Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire The new Creation Museum is awesome!

Stand on any beach and look outward. The Bible doesn't say it disappeared, it just drained away to leave dry ground.

The oceans are increasing in salinity at a measurable rate. It's been calculated that at the current rate of increase in salinity, the oceans would have been fresh water between 6 and 10,000 years ago.

Dick

Hey, WoodsWalker, that is a cool link. Thanks. I didn't know about it before.

My post was written as it was for a reason. Each one of the statements has at least two different meanings it could be interpreted as. I guessed how you would answer before you read it, and that was the point. You saw in it one thing, but in pretty much every case, I meant something else.

You say what you think matters. I wasn't talking about the relative value of your opinion, or mine, or anyone elses compared to the rest of humanity. I merely said that neither one really matters. Put in perspective, someone could say that they believed that the sky was green with yellow polka dots. They could in fact believe that. Believing it so wouldn't change the fact that it wasn't true. The sky would still be blue none the less. Now, we could play word games and redefine the names of colors, but that would not be what we were talking about. The sky is blue, with white and grey clouds, because God made it so, and while there may be localized effects at sunset, sunrise, or due to ash in the air from a volcano and such that might give is a partially red hue, the sky is still blue due to the reflection and refraction of sunlight as it passes through it.

My reason for stating this was that there is absolute truth, and it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, some things are so because they are true. When we look at fossils we may see localized effects that make things appear one way, but that does not change the truth. As Mulrouney was fond of saying, the truth is out there. I can tell you that the fossil record is a well known scam that has been pulled on people in order to get them to question the idea of creation, but my saying this (which is true, by the way) would not make you believe it. Neither would example after example of this. It is something you will have to discover for your self before you will accept it. Your not accepting it will not change the fact that it is true, just as you believing fossils are millions of years old will not make them so.

Your statement that you believe that the fossil record is indisputible by facts shows that you have no idea what many of those facts are and are not willing to believe that they exist. It also points out that you will tend to resist those facts because you discount them. You will tend to see what you are looking for and find some reason to doubt and discard anything that is not because they challenge what you believe. That is not surprising, but it does show that you are more in favor of the philosophy that truth is relative than absolute. Due to your age, that is not surprising either. Many of the responses given were not "vague" at all, but very specific. You do understand that if there is even one proof that the earth cannot be millions of years old it means the theory that it is is wrong? For example, Darwin said that an example of truly altruistic behaviour would disprove the theory. Such an example is that dandelions produce nectar, which benefits insects, but they have no need of the visits from the insects because dandelions reproduce asexually. This then would be an example of altruistic behavior, but then evolutionary story-telling (stating something as fact for which they have absolutely no proof- it simply must be true or evolution can't be, so it must be true) comes into play to rescue the theory: dandelions originally reproduced sexually so produced nectar for their own benefit but have since lost the need for it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, however, what is truth.


In my post you skipped over much. I spent some time showing that there are many things that are not in the arenna of science. Some researchers have tried to fuzz this up quite a bit. I'll give you an example.

Years ago, it was known as fact that living things adapt. In schools all over the world this was called "adaptation". Living things adapt to their environment to the extent that their genetic code allows. It was not mutation. It was not evolution. It was not even called micro-evolution. It was simply adaptation. We could study, verify, and reproduce these results as many times as we wanted. Change the environment back and the organism would in most cases adapt back the way it was. Genetically there was no change as far as species and permanent change. We knew that if you took a small isolated group, the dominant gene structures of that group would change the appearance of the group in just a few generations. Again, no mutations or evolution, just heredity, genetics and adaptation.

Along the line the phrase "micro-evolution" became popular. "Adaptation" became out of vogue. Why was this? Because you could verify "micro-evolution". Micro-evolution was a fact. People became conditioned to the term that had within it the word "evolution", and in time, more and more people felt comfortable with it. Then professors were reprimanded for saying that they believed in creation, and were actually fired for holding the opinion that evolution (species modifying evolution, not the buzz term of "micro-evolution) was not possible. Absolute truth was questioned, and the idea of a God Who transcended the laws of the universe ridiculed. Fossils became "proof" of inter species change, even though there was no real proof. Entire creatures were fabricated from a part of a jaw bone and tauted as the missing link. Absolute frauds were accepted for decades (but later found to be frauds, some even intentional ones). Even when all of this was going on, it was and in many cases still is professional suicide to proclaim that the theory was impossible, and to question these "facts". They fuzzed up perception.

