laban to obtain Rachel.13
In the book of 1 Samuel, David says that he "will perish one day [echad yom] by the hand of Saul."14 Obviously, David was not expecting to die in exactly 24 hours. In fact, David was never killed by Saul, but died of old age many decades later.
A prophecy from the book of Daniel describes the demise of the ruler of the Syrian kingdom, Seleucus Philopator, the Son of Antiochus the Great. According to Daniel 11:20, "within a few days [echad yom] he will be shattered."15 The reign of Seleucus actually lasted 12 years16 - a relatively short period of time, but certainly not 24 hours!
There are several examples where echad yom refers to the Day of the Lord - a period usually interpreted as being seven years in length.17 Specific examples that specify a period of time longer than 24 hours include the following:
'For behold, the stone that I have set before Joshua; on one stone are seven eyes. Behold, I will engrave an inscription on it,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day [echad yom]. 'In that day,' declares the LORD of hosts, 'every one of you will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and under his fig tree.'" (Zechariah 3:9-10)
For it will be a unique day [echad yom] which is known to the LORD, neither day nor night, but it will come about that at evening time there will be light. And it will come about in that day that living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter. (Zechariah 14:7-8)
"He [the Lord] will revive us after two days; He will raise us up on the third day, That we may live before Him. (Hosea 6:2)
If we are to interpret echad yom as referring only to a 24 hour day, then people will only be able to invite their neighbors over during one 24 hour period of time. Obviously, Zechariah 3:9-10 refers to an extended period of time. Later in his book, Zechariah describes this "one day" as being "in summer as well as in winter." This verse clearly indicates that this "one day" must be at least six months in length. The third example above is somewhat difficult to interpret, but is often interpreted as representing long periods of time. Gill's commentary says,"...these two and three days may be expressive of a long and short time, as interpreters differently explain them; of a long time, as the third day is a long time for a man to lie dead..."18 These six examples clearly establish that when yom is used with a number it does not always refer to 24-hour days.
In short, the idea that a literal Genesis is talking only about 24 hour days is shown false, and if they dare to mention that old chestnut "ordinal", a flat out, bald faced LIE. A truely literal Genesis uses the word YOM, which means an indefinate period of time, it can mean anywhere form 12 hours to infinity.

And don't even start with that old idea "it's young with the appearence of age". What, God made THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE into a gigantic, bald faced LIE, that lies to us and says it is old, when it is not? What does that make God? Does that sound like an idea from God, or Satan?

So I went to this site http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth all right, did you expect me to be convinced by ideas so easily disproven that they have been shown completly false decades ago?? Did you expect me to be convinced by carefully chery picked "evidence", while ignoreing volumes of contrary evidence? Did you expect me to be convinced by seeing a page with bald faced lies on it that this is of God ????

Why should you continue to beleive that the earth is young, when the bible, in the original language, does not say that? Don't you beleive in the bible? Or are you so busy trying to fight off those "evil, godless evolutionists" that you will accept anything, even a lie of Satan, that you think will help your "noble cause"?

And if Satan is behind this idea that "evolution" proves God is false, and that therefore you must fight evolution (the reality being the exact opposite), what will Satan do if someone, like, say, myself, comes along and exposes his lie? Will he change all the scientists minds, so that they now say "evolution is false"? No, he will work on the church and the Christians (and those who think they are), they, after all, are the real target. He will get them to appose the idea by any means nessissary, even using lies (which can lead to such wonderfull habits!). He will have them fight the idea just like he had them fight the idea that "the just shall live by faith" during the time of Martin Luthor. He will make them angry at the very idea that anyone can "challenge the bible", angry and emotional, not reasoning, keep them angry so that they won't THINK, won't actually LOOK and ask "does the bible really say this". He will keep stimulating their feeling of belonging to a noble cause (it feels good!), one so important it overrides any other consideration (bring on the Spanish Inquisiton, torture them, it's for a holy cause! http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/sp ... cript.html). He will keep them enjoying how they are much better and more holy than those people over there, an attitude that is the exact opposite of the gospel. He will keep them saying to themselves 'science is evil", thus keeping them away from it and it's evidences that show this idea to be so very easily shown false. And meanwhile he will continue to say to everyone else "see, those Christians are unscientific fools with minds in the dark ages, you don't want to be like THAT, do you?".

In short, I expect that the greatest oppostion to this idea will come from "Christians", just like it did to Martin Luthor, just like it did to the aposles, just like it did to Jesus ("good churchgoers" were the main opposition to both), just like it did to all the prophets who God sent to Isreal, who were rejected, attacked and even killed over and over again.

If you want me to belive that the earth is only at most 10,000 years old (didn't they used to say 6,000, why has it changed, hint, check your calender), you will have to do better than a link to a site that I can quickly and easily see is full of lies, ones disproven decades ago by muttiple people multiple times (including Christians scientists), followed by carefully cherry picked "evidnece", huge volumes of carefully not mentioned contrary evidence, bad science (doesn't even follow the scientific method in many cases, thus not even science at all), and illogical and emotionalism arguments. And that is not even going into the fact that they have to actually go against what the bible actually says in the original language, which makes me wonder whoe's side they are on, anyway? And the argument "these are good Christians", well, how do we know that? Do they act like good Christians? Are lies a good Christian act? Are we even able to say that they are "good Christians" Mat 7:21 Mat 7:22 Mat 7:23 or did Christ say that some are not his Mat 13:24 Mat 13:25 Mat 13:26 Mat 13:27 Mat 13:28 Mat 13:29 Mat 13:30. Or are we to just accept anyones word for it that they are Christian, and eccept whatever they say as true because of it? Many cults say that exact thing, should we join them? If God does not say it in his word, and the evidence of the world God made also does not say it, why would we say it, what reason do we have, really?

