A creationist

File:Baby Orangutan 2 (7109564287).jpgMeet Tim, a Young-Earth Creationist, who examines the scientific evidence and finds it supports his theory. How?

First, humanity is bad. He produces several bible verses to show this. For him, this presumably refutes my Creationism argument. We are to blame, not God, and by sending us a saviour God did more than we deserve. If life evolved, suffering entered the world other than through Adam’s sin, and so God must have designed it.

What does he think of the Bible? It is more reliable than science, because its account does not change. In 2011, he cited a 1995 article from Time magazine which discussed an observation that the Universe was expanding unevenly, to claim this. I was aware that a star cluster in our galaxy was calculated to be 16bn years old when the Universe was thought to be younger, and Tim points to estimates (in 1995) ranging from 8bn to 20bn years old, not acknowledging that by 2011 the consensus was for 13.7bn. Now, it is 13.8bn. The Bible is clear- the world was created in six days- but File:Baby Orangutan 3 (7109563039).jpgscientists disagree and keep changing. The oldest known star, according to current models of stellar evolution, is 14.46 ± 0.8bn years old. For Tim, all stars including the Sun were created on the fourth day, three days after Light was divided from the darkness.

Tim, why stop in the 1990s? At one point, some scientists believed in Phlogiston, and some disputed that theory. Come on, Tim: scientists dispute- Therefore Creationism!

Poor man. The delight of increasing knowledge through dispute, argument and evidence is lost to him.  Though how wonderful, to mock, and belittle, and feel superior to those who achieve far more than he!

He collects facts and articles and tries to make them fit his falsehoods. Often, he pretends that they do. For him almost any discovery can be pressed into that role, and his blog could be treated as an eclectic mix of scientific curiosities, if you could ignore the constant refrain of “Therefore Creationism!”

He believes that natural selection of the fittest, and slow change by genetic mutation, cannot work. To argue this he says humanity is degenerating genetically. Our random mutations generally make us less fit, but do not prevent us from breeding and maintaining those mutations. He asserts that if bears move into the arctic, and become white, that is a loss of information rather than a gain. Some strains of H5N1 flu are less effective at multiplying than others- Therefore Creationism!!- yet flu still infects people, and any flu vaccine is a gamble, a choice of which might be the most troublesome strains that winter.

He is incorrigible. Too much in love with his own cleverness, he will not listen to those who could free him from his folly. Like those opposing equal marriage, or climate change deniers, he can only change by realising how stupid he has been, which is so painful as to be unimaginable for him.

134 thoughts on “A creationist

  1. Your last paragraph says it all … you go, girl. He’s a dork and a half. I’m sad these days, Clare. Sometimes I wonder how much more of the harassment and nonsense I can take. My friends have chiefly been chased off by fear of getting entangled in my bullies mean and cruel ropes; I can hardly even enjoy the gorgeous New York summer. Oh well. We have our crosses to bear, and carrying them onward with dignity is our best revenge … well, that and the truffle pate I allowed myself for my hors d’oeuvre tonight !

    Like

  2. In a similar vein neither will you listen to reason that Moses and the Exodus and the entire Pentateuch is fiction or the god- man Jesus of Nazareth is simply a narrative construct.

    I don’t see much difference , to be honest.

    Like

    • Oh, Ark! You know that I only write about religious issues, so I can bathe in the wonder of your wisdom! But do you imagine that, because you don’t see much difference, therefore there is none?

      The Pentateuch is fiction, theology, jurisprudence, some legislation, a blueprint for a peaceful agrarian society, and poetry.

      Like

      • LOl…Oh, Claire, Miss Cherry Picker 2014.

        With rose-tinted glasses you can see what ever you like.

        The New Testament is also fiction but you are too besotted with Jesus to ask the really pertinent questions…or prepared to acknowledge the truth.
        But that’s okay, guess.

        We won’t likely be around when Keepers of the Faith own up to all the Hokum.

        But it’s a nice thought that future generations of children won’t be subjected to that crap.

        Like

        • One of the many reasons you bore me, Ark, is the high ratio of insult to content. You inform me again and again that religion and the bible are crap, and that I am an idiot. And you misspell my name. If you said why you imagine this to be true, your comments might be just a little less tedious.

          Like

          • I did not call you an idiot. And I apologize for misspelling your name.
            As for explaining why I believe the bible is crap…..good grief. There are enough books – scientific books – that clearly explain why is s crap.
            If you felt so inclined to venture to your local bookstore, library or *gasp*….did a few brief internet searches you would very quickly find out why.

            But if there is a specific question/s you would like me to answer, then please, ask away and I will endeavour to explain in as honest and factual manner as I am able.

            Like

            • “besot”, transitive verb: “stupefy, mentally or morally; intoxicate.”

              No, I want you to comment pertinently on the subject matter rather than your opinion of religion generally. Do you understand that your choleric repetition could just possibly be a bit dull?

              Like

            • You put up a post about Young Earth Creationism and as a Christian cannot see the irony of berating a YEC as being….let me get this right….

              He is incorrigible. Too much in love with his own cleverness, he will not listen to those who could free him from his folly.

              Tell, me Clare, do you not think this is just a tad arrogant, all things considered?

              Like

            • The other reason why you bore me is that you do not understand. What I believe does not matter. What I practise, and what I value, is what matters. I tell you this again and again, and it just goes straight over your head.

              So the quote applies to you, too.

              Like

            • Well, so as NOT to bore you, why nit enlighten me just a little?
              To start…

              Do you believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth is in any way a deity or related to one?

              Like

            • What part of “what I believe does not matter” do you not understand?

              Here is an example. “Today, you will be with me in paradise”. Janet Scott argues that the Kingdom of Heaven is a way of being in the world and with other people, so that when Jesus said (or did not say) that he meant there and then, on the Cross itself. I have a rich vein of metaphor for sharing and increasing understanding, and you deride it as “fiction”.

              Dorothea Brooke, or Effie Deans, or Pip Pirrip, are true.

              To answer your question as directly, truthfully and clearly as I can- yes, and no.

              Like

            • Do you believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth is in any way a deity or related to one? Yes.

              Do you believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth is in any way a deity or related to one? No.

              Do you believe the character, Jesus of Nazareth is in any way a deity or related to one? Don’t know.

              All three of these answers are true. Paradox: God is, and God is not.

              You might imagine I was just dodging your question, to be capricious and silly-clever, or whatever- but why would I do that? You can see from the volume I write on it, that I take this stuff extremely seriously.

              Like

            • The opening sentence from your post on Creationism.

              Creationism is incompatible with far more important beliefs in Christianity.

              Let me spell it out in as simple language as possible.
              Christianity as a whole system of belief
              irrespective of the end of the spectrum one adheres to is all based on false premise.

              So, telling me over and over “what I believe does not matter” is a facile argument based on an erroneous claim as it does matter what you believe, especially as you are a christian and are berating another christian. All the matters is that you both believe in varying degrees of supernatural nonsense.

              Like

            • Christianity is what was promulgated by those that drew up the Nicene Creed.
              Primarily that the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth
              is the Creator god you worship.
              This is crucial to being considered Christian.
              One can be a secular humanist and follow a moral ethical life with no religious baggage whatsoever.

              Other doctrine/dogma of Christianity has varied and adapted over time…..so much for the bible being the immutable final word.

              YEC is merely a more literal reading of the bible and was once de rigeur for all Christianity.
              Only when it became obvious such literal interpretation is nothing but stupid nonsense did the powers that be adapt and backpedal, while still retaining a modicum of acceptance toward such rubbish as the Virgin birth ( which the church now acknowledge is not necessarily factual, according to catholic theologian Ray Brown).

              For any Christian to criticize a Young Earth Creationist is laughable in the extreme and nothing by gross hypocrisy.

              Like

            • Never de rigueur. St Augustine, writing on Genesis: Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances… It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do what we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

              Then: “stupid nonsense”, “rubbish”, “laughable in the extreme”, “nothing but gross hypocrisy”- more choleric insult rather than useful communication. I give you space occasionally, and you are incorrigible and dull.

