[_ Old Earth _] The Development Stage Is Fatal

[Bronzesnake]

Just as I thought...you got nothin but innuendo...

Take care brother.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Not a problem. Only one creationist has been willing to take the challenge. And he just abruptly left after the evidence was presented.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Good evening my Barbarian brother

Not a problem. Only one creationist has been willing to take the challenge. And he just abruptly left after the evidence was presented.

I'm still waiting for this proof of a series of graduated transitional fossils bro....

I'm thinking I'll take the discussion further and get into information ( next post perhaps)
You do know how complex the DNA code is correct?
And would you agree that DNA code is far greater advanced than any code produced by intelligence? Even more complex than any computer program?

Would you answer just one quick personal question before I get into this new line of evidence for creation?

How can you actually believe that "everything" is the result of some dumb luck, fluke, random chance happening? I mean just on logic alone we should in the very least have serious doubts about the idea that there was nothing, then for some non reason (let that sink in) there was this massive event...I was going to say in space, but space didn't exists in the moments prior to this massive event.

I have debated with so many evolutionists who don't have any clue whatsoever about any evidence (albeit theorised evidence) which attempts to argue for the very hypothesis they ascribe to and I am just shocked as to why these people believe in evolution because it’s obviously not based on any even half witted proof at all!

They accept evolution based exclusively on “logic†or should I say ignoring logic.
Anyway, at least you seem to be somewhat informed about the religion you are a member of.
Anyway, I digress.

The question is just on logic alone, knowing the extreme complexity of DNA for example, how can you bring yourself to exclude an intelligent creator?

When you consider the theory of the “Big Bang†doesn’t it invoke an extremely unlikely series of ultra amazing coincidences and random, fluke convenient happenstances to have occurred at just the exact right time along the timeline of billions of years? Think about the obvious problems...There was no space for this newfound, or rather newly formed material to expand out into.

Then there couldn’t have been any laws for this new universe to follow and it goes on and on and on brother. Were the laws already there pre-big bang? Or did the laws amazingly get "created" at the uttermost convienient time?
How likely is it that this random, fluke series of super, ultra amazing beneficial once in a universe time events just happened to have occurred at the exact and precise same time along the billions of years timeline Barb? How can any logical minded non brainwashed person bring him/herself to even to accept such a thing?

OK here we go brother...
An amazing series of incredible coincidences all happen to have occurred at the exact same time and in the precise order down to the most minute detail...any one of a series of these events could have happened even a few minutes sooner or later and the whole thing comes crashing down.
I assume you are familiar with the Anthropic Principle? Even the earth on its own aside from the ridiculous odds against the universe just “happening†is an example of stunning precision and the overwhelming appearance of having been designed and “created†to support life.

Here are the amazing facts...

If the earth was located only slightly farther away from the sun, it would freeze like the planet Mars. If it was only slightly closer, it would burn up in heat like the 860°F temperature on Venus.

If the earth did not revolve regularly on its axis, half of the planet would be in permanent darkness without vegetation. Meanwhile, the other side of the planet would be an uninhabitable desert, suffering from the overwhelming heat of permanent exposure to the sun.

If the Earth were not tilted at 23°, it would not have the seasonal variation that produces the abundance of crops that feed the planet’s huge population. Without this tilt, less than half of the present land used for cultivation of crops would grow vegetables.

If the earth was only a small percentage smaller, the reduced gravity would be incapable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing.

If the planet Earth was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on the planet’s surface weigh eight times what it weighs today. This increased weight would destroy many forms of animal and human life.

A much thinner atmosphere would provide no protection from the 25,000 meteors that burn up over the earth every day. A thinner atmosphere would also be incapable of retaining the higher temperatures required for the existence of human and animal life.

If the atmosphere were not 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent oxygen and other gases, breathing would be impossible.

If nuclear forces were decreased by only a few percent, the particles of the universe could not have come together in nuclear reactions to make the ingredients from which life must be constructed such as carbon atoms.

If the combined masses of the proton and electron were a little more rather than a little less than the mass of the neutron, the effect would be devastating. The hydrogen atom would become unstable. Throughout the universe, all the hydrogen atoms would immediately break down to form neutrons and neutrinos. Robbed of its nuclear fuel, the sun would fade and collapse. Across the whole of space, stars like the sun would contract in their billions, releasing a deadly flood of x-rays as they burned out. By that time, life on earth, needless to say, would already have been extinguished.

Check out what evolutionary cosmologist Stephen Hawking stated,...
“It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for these coincidences that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.†Thus, more than a few scientists think that this chain of “coincidences†could at the very least suggest the work of a Creator or “creative force.â€

Wow!! Hawking is one of the world’s most respected cosmologists and he says...

“I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.â€

The book Stephen Hawking’s Universe concludes that the odds against the accidental formation of a universe such as this would be comparable to shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece.

I know evolutionists just hate it when their own kind turns on itself and eats some of its young, and there are the inevitable screams of foul play and remarks such as “this is not a good analogy because...(fill in the blanks) but the facts are mega incredible and so the analogy is solid.

Just how unlikely are all these non goal orientated series of amazing random, fluke events all just “happening†at the exact right time?

Well... suppose you find a quarter lying on the street. Without a moment’s thought, you assume that someone dropped it accidentally — that it’s there “by chance.†You assume this because it’s so commonplace an occurrence. After all, consider the alternative: that someone placed it there deliberately. Though it’s theoretically possible, your own personal experience tells you that it’s pretty unlikely.

Now, what if you found three quarters, all close to one another? Still, it seems more likely that someone dropped a cluster of coins by accident, than that the person put them there. (Maybe you feel it’s a close call.) Part of this calculation (which is less certain than the prior one) involves something else, too: a reasonable guess about people’s reasons for doing things. It’s hard to think of a good reason for someone putting three quarters on the ground deliberately.

