Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] A number reasons why I find Evolution impossible to believe!

Yep. Scientists are just beginning to see how abiogenesis happened. The Earth brought forth all living things.

As you saw in the other thread real scientists have given up that idea. They would have to overturn the Law of Biogenesis. The analysis of observable, testable, repeatable, specified-complexity by ENCODE establishes a new precident. It really is a watershed moment.

[
But since your commitment is to an idea not truth, you're the one who isn't accepting the way he did it.

As you see, He did it as He said. But he didn't tell us the details. Those, we have to find out for ourselves. Keep in mind, God didn't really mold a human form out of dust and poof life into it. God doesn't have thumbs and a nose, or earlobes. He used nature to make man, just as He uses it for most things in this world.

As I showed you in the other thread God finished on the seventh day, then Jehova God formed Adam from the dust. Jehova God taught Adam language. Jehova God is Jesus who we know has hands, can talk, and can bring people to life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian observes:
Yep. Scientists are just beginning to see how abiogenesis happened. The Earth brought forth all living things.

As you saw in the other thread real scientists have given up that idea.

Wrong again. As you learned, the ENCODE scientists said nothing at all about "specified complexity." You should understand that just because the wrote "complex" and "specificity" in the same paragraph, that doesn't mean they wrote about "specified complexity." The ICR claimed that the ENCODE researchers endorsed specified complexity and intelligent design. But as you see from their statement, they did not.

But since your commitment is to an idea not truth, you're the one who isn't accepting the way he did it.

Barbarian observes:
As you see, He did it as He said. But he didn't tell us the details. Those, we have to find out for ourselves. Keep in mind, God didn't really mold a human form out of dust and poof life into it. God doesn't have thumbs and a nose, or earlobes. He used nature to make man, just as He uses it for most things in this world.

As I showed you in the other thread God finished on the seventh day, then Jehova God formed Adam from the dust. Jehova God taught Adam language. Jehova God is Jesus who we know has hands, can talk, and can bring people to life.

I'm a Trinitarian Christian. So Jehovah's Witness ideas don't mean much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian observes:
Yep. Scientists are just beginning to see how abiogenesis happened. The Earth brought forth all living things.

The Law of Biogenesis is well established. Science doesn't lightly call things a Law.

Dirt doesn't bring forth life. God creates life. Science recognized that over a hundred years ago. No offense, but abiogenesis really demonstrates a commitment to an idea and not truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dirt doesn't bring forth life.

God said it did. Good enough for me.

Genesis 1:24 ] And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done.

Should be good enough for you, too. Why not just let Him decide how He did it?
 
Hello Barbarian. How old do you believe the earth and all of creation are? How old did St Augustine believe it all was? ps you have completely lost me on that first point, seriously!
 
The Earth is several billion years old, about 4.5 billion, according to the evidence. St. Augustine had no idea, but assumed thousands of years. We didn't really get it until people began looking at the rocks and realizing what had gone on. By the 1800s, they knew millions of years, at least. Even evangelicals like Charles Spurgeon, the great English Baptist Evangelist, acknowledged millions of years.

Most creationists, prior to the Seventh-Day Adventists, were OE creationists. The Adventists came up with a new doctrine according to the visions of an adventist "prophetess." This was YE creationism. The Adventist missionary George McCreedy Price converted many evangelicals to YE creationism.

The Bible does not say how old the Earth is. But the testimony of His creation says several billion years.
 
Hi again Barbarian. Yes he believed at his time under 6000. He said this "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed". If we take the creation of man, Adam, and add up the generations, we find that roughly/thereabouts its 200 generations from then till now. That also fits with what scientists say about when they believe our decline in our dna, if I have put that correctly, or degeneration through disease, cancer etc , you know what I mean, came about or can be traced back to. They say they believe it set in around 200 generations ago. Ties in perfectly with the fall. Also recently saw a skeleton, fossil proof, however you want to put it heralding the great transitional species of an animal that showed the move between seals and land animals. Dawkins was sprouting off how its a great evidence. Trouble was I saw next to it in a picture a skeleton of a, living today, sea otter which was almost identical. More identical to the sea otter than any so called ape man one is to a human today. Perhaps Dawkins and his friends didn't bother to look at it next to a living creature like the sea otter to be able to see it was just, well, an otter. The Bible makes it pretty clear, actually crystal clear that the earth is not that old. Adam the first man, generations till now... Its hard for some to imagine that God did something like He did because people want to be able to understand it with their mind, but God is greater than we can imagine so they cant and instead create a theory which makes them more comfortable in believing it. Age of rocks is only done by some saying "ok that rock's a million years old so that's our template" how do they know its that old? Some lava flow rocks were taken from some recent day eruptions in New Zealand and dated using their methods. They said they were millions of years old! In fact they were not even 100 years old! It unreliable and yet its used to tell people how old everything is. Its almost unbelievable, to me, that people actually fall for it all. Theory, and a bad one at that! God is unfathomably powerful, awesome, we cannot begin to understand His ways and power. But when he gives me His Word and says this is what He did I believe it. I don't rely on some made up theory to satisfy what I cant understand, I trust Him, in faith! That's faith!
 
