Creation vs. Evolution

[popsthebuilder]

The earth does not seem like it is 6 billion years old, but that is what you have been taught.... But apart from that; If God created a tree in the garden of Eden with 100 tree rings... and created a fully grown man in the garden...would you still call God a deceiver?

Please sir; I would not, nor have I stated such. Review my previous post please.

In not catching your hypothetical. I would say that the man and the tree are both at the age that they where formed to be. Who am I to refute GOD? If a day for GOD can be a thousand years to man, then who is to limit that omnipresence and omnipotence by saying that an aeon to man can't be but a day for the Creator?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

... How do you reconcile your claims with what Jose has referenced?

Jose referenced that SOME (a very few)* evolutionists did research on non-coding DNA.** It is not inconsistent with what I said that evolutionists (including some biologists, some geneticists, some sociologists, some science editors...etc) thought our genome was littered was useless biological remnants. They taught that this "junk" was evidence of their belief system...common ancestry.

Here we have evidence that not only did some scientists did not ignore Junk DNA but they even convinced research departments to fund their research into these ideas.

Fortunately, science did help prove the old evolutionary beliefs to be false. We don't know how much the creationist prodding helped influence the research...nor do we know how many creationists were involved in the actual research.

 

[6days]

In not catching your hypothetical.

Its not really a hypothetical. God created fully grown trees and a man. We wouldn't call God a deceiver because they looked to be more than 2 days old.

If a day for GOD can be a thousand years to man, then who is to limit that omnipresence and omnipotence by saying that an aeon to man can't be but a day for the Creator?

Are you suggesting that the word day can mean an eon throughout scripture? Did Joshua march around Jericho for 7,000 years? Of course not. We know from the context in Hebrew that God created in 6 literal days.

 

[6days]

Even the staunchest of evolutionists won't agree with you that we came from chimps or another type of monkey, but they will say that both the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor.

The word 'monkeys' is common vernacular. We know evolutionists believe there was a common ancestor. But God's Word tells us that He created man from the dust, and woman from man's side.

 

[Tyrathca]

6days arguing with you sometimes is like arguing with a parrot. You response to new evidence is to simply repeat your old claims ad nauseum.

That might be somewhat acceptable if you'd originally posted a well research claim with lots of strong object reference that were yet to be addressed. But the best you've come up with to support your narrative is a few quotes of people's opinions who happen to agree with you. Conveniently the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with you don't hold much weight....

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Its not really a hypothetical. God created fully grown trees and a man. We wouldn't call God a deceiver because they looked to be more than 2 days old.
Are you suggesting that the word day can mean an eon throughout scripture? Did Joshua march around Jericho for 7,000 years? Of course not. We know from the context in Hebrew that God created in 6 literal days.

No, not throughout scripture necessarily. I'm saying we can't limit the word day in the creation account to the confines of 24 hours. Doing so is vanity.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

The word 'monkeys' is common vernacular. We know evolutionists believe there was a common ancestor. But God's Word tells us that He created man from the dust, and woman from man's side.

Yes it is quite obvious that all came from dust, in some fashion or another. And yes this was still done and formed and caused and created by GOD.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

6days arguing with you sometimes is like arguing with a parrot. You response to new evidence is to simply repeat your old claims ad nauseum.

Your claims of "new evidence" require the assumption of your Darwinism.

That might be somewhat acceptable if you'd originally posted a well research claim with lots of strong object reference that were yet to be addressed. But the best you've come up with to support your narrative is a few quotes of people's opinions who happen to agree with you. Conveniently the opinions of anyone who doesn't agree with you don't hold much weight.

Nope. The assertion that God created the universe does not require screeds of citations. You either accept it, or you don't.

Demanding evidence for that which you are determined must not be true is your way of avoiding the discussion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nice revisionist story. However the truth is that evolutionists (including some biologists, some geneticists, some sociologists, some science editors...etc) thought our genome was littered was useless biological remnants.* They taught that this "junk" was evidence of their belief system...common ancestry.*

Again you demonstrate that all you know about this subject is the simplistic creationist talking point that you've memorized. The fact remains, the human genome does contain "junk" sequences, and more specific to the subject at hand, some of those non-functional sequences include pseudogenes (especially the exon regions).

Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents wrote articles and books suggesting that our genome may be much more functional than previously thought. These books such as 'The Myth Of Junk DNA', was sometimes met with hostility...even though that one was published in 2011.

Gee....they wrote a book, but they conducted absolutely no actual science of their own into genetic function. IOW, just like you they did nothing but sit on the sidelines and throw rocks at the people actually doing the work.

Pathetic.

Obviously down through the years there were scientists (both creationist and evolutionist) who did research... and did find our genome was the opposite of evolutionists *beliefs.

Another slimy attempt by you to give creationists credit for other people's work.

Yet, in 2016, there are still evolutionists who*are still hoping that some of the*non-coding DNA might be junk.* They are having a hard time admitting that they were wrong, so cling to a icon of evolution...junk DNA.