Let’s take it one step further. Suppose you again find three quarters, but this time they are all touching one another, forming a triangular arrangement. Was this deliberate, or by chance? Chance certainly can’t be ruled out, but it seems “suspicious.†It’s now likely that you’ll change your mind and think that someone did it “on purpose†— even though the purpose is hard to imagine.

Finally, what if you find ten quarters stacked neatly one on top of another? Though once again you can’t prove it didn’t “just happen,†the odds against it will seem so great (It’s so odd, you’ll think) that you’ll be certain the stack was placed there for some unknown reason.

And so it is with the properties of the universe Barbarian. I simply refuse to believe it’s all an enormous accident; the hundreds of “coincidences†observed throughout the universe seem so obviously to constitute a deliberate pattern. Many scientists also think that the best explanation is “intelligent design.â€

Remember what Stephen Hawking said Barbarian...
“It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for these coincidences that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.†Thus, more than a few scientists think that this chain of “coincidences†could at the very least suggest the work of a Creator or “creative force.†“I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.â€

Can you see that Hawking is letting us in on another one of those “trade secrets†barbarian?
He’s inferring, no, actually he is right out stating that “more than a few†scientists clearly understand that random, fluke evolutionary processes simply can’t explain all the complex parameters of so called evolution.

It’s a real shame that so many of the people in your camp simply have too much pride in themselves to ever consider any ideas outside the box Barbarian.
Here, we have one of the most prestigious evolutionary cosmologists telling the world in a roundabout manner that evolutionary science stifles their people and at the expense of scientific truth wherever that may lead barbarian.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

I'm still waiting for this proof of a series of graduated transitional fossils bro....

You made some demands about the evidence to be shown. I asked you twice to either confirm that I understood what you wanted, or to make it clear what you wanted. So far, you haven't responded. I'm guessing you either don't know what you want, or don't want me to know. Here it is again, if you decide you want to see the evidence, after all:

Barbarian suggests:
I'd be pleased to show you an example. If I can show you a continuous series of fossils, from very early and primitive to nearly modern and evolved, in which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species, would you acknowledge that it is a case of gradual evolution?

That all depends on what you mean by "which the difference between each is less than you can find among modern animal species consider macro evolution to be."

Easy. If you object to the degree of change from one to another, I will have to show you that much variation in a single species. Agreed, or not?

and it has to be macro not micro

So when we get to the end of the series, the differences between first and last must be greater than we can see in any mammalian species. Agreed?

oh and I want actual photos, not some artists conception of some evolutionits' pipe dream.

Photographs of actual fossils then. Agreed?

Clarify what you mean. Agree with my terms, or propose your own, so long as they are consistent with evolutionary theory. We don't want to be trying to show something the theory doesn't predict, um?

If you're serious, let us know. If not, feel free to ignore it.

I'm thinking I'll take the discussion further and get into information ( next post perhaps)
You do know how complex the DNA code is correct?

(audience: "How complex is it?)

Good question. Does the DNA of a bumblebee or that of an octopus have more complexity? And show us how you calculated it.

and would you agree that DNA code is far greater advanced than any code produced by intelligence?

Well, you have to remember, even though it evolved, God created nature, which brought it forth, so although it wasn't designed, one could say that it was ultimately caused by intelligence.

Even more complex than any computer program?

No, I couldn't say that with any assurance. I'd be willing to see your numbers, though.

Would you answer just one quick personal question before I get into this new line of evidence for creation?

How can you actually believe that "everything" is the result of some dumb luck, fluke, random chance happening?

You actually think that's what evolutionary theory says? After all you've just learned about the way evolution works?

I mean just on logic alone we should in the very least have serious doubts about the idea that there was nothing, then for some non reason (let that sink in) there was this massive event...I was going to say in space, but space didn't exists in the moments prior to this massive event.

It doesn't matter to evolutionary theory, but my personal belief is that Someone said "let there be light."

I have debated with so many evolutionists who don't have any clue whatsoever about any evidence (albeit theorised evidence) which attempts to argue for the very hypothesis they ascribe to and I am just shocked as to why these people believe in evolution because it’s obviously not based on any even half witted proof at all!

So you figure chemistry is wrong because it doesn't explain the origin of atoms? Seriously?

Anyway, at least you seem to be somewhat informed about the religion you are a member of.

I've been a Christian for over 50 years. I should know something by now.

The question is just on logic alone, knowing the extreme complexity of DNA for example, how can you bring yourself to exclude an intelligent creator?

I know there was an intelligent Creator. You should capitalize it, BTW. No inferior designer. The Creator.

When you consider the theory of the “Big Bang†doesn’t it invoke an extremely unlikely series of ultra amazing coincidences and random, fluke convenient happenstances to have occurred at just the exact right time along the timeline of billions of years?

No.

Think about the obvious problems...There was no space for this newfound, or rather newly formed material to expand out into.

The evidence shows that it was an expansion of space. And it wasn't an explosion. "Big Bang" is just a figure of speech.

Then there couldn’t have been any laws for this new universe to follow and it goes on and on and on brother.

What makes you think the laws weren't there from the start? Anyway, evolutionary theory is indifferent to all this; let's get back on topic.

If the earth was located only slightly farther away from the sun, it would freeze like the planet Mars. If it was only slightly closer, it would burn up in heat like the 860°F temperature on Venus.

Since the distance of the Earth from the sun varies by over a million miles annually, I'd say whoever told you that was stuffed with prunes.

If the earth did not revolve regularly on its axis, half of the planet would be in permanent darkness without vegetation. Meanwhile, the other side of the planet would be an uninhabitable desert, suffering from the overwhelming heat of permanent exposure to the sun.

It would be extremely difficult for a solar system to form with a planet that did not rotate on its axis. "Revolve" is the wrong word, BTW. The Earth rotates on its axis; it revolves around the sun.

If the Earth were not tilted at 23°, it would not have the seasonal variation that produces the abundance of crops that feed the planet’s huge population. Without this tilt, less than half of the present land used for cultivation of crops would grow vegetables.