              Like

            • Sadly Augustine’s view was not fully adopted by the church…and it still not.

              Perhaps this is your way of sweeping under the carpet what you are unwilling to confront head on?

              You berate a fellow Christian simply because their interpretation of the nonsense you call Christianity differs from your interpretation.
              In days gone by the authorities labelled dissenters heretics and put them to death.
              You are doing the same except without the matches and bonfire.

              Like

            • The Catholic Catechism, representing the beliefs of a significant proportion of Christians: 159. Faith and science: “… methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” (Vatican II GS 36:1)

              283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers….

              I berate him for Augustine’s reason, that he makes Christianity appear foolish. I do not deny that he is a Christian, but exhort him to change.

              Like

            • “For any Christian to criticize a Young Earth Creationist is laughable in the extreme and nothing by gross hypocrisy.” That’s inaccurate. Wildly. You sound like a ranty, angry atheist making silly sweeping statements. In fact, you sound like SOM on his head.

              Like

  3. Thank you for the free advertising 🙂 I am surprised you blogged about me after failing to respond to many of my responses in the comments section on my blog. We talked about the losses in genetic information, and you didn’t actually offer any counter-evidence – you simply blogged about how crazy I am. In my post about gay marriage, you didn’t respond to the contents of my comments, but merely offered new questions as in ignoring my actual responses to you. But hey, I count this as a win. My posts obviously have gotten you thinking much more than just a quick comment. Thanks! I truly wish you the best in your walk with Christ and questions about life.

    Like

    • Welcome, Tim, and thank you for commenting. Indeed, getting someone thinking is one of the rewards of this hobby.

      OK, let us deal with loss of information. Suppose that brown bears enter the Arctic, and some of them become white, which fur is better camouflage and better insulation. So, rather than one species of bear, which inhabits the whole North American continent but thrives in some places better than others, we have two species of bear, one which thrives better further South, and one which thrives better further North.

      Is that not an increase of information?

      Like

      • It is not an increase of genetic information, it is an increase in bear species – yes. The genetic information for creating brown fur has been lost permanently.

        Like

        • Here is an article with theories, we are using this as a model for debate.

          I disagree. There is one bear genome with genes for brown fur, and one with genes for white, better insulating fur. The genes are otherwise identical, but now there are two sets of colour genes where there was only one. I can imagine that it might not work for colour: if the default colour where there was no genetic instruction for colour was white, bears that lost the genes for brown fur would be white, with less genetic information. However, if it does not work for colour, it works for teeth: there was one set of genes for omnivore teeth, and now there is one set for omnivore and one set for carnivore teeth. There is more genetic information. Or, with Darwin’s finches, it works for bills: there is one set of genes for a long bill, one set for a short bill, where before there were only genes for one type of bill.

          Or, a loss of genetic information is possible, but is not the explanation in all cases.

          Like

          • Do you understand how genetics work with skin color? There is only one human race with many variations of skin color depending on the different combinations of genes from the parents (this confirms a creationist prediction too by the way). But if you take two white parents you cant make a black baby. The white parents have LOST the ability to create dark skin by adaptation to environment and being isolated from the darker ancestors.

            Now lets go back to the bears. The darker bears migrate north, adapt to the environment, and begin reproducing. Now only white-fur bears remain. They are still the same bears without the ability to create dark fur.

            Now Darwin’s finches. See this image: http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol31/7488beaks.jpg. All the information was available in the original parent finches. But not available in the bottom row children. That is a loss of original information. Yes, the original finches still exist – thus two species – but not upward evolution. Evidence of downward devolution.

            Like

            • White skin carries the advantage, in parts of the world with less intense sunlight, of increased vitamin D synthesis. So, again, there are human beings fitted for Africa- dark skin, less susceptibility to sunburn- and white humans, fitted for Europe. Again, a new variation, so other genes being similar but this particular genetic sequence having two variations, one more than before, there is more information. Interbreeding is possible, as with the bears.

              I would have thought that the different beaks occur by random mutation, so that a bird with a long beak fitted for particular food would thrive where the food fitted the long narrow beak, and less where the food fitted a short, wide beak. So the ancestors have a particular beak shape, and food stocks exert evolutionary pressure differentiating that into different shapes.

              Like

            • Just be careful not to confuse a new beneficial function with no genetic information. Keep in mind that natural “selection” is a selective process. Even through insertions and duplications, they are simply duplicating what already exists. If you believe at some point in our history we all share a common ancestor, and you believe a human has more genetic information than an amoeba – then you need to demonstrate what process does that. Natural selection + mutation is demonstrably incapable of adding brand new genetic information. All observances only show rearranging of previously existing information.

              Like

            • Indeed, selection happens between existing individuals- paler or darker skinned humans, say- so happens to beings which already exist, where the information is already in the individuals’ genes. The variation arises from mutation of those genes. There are different genes for red hair and for black hair, arising initially from random mutation.

              Like

            • I know what you’re saying, I just have never been able to be convinced that “random mutation” has ever been observed to produce new (never before existing) genetic information. If you know of something, feel free to share it with me.

              Like

            • Thank you for your careful explanation. I wanted to ask an entirely different question: what of alleged differences between Genesis 1 and 2? There appear to be two distinct orders in which creation happened.

              Genesis 1:1-2:4: God (El) created, v11, plants and trees on the third day; v 20, sea creatures and birds on the fifth day; v24 wild animals, and v26-27, male and female human beings, on the sixth day.
              Genesis 2: before there were plants and herbs of the field, v5, the Lord (YHWH) formed man, v7, then trees, v9, then animals, v19, and finally the woman, v21-22.

              Do you find these to be separate, contradictory accounts, or can you explain apparent contradictions?

              I do not have a scientific education beyond high school. I take an interest in science articles on the net and in magazines. I trust experts to look at the evidence. The evidence of strata appears to show geologists continental drift, and laying down strata over millions of years. If they are wrong, that evidence has to be consistent in some way with creation over six days, or God has played a cruel practical joke on them, inconsistent with a God of Love. I expand this argument here. What do you think?

              Like

  4. Thanks again! You say you take an interest in science articles on the net and trust the experts. I think first you may need to realize that most media reports on science stories are normally sensationalized for views. I’m not saying they necessarily misrepresent them, but they do often embellish the conclusions to hit a bigger market. Take for example my banking metaphor towards natural selection (http://gracesalt.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/money.png). The media will talk about this new function and how that is “evolution in action”, and although they are correct that it is “change” in action – they are devious that it is no evidence of a mechanism that can increase genetic information. In other words, I have not seen an actual scientific article that defies a strictly creationist view on adaptation and genetic entropy.

    Geologists believe that strata formed over millions of years because they observe is forming gradually today and extrapolate those slow rates out to millions of years – but we have all kinds of observed evidence of events that cause strata and other geologic process to happen quickly (for example, Mt. St. Helens eruption formed a canyon 100 ft deep with strata in under a week). Therefore since we know it is possible, it is not hard for us to imagine and forumlate what a worldwide catastrophe like Noah’s flood would do in a relatively short period of time. Where they see long ages because of today’s gradual rates, we see how it could have happened very rapidly.

    The apparent contradiction between Gen1 and Gen2 is one of the first articles I wrote: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/two-creation-accounts/. Pretty simple explanation. Basically Gen1 is a chronological overview, and Gen2 is a closer look at day 6 with details from other days thrown in for context. No contradiction. Hope this helps.

    Like

    • Thank you. Yes, it helps. Thank you for visiting, and following. For general (British) interest with some science articles, I like Prospect magazine, with articles by such as Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal, and Frank Close, professor of physics at Oxford.

      Like

        • OK. What about Genesis 2:19: So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. The key to a discrepancy is the word “every”: in 1:21 every winged bird of every kind was made on the fifth day, before man.

          Then, why did God create man or beast? In 1:26, God said, ‘Let us make humankind[c] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea [etc.] But in 2:18-19, the animals are created after God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.

          In ch 2, all the animals are made after man.

