The Conversation:

“The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“

What's fascinating is Bogus Science's PTB claims that their 100% unproven theory of "Evolution" constitutes actual "science."

We should be mindful that "Adaptation" is a whole different ballgame. Yet its doesn't stop National Geographic from performing semantic-contortionism.

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. That's just Genetics 101.

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving.

The reality is quite the opposite. That's why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and we create different breeds of dogs.

Beetle blow

National Geographic: “bombardier beetle species may have evolved the ability to survive toads’ digestive system…” New Scientist: “In another experiment, the researchers found bombardier beetles are more likely to survive after 20 minutes in a toad stomach than 14 other beetle species. This suggests they have evolved a tolerance for toad digestive juices.” The Conversation: “The diverse getaway tactics of animals are a testament to the fascinating creativity of evolution…. we should be mindful that evolutionary innovation can produce remarkable adaptations.“

LOL they do try.

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. The reality is quite the opposite. That's why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and we create different breeds of dogs.

What you said isn't reality. What happens is antibiotics kill off certain bacteria. Then what remains has natural resistant to the antibiotics. Then those ones that are left multiply with each other. No new species.

With dogs. They are still dogs. Just different characteristics. When the White man came to America and had sex with an indian. They created a new species right?

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. The reality is quite the opposite. That's why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and we create different breeds of dogs.

What you said isn't reality. What happens is antibiotics kill off certain bacteria. Then what remains has natural resistant to the antibiotics.

What is a species? Nothing but an organism with sharply different inherited permanent charactistics. Don't get hung up on words used to describe something. They are just a artificial convenience to refer to something.

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving. That's just Genetics 101.

It is more accurate to say that there is no known mechanism for DNA to extend it's instruction set.

And "no known mechanism" does not equate to one not existing, and is not sufficient to conclude that it cannot do so. To support a claim that DNA is "incapable" of mutating into more complex structures, one must prove a negative -- that it "can't" do something -- and that is very hard to do.

As far as creationism goes, there is also "no known mechanism" for the divine creation of new life. To explain the existence of life on earth, Creationists say "God created it" while Evolutionists say "Evolution created it". Yet neither side can fully explain the mechanism by which life came to be.

Though I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen.

Though I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen.

We have a plausible and compelling theory to explain it.

He did it through the evolution. He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process.

In the beginning He created space, visible and invisible world, gave it physical laws and started the time.

They screwed with fruit fly DNA for what would amount to millions of years of human existence, and they could never come up up with anything other than some really effed up fruit flies. That right there should have made it clear that evolution is simply not credible.

You are being disingenuous again. I won't list variables about your poor analysis but you could be more objective in your commentary.

a very long process.

6 days isn't very long.

As far as creationism goes, there is also "no known mechanism" for the divine creation of new life. To explain the existence of life on earth,

That's a good one. When did you become a comedian?

It is found in Genesis chapter one by people who were actually there.

I guess you could say there was no Roman empire either. T

"a very long process"

6 days isn't very long.

Funny how Prots, or drifters with Prot background insist on literal reading in matters not needed much for their Salvation, treating Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy.

Yet when they are told what is literally necessary, they either interpret it away as a mere symbolic ritual of commemoration or walk out.

===

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

“You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”

Funny how Prots, or drifters with Prot background insist on literal reading in matters not needed much for their Salvation, treating Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy.

No that isn't funny that is serious.

What is funny is some idiot who doesn't believe the Bible and claims to be a Christian.

Then the same idiot votes for murdering children.

Yet when they are told what is literally necessary, they either interpret it away as a mere symbolic ritual of commemoration or walk out.

Now you are being a typical Democrat. Making up lies. Specifics please.

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

That is more complicated and this explains it be5er then I have time to.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you- must-eat-my-flesh

Now you are being a typical Democrat. Making up lies. Specifics please.

Do you believe that the consecrated Bread and Wine is the real Body and Blood of our Savior? Do you believe that consuming It is required to enter Kingdom of God?

Funny how Prots, or drifters with Prot background insist on literal reading in matters not needed much for their Salvation, treating Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy.

Yet when they are told what is literally necessary, they either interpret it away as a mere symbolic ritual of commemoration or walk out.