And if you still want to beleive the earth is young, ask yourself, exactly why do you beleive it?
Do you think that is what the bible originally said? Why? have you actually checked it out, for yourself, ever?? When?
Do you think that is what the physical evidence actually says? Why have you never actually looked into it?
Or are you beleiving it simply because you wish to appose "them"? Is opposition to something called "evil' evidence for something else?
Is peer pressure a good reason to keep beliving it? What did Jesus peers, the pharisees, think of him? What did the apostles and prophets peers think of them? Is that a common reaction of "good churchgoing folk" to people sent by God to tell them a truth they do not want to hear? When Jesus spoke to the seven churches in Asia, did he have some problems with some of them, even some big problems, even one church that he did not have a single good thing to say about them? So even if whole churches beleive something, does that auomatically make it true and right and "Chrsitian"?

How would you tell if someone is a "good Christian" anyway? Hint Gal 1:8, one word, BIBLE. If both sides call themselves "good Christians", or appear to be, what then? Have you thought about it? Have you ever thought how you would spot a person or idea planted by Satan? Don't you think Satan is trying to do exactly that? Has he succeeded? How would you know? How would you go about knowing now, if you don't know? Do you want to know? Why or why not?

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#21

Post by Legatus » Tue Jul 05, 2011 7:43 pm

Reactionary wrote:Legatus, I'm still waiting for a proper answer from you. Without just-so story telling, evolutionary fairytales, and similar nonsense. I'll sum up:.
So... if I don't respond to ALL of your very long post full of many different ideas which may mean an extremely long post if I cover all of them in detail in your timetable, what, exactly? Am I allowed to have a life? What counts as a "proper response? Am I allowed to take the time for a well thought out, evidenced backed "proper response? Am I to beleive that it is fairytales simply because you say so? Might I want to check out both biblical and scientific evidence first?
Reactionary wrote:1) Why do you consider only your interpretation of the Bible the correct one, while everyone else is, according to you, either deceived or ignorant?.
Am I the only one that beleives this?? Look up, see that logo at the top of this site? Why do you think this site even exists, who made it, what do they belive, and why? Have you looked? Have you checked to see if other sites and other people also beleive in an old earth (specifically old earth and Chrisianity or creation http://www.google.com/search?q=%22old+e ... mages&tbs= 46,900 links, just for that one phrase)? Am I to ignore centuries of carefull biblical scholorship that goes into the exact words the bible was originally written in and how they were used? Has the church ever been decieved or ignorant before? Why did the Great Reformation happen, anyway, where they decieved then? Are churches full of sinless beings who are never decieved? Which churches, exactly?
Reactionary wrote:2) Why would God spend 15 billion years creating the "stage" for a "show" that has lasted 10,000 years?.
How do you know it only lasted 10,000 years? Where is the biblical or physical evidence of that? Yes, I looked at that link, I saw lies, things disproven decades ago multile times in multiple ways. Could God be taking 15 billion years so as to provide us with he evidence of his invisible qualities seen here Rom1:20? Does 15 billion years even seem like any time at all to God? Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. So if 15 billion years seems like no time at all to God, why not, if that serves his purpose? And did God ask for your help for his timetable? Job 38:21 Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years! Here god was questioning Job if he had helped God out, or even been there, when God did these things.

Reactionary wrote:3) Why would God strictly look not to break the natural laws for 15 billion years, and then send Jesus, who was conceived immaculately, did miracles, and finally rose from the dead?.
Well, if God had been doing miracles for 15 billion years, who would even notice anything different when Jesus did them? If God makes rules and sees that they are followed, well, when you see those rules broken, you know you ae seeing the author of those rules, since only he could break them, right? And since when is this NOT a miracle, if God chooses to do it the hard way, sticking by the rules he himself created? Do you know how it would take infinite intelligence to plan out a way to do this if you stick with the rules you invented (invented to allow it even to be possible, which is one chance in 10*10*123 minimum). I mean, think about it, god playing say soccar (fotbal), he can use his God powers and win easily every time, or he could restrict himself only to human powers and still win by sheer SKILL, the latter would be MUCH HARDER. In fact, if God does it "by the rules", we will have evidence left over to see that there must be a God, making Rom 1:20 true. Would God want to make Rom 1:20 true, how would he go about it? If there are no witnesses to creation, how would God go about leaving the evidence he says is there in Rom 1:20, if he breaks natural law, which leaves no evidence?

And what makes you think miacles did not happen before Jesus? Adam was a miracle, Eve was another, and there were miracles before the time of Jesus in the bible, some obviously supernatural, some may have been "natural miracles", where God actually does it the hard way and succeeds briliantly anyway (with equisit timeing planned from the original creation of the universe billions of years ago).