Again we see how all you can do is repeat this simplistic creationist talking point over and over and over and over. The fact remains, even within the category of pseudogenes, there are plenty of non-functional sequences, including the exon regions of the handful of pseudogenes whose introns have been found to serve a regulatory function.

After Wells book came out in 2011,* Russell* Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said

This is science....no one cares what people say. That you believe quotes are superior to actual data is just one more testament to your fundamental ignorance of basic science.

 

[Jose Fly]

6days states something is history. Jose contradicts it with analternative more nuanced history with referenced sources. 6days restates his version of history without addressing the referenced evidence at all.

It's been clear for a very long time that all 6days can do is regurgitate a handful of creationist talking points, and in his mind the more he repeats them the more true they become.

Such is the nature of creationism.

 

[Jose Fly]

We don't know how much the creationist prodding helped influence the research...nor do we know how many creationists were involved in the actual research.

Another slimy attempt by you to give creationists credit for other people's work.

Pathetic.

 

[6days]

No, not throughout scripture necessarily. I'm saying we can't limit the word day in the creation account to the confines of 24 hours

Why would you limit the the word day to mean only 24 hours in other places in scripture? The answer is simple... the meaning of 'yom'/day is always easy to understand by the context. (Both in Hebrew and in English). It can mean anything from less than 24 hour to a long period of time. The word is used hundreds of times in the O.T. *and is ALWAYS defined by context.*
For example...Genesis 2:3,4..."Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.*This*is*the history*of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the*Lord*God made the earth and the heavens.[/b]

In those verses, the word 'day' is used with two different meanings. It isn't confusing. It isn't hard to understand. Likewise, the word is easy to understand in Genesis 1 as 24 hour days. And Pops...we can also use other scripture to help us determine how to understand Genesis. For example we could study the doctrines of sin and death. *Or, we can study how Jesus understood the creation account. And, we could examine the gospel and find out why Christ had to suffer physical death.

IOW Pops, I'm saying that if you try make the creation days into long periods of time....
* You aren't being consistent with the Hebrew language, nor using exegetical interpretation. (Using scripture to help interpret scripture)
* You reject the traditional interpretation of scripture for the past few thousand years.*
* You need to spin the words of Jeaus when He referred to man and woman existing at the beginning of creation.
* You destroy the doctrines of sin, imputation, death...and even the reason Christ went to the cross. *(See 1 Cor. 15)

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why would you limit the the word day to mean only 24 hours in other places in scripture? The answer is simple... the meaning of 'yom'/day is always easy to understand by the context. (Both in Hebrew and in English). It can mean anything from less than 24 hour to a long period of time. The word is used hundreds of times in the O.T. *and is ALWAYS defined by context.*
For example...Genesis 2:3,4..."Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.*This*is*the history*of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the*Lord*God made the earth and the heavens.[/b]

In those verses, the word 'day' is used with two different meanings. It isn't confusing. It isn't hard to understand. Likewise, the word is easy to understand in Genesis 1 as 24 hour days. And Pops...we can also use other scripture to help us determine how to understand Genesis. For example we could study the doctrines of sin and death. *Or, we can study how Jesus understood the creation account. And, we could examine the gospel and find out why Christ had to suffer physical death.

IOW Pops, I'm saying that if you try make the creation days into long periods of time....
* You aren't being consistent with the Hebrew language, nor using exegetical interpretation. (Using scripture to help interpret scripture)
* You reject the traditional interpretation of scripture for the past few thousand years.*
* You need to spin the words of Jeaus when He referred to man and woman existing at the beginning of creation.
* You destroy the doctrines of sin, imputation, death...and even the reason Christ went to the cross. *(See 1 Cor. 15)

That is simply nonsense.

You say that a day in scripture can be any length of time between less than twenty four hours up to long periods of time. Then why refute what I'm saying? You say that it is evident within context that the creation account was meant in 24 hour periods. Please show this to be the case.

You somehow seem to accuse me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by negating or denying the work of the Christ because I say day in the creation account could be interpreted as aeon. Please show how you conclude such.

That is a very strong claim to be making without some sort of evidence.so please support your claims.

Thank you in advance.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

. The fact remains, the human genome does contain "junk" sequences, and more specific to the subject at hand, some of those non-functional sequences include pseudogenes (especially the exon regions).

You may be correct. But, you sound like the evolutionists of old with their bold proclamations... later proven wrong by science.