          Like

          • No, chapter 2 is not chronological. I don’t think you read my link. The big debate centers around Gen. 2:19 that says in the KJV – “And out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam”, the NIV states “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground…” The argument is around the English translation of the verb ‘form’. This is a problem any translation runs into. It does not mean it is incorrect. Luckily we have over 5000 ancient manuscripts in which we can compare to, and the overall consensus is that the verb ‘form’ should be in the past tense in this sentence as it is in the NIV and as Tyndale used it (which predated the KJV).

            Like

            • Ah yes, the NIV. But the whole of both stories is in the past tense. The NIV uses pluperfect- the Lord had formed; but other translations do not. It is not good for the man to be alone, so (causal connection) the Lord formed…all (perfect, not pluperfect tense) is in the Complete Jewish Bible, NRSV, and Common English Bible.

              “formed…all” without the causal connection is in KJV, NKJV, KJ21, American Standard version, Amplified Bible, Douai-Rheims.

              The Common English Version says So the Lord took some soil and made animals and birds. Not “all”. It is not unanimous, but the consensus is for the Lord making all birds and animals after Adam; and indeed if the reason for making the animals was a failed attempt to find the man “a helper as his partner”, why not bring animals and birds God had already made?

              Here is Tyndale: 18 And the LORde God sayd: it is not good that man shulde be alone I will make hym an helper to beare him company:
              19 And after yt the LORde God had make of the erth all maner beastes of the felde and all maner foules of the ayre he brought them vnto Adam to see what he wold call them.

              So with Tyndale, the Lord decides to make a helper, “And after yt the LORde God had make of the erth all maner beastes”. After it, despite the possibly pluperfect “had make”. Remember Tyndale did not have manuscripts as old as we have.

              Like

            • You seem to be finding ways to argue the Bible is not self-contradictory. What of Mark 14:15- the Last Supper is the Passover meal- contrasted with John 18:28- when the Jews hand Jesus over to Pilate, they do not enter the Praetorium, which would make them ritually unclean and unable to eat the Passover?

              Mark 14:12-16. 12 On the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb is sacrificed, his disciples said to him, ‘Where do you want us to go and make the preparations for you to eat the Passover?’ 13 So he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you; follow him, 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of the house, “The Teacher asks, Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?” 15 He will show you a large room upstairs, furnished and ready. Make preparations for us there.’ 16 So the disciples set out and went to the city, and found everything as he had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal.

              John 18:28. Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters.[a] It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters,[b] so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.

              John 13:1-2. 13 Now before the festival of the Passover, Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart from this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. 2 The devil had already put it into the heart of Judas son of Simon Iscariot to betray him. And during supper

              Like

            • The basic point with Gen2 is that it is not a chronological account like Gen1 is. There is no proven contradiction between the two. That is the issue when you try to claim a contradiction in an ancient text. You have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A lot of people maintain their are contradictions, but honestly I’ve never found a truly provable one.

              As for the apparent passover contradiction…. from (http://www.thebereans.net/contra-c13.shtml):

              “Conclusion: There are several “preparations” mentioned here: the “preparation” for the Feast of Unleavened Bread; the “preparation” for the Passover meal; the “preparation” for the Passover-bullock; and the “preparation” for the Sabbath which coincided with the feast. Now understanding these preparations is the key to understanding the accuracy and intent of the Holy Scriptures. The Passover meal was taken by Jesus and his disciples in the evening, the same time all the other Jews partake of it. However, the feast or the offering of Passover-bullock at the time of Jesus coincided after his crucifixion. Therefore Jesus was crucified daytime after the Passover meal but before the feast of the Passover-Sabbath.”

              If you care to learn more about other supposed biblical contradictions, I suggest this site: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX. Read through a few examples and you will learn quickly how it is normally a case of misunderstanding, lacking context, or historical or translation misunderstandings. There are no contradictions.

              Like

            • Yes. There have been documented experiments where scientists have been able to create opals in laboratories in short amounts of time. The opals show no difference to natural ones. Thus we have reason to believe that under the right conditions opals can form rapidly.

              http://creation.com/creating-opals

              Like

            • Thank you.

              Craniums Skulls of 1. Gorilla 2. Australopithecine 3. Homo erectus 4. Neanderthal (La-Chapelle-aux-Saints) 5. Steinheim Skull 6. Modern human

              What do you have to say about human evolution? Sahelanthropus or Orrorin was our last common ancestor with chimpanzees, about six million years ago, evolving into Australopithecines then genus homo: Homo Habilis used stone tools 2.3m years ago, Homo Erectus spread through Europe and Asia between 1.8 and 1.3 mya. Neanderthals evolved about 200,000 years ago. Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced, and differs from modern humans only by 0.12%. Modern humans evolved 50,000-100,000 years ago.

              Given that the human genome project was only completed in 2003, I am sure you could find a number of doubts and disagreements; but the outline of ancestors over a period of millions of years, with their slowly changing bones and tools, is clear enough.

              Like

  5. I’ve got no problems answering additional questions, and I know this is no formal debate setting. But I did want to point out something that bugs me. You wrote this big, long blog post lambasting me for basically being a scientific and intellectual idiot, yet I have managed to give you answers to five different attempts to expose my apparent stupidity (genetic entropy, Darwin’s finches, two different creation accounts, other contradictions in the Bible, and formation of opals). You probably don’t agree with my answers, but your tactic seems to be to change the topic. Again, I am interested in continuing this conversation (it’s been good!), but just felt that was important to point out.

    As for the supposed human evolution line-up: I would say that some are forms of monkey, and some are forms of humans, and some are labeled incorrectly because of evolutionary presuppositions forced upon the evidence. See this post (http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/how-do-neanderthals-fit-into-a-biblical-worldview/) for more info on how I see Neanderthals in particular. That should clear a lot up. If it doesn’t, please feel free to ask more

    Like

    • Tim, I do not think you are an idiot. I find you articulate and with a good grasp of your arguments. I do not find you consciously and deliberately dishonest. I think you make too much of disputes between non-creationist scientists- observation, theory, disputation are the ways science advances, and there will always be disputes, but that strengthens rather than weakens science. I find you arrogant- the skulls are apes, or humans, you say, against the observations of those who excavate and examine them, because of the evolutionists’ presuppositions. To me, that shows too little respect for those scientists- their ability to theorise, to argue, to observe, and their respect for the truth. Science is meaningless except as a search for the truth. Science as an intellectual edifice for the purpose of an atheistical attack on Christian Truth would not deserve the resources science has received in my country, which is to a great extent a Christian country. What else could science be?

      I asked about opals because I saw Professor Iain Stewart on “Rise of the Continents” explain their formation, involving strong acid, and when I searched for a page on it I found the theory that acid was necessary disputed. But I had been fascinated by the prof’s explanation, and wanted to put it to you. I asked about human evolution because this morning I suddenly wondered what you would say.

      I haven’t studied evolution in great depth. I had a look at Wikipedia for my evolution of humans comment. It is good enough for my purposes. I don’t think I will best you in argument to your satisfaction, or you me. If I thought that were possible, I would debate very differently.

      We have different world-views, and I find yours unattractive because of what it says of the Bible, as well as of the world. “We see through a glass darkly” said Paul: it is not in any way dictated by God, or directly inspired, but a product of humanity’s continuing wrestling with God and mutual attempts to communicate of greater or lesser effectiveness, and some of it is for a particular situation or period rather than for all time. It is also metaphor, myth, story and theology as well as bald statements of literal truth: it provokes us and leads us on. But I am not going to convince you of that, either.

      I wrote my post to mock your world-view, and encourage those who hold my own. I find my world-view preferable, because likely to have more truth in it- truth matters to me. However I am interested in how someone could hold another world view.

      Like

      • I am glad you can recognize that questioning the consensus position is how science advances. Unfortunatly the UK recently banned not only creationism but any questioning of evolution in its schools. And I saw a lot of people who hold your worldview celebrating that as a victory. I would hope you can see the contradiction in saying “questioning the consensus is good for science innovation” and “yeah to kicking creationists to the curb”. I’m not saying you said that, but I just wonder if you see the irony like I do. And again, you are welcome to ask anything you’d like about my worldview.