Reactionary wrote:4) Do you believe in the Resurrection and life after death, as those things obviously break the natural laws?.
Of course they do, thats the idea! God follows natural law, and makes sure it doesn't vary, so that when we see it being clearly broken, we know we are seeing the lawmaker at work, since only he could do that. Why do you insist on "miracles" in the times before any person existed, when there could be no witnesses, are not the miracles of Jesus, done in the presence of many many witnesses enough for you, why do you need more? Must you "prove" that there are miracles that no one ever saw, when we have so many that people did see, and even see occasionaly today? http://castroller.com/podcasts/FocusOnThe/1415285

Reactionary wrote:5) Why do you equate evolution with science?.
I don't, not as currently beleived, as I already posted. As most scientists now beleive it, it happened by random chance. It has been shown that random chancet doesn't work for evolution. What I am suggesting is non random chance, planned happenings, that do not break natural laws, and which, like playing a game, make it a LOT harder to "win" (succeed in creating life dispite the huge odds against it by random chance). He could, after all, "cheat" and break antural law and do it a LOT easier, he did it the hard way. Doing it the hard way is not less than a miracle, it is in fact an immesurably greater miracle, a "natural miracle", something only someone of infinite intelligence who exists outside of time has even a hope of doing (we sure can't do it, we've tried). It is in fact such a great "natural miracle" that is shows, by evidence we can see, "God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature".

Reactionary wrote:6) What's the point of your last post??? y:-/.
That was a reply to someone else, as you could see, i included the quote I was replying to. It is called "humor".

Reactionary wrote:7) Are you really a follower of Christ, or is there some other reason why you're here?.
Why would you doubt it, are you saying that if I do not beleive exactly as you do, I am one of those "evil, godless evolutionists"? So, you think I am not a Christian if I do not beleive as you do, while saying this "Why do you consider only your interpretation of the Bible the correct one, while everyone else is, according to you, either deceived or ignorant?" So, I guess it's ok for YOU to say that, but not anyone else? I am evil/bad/wrong if I say it, you are just automatically right if you do? So your argument agaisnt my IDEAS is "he's ugly, and his mother dresses him funny"? you will simply question anyones faith who dares to disagree with you? Even if he is not alone, even if he is not alone by a LONGSHOT?

Reactionary wrote:P.S. I'm not expecting you to honestly answer the last question.
How would you know? For that matter, if you say you are a follower of Chrsit, how would I know? Mat 7:22 So you automatically assigne me to the ranks of a lier, dishonest, and unbeliever, if I do not beleive as you do? Does that also go for the many many others on this site, including the creators of this site, who beleive the earth is billions of years old? The established church rejected that Jesus fellow, and after him, those apostles fellows, I guess that makes them non Chrsitians to, right? They definatly were against that Martin Luthor fellow, I guess that means the just really do not live by faith, right?

I am not automatically assigning you to the ranks of lier and unbeleiver (I cannot know, not being God), it may simply be that you are decieved. You may be decieved, and the people who are decieving you may also be decieved by others before them, and on back to the beginning of the deception, there have been many such deceptions. Paul and the other apostles wrote many epistles dealing with Christians who were decieved almost immediatly after they went away from town, might it happen again? Can Chrsitians be decieved as they were back then? Might people today be called on to say so, as the apostles were called on to say so? Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?

Many many people here will disagree with you (at least about the young earth part), so, while you are here, perhaps you might, with an open mind, look into why. Perhaps they have good biblical and scientific reasons to do so.

I personally don't expect everyone to jump on my "evolution proves God" (or better, BioLogos), it is aftter all, too new an idea (as far as I know, no one else has suggested it, at least not the way I have). I also expect that you will see the word "evolution", and have an emotional reaction to it, and ignore the fact that I am not even talking about the evolution by random chance that many (but not all) scientists believe.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#22

Post by neo-x » Tue Jul 05, 2011 10:36 pm

I personally don't expect everyone to jump on my "evolution proves God" (or better, BioLogos), it is aftter all, too new an idea (as far as I know, no one else has suggested it, at least not the way I have). I also expect that you will see the word "evolution", and have an emotional reaction to it, and ignore the fact that I am not even talking about the evolution by random chance that many (but not all) scientists believe.
Are you referring to the Idea of BioLogos pushed forward by Francis Collins in his book, "The Language of God"?
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Reactionary
Senior Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 3:56 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Republic of Croatia
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#23

Post by Reactionary » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:21 am

Legatus wrote:So... if I don't respond to ALL of your very long post full of many different ideas which may mean an extremely long post if I cover all of them in detail in your timetable, what, exactly? Am I allowed to have a life? What counts as a "proper response? Am I allowed to take the time for a well thought out, evidenced backed "proper response?
I'm sorry. Happy now? :roll:
Legatus wrote:Am I to beleive that it is fairytales simply because you say so? Might I want to check out both biblical and scientific evidence first?
No, I'm not asking you to do that. But I do feel like we haven't been reading the same Bible, as I haven't seen any biblical evidence for evolution.
Legatus wrote:Am I the only one that beleives this?? Look up, see that logo at the top of this site? Why do you think this site even exists, who made it, what do they belive, and why? Have you looked? Have you checked to see if other sites and other people also beleive in an old earth (specifically old earth and Chrisianity or creation http://www.google.com/search?q=%22old+e ... mages&tbs= 46,900 links, just for that one phrase)? Am I to ignore centuries of carefull biblical scholorship that goes into the exact words the bible was originally written in and how they were used? Has the church ever been decieved or ignorant before? Why did the Great Reformation happen, anyway, where they decieved then? Are churches full of sinless beings who are never decieved? Which churches, exactly?
This still doesn't give you the right to call anyone who disagrees with you deceived by Satan.
Legatus wrote:How do you know it only lasted 10,000 years? Where is the biblical or physical evidence of that?
By "show" I meant the human civilization. Which has lasted even less than 10,000 years, as shown by archaeological and historical evidence.
Legatus wrote:And did God ask for your help for his timetable? Job 38:21
Nope. Did He ask you?
Legatus wrote:Surely you know, for you were already born! You have lived so many years!
Well, 54 years is not much more than 20. :ewink:

Legatus wrote:And what makes you think miacles did not happen before Jesus? Adam was a miracle, Eve was another, and there were miracles before the time of Jesus in the bible, some obviously supernatural, some may have been "natural miracles", where God actually does it the hard way and succeeds briliantly anyway (with equisit timeing planned from the original creation of the universe billions of years ago).
So, you do believe in the literal Adam and Eve? How do they fit the story? Or are they a "supernatural" miracle?
I'm sorry, but I don't see much sense in your theories. Mixing "natural" and "supernatural" miracles... in the end, then, what are "miracles" after all? A consistent God would make much more sense to me, the one that has a method of working, which He sticks with.