Hi again Barbarian. Yes he believed at his time under 6000. He said this "They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousands years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed".

The evidence at hand for Augustine did not show a very ancient Earth. He did, however, say that if scientific facts should show a problem with anyone's interpretation of Scripture, we should be willing to recognize that our interpretation might be wrong.

And this is what Christians did. In the 1800s, most Christians were old Earth in their thinking. Most still are, although the Adventists have managed to gain a large number of adherents in the United States.

If we take the creation of man, Adam, and add up the generations, we find that roughly/thereabouts its 200 generations from then till now.

The problem is of gaps and other discrepancies in the various geneologies in the Bible. Since there are two, conflicting geneologies for Jesus (for example), one has to conclude that they are not reliable as histories.

That also fits with what scientists say about when they believe our decline in our dna, if I have put that correctly, or degeneration through disease, cancer etc , you know what I mean, came about or can be traced back to.

Never heard of that. In fact, we are physically better than our ancestors, and intelligence is greater to day than even a few generations ago. So doesn't seem very likely. The Flynn Effect (rising IQ) and a fairly constant increase in physical record-setting pretty much removes that issue.

Also recently saw a skeleton, fossil proof, however you want to put it heralding the great transitional species of an animal that showed the move between seals and land animals. Dawkins was sprouting off how its a great evidence. Trouble was I saw next to it in a picture a skeleton of a, living today, sea otter which was almost identical.

Show us that. My guess is that it's probably a lot more bearlike than otterlike in the details.

Age of rocks is only done by some saying "ok that rock's a million years old so that's our template" how do they know its that old?

Isochrons. And we know it works, because a blind test accuratedly dated the flow that buried Pompeii, at a known date.

Some lava flow rocks were taken from some recent day eruptions in New Zealand and dated using their methods. They said they were millions of years old! In fact they were not even 100 years old!

It's a common trick. One creationist did it at Mt. St. Helens not long ago. The trick depends on finding hardened lava containing crystals that did not melt during the lava flow. These xenocrysts, not having melted, retain the evidence of their ancient age, and therefor can be used by unscrupulous people to "prove" that the Earth is not old. In reality such flows can be accurately dated only by carefully removing the unmelted material and only checking the lava.

There are a host of other ways to get wrong dates. There are entire books written on the precautions necessary to get an accurate reading.

It unreliable and yet its used to tell people how old everything is. Its almost unbelievable, to me, that people actually fall for it all.

That's why. You see, those stories are meant to be told to scientists; they are made up for people who never heard of xenocrysts, and don't realize they are being told falsehoods.

God is unfathomably powerful, awesome, we cannot begin to understand His ways and power.

But in nature, He does reveal a bit about His character and ways. Every now and then, when I'm out by myself, perhaps watching his creatures, what I know from scientific investigations and what I know of His greatness falls together in one place in my mind, and I am staggered at the majesty of His creation and His wisdom in making it so. I wish there was a way to convey how it feels, to you.

But when he gives me His Word and says this is what He did I believe it. I don't rely on some made up theory to satisfy what I cant understand, I trust Him, in faith! That's faith!

I often pray to Him; "Your way, not my way." And so man's interpretation of His word is fallible as anything else man does. But He cannot be at odds with nature. It is His.
 
Sorry, I couldn't find the original article I read. I must have given the magazine away like I often do after I have read one. But it was written by, or included by someone else in an article on, or including, Dr John Sanford in regards to his book "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome".
Here are a couple of links about him and how after all his research etc... he switched from an evolutionist to a Creation believer.
http://creation.com/time-no-friend-of-evolution
http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible
You know, I sometimes think about evolutionists looking at an extinct species and saying it was/is a missing link because it had this or that. No kind we see today looked like that.
But to me it's all just simple logic that an Intelligent designer equipped that creature to live in the environment it was created to. And, like many other species over time went extinct. Why do some birds have webbed feet and others talons? Because they were created that way to live and thrive in the environment they were intended for! Not evolved but created by an intelligent God Who intelligently designed and equipped them for the environment He intended them to live in! Just like our oddball Platypus we have here in Australia. Amazing creature those, and perfectly equipped by God to live where they do.
 