        Like

        • Indeed the UK has banned creationism, but that does not make our biology courses less valuable. This is the GCSE syllabus, which at page 10 of the pdf (p.7 of the document) states Scientists try to explain phenomena and solve problems using evidence. The data to be used as evidence must be repeatable, reproducible and valid, as only then can appropriate conclusions be made. A scientifically literate person should, amongst other things, be equipped to question, and engage in debate on, the evidence used in decision-making. So the pupils will encounter controversy, but not based on a literal interpretation of Genesis which theologians from Augustine onwards have disputed. I find the argument of Frederick Temple, who attended the Huxley-Wilberforce debate, particularly good.

          So there is the idea that evidence may have different interpretations. Evolution is covered at p30f (27f). Children aged 16 are expected to interpret evidence, and understand that theories may be disputed. The dispute “Possibly God did it, 6000 odd years ago. Possibly life forms have not changed, or have changed during the 4500 years since the Flood rather than over millions of years” merely denies evidence. It must be something else. It could not be related like that. The theory is worthless. You might as well not study biology at all. We teach controversy, but not denial. I too am glad that creationism should not be in biology classes, because it makes Christianity look ridiculous.

          From my cursory glance, these children need not be told how scientists have not explained how even the simplest self-replicating life form might come to be, other than by self-replication; but there is work being done on that, too.

          Like

          • So your textbook says that evidence must be repeatable and reproducible to be considered valid. Great! Please reproduce and repeat the interpretation that apes evolved into humans. Show me how I can reproduce that and then I will consider the interpretation valid.

            Like

            • Repeatable. Every single bone or fossil ever dug up may be observed by anyone who goes to see it. Every suggestion that this hominid came between those others may be challenged. Anyone with the technology may sequence the available genomes. All repeatable. No need to “reproduce” it as the fossil survives the examination.

              In the same way, observations of stars lead to theories of the centres of stars. You don’t need a probe which could survive conditions at the heart of the sun. The observations are repeatable, the theories explain the available evidence, the conclusions are challengeable.

              Like

            • A bone is a bone. Period. It says nothing. It means nothing until a meaning is applied to it by a person. People are susceptible to bias. Those who share someones bias will also share their conclusions drawn from those biases. See my latest post for more on this: http://gracesalt.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/interpretation-the-real-debate/.

              Sequencing genomes reveals similarities between different kinds of animals. That is an observation. The interpretation is then laid upon the evidence that they share a common ancestor. I would just say they share a common designer.

              Like

            • What about the human nictitating membrane? It has no use, so only a vestige remains, but is still present from ancestors in which it was useful, and it survives in some mammals.

              That is an observation. It makes no sense in humans if Creationism is the theory; but Evolutionary theories explain it.

              Like

  6. The point is – you are right. The creationist perspective is not repeatable and therefore not scientific. Our counter-point is that neither is your interpretation.

    Like

      • Careful trying to argue “vestiges”. We are constantly finding new uses for things previously labeled vestiges. It’s the same as junk DNA which is slowly disappearing as we are learning their functions. Just because we don’t currently know it’s function does not mean it doesn’t have one. My favorite example is the coccyx – the tail bone. Most say that is a vestige – yet you certainly don’t want yours removed! LOL. Trust me, it serves a purpose 🙂

        But here is a more complete response to nictitating membranes…

        “contrary to the assertions of evolutionists, the plica semilunaris (Latin: plica, a pleat or fold) is not a vestigial functionless curiosity, a relic of the nictitating membrane found in animals. Its purpose is to enable unrestricted mobility for the eyeball when abducted (turned outwards). The conjunctiva is the surface membrane lining the eyelids and covering the anterior part of the sclera; to allow the eyeball and lids to move independently it forms a continuous pouch or sac above, laterally and below. But medially, because of the presence of the lacrimal drainage apparatus, there is no conjunctival sac; instead there is the plica semilunaris which is a crescentic fold of conjunctiva. It arises in the upper fornix towards its medial end, extends downward, concentric with the limbus, to end in the medial third of the lower fornix. When the eye is abducted the plica partially unfolds as the conjunctiva stretches so that movement is unimpeded. When the eye is adducted (turned inwards) a fibrous extension from the sheath of the muscle contracting (the medial rectus) draws the plica posteriorly, partially unfolding it and deepening the lacus lacrimalis. See Records, R.E., The conjunctiva; in: Tasman and Jaeger, Ref. 17, vol. 2, ch. 2”

        BTW – that took me 30 seconds to find that answer.

        Like

        • Sorry! I didn’t add that “30 seconds” part to my comment to attack you. It was to point out that the answers are out there. I believe it shows a pattern of basically believing what you are told without questioning it. It only took 30 seconds of questioning it to find that “evidence” debunked.

          Like

          • I should have known better than to cite an argument from the standard lay-person’s attack on creationism- you found the Creationist answer. That underestimation of you was not an intentional insult. Pardon me. Going back to your earlier argument:

            We observe similarities between genomes. We also observe similarities between 20,000 separate described species of trilobite, over a period allegedly from 521-250mya. I have one, beside my icon of the Trinity. This is the section on their Evolution in the Cambrian from Wikipedia:

            Very shortly after trilobite fossils appeared in the lower Cambrian, they rapidly diversified into the major orders that typified the Cambrian—Redlichiida, Ptychopariida, Agnostida and Corynexochida. The first major crisis in the trilobite fossil record occurred in the Middle Cambrian; surviving orders developed isopygus or macropygius bodies and developed thicker cuticles, allowing better defense against predators (see Thorax below).[20] The end Cambrian mass extinction event marked a major change in trilobite fauna; almost all Redlichiida (including the Olenelloidea) and most Late Cambrian stocks went extinct.[13] A continuing decrease in Laurentian continental shelf area[21] is recorded at the same time as the extinctions, suggesting major environmental upheaval.

            Major types of trilobites appearing in the Cambrian include:[22]

            Abadiella (Lower Cambrian)
            Judomia (Lower-Cambrian)
            Ellipsocephalus (Middle-Cambrian)
            Elrathia (Middle-Cambrian)
            Ollenellus (Middle-Cambrian)
            Paradoxides (Middle-Cambrian)
            Tomagnostus (Middle-Cambrian)
            Olenus (Late-Cambrian)

            The Cambrian is dated at 541-485 mya, so about a fifth of that lifespan of the class of trilobite.

            Excuse me a bit, it is time to cook my dinner, and I have a chapter by NT Wright I would like to finish.

            Like

            • No problem. It’s fine if you reply a week later – I don’t mind. I love trilobites too – and have one myself. To me, fossils speak of God’s power of judgment through the flood. I used it in a recent talk I gave on the flood. In that talk I also took an empty water bottle – filled it with some sand, dirt, rocks, and gravel… then filled it up with water and shook it up violently. At the end of my talk you could see that the water in the bottle displayed the amazing ability to automatically sort the various materials into finely made layers. Evidence of waters amazing ability to automatically sort material. Take that for what you will…

              I would say the Cambrian explosion should be considered a big problem for evolutionists.

              http://www.gotquestions.org/cambrian-explosion.html

              Doesn’t the sudden appearance of a bunch of fossils all in one place sounds like what we would expect to see if a flood caused a massive extinction event all at one point?

              Like

            • Two theories: trilobites die in the flood, even though they are sea-dwellers, or trilobites die in the mass-extinction at the end of the Permian.

              If they died in the flood, and the strata were laid down then, you would expect species to be all mixed up. If they lived and died over 271m years, you would expect earlier species to be in older strata, and later species to be in newer strata- which is in fact the observation.

              There are “unconformities“- where strata appear vertically above horizontal strata- large parts of the rock, after it was solidified, was turned over- but still it shows a chronological progression, rather than a mix of species from different periods. Some of the strata appear to be upside down, but the mix is not as it would be if all the species died at the same time.

              As for the Cambrian explosion, I have not studied it sufficiently. I would expect suddenly much quicker evolution when sexual reproduction had evolved, but if Darwin identified it as a challenge to his theory, it is more complex than I wish to investigate.