Legatus wrote:Of course they do, thats the idea! God follows natural law, and makes sure it doesn't vary, so that when we see it being clearly broken, we know we are seeing the lawmaker at work, since only he could do that. Why do you insist on "miracles" in the times before any person existed, when there could be no witnesses, are not the miracles of Jesus, done in the presence of many many witnesses enough for you, why do you need more? Must you "prove" that there are miracles that no one ever saw, when we have so many that people did see, and even see occasionaly today? http://castroller.com/podcasts/FocusOnThe/1415285
I have no problems in believing in miracles. Neither you or me could demonstrate what the Creation looked like, so it makes sense to have different views.

Legatus wrote:I don't, not as currently beleived, as I already posted. As most scientists now beleive it, it happened by random chance. It has been shown that random chancet doesn't work for evolution. What I am suggesting is non random chance, planned happenings, that do not break natural laws, and which, like playing a game, make it a LOT harder to "win" (succeed in creating life dispite the huge odds against it by random chance). He could, after all, "cheat" and break antural law and do it a LOT easier, he did it the hard way. Doing it the hard way is not less than a miracle, it is in fact an immesurably greater miracle, a "natural miracle", something only someone of infinite intelligence who exists outside of time has even a hope of doing (we sure can't do it, we've tried). It is in fact such a great "natural miracle" that is shows, by evidence we can see, "God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature".
I'm growing fed up with your stories. No, it hasn't been shown that random chance doesn't work for evolution, because science can not prove a negative. You can't show that something didn't happen. If we accept all your presuppositions, who says that, under some insane conditions in the far past, life couldn't have indeed evolved? 4,500,000,000 years is a lot of time, which is exactly the card evolutionists play. "Given enough time, anything is possible." To say that an infinite intelligence is behind it, makes sense, but it sure isn't evidence. There could be, or there could not, as I said when I discussed with neo-x.
Legatus wrote:Why would you doubt it, are you saying that if I do not beleive exactly as you do, I am one of those "evil, godless evolutionists"? So, you think I am not a Christian if I do not beleive as you do, while saying this "Why do you consider only your interpretation of the Bible the correct one, while everyone else is, according to you, either deceived or ignorant?" So, I guess it's ok for YOU to say that, but not anyone else? I am evil/bad/wrong if I say it, you are just automatically right if you do? So your argument agaisnt my IDEAS is "he's ugly, and his mother dresses him funny"? you will simply question anyones faith who dares to disagree with you? Even if he is not alone, even if he is not alone by a LONGSHOT?
I don't doubt other people's faith because of their views on Creation, unlike you. That was the point of my post. I'm fine with YECs and OECs, it's just that I find it suspicious that you're trying to stir division between the ranks of Christians. You can't call anyone who disagrees with you Satan-deceived. That's downright arrogance. As well as the fact that you're trying to project that behaviour on me. Anyone who reads this can see that I never did so.
Legatus wrote:How would you know? For that matter, if you say you are a follower of Chrsit, how would I know? Mat 7:22 So you automatically assigne me to the ranks of a lier, dishonest, and unbeliever, if I do not beleive as you do?
No. See above.
Legatus wrote:Many many people here will disagree with you (at least about the young earth part), so, while you are here, perhaps you might, with an open mind, look into why. Perhaps they have good biblical and scientific reasons to do so.
A pot calls the kettle black. The thing is, I'm not a firm YEC as you may think. I'm perfectly fine with OEC (not evolution though), in fact, I don't see that issue as very important for salvation, and I'm open enough for other ideas. Except those that compromise with the "evil, godless evolutionists". :ewink:
Legatus wrote:I personally don't expect everyone to jump on my "evolution proves God" (or better, BioLogos), it is aftter all, too new an idea (as far as I know, no one else has suggested it, at least not the way I have). I also expect that you will see the word "evolution", and have an emotional reaction to it, and ignore the fact that I am not even talking about the evolution by random chance that many (but not all) scientists believe.
As I said, it's a new compromise with the most recent product of the atheist workshop. I'm sure it will be buried as soon as the new "evidence" comes out.
Regarding my "emotional reaction" to evolution, I already mentioned that evolutionary teachings motivated some of the biggest atrocities in the human history, including the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. So, is it such a surprise that I antagonize it?