Sorry, I couldn't find the original article I read. I must have given the magazine away like I often do after I have read one. But it was written by, or included by someone else in an article on, or including, Dr John Sanford in regards to his book "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome".
Here are a couple of links about him and how after all his research etc... he switched from an evolutionist to a Creation believer.
http://creation.com/time-no-friend-of-evolution
http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible
You know, I sometimes think about evolutionists looking at an extinct species and saying it was/is a missing link because it had this or that. No kind we see today looked like that.
But to me it's all just simple logic that an Intelligent designer equipped that creature to live in the environment it was created to. And, like many other species over time went extinct. Why do some birds have webbed feet and others talons? Because they were created that way to live and thrive in the environment they were intended for! Not evolved but created by an intelligent God Who intelligently designed and equipped them for the environment He intended them to live in! Just like our oddball Platypus we have here in Australia. Amazing creature those, and perfectly equipped by God to live where they do.


Thanks for the links, I found them very enlightening. I agree with them, degeneration explains all the variation in a species quite well. I am always amazed by how well suited animals are to their environment.
 
Hi Barbarian. Here's a pic of the "missing link" and the otter. I will hunt up that thing about DNA or whatever it is and disease and show you later when I find it.



So these are very different. Both mammals. But the skulls are very different. The top one has a relatively small cranium , and massive jaws, while the bottom one has a large cranium, and small jaws.

The top one has a rather rigid spine, while the bottom one has ver flexible one, useful for swimming as otters do.

The top one has plantigrade feet; it walked with the entire food on the ground as bears do. The lower one has digitigrade feet; it walked on it's toes, as mustilids do.

Notice the pelvis is also markedly different.

The top one looks like a small, longish bear, while the bottom one looks like a typical otter or mink.

It appears the top one was partially adapted to swimming; it's lighter in structure and most likely smaller than most bears. But it sure looks ursoid in the details.

I'd like to see the link to this one so I can find a more detailed skeleton. Where did you find it?

Edit: I suspect it's a small Amphicyonid, a "bear-dog". That group is very close to the ancestor of both dogs and bears, and one or more such groups split off into some of the pinnipeds. (seals and the like, which may be polyphyletic)

428193.jpg


This is one of the big ones, but even here you can see those characteristics in the upper skeleton in your image.

Edit: Look here:
i-9f82e2e49603f18c8ee5520c313a1869-new-seal-body.jpg


Primitive Seal. Very bearlike in many details, but also with many seal characters.

Looks like the top skeleton, doesn't it?

attachment.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi all. The two skeletons picture both had the same teeth types, canines and molars. Nothing at all like sea lion or seals. Just because a large number of people believe something does not make it right, such as many of old believing in an old earth. Many also believed in a young one. When I first read the Bible I read it as it was intended, and saw a young earth. Myself, not indoctrinated to do so. Because many do does not mean a thing. God says many are called, few are chosen. Many may believe the wrong thing, it does not make it right in God's eye's! What do you suppose Jesus was saying in Mark 10 v 6? "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female" Because a species no longer exists does not make it a missing link or proof of evolution. It just further proves our world is limited and under the decay of sin, the fall. They were equipped to live where and as they were intended, they died off. Simple!
Vaccine, I don't fully understand all the scientific terms used but do find it interesting to read about things like that from John Sanford and others who see that God's Word is true in every sense, a young earth. I read about comets in our solar system recently and how they should not be there if the solar system was as old as evolutionists tell us. Ill look it up and post something on that later.
So much evidence, just as God said there is.
 
Hi all. The two skeletons picture both had the same teeth types, canines and molars.

No. Bears, dogs, and closely related taxa have a dental formula of 3-1-4-2. The otters have 3-1-4-1. I don't know, but I'll bet you that the Amphicyonids have 3-1-4-2. The fossil seal you showed, has 3-1-2-1, which is intermediate between bears and seals, which have lost molars and have simplified the post molars.

Again, exactly what evolutionary theory predicts. And nothing about it contradicts scripture in any way.
 
Greetings! This is not meant to start an argument, rather I want to share an alternative explanation. Since an intermediate between bears and seals is not observable, testable, or repeatable this falls into the category of historical science. One educated guess is about as good as another I suppose. This is not meant to besarcastic in any way shape or form, on the contrary since Microsoft is developing a programming language to “run” in a cell I think this is an apt comparison.