              Like

            • Sticking with trilobites for a bit, I found this page on trilobite biostratigraphy. I note the Lazarus effect, where species appear to disappear then reappear, so have linked to the Wikipedia page. If you were looking for inconsistencies and disputes between scientists, for a “They don’t know, we know from Genesis!” type argument, the Lazarus effect might be a fruitful source.

              I note the extreme complexity of the evidence, only hinted at here. “Orders” are divided into family, then genus, then species. 20,000 identified species of trilobite, I read somewhere else. It is not the higgledy-piggledy arrangement I would expect if the strata were laid down in less than a year of Flood: the trilobites are ordered. Theories are advanced as to why one species is better adapted than another. It gives the lie to the proposed distinction between “historical” and “observational” science: there is a huge amount of evidence, which may be observed and measured. The process of theorising, dispute, further observation continues.

              I approach this as a Christian, only educated in science to high school level, aged 17. I now distinguish “Creation scientists”, perhaps seeking truth in their own way, attempting to fit evidence to a particular, literal understanding of Genesis, from what I would call “real scientists”, attempting to find truth. They find the “theory” of evolution by natural selection fits so well it is a theory in the way gravity is a theory: anyone presented with the evidence may observe it, though we may still tinker at the edges of theories of precisely how it works.

              The real scientists seek the truth, seek to cast away their baggage and presupposition, seek to modify any idea contradicted by evidence. Yet they believe in an Earth 4.6bn years old, in a Universe 13.8 byo, from the evidence they observe all around us. They don’t really care about creationism. Some bother to refute it when it comes up, but their scientific work has the aim of uncovering truth, not refuting something so silly. So I put my Christian challenge:

              What explanation is there, other than that real science honestly seeks the truth as best it may?
              What sort of “Loving” God would allow all that evidence to deceive them so completely?
              Alternatively, what sort of “Loving” God, inspiring the Bible as literal truth, would imply that the world was <10,000 years old?

              Unless you ask me a direct question, you may have the last word here if you wish.

              Like

  7. Yes, there is an order to the fossil record. No one can deny that. The basic creationist response is that the order is the order of burial. More complex creatures would have the ability to outlast the rising waters. I know this sounds soooo simplistic. I’ve heard it explained much more thoroughly, but again flood geology is not my strongest suit. The way it was explained through the several seminars and videos I’ve watched were more than satisfying on that answer.

    You say you see creation scientists as trying to fit the evidence to their worldview, and the “real scientists” just seeking truth. You know my position on this. I believe when it comes to evidence from the past that we can no longer replicate, then personal interpretation must be applied which is then based on our worldview. If you already believe in evolution when you find a fossil… you don’t ask some questions you might if you didn’t believe. In other words your first thought is “where does this fossil fall in the evolutionary timeline”. Then you look at where you found it in the fossil record, and you already have a timeframe to work with – without ever doing an experiment on the fossil at all. You see… you are fitting the evidence into your already determined truth. The same as you say we do.

    This argument is not about evidence. We can talk about evidence forever, it will never get anywhere. We have to eventually talk about our interpretive presuppositions. Are you willing to discuss those more philosophically than scientifically?

    Like

    • Not with you. You are divorced from reality. Your literal understanding of Genesis makes your view of any evidence worthless. I wanted to see how it came to be that someone could believe as you do, but I don’t think this discussion will help me find that. While looking up the Cambrian Explosion could be interesting- I found trilobite biostratigraphy fascinating- trying to explain it in the face of your silly denials is a bore.

      You can’t experiment on a trilobite!! No, but you can measure it. That is, you can make repeatable observations. There is such a vast amount of evidence.

      Like

      • If you can’t experiment on a trilobite, then you can’t reproduce your theories of what happened with it. How exactly do you “measure” a trilobite. Perhaps a ruler? Do you see how I find it ironic that you accuse me of being “divorced from reality”?

        Like

        • A microscope. So examiners may observe schizochroal eyes on phacopina, with around seven hundred separate lenses. Those who specialise have better ways of examining trilobites than I have.

          Because you are divorced from reality, I do not care what you think. Make the same allegation against me if you wish. I seek out ways in which my understanding may be more conformable to truth, but you are unable to help me with that.

          Like

          • I have no issue with observing schizochroal eyes on phacopina with 700 separate lenses. That’s awesome! I have an issue when they try and tell me how those things evolved from common ancestors. Observation vs. interpretation.

            Like

            • From your link: “For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).”

              Macro-evolution is a belief system. Anything that cannot be observed is. Now re-read the quote. It is extremely arrogant to claim that mainstream scientists have no beliefs or biases.

              Like

            • Mmm. I noticed the bit about confirmation bias, and the steps taken to reduce the harmful effects of that bias. As the article says, the scientific method improves.

              I claim that they seek the truth as best they can, without the idiotic belief that God created all winged birds of every kind in one day.

              Like

            • Radiometric dating assumes that none of the events listed in Genesis actually occurred. Perhaps God never intended for us to interpret the evidence while ignoring his revelation to us. Once we interpret in light of a 6-day creation, fallen world, and worldwide flood – then it makes sense why we would get different results if we ignored that. That’s not a deceptive God, that’s an ignorant people.

              Like

            • Ignorant? Really?

              You see, Tim, what you do might be worth a drunken half hour for some students.

              -And, well, how did animals come to be?
              GOD DID IT!!!
              (Gales of drunken laughter)
              -And all these strata-
              -yes-
              -all these strata, with radiometric dating
              -what?
              -radio-MET-ric dating, millions of years ago but slightly less millions
              -Less Millions!!!
              -Slightly less millions, the higher up you go
              -Whee! Splat!
              -How might that come to be?
              -Noah’s Flood!!!!
              (More laughter. Uproarious laughter.)

              But you do it all the time? Come on, Tim, who’s the fool, really?

              Like

            • Are you saying those events didn’t occur because of your agreeance with the mainstream interpretations of evidence? Did those mainstream interpretations take those events into account when they came to those conclusions? If not, how can you determine that they didn’t happen if they’ve never actually been considered?

              Like

            • Well, in the 18th century many people, including geologists, believed in the Flood and sought to explain strata by that: they were called Neptunians; but that was refuted that long ago. Considering it since would be too silly- like reconsidering geocentrism.

              Do you believe that a prophet called Jonah prophesied to Nineveh as described in that Book?

              Like

            • You see, I don’t believe in Jonah. Leave aside the unlikelihood of surviving being swallowed by “a large fish”, it is a wonderful humorous story with a good point, but does not fit the documented history of Assyria. They did not repent like that. But you see, it works as a story, telling the truth about God and God’s servants and humanity- just not in a literal way. Same with Job. Those conversations are reported in great detail: did each happen just as reported?

              Like

            • Because the book of Jonah is a fiction, just as the tale of the Prodigal Father is. Or do you think the unjust steward was a historical figure, and Jesus just told his story including the words “I am too weak to dig, and am ashamed to beg”? Isaiah’s report of The Rabshakeh does not seem to indicate repentance, in the reign of Hezekiah, 715-686 BC. Even though 2 Kings 14:25 refers to Jonah son of Amittai in the reign of Amaziah from 797-767 BC. Assyria attacked the Northern kingdom from 740 BC, and Samaria fell in 720 BC.

              Like

            • Can you explain this more, or give me a link to something? I tried to research this online and couldn’t find anything from either side on this issue. Are we talking about contradictions again?

              Like

            • I got my dates from Wikipedia, but you have the Bible references. 2 Kings 14:25, Jonah with the same father as in his Book; Isaiah 36 which is repeated word for word in Kings.

              You did not answer about Job. Did those conversations happen as recorded, do you think?

              I am talking about the Bible as story. Dorothea Brooke, or Captain Ahab, are true even though they did not literally exist. You devalue the Bible by making Jonah a literal historical figure.