That has varied over the ages, and no noticable difference in life for all that.

If the earth was only a small percentage smaller, the reduced gravity would be incapable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing.

Venus is a few percentage points smaller than the earth, and it has a denser atmosphere than we do.

If the planet Earth was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on the planet’s surface weigh eight times what it weighs today. This increased weight would destroy many forms of animal and human life.

Or rather, they would have evolved in different ways. Bacteria and insects, for example, would not have been unduly affected.

If the atmosphere were not 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent oxygen and other gases, breathing would be impossible.

Humans, who evolved in the present atmosphere can survive in pure oxygen, or as little as 16%, depending on the pressure.

If nuclear forces were decreased by only a few percent, the particles of the universe could not have come together in nuclear reactions to make the ingredients from which life must be constructed such as carbon atoms.

Turns out, that's a huge problem for YE creationism, but it's perfectly consistent with the observed evolution of organisms.

(Hawking suggests God might be involved)

Lots of scientists have and do. Me, for example.

I know evolutionists just hate it when their own kind turns on itself and eats some of its young, and there are the inevitable screams of foul play and remarks such as “this is not a good analogy because...(fill in the blanks) but the facts are mega incredible and so the analogy is solid.

In over 50 years, I have yet to be criticized by a scientist for my religious faith. You've been misled on this, too.

Now, what if you found three quarters, all close to one another? Still, it seems more likely that someone dropped a cluster of coins by accident, than that the person put them there. (Maybe you feel it’s a close call.) Part of this calculation (which is less certain than the prior one) involves something else, too: a reasonable guess about people’s reasons for doing things. It’s hard to think of a good reason for someone putting three quarters on the ground deliberately.

Suppose I were to show you how natural forces can produce orderly arrays. They do in many different things. You suggested man-made things, but we're not talking about artifice here.

And so it is with the properties of the universe Barbarian. I simply refuse to believe it’s all an enormous accident;

Me too. You've been convinced that science says it is. But that's not the case. You're fighting a strawman. And he's winning.

Many scientists also think that the best explanation is “intelligent design.â€

Not many. Especially after, during the Dover trial, top IDer Michael Behe admitted under oath that ID is science in the same way that astrology is science. That pretty much did it for ID.

Can you see that Hawking is letting us in on another one of those “trade secrets†barbarian?

No secret. A lot of us are theists, most of them Christian. Even Dawkins admits that science can't rule out God.

It’s a real shame that so many of the people in your camp simply have too much pride in themselves to ever consider any ideas outside the box Barbarian.

And now you know it isn't like that.

Here, we have one of the most prestigious evolutionary cosmologists telling the world in a roundabout manner that evolutionary science stifles their people and at the expense of scientific truth wherever that may lead barbarian.

No, he's just saying what people like Darwin and Gould, Ayala and Dobzhansky, and many other scientists have said. Hawking, BTW, thinks the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. He's very critical of those who think physics somehow denies evolution.

Maybe you should read what he actually says about it.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I'm still waiting for this proof of a series of graduated transitional fossils bro....

Don’t be coy Barb. Just give me an example of Darwinian macro evolution.
Yes, it must be a series of graduated transitional fossils which show one distinct species (and please, not the goofy “species†wannabees that are always whipped out such as the mosquito that transitioned into a mosquito of a “deferent†species of mosquito)

We all know exactly what is required and pretending there is some kind of issue as to what Darwinian evolution says – single cell to human – I suggest you skip the so called horse evolution that has been thoroughly trashed by even your camp.
Ditto with the whales. Let’s not waste anyone’s time by posting artistic renditions of wishful hoping come true.

Whatever example you believe you have must have been completely missed by heavy duty evolutionary icons such as Gould and Eldrige, so you could be making a real name for yourself here Barb!

Bronzesnake wrote: I'm thinking I'll take the discussion further and get into information (next post perhaps)
You do know how complex the DNA code is correct?

(audience: "How complex is it?) Good question. Does the DNA of a bumblebee or that of an octopus have more complexity? And show us how you calculated it.

You can’t help yourself from being sarcastic can you?
In case you really are that thick (which I seriously do not believe) I’ll keep it simple...
You do know how complex the DNA code is correct?

Bronzesnake wrote: Even more complex than any computer program?

No, I couldn't say that with any assurance. I'd be willing to see your numbers, though.

Bronzesnake rolls his eyes and shakes his head from side to side in utter disbelief... :help

It’s difficult to have an intelligent debate with you when you keep being facetious Barbarian.

But, in case you are serious (which I seriously doubt)...

I will quote from The Encyclopedia Britannica which concedes, “A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. . . . The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around 1012 bits, comparable to about one hundred million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica.â€The human body comprises a conglomeration of some 100,000,000,000,000 (1014) cells which work together in perfect harmony to maintain human life.

I’ll go even further just to humour you Barb...
A molecular biologist named Dr. Michael Denton explains what is involved:

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometres in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast spaceship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.â€

Hey Barb, are you aware of any computer software program that could fix its own errors and reproduce both itself and the computer it resides in?

There’s a final thunderous flurry to the midsection of evolutionary ignorance Barbo me boy. :amen
The amount of DNA information that can be stored in a space the size of a pinhead is equivalent to the information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon. Indeed, living things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known to mankind.

The problem we Christians face with theistic evolutionists is by far more damaging to the faith than any atheist Barbarian. Why not get in the boat, because you just slow it down for the rest of us.

Barbarian, would you be kind enough to answer a few questions please?
1) You already believe in Jesus right?
2) You believe He is God?
3) Do you believe He healed lame and blind folks?
4) Do you believe He raised folks from death?
5) Do you believe He Himself died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day just as the scriptures tell us?

If you answered yes to all these questions then I really have to wonder why you don’t believe Him when He specifically laid out His creation week for you???
Barb, the very same scientists that incorrectly assume evolution will give you “empirical†proof that Jesus could never have done any of those things I mentioned above.
So perhaps you should give Jesus the benefit of the doubt and believe ALL His truth Barb.