Another example of evolutionary truthfulness is that using the neutralist approach, ReMine shows (The Biotic Message, Evolution versus Message Theory, Walter James ReMine) that, in 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007 % of the genome�nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This, ReMine says, is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists. Evolutionary genetics textbooks avoid mentioning the problem.

As well as the lack of clear lineages in the fossil record, ReMine looks at the devices used by evolutionists to deal with the fossils. A major illusion of fossil sequence was created by evolutionists labelling fossil species as ancestors and descendants largely on the basis of their relative position in the strata. Fossil sequence was used to identify ancestors and then the perfect agreement between the fossil sequence and ancestors was claimed as evidence for evolution.

ReMine deals with five devices evolutionists use to cope with out-of-sequence fossils (that is, not in the correct strata to be transitional between others in a lineage). The two most powerful of these are:�

(1)The two fossils do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship; they belong to sister groups. This is the approach taken now with the horse evolution story. We now have evolutionary bushes where lineage cannot be clearly seen. Anything can appear anywhere with a bush. As ReMine points out, with this scenario, the only way an out-of-sequence fossil could be demonstrated is by identifying a clear-cut evolutionary lineage based on morphology and then show that the organisms in the phylogeny are in the wrong stratigraphic sequence. Because it is not possible to construct any clear-cut phylogeny, evolution is insulated against out-of-sequence fossils. As ReMine says:

�The evolutionist need only claim that the organisms in question do not have an ancestor-descendant relationship. . . . And who could argue with that?� (p. 413).

(2)The incompleteness of the fossil record. The earliest occurrence of the truly earliest species has not been found.

Fossils can be in sequence only if they form a lineage and also appear in the proper chronological succession in the rock strata. Some evolutionists admit that these are not found.


ReMine summarises the illusions created by evolutionists to encourage acceptance of naturalism: misuse of terminology (such as intermediate/transitional fossils), reversals of logic (for example, prove neo-Darwinism to disprove punctuationalism�a no-lose scenario for evolution), failure to clearly refute discredited ideas (such as embryonic recapitulation, vestigial organs, biogeography arguments), mis-applying concepts (such as the nested patterns from classification, portraying them as phylogenies), the formulation of ideas to make them sound scientific, but are untestable (such as hierarchy theory and �bushiness� which circumvent the need for phylogeny), portraying �postdictions� as predictions of evolutionary theory when evolution is so plastic it could accommodate almost anything.

ReMine summarises the case against evolution, and the case for creation, in that evolution did not predict the patterns of similarity and diversity in organisms, whereas �message theory� does. But in the end,

�when pressed, however, we can say that evolutionary theory�as practised by its proponents � is unfalsifiable, since that is its essential character� (p. 464).

�In short, their program is not science. From beginning to end, their program is driven by an unrelenting commitment to naturalism, at the expense of science� (p. 468).

ReMine claims that evolution is not science, being driven by naturalism, but creation (or message theory) is science because it makes testable predictions. ReMine is going a bit far here, as one cann't separate the two philosophically in that way. ReMine�s �predictions� from message theory are really postdictions like those of evolutionists. He has looked at the data and asked, �how does this make sense, considering that it was created for the purpose of revealing the creator?�. Certainly the observations make much more sense from a creationist point of view, and ReMine has ably shown that evolutionary thought is a mess of contradictory, ad hoc story-telling, but both deal with past events, which are not amenable to experimental verification in the present, and both are ultimately driven by belief systems. The naturalist has no room for a creator and the creationist has no room for anti-Biblical naturalism. In my view neither are ultimately �science�, but are, as Popper said of evolution, metaphysical frameworks.

(In truth, much of the above comes from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/biotic.asp . I felt no need to type in everything new when what I wanted to say was readily available. I do recommend the book - and the website quoted, but do not agree completely with ReMine on some subjects).


In other posts in this thread it has been said how that many scientists admitted that they knew evolution was not evidentially provable in their field, but thought it had been proven in others, other fields that the scientists of were saying the same thing. Why is this? Specific statements of some of evolutions greatest proponents tell us.


From Aldous Huxley, a British novelist who wrote Brave New World (1932), and was a grandson of �Darwin�s Bulldog�, T.H. Huxley. He was also the brother of the leading atheistic evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley (see quote: Humanism as religion), and died the same day as Christian apologist C.S. Lewis (see his quotes Materialistic Thoughts and Science began with belief in a Lawmaker), and the assassination of JFK (22 Nov. 1963). Aldous Huxley made this frank admission about his anti-theistic motivation:

�I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. � For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.�


From Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:

�Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic�



Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world�s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation�regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

�We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.�



These are just three of the many, many examples of the disingenuousness of the evolutionary proponents. The evidence doesn't matter to them, they simply cannot allow any discussion of a Creator to even be considered.