              Like

  8. It seems that you are saying that 2 Kings, Jonah, and Isaiah all list the same father? What’s the problem exactly?

    Yes, I believe Job is a literal story. How do I devalue the Bible by making Jonah a literal figure? That seems silly. Isn’t that like saying you would devalue an American History book by making Lincoln a literal figure. Cmon – his story is more about slavery and the common man than an actual person.

    Like

    • Oh, Tim, really. Pretending not to understand?

      Jonah is a satire. Part of how I know is the account of being swallowed by a fish, part is the way Assyria destroyed the Northern kingdom and besieged Jerusalem shortly after God was supposed to have made Nineveh repent through Jonah’s preaching, but the main thing is how the story works.

      Still, Job. Did the conversations happen as reported? What about the Prodigal Father? Was he a historical human being?

      Like

      • I don’t think we know much about Ninevah following the repentance. Perhaps the repentance was for a time and they changed again. I don’t know. All I know is they did repent in Jonah’s time. I have no reason to question if Jonah was swallowed by a fish – there are much more radical stories than that… like say a man walking on water. 🙂

        Why would Job’s conversations not have occurred? I’m not sure which conversations you are talking about. In Job 40 God describes the largest creature he ever created “behemoth” (alongside man). The descriptions of which fit a sauropod dinosaur. Just a cool mention I like.

        The prodigal son is a parable told by Jesus to make a point. I recognize that there are parables in the Bible. But each time they are spelled out as that. It’s called contextual interpretation. There is no contextual reason to doubt that Jonah is historical narrative.

        Like

        • Actually, no. Luke 15, Luke 16: “There was a man…” “There was a rich man…” Not “Let me tell you a story…”

          Job, too, is a story.

          Behemoth: Look at Behemoth,
          which I made just as I made you;
          it eats grass like an ox.
          16 Its strength is in its loins,
          and its power in the muscles of its belly.
          17 It makes its tail stiff like a cedar;
          the sinews of its thighs are knit together.
          18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
          its limbs like bars of iron.

          19 ‘It is the first of the great acts of God—
          only its Maker can approach it with the sword.
          20 For the mountains yield food for it
          where all the wild animals play.
          21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
          in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
          22 The lotus trees cover it for shade;
          the willows of the wadi surround it.
          23 Even if the river is turbulent, it is not frightened;
          it is confident though Jordan rushes against its mouth.
          24 Can one take it with hooks[c]
          or pierce its nose with a snare?

          No, it does not fit a sauropod, because God says “Look at Behemoth”, and the dinosaurs died in the Flood, don’t you think?

          It is a story. It is written in poetry. It is not reportage. Look at the text you pretend to revere!

          Like

          • I don’t really care if the prodigal son story is literal or a parable. I don’t think it makes a difference. If the behemoth story is a parable – what is the moral of the story? I have never said the dinosaurs died out during the flood. I believe dragon legends all the way up to the 1500’s tell of large, reptilian beasts hunted down by man. I believe those legends have since been stylized and legendized, but I believe they are based in real history of man seeing dinosaurs well into the last millennium.

            Like

  9. You said, earlier, that This argument is not about evidence. We can talk about evidence forever, it will never get anywhere. We have to eventually talk about our interpretive presuppositions. Are you willing to discuss those more philosophically than scientifically?

    I would like to hear what you have to say on that.

    Like

    • Absolutely! I’ve debated this with soooo many people and EVERY single time it comes down to your starting assumptions when you approach the evidence. They like to make it about evidence because I believe they have a confused view of what evidence is. You ever heard the saying “the evidence speaks for itself”. Well, that is the farthest thing from the truth. The evidence says nothing, scientists say stuff ABOUT the evidence. Creationists have the same evidence: the same rocks, same trees, same fossils, same rock layers. etc. We just interpret the evidence differently due to our different set of starting assumptions.

      Everybody has a worldview – a set of beliefs that lead to how they view the world. In most science the worldview will have little to do with even the analysis/interpretation stage because those interpretations can be repeated and verified by other scientists. BUT when it comes to science that deals with the past, other scientists cannot repeat those conditions and/or beliefs – so unless they have reason to disagree I am sure they would simply agree. And therefore those who share the same worldview would share interpretations.

      If you believe the present is the key to the past (uniformitarianism) and look at the Grand Canyon and observe the Colorado River cutting it slowly, then you are likely to interpret that it always has – and based on the rate of cutting you can estimate how long its been going for – millions of years. Those who share that starting belief will verify those conclusions. The majority of scientists share that starting belief, therefore a majority of scientists interpret the data the same.

      Creationists obviously interpret the data through a Biblical worldview that says if the world was really created in six literal days, then we would expect to see signs of built-in age. For example Adam would have been made a full-grown man on day six, but on day seven would not date to one day old. The same for the rocks and trees (and universe for that matter) – they would have been created fully mature (and operational) but technically young.

      The other two is that the world would have been changed following original sin. There is a lot of language that suggests thing began working differently in the world following the first sin. And the other of course is the worldwide flood. When you take those three events as true history,and then look at the evidence – I’ve never seen a piece of historical evidence that cannot be explained within a YEC view.

      So the real debate lies in which set of starting assumptions or worldview is correct.

      Like

      • I disagree with your assumptions about Scripture.

        I am sure you can find Scripture to show Scripture is valuable, but treat this as a possible contradiction: Paul writes “Now we see through a glass darkly”. So he does not have God explaining everything to him, which he merely writes down, he writes as well as he can see. Only when prophecies, tongues and knowledge end will he “see face to face”. Jacob wrestles with the angel. Peter comments that some of Paul is hard to understand. Elijah sees God after God has passed by.

        Here is another possible contradiction, and my way into living with it.

        Like

        • I don’t think that scripture in 1 Corinthians by Paul is meant to imply that the scriptures are not divinely inspired. I think it is meant to say that even with the knowledge we do have here on earth, there is much more to be known in heaven. Again, contradictions are incredibly hard to prove.

          Like

          • I am not saying it is not divinely inspired, but commenting on what divine inspiration might mean.

            And contradictions are only “incredibly hard to prove” if your worldview demands that there are none.

            Like

            • You know, if you applied the same scepticism to the Bible that you apply to the scientific method, you might find one yourself. Try it, just as a game. Make the best argument you can for a Biblical contradiction, and see how you feel about that.

              Like

            • I think the main “contradiction” you hear from people is that if God is described as a loving and merciful God, then why does he order armies to kill and destroy entire towns or he himself wipes them out. Heck, take the flood – he wipes out the whole planet except 8 people! Seems like a character contradiction.

              Here’s what I think people that claim that miss. That he is God! He is outside of time, he is eternal. He is already at the end of our lives. He knows every choice we will make. He knew whether or not those people he ordered wiped out would turn from their ways or not. We tend to be very human-based thinkers (how could we not), but he thinks eternally. To him, all that really matters is our eternal destiny. Whether we live 8 months or 80 years is of no concern to him if we don’t do what we are supposed to with that life.

              The other caveat even IF some of those people were going to change their ways – he knows that too and can honor that in eternity without them having to live that out. Now that perspective is not entirely biblical, but it does make sense philosophically.

              In other words, God is eternally-focused while we tend to be here-and-now focused. So yes, we see him wiping out entire civilizations as contrary to a loving/merciful God – but who are we to question his infinite knowledge. He knows their outcome. He is already standing at the end of our lives.

              I wonder if you are interested in re-reading our discussion and make a decision about who is defending the scriptures and who is trying to know them down. Why do you think you feel a need to destroy the scriptures. You must not be convinced of their importance. If you are not convinced of its importance, why are you a Christian? I’m assuming you’ve never physically met Christ, therefore you must believe the accounts of him are correct in the Bible.

              Without the Bible I would never have known who Christ is. I now know him intimately, and owe that relationship to the introduction of him found in the Bible. If I work to discredit that, I am discrediting my own worldview and creating a self-contradictory testimony. Why would I do that? Why do you do that?

              I’m guessing there is something in those scriptures you are not comfortable with and so discrediting the scriptures is easier for you than adhering to what it says. If you can find errors, you can justify picking and choosing what to believe – in other words creating a religion of your own design.