That is right you worship a fallible man the so called pope. The child sex abuse excuse maker.

Do you believe that the consecrated Bread and Wine is the real Body and Blood of our Savior? Do you believe that consuming It is required to enter Kingdom of God?

You are out of context. Read the linky I gave you and get back to me when you understand.

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Since you don't believe the Bible. I'm curious if you think you have to be saved to enter Heaven. If you do why do you take it literally?

If you don't well you don't, and you're a member of the godless Democrats, so that would explain.

That is more complicated and this explains it be5er then I have time to.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-jesus-meant-when-he-said-you-must-eat-my-flesh:

For Jesus eating is believing; drinking is believing. He promises eternal life to those who believe in him. Believe what?

Believe that his death—the breaking of his body and spilling of his blood—pays in full the penalty for our sin and that his perfect righteousness is freely given to us in exchange for our unrighteousness.

Believing this IS HOW we “eat” [quotes!] Jesus’ flesh and “drink”[quotes!] his blood. This is why he instituted the Lord’s Supper: he did not want us to FORGET the very core of what we believe.

Ha, ha. You guys do exactly what I said. Simple saving words you interpret away as a symbolic ritual of commemoration.

Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin.

you're a member of the godless Democrats, so that would explain

If I am a godless Democrat, you are a snake handling member of Ku Klux Klan.

So you think God created grass then it was dark for thousands of years?

Keep studying,, yours is a legitimate question that you don't understand because you don't have faith in God's word.

you're a member of the godless Democrats, so that would explain If I am a godless Democrat, you are a snake handling member of Ku Klux Klan.

I've never had cause to ban you before. Calling me a racist is cause for that. You demoncrats have to slander and lie. Of course you don't respect children either as you support putting them in a wood chipper like device. Sick🤤

Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin.

So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters. Now tell me the heresy.

Calling me a racist

What is worse, to be called a racist or a godless Democrat?

"Such heresy did not take place among Christians for 15 centuries until Calvin."

So you worship a sinner who is currently covering up Catholic child molesters.

I am not a Roman Catholic.

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

There is nothing disingenuous about that. It is the absoloute truth.

Calling me a racist What is worse, to be called a racist or a godless Democrat?

I'm not a racist. You don't believe the Bible so it is accurate to call you godless. You vote to murder children, that is satanic not godly. Even the Catholic Church teaches that. You reject your own religious leaders.

I am not a Roman Catholic.

My mistake and I withdraw any comments I made towards you that pertain to Catholics. I'm sorry.

However I think you come from an offshoot of Catholicism.

However I think you come from an offshoot of Catholicism.

Nope, Protestants are offshoot of Catholicism.

And Catholicism is an offshoot of from us (since eleventh century):

DNA is incapable of mutating other than regressively or DE-volving.

The reality is quite the opposite. That's why bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics and we create different breeds of dogs.

No, "reality" is NOT "quite the opposite. It has never been the case that something has grown stronger. Unless you can cite an example other than bacteria? (which only adapt, while different breeds of dogs ARE STILL DOGS.)

You are familiar with the 'Second Law of Thermodynamics,' right? ALL of creation is growing WEAKER and dying. There are no exceptions.

One bettle does not prove either evolution or adaptation but evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory, obviously the toad is not adapted to consume these bettles

Yup.

What happens is antibiotics kill off certain bacteria. Then what remains has natural resistant to the antibiotics. Then those ones that are left multiply with each other. No new species.

With dogs. They are still dogs. Just different characteristics. When the White man came to America and had sex with an indian. They created a new species right?

Well stated...

What is a species? Nothing but an organism with sharply different inherited permanent charactistics. Don't get hung up on words used to describe something.

Without "words" and definitions, what have we?

"Species" is a necessary descriptor of a family of living beings.

Weren't we just recently discussing the importance of clear semantics and language?

It is more accurate to say that there is no known mechanism for DNA to extend it's instruction set.

And "no known mechanism" does not equate to one not existing, and is not sufficient to conclude that it cannot do so. To support a claim that DNA is "incapable" of mutating into more complex structures, one must prove a negative -- that it "can't" do something -- and that is very hard to do.

So "hard to do" that it IS impossible. WITHOUT the "mechanism" of Supernatural help.