Bronzesnake Wrote: Would you answer just one quick personal question before I get into this new line of evidence for creation?

How can you actually believe that "everything" is the result of some dumb luck, fluke, random chance happening?

You actually think that's what evolutionary theory says? After all you've just learned about the way evolution works?

Of course I don’t believe that’s what evolution theory says silly...I know that’s what it says.
Listen Barbarian, you can go on and on about how these complicated chemical process happen to work, but evolution absolutely requires no intelligence and no goal orientated “decisions†that requires a creator.
I’ve gone into this endlessly with evolutionists who want it both ways but facts are fact brother.
It doesn’t matter that any evolutionary biological workings appear to be “intelligently guided†barb, you cannot evoke intelligence in the middle of your theory unless you are unknowingly admitting that the Darwinian theory simply cannot work without intelligently guided systems.

You can go on and on all day and through the night barb but you must keep within the boundaries of Darwinian theories. Once you back away from anything above random, fluke, aimless, pointless, time = abiogenesis and geogenesis (yes I invented that term) you are immediately on theistic grounds and have lost the debate.

It doesn’t matter that it “appears†as though any specific element of evolution in action (so to speak) may be goal orientated, or intelligently guided – the base line of evolution is glued together by nonsensical, fluke, random, dumb luck and coincidence.

So please keep within your camp’s boundaries.
This is a peculiar situation as far as theistic evolutionists are concerned I know, but you chose your camp and you must live by their rules my friend.
Once you begin to evoke any kind of goal orientated behaviour or intelligence driven conclusions, you have actually admitted the Darwinian Theory is dead.

I know there was an intelligent Creator. You should capitalize it, BTW. No inferior designer. The Creator.

I agree. It’s odd that you should honour God in even trivial situations on one hand and disbelieve His Genesis account on the other.
Tell me... what would anger God more. If you take His word literally when He meant it as allegory?
Or, you discounted His literal message as allegory?

The evidence shows that it was an expansion of space. And it wasn't an explosion. "Big Bang" is just a figure of speech.

You keep referring to “theory†as if it were evidence barbarian.
It wasn’t “Big Bang†because there is no noise in space, otherwise I’m pretty sure it would have made one heck of a bang brother. In any case, where in scriptures does God say He created the heavens and the earth with this “big bang†type of event?
I don’t see anything resembling the big bang theory happening in Genesis at all.
You really should stick to your Bible over a bad theory attributed to fallible human beings Barbarian.
I guess it’s inevitable that we’ll have to have the Big Flop discussion in the future...sigh the things I do to try and help a lost brother.

Bronzesnake Wrote: If the earth was located only slightly farther away from the sun, it would freeze like the planet Mars. If it was only slightly closer, it would burn up in heat like the 860°F temperature on Venus.

Since the distance of the Earth from the sun varies by over a million miles annually, I'd say whoever told you that was stuffed with prunes.

Wow! I’m going to try and forget you made such a horrible blunder Barbarian.
Try and consider that these known variations would be calculated into the conclusions and we’ll move along shall we?

Bronzesnake Wrote: If the earth did not revolve regularly on its axis, half of the planet would be in permanent darkness without vegetation. Meanwhile, the other side of the planet would be an uninhabitable desert, suffering from the overwhelming heat of permanent exposure to the sun.

It would be extremely difficult for a solar system to form with a planet that did not rotate on its axis. "Revolve" is the wrong word, BTW. The Earth rotates on its axis; it revolves around the sun.

I’ll concede the mistake, however the statement does not state the planet what would happen if the planet was completely stopped on its rotation; it says if the earth did not rotate regularly

Bronzesnake Wrote: If the Earth were not tilted at 23°, it would not have the seasonal variation that produces the abundance of crops that feed the planet’s huge population. Without this tilt, less than half of the present land used for cultivation of crops would grow vegetables.

That has varied over the ages, and no noticable difference in life for all that.

Now you’re reaching Barbarian. You’re not reading the statements carefully my friend and you’re simply whipping out weak flash fast and weak rebuttal which actually makes you look silly.
You should really concede these indisputable facts and carry on where you can debate from a stronger position.

Bronzesnake Wrote: If the earth was only a small percentage smaller, the reduced gravity would be incapable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing.

Venus is a few percentage points smaller than the earth, and it has a denser atmosphere than we do.

It’s getting worse, and I’m beginning to cringe for you bro.
Last time I checked Venus didn’t have any gravity...just sayin...

Bronzesnake Wrote: If the planet Earth was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on the planet’s surface weigh eight times what it weighs today. This increased weight would destroy many forms of animal and human life.

Or rather, they would have evolved in different ways. Bacteria and insects, for example, would not have been unduly affected.

Now you’re using hypothesis to rebut facts? If what you just stated were true then we should have all kinds of life on the moon and Mars as well but as we know there isn’t any!

The remainder of your remarks in response to the Anthropic Principle are goofy bro, I’ll skip commenting on those.

In over 50 years, I have yet to be criticized by a scientist for my religious faith. You've been misled on this, too.

I have absolutely no idea of what you talking about here.

Me too. You've been convinced that science says it is. But that's not the case. You're fighting a strawman. And he's winning.

As I have already addressed, you can have it both ways brother...pick a side and go with it.
God prefers it that way as well.
Rev 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Hawkins Quote: Many scientists also think that the best explanation is “intelligent design.â€

Not many. Especially after, during the Dover trial, top IDer Michael Behe admitted under oath that ID is science in the same way that astrology is science. That pretty much did it for ID.

I guess you would know better that a world renowned scientists Barbarian.
Oh ya we all know that courts never get things wrong...sigh

Hey we really should try and keep our discussions shorter brother.
It’s ok for us, we’re the wingnuts who are ripping these ridiculously long posts out, but if anyone else is ever going to benefit from my superior scientific knowledge (wink wink), we need to keep em short.
Let’s try and do a series of shorter rather than one long one after another agreed?