The argument wasn't IF there is DNA, that serves no purpose. (You tried to move goalposts). We were discussing how evolutionary beliefs lead to faulty conclusions which hindered science. Even many evolutionists admit this icon of Darwinism was ignored by scientists to avoid being ridiculed.
Ex. Wojciech Makalowski wrote an article in Science titled "Not Junk After All" . "Although catchy, the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA. Who, except a small number of genomic clochards, would like to dig through genomic garbage? "
junk_dna_roundup_and_rebuttal020941

Or, like virologist Nessa Carey says "For years, scientists had no explanation for why so much of our DNA doesn't code for proteins. These non-coding parts were dismissed with the term "junk DNA." But gradually this position has begun to look less tenable, for a whole host of reasons." (Her book, 'Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome')
She is partly correct... most scientists had dismissed "junk" DNA. However contrary to what she says, we do know the reason. Evolutiinists admit they thought much of our genome were useless relics leftover due to their Darwinian beliefs. Science has proven those beliefs were false.*

 

[6days]

You say that a day in scripture can be any length of time between less than twenty four hours up to long periods of time. Then why refute what I'm saying? You say that it is evident within context that the creation account was meant in 24 hour periods. Please show this to be the case.*

Pops..... I did briefly show why the creation days are 24 hour periods of time.*
* Hebrew grammar demands it.
* Exegesis of scripture demands it.
* The gospel message demands it.

I can gladly go into detail for you, but first you should address the few details I provided in previous post to you.*

One thing more for you to consider re. the Hebrew grammar. A Hebrew professor challenges you to find even one Hebrew scholar, at any major university, who says the context of Genesis 1 is long periods of time. He said "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that ... creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience."

You somehow seem to accuse me of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by negating or denying the work of the Christ because I say day in the creation account could be interpreted as aeon. Please show how you conclude such.

*
I will try defend what I actually said, if you want to adress the points I made.

 

[Jose Fly]

You may be correct. But, you sound like the evolutionists of old with their bold proclamations... later proven wrong by science.

Young earth creationists are the last people who should go around lecturing others about what science has proved wrong.

The argument wasn't IF there is DNA, that serves no purpose. (You tried to move goalposts). We were discussing how evolutionary beliefs lead to faulty conclusions which hindered science.

No matter how many times you keep repeating this talking point, it's wrong. As I showed via the relevant journals, there were evolutionary scientists on both sides of the issue. And by utilizing the framework of evolutionary common ancestry and armed with the knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms, they researched the issue and found that while some portions non-coding DNA are functional, other portions are not functional.

Meanwhile, creationists did absolutely nothing except throw rocks and try and take credit for work other peoples' work.

Even many evolutionists admit...Or, like virologist Nessa Carey says

Again we see your fundamental ignorance of science in action, where you think tiny snippets are superior to actual data (e.g., the examples I showed of geneticists researching non-coding regions decades ago).

Evolutiinists admit they thought much of our genome were useless relics leftover due to their Darwinian beliefs. Science has proven those beliefs were false.

And as evidenced by looking at the actual work of geneticists, this talking point is demonstrably wrong. Yet you keep repeating it.

Says a lot about you.

 

[Tyrathca]

:chuckle:

Your claims of "new evidence" require the assumption of your Darwinism.

Try reading, you'll learn something

Nope. The assertion that God created the universe does not require screeds of citations. You either accept it, or you don't.

Demanding evidence for that which you are determined must not be true is your way of avoiding the discussion.

Nope. Evidence, remember? Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.


Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Young earth creationists are the*last*people who should go around lecturing others about what science has proved wrong.

No lecture Jose, but science has proven evolutionists wrong on many things including "junk" DNA, Piltdown man, psuedogenes, poor eye design, "simple" genes, *useless appendix, Haeckel's 'embryo's, *Darwinius masillae claims, *peppered moth claims, Darwin's tree, coelacanth exintinction, Neandertal claims, *Lamarkian evolution, 'Theory' of pangenesis, Darwins tree, archaeorapter, whale evolution claims, Nebraska man, useless human 'tailbone', *female inferiority, *Miller -Urey claims, *Archaeopteryx claims, *scientific racism, 'Lucy' claims..... *etc. Etc.

Science helps prove the truth of God's Word. **

Even many evolutionists admit...Or, like virologist Nessa Carey says

Again we see your fundamental ignorance of science in action, where you think tiny snippets are superior to actual data...

Jose.... you are disappointed that science has junked your beliefs about Junk DNA. Its hard for you to admit but even qualified evolutionists are now admitting things in peer reviewed journals such as "the term 'junk DNA' for many years repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding DNA".Its yet another example of evolutionism hindering science.*

 

[popsthebuilder]

6days,

A day can refer to an age or period of time. And again; GOD is infinite so a day could literally refer to any amount of time technically. Also; GOD created the passage of time, and established the stars and the course of the moon and sun for us to keep track of time, so before all that even happened, you demand that a day must be a 24 hour period. How does the gospel message demand that the word day in Genesis must refer to a 24 hour period?

You say exegesis demands it, but we know that the Word of GOD is truthful and simple. We also know that GOD doesn't condemn actual truthful scientific endeavor, and the plain science shows that the earth is well over 6000 years old. I mean, the last ice age is estimated to have occurred 2.6 million years ago, but the earth is only 6000 years old. That flies in the face of simple and truth.


Don't worry about explaining what you said earlier.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Evidence, remember? Creationists will do anything to avoid talking about the evidence.

Nope.

Darwinists run for the hills when it comes to talking evidence. They will do anything to avoid it.