There has NEVER been a single instance or case or discovery that has proven OR CAN prove DNA at the cellular, molecular level can be re-arranged and created to produce different life.

But if your corollary in this case is about claiming, "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE," is that statement/claim actually true?

As far as creationism goes, there is also "no known mechanism" for the divine creation of new life.

True. Other than a Divine Creator to simply "speak" it (as briefly explained in Genesis).

To explain the existence of life on earth, Creationists say "God created it" while Evolutionists say "Evolution created it". Yet neither side can fully explain the mechanism by which life came to be...

I suppose Creationists are not exactly looking to explain how God made it happen.

Technically, you are correct; I would never presume to have an inkling to "understand" how God created heavens and earth. But then why must this question have an answer?

If an Ant can't understand Man, what should we presume to understand God?

Creationism CAN be validated through simple observation of infinitely-complicated life. That's a 1 + 1 = ? equation that is just hanging there (for many of us any way.) The more scientists have learned about the incredible complexity of even a single cell, the more inclined they are to believe in a Creator.

To some degree Bible accounts validate a Creationism is we believe it is literal. Of course there are few details which understandably frustrates even some believers.

Our geology and fossils embedded within the rock strata through The Great Flood (along with numerous other ancient cultures) confirm the event of The Great Flood. It confirms the Scriptural account of a planet that was awash in cataclysmic upheaval, (The founts of the deep opened up"), a total wipe-out (and start-over) of all life. There is no record of past life beneath those strata layers and embedded fossils of which Evo-scientists base much of their Dating of Earth. Now there's irony.

On the other hand, Evolutionists provide ZERO "proof" of any "evolution," of an "Old Earth" other than inconsistent and unreliable dating methods -- which assume all values have been static (i.e., gravity, geography, geology, magnetic pull, planetary tilt, dramatic atmospheric and climate changes, etc.) are IN THE PAST as they are TODAY.

There are NO "Missing Links" of plant or animal species or man. But there is proof of massive extinctions of past life, highly likely as a result of the Great Flood.

He [God] did it [created life] through the evolution.

He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process.

Are you serious??

From which part of Genesis are you quoting?

In the beginning He created space, visible and invisible world, gave it physical laws and started the time.

Now THAT can be found ostensibly in Genesis.

They screwed with fruit fly DNA for what would amount to millions of years of human existence, and they could never come up up with anything other than some really effed up fruit flies. That right there should have made it clear that evolution is simply not credible.

Excellent observation and point.

Scientists tried to accelerate generations and stumble into a mutation that might cause the fruit fly to "evolve." Instead, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the flies grew weaker and de-volved.

You are being disingenuous again. I won't list variables about your poor analysis but you could be more objective in your commentary.

Really??

I for one await your counter-argument and corrective analysis.

Without "words" and definitions, what have we?

"Species" is a necessary descriptor of a family of living beings.

Weren't we just recently discussing the importance of clear semantics and language?

Well, species is a man-made term. I agree we have to have a system for classifying living things. The bible says "things." I don't know what the original translation from the original language was.

Frankly, creationists believe in changes in species more than evolutionists. That explains the world wide distribution of animals after the ark.

Creationists just think it is ridiculous that a fruit fly could ever become a bird.

A Pole: "[Creation was] a very long process."

6 days isn't very long.

+600, Stone

Well, species is a man-made term. I agree we have to have a system for classifying living things. The bible says "things." I don't know what the original translation from the original language was.

Of course "species" is a man-made term for a necessary designation.

The Bible explanation of "species" to be, "of its kind."

Saying millions of years was a bit of a hyperbole, but it was done over many, many generations of fruit lies.

I completely understood your context.

It is found in Genesis chapter one by people who were actually there.

Well to be fair, Moses wasn't actually "there," but was somehow divinely infused with knowledge and truth of "The Beginning" as well as ancient history. He did after all speak to The Almighty (Burning Bush) if we recall.

In Ping's defense, he is merely stating that there is no scientific proof of either Creationism or of Evolution.

Funny how Prots, or drifters with Prot background insist on literal reading in matters not needed much for their Salvation, treating Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy.

You know who else insisted on taking the Old Testament literally?? Jesus Christ. Repeatedly. LOOK IT UP.