              Like

            • Well, let’s see. You accuse me of mowing down the scriptures, destroying them, discrediting my worldview, being self-contradictory, not adhering to the scriptures, being uncomfortable with the scriptures, and picking and choosing what to believe- indeed, creating my own religion.

              Whereas I accuse you of making Christianity and the Bible look ridiculous, by claiming that they make the patently false claim that the world is less than 10,000 years old. You damage the cause of Christ that you pretend to support.

              By your fruits shall ye know them: your fruits are driving people from Christianity, by making it look ridiculous.

              Like

            • Most people are driven away from Christianity because they can’t reconcile things like contradictions or origins with their faith. Some people reconcile them in an effort to maintain their beliefs but create unnecessary contradictions by doing so (claiming that death came before sin). My ministry is to offer answers to people who are starting to question their faith because of the loud opposition. It is to say there are answers to those questions. There is no need to concede your faith based on those positions.

              Christ’s coming makes no sense if the events of Genesis did not occur exactly as written. Most people do not accept the gospel because they don’t understand why they need a savior. Why is this world broken if a perfect God made it? If there was sickness, disease, suffering, and death for millions of years before man came on the scene – then we can’t blame mankind… so who is left? Blame God. God creates an imperfect world and then sacrifices his son to save it. Why not just create it right? Perhaps he did create it right – and WE messed it up. We introduced sickness, pain, and death.

              When I was able to understand the scriptures as a whole and stop just being a New Testament Christian – I now knew I had the confidence to stand unashamedly on the authority of scripture for EVERY area of my life. Creationism changed my life for the better, and all I want to do is share that revelation with others.

              Like

            • Of course the Fall makes sense! Hominids were animals, doing as we did without right or wrong- australopithecus, habilis, perhaps even Cro-Magnon- and at some point we attained consciousness, “The knowledge of good and evil”. Israel was the People of God, and Jesus came to save the world. If it did not make sense, then as soon as Darwin published, Christianity would have ended.

              Richard Dawkins, then holding the chair for the “Public Understanding of Science”, might not have attacked Christianity at all but for people like you who arrogantly attacked his life’s work, from a position of ignorance. You mock and deride what you refuse to try to understand, the beautiful complexity of the evidence of God’s own creation, through a process of natural selection over billions of years.

              Like

            • Are you defending God and his word or Richard Dawkins and Darwin? Who designed death and suffering? Was it the process that God used to create with or was it a consequence of man’s sin? The Bible seems to say that it is man’s fault over and over and over again. Evolution makes it God’s “very good” design. Therefore if you or a loved one gets cancer you have to say that God calls cancer “very good” since we know cancer is in the fossil record before man. I don’t have to say that. I can say that God grieves cancer just like you and I since it is an unfortunate result of a fallen world. Your worldview creates unnecessary contradictions in the Bible.

              Like

            • OK, Tell me this one, for I don’t understand. Adam and Eve don’t eat the apple- as in Perelandra, perhaps. Would there then be no cancer? How would sin create cancer- or polio, malaria, the cold, etc- or did God, when we left the Garden? And given that bacterial infections are caused by animals, did not God create them on the fourth day?

              Like

            • That is a GREAT question! Yes, I believe the original creation would have been a much different world than we live in today. Another reason why I think it is foolish to judge the ancient past by today’s processes. There would have been no death. That means no sickness, no disease. Mankind was to eat of the Tree of Life to keep them alive indefinitely. When sin entered the world God cursed the world. He said sin would lead to death. I believe that means at the moment of this curse the world was turned over to Satan.

              I believe the genetic code of the original creation was perfect. No mutations, no errors. This would have been maintained by God had no sin entered the world. Since sin did, he had to separate himself from the creation – and thus the genetics began degrading slowly over time (genetic entropy). As harmful mutations increased so did sicknesses and diseases. God didn’t create cancer. Cancer is the side effect of a world abandoned by God and handed over to sin. A reminder that we need salvation.

              I hope you don’t censor this comment since I’m sure it disagrees with your position.. but you asked.

              Like

            • Are we talking about bacteria here? Yes bacteria would have been around in the original creation I believe because they also have helpful functions. I believe their harmful functions would have been a result of degeneration from mutations following original sin and the curse on all of creation. Roman 8:22.

              Like

            • Here I pause to consider observational science. Experiment shows, for example, that a particular kind of antibiotic kills a particular species of staphylococcus; but they are not produced by experiment. They are observed and measured, just as fossils are. Labour pains were the Genesis 3 punishment for the woman, not for creation. There is a new creation and new kingdom, in Jesus.

              Oops, there’s another one. “Who hopes for what is seen?” The Bible points to something beyond, rather than describing literally.

              Like

            • I’m sorry, I didn’t really follow that comment. Are you now talking about antibiotic resistance? I’m not sure how that applies to the original creation vs. today’s world contrast I am making. Yes, bacteria adapt to environment today and develop resistances. But they do not evolve into anything but a different kind of bacteria. To maintain your position you have to believe that the bacteria at some point evolved a body, skeleton, and gills to become a fish – something we do not observe.

              There was much more than just labor pains listed during the curse. Men were to now work by the sweat of their brow to provide for their family. In the original creation everything was provided. Our new creation in Jesus is eternal life. Once we accept him as our savior we are now eternal, technically immortal if you want to think about it that way.

              Like

            • I was talking of how science works by observation, not necessarily experiment; and the staphylococcus may be observed and measured, just as a fossil is.

              We observe every stage in the evolution from bacteria to more complex life-forms: single-celled eukaryotes, colony creatures, the most primitive deuterostomes (creatures with a tube through which food passes) and chordates (creatures with a spinal cord). Scientists propose how such evolution could occur. The point about observation was precisely to refute what you have just reiterated: we do not observe bacteria changing into humans, because that process takes billions of years. However, we observe it has happened, in the fossil record.

              Like

            • And of course I would label that an incorrect interpretation of the fossil record based on unprovable starting beliefs applied to the evidence. Just because those starting beliefs are unprovable doesn’t make them wrong (my starting beliefs are unprovable either). I just think it’s fair to not treat those beliefs as science.

              Like

            • Do you think people experiment on stars? Is anything known about stars merely belief, or is it “science”, in your view?

              And if it is not science, is there any point to what these people do, and if not why do only a few creationist cranks claim there is not? We could save a great deal of money, shutting the research down.

              Like

            • Can you give me something more specific. I am pretty skeptical of much of astronomy because we are judging the universe by what we observe on our planet and applying those observations to things we haven’t observed. I would be weary of that for sure. I think all science is valuable, but I believe God’s word is the final authority in all matters because it is the only source of pure truth – everything else is corrupted in some way or another.

              Like

            • All right. I see you want to talk about more evidence. 🙂

              We believe again, that the error is in the interpretation. There are many explanations creationists have offered over the years. Many make sense to me, but I don’t think we know for certain a final answer to the question. My favorite is that God says that he created the stars to shine their light on the earth on that day and so that is what they did. Just as Adam would show mature age, so would the starlight. If we interpreted it outside of the Biblical account we would come to a much longer age of course.

              The problem with that explanation is the history of dieing stars in the history of that starlight. God would have had to put a fake history in that starlight, and that doesn’t make sense. My next favorite explanation is Dr. Jason Lisle’s anisotropic synchrony convention theory (https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/anisotropic-synchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/).

              The ironic thing is that mainstream science has an issue with starlight as well. It’s called the horizon problem.

              Like

            • Ooh! It’s got an abstract, and everything! an observer-centric anisotropic synchrony convention eliminates the distant starlight problem by reducing radially inward-directed light travel-time in the reference frame of the observer to zero. In other words, light has different speeds in different directions. Now, why in Space would that be? I hear those drunken students giggling…

              We hadn’t done astronomy yet. We had covered your intellectual dishonesty on evolution, on fossils, on the Bible and on how science works by repeatable observation, but not astronomy.

              The horizon problem is dealt with by the theory of Inflation.

              Like

            • Wait – you just said that light traveled at different speed is laughable and then mentioned the inflation theory in the same comment? Do you know what the inflation theory is? The main concept is pretty close to Lisle’s theory.