Finally, I already explained why I think there is a very thin border between naturalistic evolution and... whatever the ideas you promote are called.
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." Matthew 7:6

"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

--Reactionary

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#24

Post by Legatus » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:39 am

neo-x wrote:
I personally don't expect everyone to jump on my "evolution proves God" (or better, BioLogos), it is aftter all, too new an idea (as far as I know, no one else has suggested it, at least not the way I have). I also expect that you will see the word "evolution", and have an emotional reaction to it, and ignore the fact that I am not even talking about the evolution by random chance that many (but not all) scientists believe.
Are you referring to the Idea of BioLogos pushed forward by Francis Collins in his book, "The Language of God"?
Umm, actually, I have never readi it, only found out about BioLogios (life from the word of God) very recently, that sounded like a good idea, or at least a good word to use. I just looked up the book on Amazon, see some things that I agree with, and one thing I do NOT agree with. I agree what evolution is allowed by the bible, and that science and the bible can very comfotably exist (although some of the science may have to "evolve") I do NOT however, agree that humans evolved, since the bible very clearly states a specific non evolutonaruy process for Adam and Eve (backed up to some extent by the gene records), unlike what the bible says about non human life, where no method is specified although a natural method is implied.

In many cases life by planned mutations is hard to tell from life by direct miracle anyway (they are both really a kind of miracle, the planned mutation is impossible with no God), since a planned event can happen rather suddenly, thus bypassing missing links and unviable forms and the like.

Here is what I do NOT agree with:
"While evolution from lower lifeforms seems to be an indisputable fact, the orthodox theory of evolution by natural selection operating on pure chance presupposes a metaphysical naturalist worldview, which is very contrary to a personal God model. From a scientific point of view alone, while evolution is a fact, it is clear that the mechanism of evolution is not yet completely understood (e.g., like Collins himself points out, the evolution of moral behavior has not been satisfactorily explained; but we can also mention the riddle of "junk" DNA, the various observed cases of puzzling "exadaptation," and so on)."

When I look at evolution, especially abiogenesis, and also the creation of a universe where life is even possible, I see that "pure chance" simply can't do it. We have tried and tried and it just aint happening. However, we also see a gradual evolution from simple forms to complex ones, so we see two things 1. its not possible by pure chance and 2. it happened anyway. There being no answer from science, I look to the bible. I see in the bible the description of the first life, plants, and how it is said to be an "earthly" method, and is not specified as breaking of natural laws as such (which definatly IS specified for Adam and Eve). Then, I look back on my having watched every episode of one of the longest running TV shows ever (30+ years?), Doctor Who, a show about time travel (it's really good, it would have to be to last so incredibly long). watching all that gave me some idea of how God might look at time from a point of view from outside it (example, "Doctor, when were you born?" "I don't know, sometime soon I think."). From that and other things, I got the idea of God being able to plan a very long series of happenings such that at just the right time and place something, say a cosmic ray, is planned to arrive in just the right way so that the needed mutation, or in the case of the first life, just one of an incredibly complex series of reactions and the like (such as arrainging for the creation of DNA AND also ALL the proper encoding on it) happen as planned. I see no other way to resolve the evidence, that things evolved, the further evidence, that they cannot have evolved by random chance, and the bible, which says that it was a natural process that God was involved in. This is NOT the same as theistic evolution, which says that God does a series or miracles, breaking natural law. If you are going to break natural law, why not just make the critter from nothing, and why take millions, even billions of years, to do what you could do instantly? I see a reason why God might do it this way, because it will leave evidence we can find that shows God (making Rom 1:20 true). It may also be that God simply consideres it more satisfying to "do it the hard way" (it really is the hard way). After all, for God to break natural law is trivially easy.

BTW, if this is true, you might wonder, why take so long at it? I think, for one thing, for God it isn't long at all, for God, who is outside of time, a billion years is as nothing, he can see all time at once, as if he had a time machine that he could travel back and forth in to see what is happening now, and what to do in the past so that the effects will ripple forwad through time and make the desired effect now. God is also, like us, able to write fiction, even science fiction, such as time travel fiction. He can thus dream up an infinite number of universes, some with only slight differences from other universes (what would happen if Booth fired at Abe Lincln and missed, how would that change the history of the world?). He can thus dream up a universe where, just be starting it JUST SO, the desired cosmic ray arrives at just the right time and place to make the desired mutation. This would take infinite intelligence, to dream up no less than an infinite number of possible universes, to get one design that will result in not only that one cosmic ray arriving on time, but all the other ones to. The numner of computations that would take is staggering, even for a few such rays (with a travel period of possibly bilions of years), only a God outside of time could do it. This could take time to arreinge, for instance, you have to arrainge for early stars to be born and explode, to make the heavy elements needed for the planet we call earth, you have to wait for the universe to expand to the proper size, you have to wait for that one small asteroid to get out of the way so that the cosmic ray has a clear shot (or even that one atomic particle), and an almost infinite number of other considerations. You might ask, why would God want to wait, well, time has been shown to only be a force that effects material objects (pretty much everything in this universe), however, God is a spirit, is not made of matter or is a material object, and so is uneffected by time, is outside it. yesterday, today, and all the tomarrows God sees as NOW. That is explained here 2Pet 3:8.

Imagine it this way, God gets in his time machine, and travels to literally every point in time ansd space. Thus, you could not go anywhere in time or space, from the time of the big bang to now or the future, or anywhere in space in any of thse times, without seeing God hanging around in this time machine (of course, God does not need a time emachine, but it's easier to imagine it this way). God, say some millions of years ago, is arrainging for a desired mutation to turn semi birdlike dinosaur into actual bird. He picks up the phone and calls himself in the distant past, and askes for a cosmic ray to arrive just thus and so. God very distant past calls up God at varius later times on the path the ray will take over time, to ask about the conditions it will travel through, and to arrainge for them to be just right, to make sure it arrives with pinpoint accuracy. God dinosaur time then sees that it needs a prior mutation, and so calls God from 5 minutes ago to arrainge for a prior mutation, who then calls up God from 2 million years ago to start the 'ol ray in its way, with arraingements from God of even futher back to arreinge for that asteroid to be 5 feet to the left, which is arrainged by making a very long ago sun explode just so, which is arrainged by making sure that the original big bang created that long ago exploding star in just the right way that it results, eventiually, in that part of the star that exploded, the asteroid, being 5 feet to the left. Of course, God is omnipresent, and so needs no time machine to see all points in time and space, but it is easier to imagine this way.