I’ll get to the remainder of your incorrect ideas later brother.

Hey all joking aside, I do enjoy discussing with you Barbarian. You really are a respectful and descent fella in spite of your incorrect and baseless scientific ideas.

But there are times when I wonder what you're smokin!

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

I'm still waiting for this proof of a series of graduated transitional fossils bro....

You made some demands before you'd do it.

Yes, it must be a series of graduated transitional fossils which show one distinct species (and please, not the goofy “species†wannabees that are always whipped out such as the mosquito that transitioned into a mosquito of a “deferent†species of mosquito)

So is that an agreement that my description of your demands is correct? Just say yes or no, and I'll either open a new thread, or I'll accept that you don't want to see it.

We all know exactly what is required and pretending there is some kind of issue as to what Darwinian evolution says – single cell to human – I suggest you skip the so called horse evolution that has been thoroughly trashed by even your camp.

You've been misled on that, too.

Whatever example you believe you have must have been completely missed by heavy duty evolutionary icons such as Gould and Eldrige, so you could be making a real name for yourself here Barb!

Funny you should mention that. Gould says that horses are one of the examples of slow and gradual evolution.

You do know how complex the DNA code is correct?

So show us how complex it is.

Even more complex than any computer program?

Barbarian observes:
No, I couldn't say that with any assurance. I'd be willing to see your numbers, though.

Bronzesnake rolls his eyes

So you don't actually have anything to support your claim?

I will quote from The Encyclopedia Britannica which concedes, “A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. . . .

But you were talking about DNA. Show us about DNA.

BTW, your guy Denton thinks DNA is simple enough to arise by natural processes:
t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

There’s a final thunderous flurry to the midsection of evolutionary ignorance Barbo me boy. :amen
The amount of DNA information that can be stored in a space the size of a pinhead is equivalent to the information content of a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from earth to the moon. Indeed, living things have by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known to mankind.

Packing density is not complexity. Indeed, if the molecular storage now being tested goes well, packing densities in computers will exceed that of DNA. It's always a bad idea to try to prove God by what man cannot do.

The problem we Christians face with theistic evolutionists is by far more damaging to the faith than any atheist Barbarian.

That's not what the record shows. Indeed, YE creationism is a highly efficient atheist maker:

But eventually, by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true. I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.

"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

YE will have much to answer for at Judgment.

Barbarian, would you be kind enough to answer a few questions please?
1) You already believe in Jesus right?
2) You believe He is God?
3) Do you believe He healed lame and blind folks?
4) Do you believe He raised folks from death?
5) Do you believe He Himself died for our sins and was resurrected on the third day just as the scriptures tell us?

I thought all Christians believed that. What do you find objectionable in that?

If you answered yes to all these questions then I really have to wonder why you don’t believe Him when He specifically laid out His creation week for you???

I do. The only way we differ on that, is that I don't object to the way He did it.

Barb, the very same scientists that incorrectly assume evolution will give you “empirical†proof that Jesus could never have done any of those things I mentioned above.

You've been misled about that, too. Even Dawkins won't say science can do that.

So perhaps you should give Jesus the benefit of the doubt and believe ALL His truth Barb.

That's why Christians accept that evolution is consistent with His creation. As you learned, Genesis is not consistent with the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism. Why not let God be God, and accept it His way?

How can you actually believe that "everything" is the result of some dumb luck, fluke, random chance happening?

Barbarian chuckles:
You actually think that's what evolutionary theory says? After all you've just learned about the way evolution works?

Of course I don’t believe that’s what evolution theory says silly...I know that’s what it says.

Your problem seems to be that you know so many things that aren't so.

Listen Barbarian, you can go on and on about how these complicated chemical process happen to work, but evolution absolutely requires no intelligence and no goal orientated “decisions†that requires a creator.

Just a Creator to make the world. That's all.

I’ve gone into this endlessly with evolutionists who want it both ways but facts are fact brother.
It doesn’t matter that any evolutionary biological workings appear to be “intelligently guided†barb, you cannot evoke intelligence in the middle of your theory unless you are unknowingly admitting that the Darwinian theory simply cannot work without intelligently guided systems.

The only intelligence required was in creating a universe in which such wonders can be brought forth by that creation. That's the way God says He did it. You should believe Him.

You can go on and on all day and through the night barb but you must keep within the boundaries of Darwinian theories.

Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of the universe or even about the origin of life.

Once you back away from anything above random, fluke, aimless, pointless, time = abiogenesis and geogenesis (yes I invented that term) you are immediately on theistic grounds and have lost the debate.

Nice try. But from the start, Darwin made no claims about the origin of life, merely supposing God did it. But that isn't part of his theory. Science can't make such determinations.

But scientists can.

It doesn’t matter that it “appears†as though any specific element of evolution in action (so to speak) may be goal orientated, or intelligently guided – the base line of evolution is glued together by nonsensical, fluke, random, dumb luck and coincidence.

As you learned earlier, that's wrong. Maybe it would be good for you to learn what the theory is actually about.

It’s odd that you should honour God in even trivial situations on one hand and disbelieve His Genesis account on the other.

God says that the earth brought forth living things. So you can't consistently believe in God and in YE creationism.

Tell me... what would anger God more. If you take His word literally when He meant it as allegory?
Or, you discounted His literal message as allegory?

God doesn't get angry over errors in theology. He judges by hearts not theology.

It wasn’t “Big Bang†because there is no noise in space, otherwise I’m pretty sure it would have made one heck of a bang brother. In any case, where in scriptures does God say He created the heavens and the earth with this “big bang†type of event?

The first thing in the universe, according to the theory, was light. Imagine that.

If the earth was located only slightly farther away from the sun, it would freeze like the planet Mars. If it was only slightly closer, it would burn up in heat like the 860°F temperature on Venus.

Barbarian chuckles:
Since the distance of the Earth from the sun varies by over a million miles annually, I'd say whoever told you that was stuffed with prunes.