Of course there are parables, metaphors and symbolism from Jesus himself to consider that aren't to be taken literally.

As to your claim that "Prots treat Genesis as a handbook on biology and astronomy" -- uh, SINCE WHEN? And by WHOM exactly? And in what context?

Within Genesis is found the claim of the Great Flood event (and reason for it for which I doubt most RCCs are aware.) THAT event is proven. And through it and the epic cataclysmic convulsions of the planet, ALL life was changed while a recorded history of past live was preserved within the fossil record.

All Christians, Bible-Believers, and scientists had to do was connect the very large dots. (and YES, many scientists ARE Literal Bible Believers.

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood...

What is this blood-fetish about?

You DO understand the THE ABOVE is not to be taken literally, right?? That the Apostles drank wine at the Last Supper and NOT Jesus actual blood? And that they ate bread and NOT a chunk of Jesus' flesh?

What is funny is some idiot who doesn't believe the Bible and claims to be a Christian.

A Pole isn't alone among "Christians" in eschewing the literal when it comes to the Bible.

That said, only Jesus knows his heart.

Then the same idiot votes for murdering children.

A Pole -- do you vote for Democrats, a Party that wholly supports abortion? Or are you a Polish citizen?

Do you believe that the consecrated Bread and Wine is the real Body and Blood of our Savior?

HUH?

On whose or what authority does such a thing exist?

SYMBOLISM, Pole, symbolism. "In memory of me." At the Last Supper.

Jesus didn't ask the Apostles or believers to become Zombie/Vampire-by-Proxy.

"He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process."

Are you serious??

From which part of Genesis are you quoting?

You take mystical and subtle text intended for the small elite (yes, there was no printing press and books when the Pentateuch was written were EXTREMELY rare) crudely and literally, like a Cargo cult member who found a book on quantum physics

OK, MR Literalist, explain me one thing, how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?

OK, MR Literalist, explain me one thing, how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?

Wow you really don't believe the Bible. Next thing you are going to tell us is there was no serpent and no garden of Eden. Is that what you believe?

Now to your question.

1. Who is to say that there were animal kinds that weren't near where the ark was consructed.

2. Secondly. Do you think there were poodles, German shepherds, cockerspaniels, wolves and every creature like that on the ark? There wouldn't need to be. There is the dog kind and they are responsible for all the variable types of dogs we have today. Same with other creatures such as rabits, squirrles etc. I'm sure they would have used younger creatures instead of a full grown giraffe.

3. Do you know how big the ark was?

Mr Pole there is a life sized replica of Noah's ark in Kentucky. I haven't seen it yet. But I will some day. You should go see it. It might help your faith.

I reallyl want your answer on the serpent and the garden of Eden.

You take mystical and subtle text intended for the small elite (yes, there was no printing press and books when the Pentateuch was written were EXTREMELY rare) crudely and literally, like a Cargo cult member who found a book on quantum physics

So you think God was lying when he said he would preserve his word?

You don't seem to have any faith at all.

SYMBOLISM, Pole, symbolism. "In memory of me." At the Last Supper.

"In memory", does not mean "not real". If your dying grandfather asks to drink a glass of wine in his memory on anniversary, does he mean a fruit juice from supermarket? This circumvention is sooo lame!

Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept.

Without "words" and definitions, what have we?

Personal doubt, confusion, or discomfort in trying to organize or explain things.

Wow you really don't believe the Bible. Next thing you are going to tell us is there was no serpent and no garden of Eden. Is that what you believe?

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

The serpent and garden of Eden were real, but the Serpent was not a snake, but Satan, Garden of Eden was not a plain garden but a world before the fall.

The serpent and garden of Eden were real,

You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?

You think Noah's ark is made up. Why not the Garden of Eden?

Aaargh. I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

Jesus quoted from the old testament. He said it was reliable.

You don't believe the New Testament is inspired by God?

Why do you put your faith in Christ if you think the Bible is a bunch of crap?

I start to think that literacy is not so good for everyone.

Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?

Bad sentence structure. Could you rephrase please?

Pewnie, mysle, ze pismiennosc nie jest taka dobra dla kazdego.

Ok I accept that that is as good as you can write.

In how many languages can you write?