I don't think anyone else but myself has thought of it this way, so I cannot say if anyone else has, since I have never seen any mention of it. I dreamnt it up simly because I see no other way that science (such as it is), the physical evidnec ethat science gets it's ideas from, and the bible can all be true. When I match this idea to all of this, however, they are eall exactly true. Thus currently I beleive that this is often, perhaps most times, the way God did it (except for when God sees it to be beneficial to break natural law and do a miracle, such as with Jesus, Adam and Eve, etc). It is hard to explain, even harder to imagine (for a time bound human). I can barely imagine what it might maybe look like from Gods end.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#25

Post by neo-x » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:04 am

I agree what evolution is allowed by the bible, and that science and the bible can very comfotably exist (although some of the science may have to "evolve") I do NOT however, agree that humans evolved, since the bible very clearly states a specific non evolutonaruy process for Adam and Eve (backed up to some extent by the gene records), unlike what the bible says about non human life, where no method is specified although a natural method is implied.
This is almost the same stance of a theistic evolutionist. For the same reason you do not believe that evolution could produce Adam and Eve is the same reason I don't.
When I look at evolution, especially abiogenesis, and also the creation of a universe where life is even possible, I see that "pure chance" simply can't do it.
Yes, I agree.
However, we also see a gradual evolution from simple forms to complex ones, so we see two things 1. its not possible by pure chance and 2. it happened anyway.
I don't think the last part is proved, what about ID or creationism for that matter even in the OEC perspective. Progressive and Day age? The biggest hole is evolution is that it is marred with gaps which we have to fill in. lack of transitional fossil. And a lot of other problems.

Some of the problems which seriously pose questions about evolution.

1. There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something breeders of animals or plants are aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolution says that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

2. There is more bacteria in this earth than there is sand and dirt. It is present in almost every imaginable habitat possible, including radioactive. But they never evolve and note mutations happen rarely, but rate at which single celled organisms mutate is far greater than multi-cellular organisms. And mutations in bacteria could be triggered by a lot of factors but still they remain bacteria, they do not evolve. Geneticists learned that by X-raying drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, they could increase the rate of mutations. Since the fruit fly produces a new generation every twelve days, scientists could alter the fly’s genetic code to study scores of generations. No new species were ever created by the mutations.

3. Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

4. Lack of Morphing Fossils. If we say (and as you say) that it happened by careful planning on God's side, he sent a cosmic ray at a precise time to make a mutation then where is the morphological evidence? One of the biggest dent in evolution (for me) was the re-discovery of Coelacanth. It was said to have been the missing link between tetra pods and fish, well that got refuted easily, when a live specimen was discovered. Now creatures like Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega and Eusthenopteron are SUPPOSED to be the missing links.

5. Have you tested your ideas against the the first two laws of Thermodynamics? since you are walking on new grounds and have a unique idea. Decay vs. progression?

6. Then there is the genesis order of the creation. Evolution says marine life was the first life that evolved, Genesis says it was the plants. Living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25). According to the evolutionary theory, all living organisms derive from a common primitive ancestor.

I tend to favor evolution by the hand of God but when I see points like above, i keep thinking.

what are your thoughts on this?
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Chicken or Egg

#26

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:11 am

hi Guys
I didnt expect such an indepth discussion :lol: .
Neo-x when i think about God i try not to understand him in human terms, God is not bound by time and space,like the old joke that God made man in his image and man has been returning the favor ever since.
When you say why wouldn't he do it instantly instead of over time ( if evolution exists ), you are putting time constraints on God.
Because he is outside of our time, he can move through forwards,backwards and be everywhere all at the same time ( with my human brain i imagine that evolution to God would be instant and over a period of time all at once).
I would have quoted you but i couyldn't figure it out y#-o
Sometimes we just have to have faith i guess, we cant understand everything with our limited capacity and through grace all will be revealed when we exist with the Father.
Other than that im not commenting on evolution vs instant creation as i dont think it really matters to my faith although the discussion is very interesting.
Your friend in Christ
Daniel
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#27

Post by neo-x » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:38 am

Neo-x when i think about God i try not to understand him in human terms, God is not bound by time and space,like the old joke that God made man in his image and man has been returning the favor ever since.
When you say why wouldn't he do it instantly instead of over time ( if evolution exists ), you are putting time constraints on God.
Because he is outside of our time, he can move through forwards,backwards and be everywhere all at the same time ( with my human brain i imagine that evolution to God would be instant and over a period of time all at once).
I would have quoted you but i couyldn't figure it out
Sometimes we just have to have faith i guess, we cant understand everything with our limited capacity and through grace all will be revealed when we exist with the Father.
Other than that im not commenting on evolution vs instant creation as i dont think it really matters to my faith although the discussion is very interesting.
No problem, just on the side note, your point cuts both ways, I personally think it took billions of years, but that is equal to put time restraints on God as to say that he did it instantly. The problem is the method, the method implies the time. But besides this, I do not have any problem having faith in what is not known, since I am certain that no single theory can nail the pinpoint detail of how it all started without taking some liberties on the interpretation.
with my human brain i imagine that evolution to God would be instant and over a period of time all at once
For a general understating you point makes sense, the issue is that the elasticity of the statement makes it impossible to be consistent in terms of other interpretations through the scriptures, in some terms it may very well go against evidence. So as a simple understanding yes, it will work but not if you are studying and making an argument.