Wow! I’m going to try and forget you made such a horrible blunder Barbarian. Try and consider that these known variations would be calculated into the conclusions and we’ll move along shall we?

In fact, in the northern hemisphere, it's warmest when we are about five million kilometers farther from the sun. The reason such large variations don't do much lies in the inverse square law. Might be good for you to learn about it.

If the earth did not revolve regularly on its axis, half of the planet would be in permanent darkness without vegetation. Meanwhile, the other side of the planet would be an uninhabitable desert, suffering from the overwhelming heat of permanent exposure to the sun.

Barbarian chuckles:
It would be extremely difficult for a solar system to form with a planet that did not rotate on its axis. "Revolve" is the wrong word, BTW. The Earth rotates on its axis; it revolves around the sun.

I’ll concede the mistake, however the statement does not state the planet what would happen if the planet was completely stopped on its rotation; it says if the earth did not rotate regularly

It would be extremely difficult to arrange an irregular rotation of a planet. God seems to have created natural laws quite well.

If the Earth were not tilted at 23°, it would not have the seasonal variation that produces the abundance of crops that feed the planet’s huge population. Without this tilt, less than half of the present land used for cultivation of crops would grow vegetables.

Barbarian observes:
That has varied over the ages, and no noticable difference in life for all that.

Now you’re reaching Barbarian. You’re not reading the statements carefully my friend and you’re simply whipping out weak flash fast and weak rebuttal which actually makes you look silly.

It's quite true. The obliquity has changed over long periods of time, but life went on. There were still plants and animals, and fish and so on.

If the earth was only a small percentage smaller, the reduced gravity would be incapable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing.

Barbarian observes:
Venus is a few percentage points smaller than the earth, and it has a denser atmosphere than we do.

It’s getting worse, and I’m beginning to cringe for you bro.
Last time I checked Venus didn’t have any gravity...just sayin...

Um. What? How did the probes that landed on it, stay on the surface. For that matter, how does the atmosphere stay put? If there was no gravity, it would just float off into space. Where did you get the idea that Venus has no gravity?

If the planet Earth was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on the planet’s surface weigh eight times what it weighs today. This increased weight would destroy many forms of animal and human life.

Barbarian observes:
Or rather, they would have evolved in different ways. Bacteria and insects, for example, would not have been unduly affected.

Now you’re using hypothesis to rebut facts?

Gravity has very little effect on tiny organisms. Bacteria float in the air. A mouse can fall hundreds of feet and unless it hits a very hard surface, won't be badly hurt.

If what you just stated were true then we should have all kinds of life on the moon and Mars as well

Don't see how you get that.

Barbarian observes:
In over 50 years, I have yet to be criticized by a scientist for my religious faith. You've been misled on this, too.

I have absolutely no idea of what you talking about here.

Well, that's very true...

Hawkins Quote: Many scientists also think that the best explanation is “intelligent design.â€

Barbarian observes:
Not many. Especially after, during the Dover trial, top IDer Michael Behe admitted under oath that ID is science in the same way that astrology is science. That pretty much did it for ID.

I guess you would know better that a world renowned scientists Barbarian.

It's in the transcript. That's what he said. Would you like to see it?

But there are times when I wonder what you're smokin!

Creationists.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I'n still waiting...
Just stop playing games and post whatever it is you think you have.
If you can't do that then I'll understand you simply couldn't fimd any.

Why not let God be God, and accept it His way?

Hey that sounds great let's do that shall we...

Genesis 1
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
This is extreemly unambiguous. One literal day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Just as God Himself said - The second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
As we can all clearly see God created living creatures to fill the seas righ on day number 5.
He created birds not some prebiotic cells in a pool of goo, but fully formed and functioning birds God created "great creatures"of the sea Barb, and every living and moving thing which the water teems... not evolutions pipe dream of so called simple single celled organisms which evolved over billions of years. God tells us He created them after their own kind Barb, this is a direct pre-emptive refutation of evolution barb.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
This is exactly what I believe happened Barb, not some convoluted nythological spiritualizing of this fact based historical account that Theistic Evolutionists believ they see in order to line up with fallible ideas of men.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
God made man in His own image Barb...do you suppose God is a simple single celled organism that evolved over billions of years into God? This is day six by the way, not year four billion.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

If this isn't goof enough for you then explain this...
Here's what Jesus Himself stated...
Mark 10:6 says, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’â€
Jesus clearly taught that the creation was young, for Adam and Eve existed “from the beginning,†not billions of years after the universe and earth came into existence.

In John 5:45–47, Jesus says, “Do not think that I shall accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you—Moses, in whom you trust. For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?â€

In this passage, Jesus makes it clear that one must believe what Moses wrote. And one of the passages in the writings of Moses in...

Exodus 20:11 states: “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.â€
This, of course, is the basis for our seven-day week—six days of work and one day of rest. Obviously, this passage was meant to be taken as speaking of a total of seven literal days based on the Creation Week of six literal days of work and one literal day of rest.

I'll wait for your twist on this Barbarian before i continue with more devestating corroboration for God's literal word.

John Bronzesnake

 

[jwu]

I'n still waiting...
Just stop playing games and post whatever it is you think you have.
If you can't do that then I'll understand you simply couldn't fimd any.

Well, it takes you only the word "yes" to agree to the standards of evidence that Barbarian laid out, whereas he'd do a lot of typing in vain if he posts it now just to find it handwaved away with a quick move of the goalposts. Demanding to have the goalposts fixed beforehand is entirely legitimate in my books. It's avoidance of that request that seems to be "playing games" to me.

So why don't you just agree to the terms (or explain what may be wrong with them), so we can move on?

 

[Barbarian]

Do you not see, bronze, that you can only make Genesis acceptable to you by modifying it? God continues to create new species according to their kind, even today.

But at the very beginning of the Christian era, Augustine noted that the days in Genesis were not literal days by categories of creation. Your modern revision is not, and has never been, Christian orthodoxy.