He did it through the evolution. He made man from the clay ie from the ocean mud, and out of it He shaped plants, animals and man in a very long process.

The main issue with theistic evolution is in the literal distinction man and woman are created.

Genesis 1: NKJV

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Quite clear mankind is not an evolution of an already created animal. Mankind is distinct and made in the Image of God and His likeness.

Theistic evolution may be popular to get through cocktail parties but it surely goes against God's stated design of man and woman distinct from all other creation.

Then there's the case of how far to we allegorize the early chapters of Genesis. God's definition of marriage is in Genesis 2:24 which is quoted by Christ in Matthew 19. Then of course the fall of humanity is in Genesis 3, which later we learn why the second Adam, Christ must come for our redemption (or rescue for Eastern Orthodox).

Three tightly packed chapters which both OT and NT writers refer to as literal events and literal people.

Don't know about you, but I don't base my eternal hope on story time. Jesus quoted Genesis quite often. So does Paul in his epistles.

The actual Church of Christ as really founded by Christ Himself in a certain concrete place and time, was not based on the Bible. New Testament was written by the members of the Church much later.

How much later?

Jesus said to them, “VERY TRULY I tell you, UNLESS you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you HAVE NO LIFE in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is REAL food and my blood is REAL drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

If you all want a Bread of Life discourse debate I would recommend another thread in Bible Study.

Don't know how a creation and evolution thread turned into a Eucharist debate.

Scientists tried to accelerate generations and stumble into a mutation that might cause the fruit fly to "evolve." Instead, in keeping with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the flies grew weaker and de-volved.

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents?

You see, this is what people don't understand about about Christians.

Christians don't believe in evolution, yet they do believe in rapid speciation.

That is how all those animals became deposited over the earth.

Now as for insects, fish, or any other animal that wouldn't have been bothered too much by a flood, I feel the Bible authors felt no need to address that.

But, you can think as you may.

Even Luther abhorred this Calvinist concept

Actually it was Huldrych Zwingli.

The Reformed church believes in real presence at the Lord's Supper. Not in the elements. Meaning the elements do not change in some matter from what is seen.

When Jesus turned water to wine it actually changed. Every miracle of Christ showed the change. For example a withered hand became well. When God manifested His miracles on matter they were visible. As opposed to effecting a change of heart leading to repentance. That is unseen in the moment but manifested thereafter in the works and fruits of the Holy Spirit working in the child of God.

Now there is a distinction between what the Orthodox call a mystery with regards to the Eucharist, and Roman medieval metaphysics of Transubstantiation. But you make no distinction. As I said perhaps we should have a Bread of Life discourse discussion in another thread as you obviously don't know all the various views including the varied views the early church fathers had. There were 3 or 4 different views in that era.

how Noe managed to fit countless thousand species of animals into his Ark, and how did he manage to get all those species from all continents? He must have had countless biologists all over the world collaborating with him, did he?

Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God." (Mark 10:27)

An entire generation fed the XMen movies and comics are convinced if we are all exposed to gamma radiation we will become super heroes.

With 40+ genders to choose from.

Maybe alienating the sheeple from science isn't working out so great.

With 40+ genders to choose from.

LOL yeah forgot that.

That is no small amount of difference. Most arguments are about issues where the parties agree on 90% of the facts, but on this one, the agreement is hardly more than that planet earth and life both exist.

To me, starting with the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God" and building a scientific model around it is flawed for the simple reason that (at least most people) have never established any valid, objective reason for accepting the premise that the Bible is the "Word of God". You talk about strata being evidence of the Great Flood, but secular science also says there have been many great floods throughout geologic history, including the Black sea being flooded within weeks by a breach of the barrier separating it from the Mediterranean sea (which may have been the event upon which the story of the Biblical flood was based).

I don't see creationists argue that the universe is smaller than science says, and for me it seems quite reasonable that the universe is as old as it is large.

I am glad that my particular beliefs do not depend on evolution being factual or not. That we have an immortal soul, or stated accurately, we ARE immortal souls, and that what we HAVE for a short time are mortal bodies, which are far inferior to souls, that our human nature & origins adds NOTHING to our value as souls. Nothing at all.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

So if you really want to convince anyone about creationism, you have to convince people that the Bible is the Word of God. Period. That's it.