God bless you.

PS: Happy birthday :clap:
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Chicken or Egg

#28

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:48 am

hi
Thank you for the birthday wishes Neo-x :ebiggrin:
This is why im not an apologist, i will stick with my ignorant bliss because i think my head would explode otherwise :pound:

Daniel
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Chicken or Egg

#29

Post by neo-x » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:16 am

Thank you for the birthday wishes Neo-x
Your welcome bro
because i think my head would explode otherwise :pound:
Believe me, I have come close. :ebiggrin:
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

Legatus
Established Member
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 6:01 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: California, USA, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Chicken or Egg

#30

Post by Legatus » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:18 am

1. There are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something breeders of animals or plants are aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolution says that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few
.2. There is more bacteria in this earth than there is sand and dirt. It is present in almost every imaginable habitat possible, including radioactive. But they never evolve and note mutations happen rarely, but rate at which single celled organisms mutate is far greater than multi-cellular organisms. And mutations in bacteria could be triggered by a lot of factors but still they remain bacteria, they do not evolve. Geneticists learned that by X-raying drosophila melanogaster, the fruit fly, they could increase the rate of mutations. Since the fruit fly produces a new generation every twelve days, scientists could alter the fly’s genetic code to study scores of generations. No new species were ever created by the mutations.
4. Lack of Morphing Fossils.
Well, God did his thing, his "natural miracle", causing stuff to evolve, however, since it cannot happen by random chance, it only happens when God is doing that. God did that, and then rested, so the species we see are planned, so it is hard to deviate from them, and new species do not come along (uncluding bacteria not evolving into non bacteria). Since we are not God, we cannot do much actual change directly to the genes (we barely can map them now, much less tell exactly which ones of 3 billion do exactly what and what we would need to do exactly to would change them). Since we are just breeding with the genes God made way back then and then stopped acively mutating ("rested"), we are stuck with the genes God gave us, and can't really deviate much from them.

Doing it, say, by aiming a cosmic ray at something to create a desired mutation is actually extremely difficult, it can't happen by random chance. The cosmic ray would have to hit at exactly the right place (probably withing say an electron width or less), be the rigth kind of particle, and have the right speed, spin, polarity, etc. , and to assure that that happens, you must be able to imagine an infinite number of possible universes like this one, and every particle and force in them, and all of the possible interactions between all that stuff, to assure that even one such particle arives just right, much less all the stuff that did all the mutations and suchlike over millions or billions of years. I suspect that that is why the universe is so big, to assure that it is just the right size and also has enough space to have enough stuff so you can make some of it do such an unlikely thing. For humans to make such a mutation, even with our best machines, I doubt we could even figure out exactly how to hit it just right, or be able to do it even at point blank range. God, however, can design a universe where it happens perhaps millions of times. You might have to, as many changes to the way a creature turns out need changes to multiple genes to make just one actual noticable change. Then you have to make it a viable mutation (virtually impossible by random chance), and you have to time it just right so that the mutation really is viable, say when the climate changes, or some local conditions change (since you only need a few critters to mutate, it can be just a local change to make them viable, you don't need to change all the critters of that type, just a few and in one small area, a big difference from random chance).

Say you want to make a small bird like dinosaur evolve into a bird, you might choose (the choosing taking place when you decide before the universe is created exactly how you want the earth to turn out, down to the smallest detail) for one small area to be a place where the scales if they evolve into feathers (probably a series of mutations over time) actually makes the critter more viable in that area. Alternatly, you can just make it viable enough and say have a disease or something kill off the competition. It only has to happen once, somewhere, in one small area, if it is PLANNED, and eventually you can fill the earth with birds decended from that one first dinosaur to semi bird to a bit more birdy to eventually true bird to for real chicken. Note that doing it the planned way, you might often have to do it fairly quickly, within the time frame of the changed local conditions you arrrainged (before they change again to something where your critter is not viable), thus, compared to the number of fossils of the critters you did not change or evolve into something else, the few possible "morphing fossils" there might be so small compared to the number of other unchanged fossils of that type of critter that there simply might not be enough of the morphed critters, since there are few of them and in one small area, to assure that some survive as fossils. Then, later, when things change and the conditions make the new morphed critter more viable than the old unchanged one, the old ones die out and the new ones spread out untill it is all new ones. HOWEVER, sometimes the new one are more viable most places, but the old ones are still viable in a few places, thus, we may have critter A evolving into critter B, yet still there could be critter A found in some places, since you only have to evolved ONE to arrive at critter B (or one line of decendants more likely), thus, there are still lots of critter A around after critter B is perfected, and some of A may still survive.

Also, there are a few "morphing fossils" around, not too many, but some. It shows it can happen, but since in many cases I suspect it has to be done fairly quickly, the chances of having enough of the transitional form critters ever be around to turn into fossils is slim. If, say, you evolved from dinosaur to bird in 10 generations, you might only have 10 transitional critters that could even possibly become fossils, and since most critters never get fossilized, you might never find one of those transitional fossils. Basically, if you start with small dinosaur, evolve in 10 genrations of more birdlike critters, and end up at first true bird, you could have millions of possible dino fossils, 10 possible morphed fossils , and then millions of possible bird fossils afterwards (and the older dino in may places unchaned), so the chances of seeing a morphed fossil are vastly smaller than simply finding dino and bird bones because there simply were never enough of the morphed ones around.