That is why I stated the following:




The last statement you took issue with. You were meant to, but can you see that the value of your soul is more than salvation by itself? You took betting your soul to mean that I meant you could loose it, or that God would somehow not accept someone for salvation who accepted what they were taught concerning evolution as true. That has been debated, and I am sure there are some who might hold that belief. It is not mine, or what I meant by the statement, though I was not surprised that you might have thought that. What I meant was that there are consequences for every action we take in life. Some of these are good consequences, some are bad. God has a plan for us, and we are responsible for our actions, and accountible for them through consequnces. I am one who believes that the parable of Christ concerning the sower and the seeds does not concern lost people and salvation, but saved, and what they do as choices in life. Will you bet the life God has planned for you, and the consequences that follow, on the uncertain?

Thank you for responding.

The first statement can't be debated on a scientific level. Drained away? There is nothing within Geology to even start to explain this. Or I will use the standard I don't know. My fall back position.

As for the oceans increasing in salinity? I could be wrong on this but I remember that the ocean was in Chemical Equilibrium in that Ions are being added and get tossed out at the same rate. As salinity is measured by the amount of dissolved ions with the water. Well I think it is anyway. Been a long time. Can you please point me in the direction of your data?
.

Here's one source, back to Answers in Genesis.
SALINITY

Dick

Thank you for the link.

I think the average salinity of the ocean is 35 pp. From what I was taught in school it has remained that way for the last 400 million years. I think that is the number...

I am not looking to sound argumentative but unless I missed it the article in Answers in Genesis did not show an actual measure of average salinity over any historic period but rather talked about a calculation, which I freely admit I don't understand. Heck not even TWO years worth to show a real change to support the math. If I am to believe that salinity link we seem to have the ability to do this.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/images/salinity_big_gif_image.html&edu=high

But when it comes right down to it this is not my specialty. The only info I knew from education was the first post. This post is just what I looked up on line. So my interpretation could be off after mid night on a Thursday night doing this study on the fly. However I just wonder why it is based on a calculation rather than a "measurable rate" as you first stated. There is a big difference. But for all I know the numbers are right. Un-fair to say something is wrong that I don't understand. But everyone within the field seems to accept the Chemical Equilibrium idea for the stability of the oceans salinity. But again to the fair that in itself does not mean they are right. Checked online to make certain the brain still works. Or rather the most I can for after mid-night and with the exception of your link there was no other data to support this. Things like this also makes me question the numbers:

"Granting the most generous assumptions to evolutionists, Austin and Humphreys calculated that the ocean must be less than 62 million years old. It�s important to stress that this is not the actual age, but a maximum age"

Huh.... Heck my bug is older than that. I think this is the reason why these numbers stand alone and it is not accepted. However I did ask you for your data and you provided it. This is something that I respect greatly.

Sanlen;

Your post was written to BT but i hope you don't mind me discussing it with you.

Your second paragraph:

I agree with you that what people think does not make it true. However, you state that things are the way they are because God made them so. I have issue with that statement. You are giving your opinion on creation and God, in other words, what you think, yet you state it as absolute truth. Your thoughts on God must be held to the same standard-you thinking them to be true does not make them so.

Fourth paragraph:

You state that, because dandelions reproduce asexually, but yet produce nectar, this somehow proves theories in evolution to be wrong. My first problem with this arguement is that you are trying to prove science to be wrong by using pseudo science. Secondly, not all dandelions are vegatative reproducers. Their are a few in the northern parts of the world that are triploid and use assexual reproduction. Most however, are diploid and use sexual reproduction. They are actually an amazingly complex group of organisms. The reasons for their ability to sometimes use assexual reproduction is not completely understood but it is thought to have to do with the environment and whether R type or R type selection is most beneficial to survival.

There are many interesting traits of species which they no longer need. Even humans have some, especially in the womb. We develop gills in the womb and some babies even a tail when they are born!

Sixth paragraph:

You say that yrs ago it was known that individuals adapt. I'm not quite sure where this is coming from? Do you mean pre Darwin? If so, that is not much of an arguement against modern sciennce as no scientists of any credibility would ever say that individuals can adapt. You cannot argue against a current theory by saying that previous(somewhat ancient) theories were incorrect. If so, one could argue that the church should be seen as wrong in their theories as they were in regards to how the sun rotated around the Earth.

Eighth paragraph onwards:

Remine is a pseudo scientist himself who cannot get his work accepted by scientific journals. one can chose to believe his theories but do not think it is a scientific challenge of evolution.