Now we've had some of that discussion in the past and I've issued my challenges on this point. You promised to get back to me several times and it's up to you if you ever do. I have not judged and will not judge you for not doing so and set no time limit at all, even if you never do. But I will say this: I have yet to find a single person who has ever made any real effort at all to debunk my perspective on this subject, much less even come close to succeed in doing so, even though I have come to the arena a number of times. Under my model, God is more patient, more forgiving, never judges, never gets angry and so on. And yet there is full accountability for how we live, and a real purpose to life and for the existence of the universe and everything in it. And it doesn't matter if evolution is true or not or how old the universe. In fact the universe itself, for all it's wonder, is a mere tool created for a greater end. It all fits together so much better. Perfectly really.

So if and when you want to come to the floor on the REAL topic here, I'm game. Until then, arguing/debating about evolution vs creationism is, I will say most politely, a waste of time.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

That is the time scale in which DNA/RNA, and the associated cellular machinery, operate to effect the natural selection and creation of species.

The unanswered question then remains: where did DNA/RNA come from?

Without millions and billions of years, evolutionary history completely falls apart. Here are just a few of many credible evidences from various branches of science that tell of a world much younger than evolutionists claim. Evidence 1 Geology: Radiocarbon in Diamonds

Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1–2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years—a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

For more information, see Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed. To learn more about diamonds and their formation, read this article by Dr. Andrew Snelling.

Evidence 2 Astronomy: Recession of the Moon

The gravitational pull of the moon creates a “tidal bulge” on earth that causes the moon to spiral outwards very slowly. Because of this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Based on gravitational forces and the current rate of recession, we can calculate how much the moon has moved away over time.

If the earth is only 6,000 years old, there’s no problem, because in that time the moon would have only moved about 800 feet (250 m). But most astronomy books teach that the moon is over four billion years old, which poses a major dilemma—less than 1.5 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth!

For more information, see Lunar Recession (based on this article) as well as The Age of the Universe, Part 2. We also recommend Video on Demand: Our Created Moon.

Evidence 3 Geology: Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field

Like other planets, the earth has a magnetic field that is decaying quite rapidly. We are now able to measure the rate at which the magnetic energy is being depleted and develop models to explain the data.

Secular scientists invented a “dynamo model” of the earth’s core to explain how the field could have lasted over such a long period of time, but this model fails to adequately explain the data for the rapid decay and the rapid reversals that it has undergone in the past. (It also cannot account for the magnetic fields of other planets, such as Neptune and Mercury.)

However, the creationist model (based on the Genesis Flood) effectively and simply explains the data in regard to the earth’s magnetic field, providing striking evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old—and not billions.

For more information, see The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth and section two of The Age of the Universe, Part 2.

Evidence 4 Biology: Dinosaur Soft Tissue

In recent years, there have been many findings of “wondrously preserved” biological materials in supposedly ancient rock layers and fossils. One such discovery that has left evolutionists scrambling is a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur with flexible connective tissue, branching blood vessels, and even intact cells!

According to evolutionists, these dinosaur tissues are more than 65 million years old, but laboratory studies have shown that there is no known way—and likely none possible—for biological material to last more than thousands of years.

Could it be that evolutionists are completely wrong about how recently these dinosaurs lived?

To learn more, see “Ostrich-Osaurus” Discovery? and The Scrambling Continues. We also recommend the article Fossilized Biomaterials Must Be Young by Brian Thomas of ICR.

Evidence 5 Anthropology: Human Population Growth

It’s amazing what basic mathematics can show us about the age of the earth. We can calculate the years of human existence with the population doubling every 150 years (a very conservative figure) to get an estimate of what the world’s population should be after any given period of time.

A biblical age of the earth (about 6,000 years) is consistent with the numbers yielded by such a calculation. In contrast, even a conservative evolutionary age of 50,000 years comes out to a staggering, impossibly high figure of 10 to the 99th power—greater than the number of atoms in the universe!

Clearly, the claim that humans have inhabited the earth for tens of thousands of years is absurd!

For a better look at these calculations, see Billions of People in Thousands of Years?.

Evidence 6 Geology: Tightly Folded Rock Strata

When solid rock is bent, it normally cracks and breaks. Rock can only bend without fracturing when it is softened by extreme heating (which causes re-crystalization) or when the sediments have not yet fully hardened.