Note one thing, fast planned evolution like this (sometimes called puncutated equilibrium), creation from nothing, or small miracle theistic evolution, would look almost identicale from the fossil evidence afterward, since there would be few transitional fossils left for us to find. Thus, it may not be possible to "prove", by fossil evidence, what method was used. So far, all we have managed to do is largely falsify the idea of random chance evolution. Since science cannot tell which method God used, but can tell that for it to happen there must be a God, we are life with looking in the bible for the clue, since there was one witness, God. God said "let the earth", which suggests an entirely earthly or natural process, and only evolution by planned chance using no miracles (no breaking any natural laws) fits this bill. Also, to insist the God MUST do it by miracles, creation from nothing, by saying "you can't take away Gods miracles", is dishonest, since God did not state he did it by miracle and so we are taking away nothing, and since no one ever saw any of it happend while it happened anyway and so it would be kind of useless as a faith building miracle since no one who might build faith ever saw it and no evidnece survives, and because we have the miracles of Jesus and others which many people DID see, and if that isn't enough for us what is? Why should we insist on miracles without evidence that they happened, when we have many witnessed miracles with plenty of evidence? Why invent fictional miracles, fictional because God did not say it, when we have factual ones?

Basically, you need to get away from the idea of "random chance" doing it, when you do that, evolution is possible, it takes some SERIOUS planning, but hey, if you have infinite intelligence, the "impossible" merely takes longer (nothing is impossible with God). I think God did it without breaking natural law (which God can easily do) bcause I asked myself the question "if God could just create it out of nothing, why take millions of years?". The same is true with the usual brand of "theistic evolution", they assume God did the mutations with many small miracles, but agian, why take millions of years to do what you could do instantly?

Also, some say, why do it by such a "cruel" method. Well, basically you are saying to God, "I will not accept you unless you do it my way, the way *I* say is good". That is just the old sin of Adam, deciding for myself what I call good or evil, and demanding that God agree with me. However, as God told Job, God never consulted Job or me or anyone else when he decided how to go about it. Therefore, I must accept that God knew what he was doing, and did it the way that God wanted to, the way that pleased him, the way that caused it all to work out the way he wanted and fulfilled purposes I may know noting about, and lets face it, the way that worked. If God can do it this way, or by miracle (creating from nothing), or by small miracles (breaking natural law to make viable mutations), God has a choice which way God wishes to do it. The bible does not specify which method was used (exept in the very specific and even pointedly mentioned Adam and Eve (where it even uses a new word, "fashioned" to show that thsi was unique). Since the bible does not specify method, we cannot either, we cannot, as many do, insist on creation from nothing when God did not state that that was the method he used. Since God said "let the earth", I tend toward it being an earthy, or natural, following natural laws, method, ie. planned evolution without breaking any natural laws, also known as "doing it the hard way". For me to insist that it was either creation from nothing or many small miracle mutations goes against what God said there, so I see no reason to do it. For me to say instead that it is the commonly beleived random chance evolution simply goes against science, so that's out to. That only leaves planned evolution, without breaking natural laws, statistically impossible by chance but possible if you are God and it is not chance, but pure skill. I simply see no other possiblility given the words of scripture and the scientific EVIDENCE (actual experimental data, not "what scientists believe", which is just belief, not science).
5. Have you tested your ideas against the the first two laws of Thermodynamics? since you are walking on new grounds and have a unique idea. Decay vs. progression?

6. Then there is the genesis order of the creation. Evolution says marine life was the first life that evolved, Genesis says it was the plants. Living creatures were created according to individual groups, and that thereafter, each reproduced after its own “kind” (Genesis 1:11-12,21,24-25). According to the evolutionary theory, all living organisms derive from a common primitive ancestor.
Theremodynamics only comes into it with evolution by random chance. Things can evolve UP IF a God of intelligence does it, random chance would not do it because of thermodynamics. Plus, thermodynamics can be locally gotten around, usefull energy is arriving at earth, mostly from the sun, all that is then needed is information. random chance does not convey information, just chaoes, decay, one CAN add information, however, if one has an intelligent source of it, say, God. One can then have order instrad of chaos, planned mutations instead of random harmfull decay producing ones.

Genesis says plants first, these were probably sea plants, like plankton, which are marine life (being single celled organisms, we really can''t find fossils of them). Genesis and science then says marine life of the animal kind, millions of trilobytes (half of all fossils are these). Genesis then says birds, right after marine life, it does not mention dinosaurs since most people throughout history would just say "huh, whats a dinosaur?", it says birds since that is what we know now and they were once some kind of dinosaur (and are pretty much all that is left of dino kind). It then says the mammels and suchlike non dinosaurs, that came next and then dinosaurs died out (planned, they would eat us otherwise), then mankind (specifying a special creation), and then God rested and stopped creating new critters. Since God is talking to people, he talkes of what he created FOR PEOPLE, he only mentions the forms of these things WE know, since they were created FOR US. Thus God says grass and trees, not mentioning (since most people would not understand anyway) that they may have started out billions of years ago as invisibly small planktion or other small "simple" (not really) single celled plants, or mentioning how long it took them to turn into what we know now, or going into any method used. For the later more complex critters, well, the method used or how long it took to get different kinds of critters that reproduce after their own kind is not specified, once God stopped with the mutating, "rested", well, since God is not changing them anymore, they will indeed reproduce only after their own kind, that was the plan.

Oh, and about all this planned evolution, kids, don't try this at home, your brain really will explode :shock:

Post Reply