View attachment 3327

In this photo we see the progression of Windows. These operating systems share much of their code, appearance and function. We see the simple beginnings of the first Windows operating system (OS) progressing to Windows 3.11 to Windows7 (I couldn't find one with a Win 8 pic). In the photo there is a missing link, an intermediate between Windows XP and Windows 7. One explanation would be to infer Windows evolved into Windows 7, which would then imply Vista was an intermediate between Win XP and Win 7. Lacking any empirical evidence of this we are only making an educated guess. Given what we know about programming, an educated guess is that OS's don't mutate into something viable. Unintentionally changing code is a sure way to kill an OS. A hypothesis is that all these OS's were designed by the same designer, which used much of the same code and improved on it over time to build a better OS, not that I'm a huge fan of Windows I use Linux too.

DNA is like a blueprint with it's own global checksum matrix and since genetic code is similar to binary code, I can apply this same principle to bears and seals for an alternative explanation of a common designer.
 
Greetings! This is not meant to start an argument, rather Iwanted to share an alternative explanation. Since an intermediatebetween bears and seals is not observable, testable, or repeatablethis falls into the category of historical science.

No. For example, the predicted transitional between land carnivores and seals was recently found. And the dental formula was as predicted, transitional between bears and seals. This is observable and testable. And fully repeatable, since the evidence remains for others to check. Such fulfilled predictions are numerous and the reason why scientists overwhelminingly accept evolutionary theory.

Designed things like operating systems don't look much like natural things. But there are languages like LISP that do evolve over time, and they do show some evidence of the same kind of things that we see in the evolution of living things. And of course, engineers have learned to copy nature and use natural selection to evolve optimal solutions where design is inadequate.

Evolved solutions often use effects that aren't even understood by engineers, but they still work.
 
Hi Barbarian! We seem to disagree on what empirical evidence is.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Similar teeth is historical evidence.

Nope. It's empirical evidence, since they were predicted, and then found. Tested and confirmed by observation.
 
Hi Barbarian! We seem to disagree on what empirical evidence is.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Similar teeth is historical evidence.

Nope. It's empirical evidence, since they were predicted, and then found. Tested and confirmed by observation.

Hi Barbarian! I have to agree with free, they look the same to me. I respectfully point out an intermediate between bears and seals is just evidence for convergent evolution, similar traits in unrelated species. In order to have empirical evidence of relation, one would have to observe one species giving birth to another, however this goes against the law of heredity which state each gives birth to its kind. Seals give birth to seals, otters give birth to otters, and bears give birth to bears, etc. Since this has not been observed, tested, or repeated, relationship can only be inferred. Which is at the heart of the issue. Some accept this educated guess and some don't, it just depends on your point of view.
 
Hi Barbarian! I have to agree with free, they look the same to me. I respectfully point out an intermediate between bears and seals is just evidence for convergent evolution, similar traits in unrelated species.

No. Convergent evolution produces analogous structures, while common descent gives rise to homologous structures. Convergent evolution, in this case, would be something like a thylacine, the marsupial wolf. It looks very much like a wolf, but everything, on close inspection, is different. Maruspials diverged from eutherians before the typical eutherian dental formula evolved. So while the thylacine has meat-slicing teeth like bears and wolves, they are from an entirely different set of teeth, evolving convergently to serve the same function.

This fossil seal has the same teeth as bears and wolves, (with one fewer, which is transitional between bears and wolves and seals) but the teeth have evolved to different functions. These are homologous to land carnivores.

Quite different things, and this is why we know they aren't convergent.

In order to have empirical evidence of relation, one would have to observe one species giving birth to another,

The notion that we can't know anything we directly see is an old dodge, and one that would rule out things like geology, fire investigation, forensics, and so on. No one really takes that seriously.

however this goes against the law of heredity which state each gives birth to its kind.

There is no such law. Indeed, genetics says that each organism is different than its parents.

Seals give birth to seals, otters give birth to otters, and bears give birth to bears,

And over time, those differences can accumulate under natural selection, and that leads to speciation, which is an observed fact. Even many creationists, such as the ICR and "Answers in Genesis" have acknowledged the fact. The ICR says that all modern animals evolved since the flood from a few basic "kinds" on the ark.

etc. Since this has not been observed, tested, or repeated

Speciation is an observed fact. So that's wrong, too.

, relationship can only be inferred.

Inferences is what science does. You might find this unreliable, but notice that it works better than anything else humans can do.

Which is at the heart of the issue. Some accept this educated guess and some don't, it just depends on your point of view.

You can go with the facts or with an unconventional religious supposition. The facts work better.
 
Back
Top