You lay out the premise that the bible says morning and evening and you've come to the conclusion that, therefore, God did create what Genesis states on each day for six days.

I find one major flaw in your logic. You are accepting what the bible says to be 100% literally true. Is there not the possibility that , because it was written by men and translated by men who had little knowledge of the world, that they took a more literal translation of God's word?

Don't you think that over all that is precisely my point? Philosophically, what either of us may say or believe does not matter in the grand scheme of things. I make the assertion that:
1. There is a Creator
and
2. Things are (the rules of nature) because the Creator decreed them that way.

My point with this is that in the end, no matter whether you put your trust in evolution or creation, you do so by faith.




No. I was pointing out that Darwin himself made the statement that such occurences would show his theory false, and that such occurences are real, therefore by Darwin's own words his theory has problems.



No, I meant while I was in school. In spite of what my wife may say, I'm not that old.




I could give a flip about ReMine himself. The ideas discussed are what is important. I fail to see the strength of your arguement. In fact, I seem to see the validation in my points in your complaints. Why would ReMine have trouble getting published as long as he used verifiable logic (which he did as far as I can tell) in his arguements if the scientific community was serious about discussing ideas? Could it be that they rejected the ideas precisely because they would require that they consider ideas that challenged their pet faith beliefs (evolution) and would require them to either allow God to have His "foot in the door"' or admit that their theory is just as much founded on presumtions based on faith as religion?

In the Old Testament, the authors (inspired by the Holy Spirit) stated some 3808 times that yes, they were indeed writing the very words of God Himself. This point was emphasised again and again for a purpose, and that is to ensure that we may know and trust, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that God's holy, written word is absolutely true, and can be trusted 100%.

Now, would a holy, righteous, all-powerful, omni-present God who created ALL the heavens, as well as the earth and all of the life that's on the earth be able to supply us with a Holy Bible that is 100% accurate, and can be trusted? Absolutely. He did. He would be incapable of anything less, and if we trust in God and trust in our salvation, we can't trust (read DIStrust) in God's Word to be anything less than 100% accurate, and I don't. Among other things that God CANNOT do is lie, this being so, how could or would God possibly furnish a Bible that is not completely true and accurate?

Forget the naive (and faithless) idea that somehow flawed and failed humanity somehow mucked-up Scripture and that as a result we are now somehow left with a flawed Bible that's full of errors, and that we can no longer trust it to be true and never could. That dog don't hunt! God is BIGGER than human error, and you can be sure that the words that have been passed down to us (miraculously) for all these centuries are indeed true, and appear exacly as God wants them to appear, word for word.

After all, if we don't trust God's accounting of His miraculous creation (and that trust is foundational, make no mistake about it), what else out of the Bible are we going to pick and choose, and apply flawed human logic and understanding to, that we won't trust either? Are we no longer going to trust that Jesus cast out demons? That He he raised Lazerus from the dead? That He healed the sick? That he paid the price for all of our sins on that Roman cross? That He rose from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father? Are we no longer going to believe in Heaven? Are we no longer going to beleive in hell (Jesus spoke twice as much about hell as he did Heaven, by the way!), are we no longer going to have absolute assurance, absolute faith in our devine future, of our very salvation? Just where do you plan to draw that line in the sand when it comes to your Christian faith, anyway?

Or do you plan to trust your own wisdom and understanding or that of some flawed, secular college professor or some other non-believer who's applying guesswork (i.e., "evolution" theory) to all this, rather than faith?

Trusting in our own assumptions and our own limited understanding will mess up our walk with the Lord every time, make no mistake about it...........

AD

Probably as strong a statement on Bible inspiration and preservation as I have read for a while, allenday. Thanks for restoring my faith in the 7,000 that have not bowed their knee to Baal.

Amen, and amen. Will we trust and have faith in the unchanging word of God, or the teachings of men that change with every new "discovery"? Very good post.

As for me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.

Sanlen;

Every theory has problems, especially when it is first being explored. Otherwise, science would have found all the answers. Of course, we know it is not so. Science is always a work in progress.

Whoever has taught you that individuals adapt was teaching outdated (by a few centuries) 'science'. I'm not sure why or how they would have done such a thing. Sometimes the word 'adapt' is used in everyday speech a little differently than in the scientific world but, since Darwin, the word adapt wouldn't be used by scientists to describe change in a species.

Remine has trouble getting published because he does not use verifiable logic. His ideas require the use of transposition to support them. This only happens very rarely in a few single cell creatures and in science fiction films. For those that do not know what transposition is, it means one can be genitically modified by eating the DNA of another. An example of this would be if you grew gills and fins after eating fish.