There are numerous locations around the world (including the famous Grand Canyon) where we observe massive sections of strata that have been tightly folded, without evidence of the sediments being heated.

This is a major problem for evolutionists who believe these rock layers were laid down gradually over vast eons of time, forming the geologic record. However, it makes perfect sense to creationists who believe these layers were formed rapidly in the global, catastrophic Flood described in Genesis.

To find out more, see Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured.

Does the age of the earth really matter?

While each of these evidences reveals reasons why the earth cannot be billions of years old, the real issue is not the age of the earth. Instead, the real issue is authority. God’s infallible Word must be our ultimate authority, not the unstable foundation of human reasoning. Are we trying to fit our interpretations of the world (e.g., evolution) into Scripture, or will we simply let God speak for Himself through His Word?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis, why should we believe when Scripture says that faith in Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation? (Romans 10:9; Acts 4:12; John 14:6)

But when we take Scripture as written, it’s clear that the earth can’t be more than a few thousand years old—and from a biblical worldview, the scientific evidence agrees!

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well.

Every massive object exists in a gravitational well.

Shocking and awing the sheeple with buzzwords does not unexist observable reality.

Time is a derivative function of state change which progresses relative to E in the inertial frame in which it is observed.

How long is a "day" in the context of the moment when E=0 made the transition to E=(All the energy that exists in the universe)?

If we can’t trust the first chapters of Genesis,

Did the literal King of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

The 6000 years old premise conflicts with the self-evident observable reality that we can see light from celestial bodies that are billions of light years away.

God made a finished product. So you are incorrect. What you said proves absolutely nothing.

One bettle does not prove either evolution or adaptation but evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory

evolutionists are desperate to prove their theory... And creationalists are just as desperate to pursue theirs.

When relativistic time dilation is taken into account, the question becomes: In whose inertial frame did each of those "days" transpire?

So god created plants. Then it was dark for billions of years. No that doesn't work.

You're trying to make the Bible fit into your tiny minuscule bit of knowledge you have.

Can you articulate your "beliefs" without plagarizing and parroting?

https://www.google.com/search? q=This+is+a+major+problem+for+evolutionists+who+believe+these+rock+layers+were +laid+down+gradually

Just like Genesis says:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Liberator, this all comes back to belief systems. Debating about evolution is a red herring. That's not what creationists are really arguing about. What they are instead arguing about is that the Bible is literally the "Word of God". That's what it's really about. As long as a creationist believes that, no amount of discussion about evolution will convince him/her otherwise, and for any secular scientist, no amount of debate about evolution will convince him/her that each species miraculously appeared by divine command.

That is far from the truth.

If the Bible said one thing and we observed other things then we wouldn't believe it. At least I wouldn't.

But the Bible fits perfectly with the natural world we observe.

And it has more then a couple of youtube vidoes behind it.

Genesis says the earth was with out form and void. Not what you quoted.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

Nope. Light was created first. Then matter condensed from it.

If there is a god and he can create light. Then he can create it already shining on the earth. Comprende Now if you don't believe in God then I can see how you think it is a bunch of nonsense either way. But you seem to say you believe. So you are putting up unnecessary stumbling blocks and making it conform to your errant thinking.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1

What does Genesis 1:3 say?

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

What does this mean?

You have to add to scripture to make your pet theory work. I stick to the text. You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people purely.

That is ok it is on your skin not mine. Think what you want. I don't care.

E=MC^2

What does this mean?

You don't need that to understand the Bible.

E=mc^2

Here maybe this will help.

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You're wrong.

You must not have to much faith in God being able to deliver his word to his people

"Fallible and uninspired have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible"

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

Remember the earth was without form and void at the time.

You mean like in the plasma at T=0+1?

Did the literal king of Tyre literally live in the literal Garden of Eden?

It would seem so from Ezekiel below.

Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever (Ezekiel 28:12- 19).

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

Correct. What AKA was saying is true. A finished product. Meaning the light from the farthest star was created from source to our solar system.

Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?

Important to point out that there is purpose in God's creation and we see it in Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning (time) God created (causation and purpose) the heavens ( space) and the earth (matter). For big bang types it's all there.