              I thought you might be interested in a couple neat quotes I found today (from secular sources)…

              “Most studies of recent evolution involve the loss of traits, and we still understand little of the genetic changes needed in the origin of novel traits.”

              -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20851493

              “The genetic origin of new and complex traits is probably still one of the most pertinent and fundamental unanswered questions in evolution today”

              http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000037

              Like

            • Given that you misrepresent the Bible, I am hardly surprised that you misrepresent me.

              I said that light should travel in different speeds in different directions is laughable. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds.

              What a horrible hobby, mining proper science for quotes which might please a YEC. You will have to wade through such a vast amount which doesn’t.

              Like

            • So as long as the light moved REALLY REALLY REALLY fast, then its not laughable, right? Isnt that what I suggested with the light shining on the earth on the fourth day?

              The quotes are simply to point out that even evolutionary scientists themselves recognize the problems with their field. Normally the mainstream media does not report this part, it’s not sensational enough. I find these all the time. That’s why I don’t actually blame science in and of itself – it’s normally the people not doing the actual science who seem to have the problem (like you). Or like lawmakers banning creationism in the UK. It only takes a few minutes on this site: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/ to find the scientific problems with evolution. Does that make you or them ignorant? You can’t blame an ignorant person unless you educate them and they decide to remain ignorant.

              Like

            • Well, of course scientists recognise the problems in their fields, or no advance could be made. That is how science proceeds. They still find creationism ridiculous. I wonder what happened, to delude you in this way? Do you make money from your creationism talks?

              Like

            • No, I don’t make any money – lol. Perhaps I love God and his word and feel called to proclaim it and defend it, and encourage others to not compromise their own beliefs by offering answers they may have never thought of before.

              Like

            • If you loved God, you would not accuse God of saying stupid things. You would not drive scientists away from Christianity.

              So, that’s not it. Were you brought up by people with these particular false notions?

              Like

            • No, I was not brought up as a creationist. A Christian, yes. Actually it was God who said in Exodus 20:11 that he created everything in six days. I am just choosing to believe and defend what he wrote in stone with his own finger. Are you calling God a liar?

              Like

            • No, you are. By your particular doctrine of inspiration and literal truth, you make God intentionally delude anyone who believes it.

              One fascinating question, then, is whether you ever believed the truth about the age of the Earth and the evolution of its creatures?

              Like

            • He said six days. I believe six days.. and you honestly think I am twisting his words? Wow, that takes a pretty big leap! 🙂

              I don’t think I ever believed in monkeys to man evolution, but I don’t think I ever cared much about the age of the earth before I started researching it about 4 years ago. Actually I was never really interested in science at all before researching this. Science came alive and real for me when I could finally see God’s handywork at play.

              Like

            • You do not consider the purpose of the words. Imagine telling subsistence peasants that the world is even millions of years old. You would see God’s handiwork if you listened to the scientists telling you how it is, rather than dishonest men claiming that light goes at different speeds in different directions.

              Research? Ha! If you would like to research biostratigraphy, look here; and if you want to see how Flood geologists have refuted the deluge theory all by themselves, look here.

              Some Bible verses for you. Believing the Earth is under six thousand years old is slightly sillier than believing it is flat, but the Bible says it is flat- if you take it as literally as you do:

              “Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth…reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” Only with a flat earth could tall tree be visible from “the earth’s farthest bounds,” — this is impossible on a spherical earth.

              Matthew 4:8: “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world”

              Luke 4:5: “And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.”

              Isaiah 40:22: “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.”

              Or the Earth is unmoving, at the centre of the Universe:

              Joshua 10:12-13: On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

              1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

              Psalm 19:6: It [the sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

              Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

              Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

              Psalm 104:5: (Bless the LORD . . .) Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

              Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

              What about this?I love Psalm 114, a wonderfully joyous poem.

              5 Why is it, O sea, that you flee?
              O Jordan, that you turn back?
              6 O mountains, that you skip like rams?
              O hills, like lambs?

              Taking your silly literalist position, hills spontaneously rip themselves from the Earth and bound into the air. People who see this as poetic imagery, not to be taken literally, see the beauty in it, and do not drive people away from God like you do.

              The more I interact with you, Tim, the more I see how pitiable you are. How much more beautiful my world is! I hear words like biostratigraphy or palaeothermometry, and learn what they mean, and think- How wonderful! How beautiful! People are finding these things out! And you think, They must be wrong. It is all rubbish. Here is a dispute and there is an inconsistency, and all scientists are FOOLS!

              How much more beautiful my Bible is! My Bible has story, and metaphor, and poetry, and poetic imagery, and allusion. Your Bible has a series of propositions, more or less ridiculous, which you have to Believe. My Bible leads me to God, and your Bible mires you in lies.

              Like

            • Although I realize some parts of scripture are written poetically (such as Psalms and Song of Solomon) or tell metaphoric stories (such as parables) or foretell prophetic visions (such as Isaiah and Revelation), I recognize the Bible as actual literal history. In other words, the events the Bible describe actually happened. That is what I mean by describing myself as a literalist. That doesn’t mean I need to literally pluck my eye out if it causes me to sin because I realize that is a metaphoric picture of the eternal ramifications of sin, but when it describes marching around Jericho or the Exodus from Egypt (or any other occurrence) – that is an actual historic event.

              Like

            • The trouble is that the tower of Babel is a poetic or metaphoric story as well. Why should it not be? Sumerian and Egyptian records, showing the same respective languages, go back long before Ussher dated Babel, without some great change. So in the Song of Solomon we have a story, and in Genesis we have stories. Job works as drama, though no group of friends ever spoke like that, or when consoling a friend would have a stenographer taking it all down; nor did God dictate it from memory after the event. It is a story.

              God had a quick look at the Geologic column, and thought to himself “In the beginning, 13.8 billion years ago, God set off the Big Bang, and humans evolved from creatures like fish, then creatures like shrews, then creatures like apes. No, they won’t believe that for centuries yet! And they have to work it out for themselves. If I tell them I made it, that is enough.”

              Like

            • I am deeply offended for those who suggest that God did not believe he could explain the true history if he really used evolution because it is too complicated. Try this on for size:

              “In the beginning, I spoke into the void and created all the stars you see around you. When it came time I formed the earth to produce life. This life began in the oceans and eventually migrated to land. As time passes all the different creatures came to be one after another. After more time passed I found it fit to breathe the life into the first man and woman.”

              This is WAY less detailed than Gen1. If we wanted to keep it simple, it could have been done. Perhaps in your view of God he is too stupid to think of this. I guess that makes me smarter than God. In your view he sure sounds deceptive – in fact straight out lieing as to the order. Talk about contradictions!

              So no, he could have given the true count of creation.

              Like

            • Mmm, I could pick you up on the language- he could have given the true count of creation- but instead gave a parable. The parable tells more of God and creation than your story, but not a literal day by day account of as it happened. God did what God did- why are you calling it stupid?

              Like

            • But the parable is false. He has the earth before the stars… why? He has birds before reptiles… why? Heck he has man before woman…. why? Why did he lie over and over again? It would be helpful if you could simply stretch out the days of creation and therefore call the timeframe unimportant, but even doing that doesn’t solve it. He actually gets the order WAY wrong. He also says the earth was made out of water… why? How incompetent is this God of yours? If he is way wrong in these details – whose to say he got any of the rest right?

              Like

            • You see, it is true. “God saw what God had made, and behold, it was very good.” That is True. All those 18th century geologists, seeing beyond all doubt that the Flood had not happened: they did not stop believing in God, or valuing the Bible. Neither need you. You can admit that geology is as the scientists say, and that the world is a moving globe not a stationary plane, and still believe in God. Really you can.

              Your idea of presuppositions forced upon the evidence- evolution, no Flood, Earth billions of years old- shows a lack of historical understanding. Initially, the presuppositions were the opposite- Flood, no change of kinds created by God, Earth thousands of years old- until the evidence forced the scientists to think again.

              Like

Talk to me.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.