And as anyone can see, Genesis rejects "life ex nihilo." God says that the earth brought forth living things. And nowhere does He say all living things came forth fully formed. That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

 

[Bronzesnake]

I'n still waiting...
Just stop playing games and post whatever it is you think you have.
If you can't do that then I'll understand you simply couldn't fimd any.

Well, it takes you only the word "yes" to agree to the standards of evidence that Barbarian laid out, whereas he'd do a lot of typing in vain if he posts it now just to find it handwaved away with a quick move of the goalposts. Demanding to have the goalposts fixed beforehand is entirely legitimate in my books. It's avoidance of that request that seems to be "playing games" to me.

So why don't you just agree to the terms (or explain what may be wrong with them), so we can move on?

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! How many times do I have to say it?
Is that good enough for you?
I don't wait for permission to post from anyone. You don’t see me asking for whatever parameters I think you’ll accept before I post do you? I have complete faith in the validity of all my evidence, and so I post it.
If someone disagrees with it, then by all means let’s debate. Isn’t that the whole idea of these forums?
I think what's going on here is Barbarian is setting up a scenario where when he posts his evidence, (which by the way no evolutionary scientist has done to date) he knows I’ll most likely see it for exactly what it is and he’ll have an excuse to claim foul by saying “see it doesn’t matter what proof we show, those creationists never accept itâ€

The fact is I am searching for the truth regardless of where it leads, and so if Barbarian or anyone else gives me reasonable, legitimate evidence of series of graduated transitional fossils, I will gladly accept it.
However, if he thinks I’m going to accept any of the bogus examples such as the horse and whale, then he’s sadly mistaken and may as well not bother.
Those examples have been discarded even by evolutionist scientists and yes I can quote from them, and I can give irrefutable proof as to why there have been discarded.

Now, for the love of God please stop stalling and give you best Barbarian.
Your buddies are attacking me because you keep stalling.

John Bronzesnake

 

[jasoncran]

Do you not see, bronze, that you can only make Genesis acceptable to you by modifying it? God continues to create new species according to their kind, even today.

But at the very beginning of the Christian era, Augustine noted that the days in Genesis were not literal days by categories of creation. Your modern revision is not, and has never been, Christian orthodoxy.

And as anyone can see, Genesis rejects "life ex nihilo." God says that the earth brought forth living things. And nowhere does He say all living things came forth fully formed. That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

st.augustine lived two hundred yrs after the death of apostle john, not exactly the beginning, and we really dont know what they believe, but i dont think the apostles would accept evolution since to them jesus did say that God made the male and female in the beggining.

 

[Bronzesnake]

The Barbarian wrote:Do you not see, bronze, that you can only make Genesis acceptable to you by modifying it? God continues to create new species according to their kind, even today.

That’s rich! How ironic! I believe I’m the person who actually takes Genesis as it is, unchanged and literal.
You’re the person who has to modify it in order for it to fit into the theories of fallible man.
Nice try though!

But at the very beginning of the Christian era, Augustine noted that the days in Genesis were not literal days by categories of creation. Your modern revision is not, and has never been, Christian orthodoxy.

Would you like a lesson on the great majority of early church fathers who did take God’s word as literal barbarian?

And as anyone can see, Genesis rejects "life ex nihilo." God says that the earth brought forth living things. And nowhere does He say all living things came forth fully formed. That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian, you might impress your little buddies with this foolishness but you simply don't have the skull capacity to get your clap trap by me my friend.
Actually it really goes to show your complete ignorance of scripture Barbarian.
I’ll give you a free lesson, pay attention and you might learn something.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
See how it works now Barbarian? You see this omniscient, omnipotent being called God created these animals after their own kind.
In other words God would have created a pair of dogs, and those dogs would do something called breeding and from those first two pairs God has placed all the genetic information for all the different breeds we see today, and ditto for the rest of His created life Barbarian. And part of this miracle is that His creation keeps right on going to this very day! Neat huh? :amen

Now I don't mind lending a helping hand out now and then, it's Christian like, but God says that if a person doesn't work and pay his own way, then he shouldn't eat. So I will have to start charging for these lessons if it keeps up.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

That’s rich! How ironic! I believe I’m the person who actually takes Genesis as it is, unchanged and literal.

As noted, your YE doctrine of "life ex nihilo" contradicts Genesis.

Barbarian observes:
But at the very beginning of the Christian era, Augustine noted that the days in Genesis were not literal days by categories of creation. Your modern revision is not, and has never been, Christian orthodoxy.

Would you like a lesson on the great majority of early church fathers who did take God’s word as literal barbarian?

I think it would be really interesting to see the those who thought the days were literal, and compare their influence to his.

Barbarian observes:
And as anyone can see, Genesis rejects "life ex nihilo." God says that the earth brought forth living things. And nowhere does He say all living things came forth fully formed. That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you.

Barbarian, you might impress your little buddies with this foolishness but you simply don't have the skull capacity to get your clap trap by me my friend.

Well, you know how dumb barbarians are. I actually thought Venus had gravity. How kind of you to correct my misconception. ;)

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

See how it works now Barbarian? You see this omniscient, omnipotent being called God created these animals after their own kind.

Of course He did. The only difference between you and me, is that I approve of the way He did it.

In other words God would have created a pair of dogs, and those dogs would do something called breeding and from those first two pairs God has placed all the genetic information for all the different breeds we see today, and ditto for the rest of His created life Barbarian.

But He doesn't say that, does He? Nothing about life ex nihilo. Nothing about magically poofing pairs of things out of nothing. In fact, He says just the opposite. If you add your idea to Scripture, it would be more acceptable to you, but then it wouldn't be His word, would it?