I understand that we must be careful not to reject another's ideas because they do not fit our model of the truth. However, sometimes these individuals are also ignoring facts to 'see' what they are looking for. The 'church' has been guilty of this as well and I again use the example of not accepting the current universe model to verify that point.

+2....or is that +3. At any rate, thanks for taking the time to write all that Allen.

Allenday.

I did not know that it was stated 3808 times! That is making sure the point is made.

However, that still does not mean very much. The authors of the book are, after all, writing about their own works.

My point is that these men that wrote the bible and translated it many times over are sinners and had very little knowledge of the entire world. Language(s) and context has changed immensely since it was written.

Many here argue the theory of a 'young Earth'. If this is true and the Bible truly is the word of God, why does Bible only speak of a small geographical area? Why is there no mention of immense reptiles now called dinosaurs? Many creatures are mentioned, why not one so grand as a 'dinosaur'?

If we are to be afraid to apply our 'flawed human logic' where do you draw the line? You take the Bible as 100% true and you do not want to leave room for interpretation(ie, 'flawed human logic'). What about the books that are not in the current Bible? What about the books of the Catholic bible? What about scrolls that some argue are books of the Bible? Which translation? Was King James, a homesexual and supporter of witchcraft, really speaking for God?(I know he may not have done all the work personally but, it is 'his work')

Faith without thinking(there's the logic thing again) can be a dangerous thing. Many cults depend on people who are willing to do this. They have absolute faith without questioning.

If this is truly the word of God, passed on over centuries without error, why did it not get passed on to all faiths? Why are there many other faiths who are just as convinced in the words of their god? Would you believe what you do now if you had not been born a Christian? How will God judge those that are of another faith?

To finish, I want to be clear that I am not trying to be confrontation with any poster. I appreciate your posts and ideas. I am asking these questions not for the sake of an arguement nor to try to make you see things 'my way', but rather I am trying to learn your ideas and thoughts.

I wasn't talking about a "change" in species. I thought that was clear. I was talking about adaptation, what is now refered to as micro-evolution. This is nothing more than adaptation to the environment and within the genetic range of a creature. My point was that using the term micro-evolution has conditioned people to be more willing to think evolution is a "fact", just as adaptation is.



Isn't that the truth. The perfect example is the pressure against a non- geocentric universe view by Rome during Galelio's day. This was caused by short sighted people who would not accept the reproducible acts in front of them, however, not by a misdirection of what can only be accepted by faith. I believe that was more an issue of control over the people than actual biblical dispute.


The examples I used for Remine had nothing to do with the issues you bring up, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt concerning his total of works. I'm not going to try to defend all of his ideas, especially when I don't agree with some myself, but the ideas I brought up seem valid to me.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last part of this,

"and I again use the example of not accepting the current universe model to verify that point."

Could you elaborate? Specifically, where reproducible fact is rejected by blindness.

This is one of those faith-issue discussions that has only one real solution, and that solution is not arguing about it on the internet:

Take it to the Lord in prayer instead, and then carefully read your Bible.

Lots of people, for whatever reason, seem to think they're smarter than God is.

Personally, I to choose to trust in God, rather than my own understanding, or the self-professed wisdom of anyone else.....

AD

"and I again use the example of not accepting the current universe model to verify that point."

Sorry, I did not write that cleary. I meant to make the point that the church enforced(and I mean, enforced) the idea that the Earth was the centre of the solar system. I don't mean to make the point that it was a biblical dispute. My point is that the Catholic church wasn't open to science as it did not fit their model of the truth. Few would still argue that the planets do not revolove around the sun today.

It is a deep discussion and I do appreciate what you have contributed.
I want to be clear that I am a Christian and my questions are not to offend but are for my own answers. You seem to be at peace with your faith so I understand why you wish to leave it at that.

I hope this next writing is not offensive to you. I do it only to make my point that I am not comfortable with 'blind faith':

Take it to the Leader in prayer instead, and then carefully read your instructions.

Lots of people, for whatever reason, seem to think they're smarter than the Leader is.

Personally, I to choose to trust in the Leader, rather than my own understanding, or the self-professed wisdom of anyone else.....

I used to believe that the Bible had errors in it, then one day I realized if that was the case, the following two things were true:

1. I was accusing God of being unable and/or unwilling to intervene as His Word was being written down and translated.

and

2. I realized that if the Bible had errors in it, as a Christian I was standing on nothing.

So fortunately the Holy Spirit brought me around. Ask Him if His word is true, just as it is written. Perhaps He will tell you the same thing that He told me, which is "YES!"

Dan