 

[jasoncran]

so barbarian what is the difference here, odd since the atheist say that creationist mix faith and science, i see you are doing just that.

odd indeed since dawkins claims that science cant deny the cross and the miracles, yet goes on to write the book God delusion.

hmm. whose side are you on. science its self is neutral but the fact that many athiest flock to dawkins teaching will cause them in their conclusions to be rather antigonistic to god.

dawkins denies the lord ,and calls God racist. he used evolution to prove his point.

you do the opposite, we cant prove god via science. thought theres evidence for him

the bible just presents the lord, it doesnt prove that he is real. that takes faith.

 

[Barbarian]

so barbarian what is the difference here, odd since the atheist say that creationist mix faith and science, i see you are doing just that.

Science can't talk about God. But scientists can. (thank God for that)

odd indeed since dawkins claims that science cant deny the cross and the miracles, yet goes on to write the book God delusion.

He's a sort of fundy atheist.

hmm. whose side are you on.

I've always gone wherever truth leads. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

you do the opposite, we cant prove god via science. thought theres evidence for him

I don't see anything that could prove God outside of His personal revelation to each of us.

the bible just presents the lord, it doesnt prove that he is real. that takes faith.

True.

 

[jasoncran]

so barbarian what is the difference here, odd since the atheist say that creationist mix faith and science, i see you are doing just that.

Science can't talk about God. But scientists can. (thank God for that)

[quote:3aqgbc27]odd indeed since dawkins claims that science cant deny the cross and the miracles, yet goes on to write the book God delusion.

He's a sort of fundy atheist.
yes he is indeed, but since he having a large influence on athiest, a group of athiest that are doing reaserch who agree with him may bend the conclusions of empirical data as they dont want to know if god is real. doesnt the bible say that the creation points to the glory of god. if said evidence points to god and not the evolution or current theory that might not be truthful as they are biased.

hmm. whose side are you on.

I've always gone wherever truth leads. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.

you do the opposite, we cant prove god via science. thought theres evidence for him

I don't see anything that could prove God outside of His personal revelation to each of us.
see the multiple archeological evidence for the proof of the bible's accuracy. i know some that have been lead to the lord by trying to deny the lord word. he does use it.

the bible just presents the lord, it doesnt prove that he is real. that takes faith.

True.[/quote:3aqgbc27]

 

[Barbarian]

I figure any path that leads to God is a good one, however rocky it might be on the way. But I worry about those who depend on man's fragile understanding to support their faith.

If it works, I'm pleased. But that door swings both ways.

 

[jwu]

st.augustine lived two hundred yrs after the death of apostle john, not exactly the beginning, and we really dont know what they believe,

Fair enough. Another example would be the Jewish philisopher Philo (20 BC – 50 AD)

but i dont think the apostles would accept evolution since to them jesus did say that God made the male and female in the beggining.

In the beginning of what though? The beginning of creation? Certainly not, for that began some time before Adam and Eve even in case of a literal interpretation. What about the beginning of mankind as a reasonable alternative interpretation? And that is fully consistent with Theistic Evolution.

 

[Bronzesnake]

In the beginning of what though? The beginning of creation? Certainly not, for that began some time before Adam and Eve even in case of a literal interpretation. What about the beginning of mankind as a reasonable alternative interpretation? And that is fully consistent with Theistic Evolution.

If you have any proof for that assertion, I'd like to see it.
In any case, If we believe there was life and death prior to Adam and Eve, then God lied to us about sin being the reason for death and that the first sin was perpetrated by Adam and Eve.

God gives us an excellent blow by blow, day by day description of exactly when He created life, and animals did come one whole day before God created Adam and Eve.
So even if I were to accept the gap theory (which I don't), God does tell us animals were here just a day before Adam and Eve.

God also tells us that there was no death prior to the first sin, so that puts the final nail in the coffin of your theory my friend.
Romans 5:12 “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinnedâ€

You are doing exactly what satan did when he twisted the word of God in order to confuse Eve into thinking she could do what God clearly told her she could not do, and Adam followed right behind her.
Adam and Eve doubted God’s literal word because satan told them God didn’t really mean what He said literally. It was a huge mistake then and it’s a huge mistake now.
But hey, go ahead and take a huge bite of the tree of knowledge of good and evil my friends, it didn’t work out too good for Adam and Eve and it won’t work out too good for us either.

Gen. 3:1–7; Gen 3:12–13
1 Now the Serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea has God said you shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, You shall not surely die:( they trusted satan over God, what a mistake) 5(satan goes on to tell Eve what God really meant...sound familliar?) For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods (yes, just look at my theory of evilution, and turn away from God, then your eyes shall be open), knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,( just as some have seen that science of man is pleasant to the eye and a tree to be desired for knowledge, they have eaten it up hook line and stinker - instead of listening to the exact words of God, they chose to listen to the sanke and believed in evilution) and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. 12 And the man said, the woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, what is this that you have done? And the woman said, the serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

This is what happens when we try telling each other that God doesn’t mean what He says. "Hey, God didn’t mean that He created cattle, and birds, and whales and humans in the beginning of His creation? "
Come on, we know better than that! "Hey, God didn’t really mean the very beginning when He told us He created man at the beginning! He actually meant to say that He created man at the second beginning, ya that’s it, the second beginning!"

My brothers, who believe God has spoken to us literally, do not be beguiled by the satanic lies of evolution. Trust God and deny the great lie of evolution. satan is exceedingly enraged for he knows his time is near. he comes to devour and destroy. The snake is constantly coiled and ready to strike, but when we trust in God, the snake can't reach us. However, when we trust in man, we put ourselves into the snakes striking range and once we're bitten, the poison causes us to become proud and full of arrogant wisdom not from God. We actually see our own words overlapping God's, such as when we see evolution overlapping God's Almighty creation week.


Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Come on, we know better than that! "Hey, God didn’t really mean the very beginning when He told us He created man at the beginning! He actually meant to say that He created man at the second beginning, ya that’s it, the second beginning!"

Well, let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. 2 And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Nope. Nothing about man in the beginning, according to God.

Man came later. Again, if you'd spend some time with the Bible, it might help.