So the literal king of Tyre was literally in the literal Garden after literal Adam and Eve got literally driven out of the literal Garden in Genesis 3:24?

It's both.

Someone who hates Jews if I am correct. If I am wrong i'm sorry.

Nope. I don't hate "Jews".

And I'm certainly less anti-Semitic than the folks perched in New Bolostan who seem to think they're superior to their fellow semites... who happen to descend from Ishmael instead of Isaac.

For big bang types it's all there.

Yep.

Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?

The Sun isn't billions of light years from the Earth which, thanks to Galileo, we also know, contrary to the Catholic (that's a big C) dogma of the time, isn't at the center of the Universe.

The Jews in Israel are real Jews.

From which tribe?

If the Bible said one thing and we observed other things then we wouldn't believe it. At least I wouldn't.

The capability people have to believe things that are not true is absolutely enormous and can hardly be overstated. So much so that people willingly die out of belief systems that are in error. Any highly experienced forum participant should have at least some appreciation for that fact.

So much so that people willingly die out of belief systems

Or kill out of them.

Which, makes Thomas Jefferson and Co.'s "Infidel of every denomination" notion, constituted in the 1st amendment, a rather appealing alternative.

Correct. What AKA was saying is true. A finished product. Meaning the light from the farthest star was created from source to our solar system.

Why would God keep everyone in the dark for billions of light years?

So are you suggesting that God created stars and galaxies up to billions of light years away, then created all the light between them to simulate the way it would be if the light had actually traveled on its own for billions of years?

This would include creating the light of, say, supernovas in far away galaxies that we estimate happened one million years ago? Only they didn't actually happen because the universe is only 6000 years old?. It was just an illusion God created, perhaps because He was too impatient to wait billions of years for it to happen naturally?

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years? Surely, God is NOT the author of confusion or deception!

Or kill out of them.

Indeed. We would find far more people willing to kill for what they believe than we would people willing to die for what they believe.

A sad commentary that is.

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years?

Must be the same reason he created the Vostok ice layers.

The Jews in Israel are real Jews.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights in Israel are the most advanced in the Middle East, and one of the most advanced in Asia.[1] Although same-sex sexual activity was legalized in 1988, the former law against sodomy had not been enforced since a court decision of 1963.[2]
https://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel

So, who legalized Sodomy there in 1963 then?

So, who legalized Sodomy there in 1963 then?

Pretty much had to be the Sanhedrin (supreme court), not the Knesset (legislature).

Since time can flow at different rates from different points of view, events that would take a long time as measured by one person will take very little time as measured by another person. This also applies to distant starlight. Light that would take billions of years to reach earth (as measured by clocks in deep space) could reach earth in only thousands of years as measured by clocks on earth. This would happen naturally if the earth is in a gravitational well, which we will discuss below.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of “blind” faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not “feel” any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

E=mc^2

What does this mean?

I wonder if you know what it means.

It essentially tells us that a certain amount of energy is contained in a certain amount of mass.

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, and this energy is relatively small. Much more energy can be created by breaking the nucleus of an atom which has much more mass.

What this has to do with God creating earth is beyond me. Go tell God he is too stupid to know how to properly create a universe.

(If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth.

While the difference in time flow depending on the "depth" of an observer in a "gavity well" is often overlooked (the speed at which something falls into a black hole is one example, as it would be an increasingly slow process from the perspective of an outside observer), the amount, as noted in your post, is very tiny today. And yes, the conventional view of the expanding universe holds it was much more dense at the time of the big bang.

However, to suggest earth was in a gravity well so strong that light starting a journey traveling just one million years ago (not to mention some 12 billion (as measured in today's years which scientists believe they have captured) would mean the earth was in one hell of a gravity well, making time flow 1000 x slower on earth than in the rest of the universe. And that this was the case when the universe was just 1/13,000ths younger than it is now. For that reason, I say that on it's face, it is a preposterous theory.

And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

I'd say there is a lot more than "details" to work out. These scientists have a monumental task on their hands, and it sounds to me like trying to come up with results that fit a desired conclusion, which real scientists do not do.

Yes, it's time we catch up.

As to this subject and current commentary, there are still a few tidbits that can legitimately be discussed.

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, a

No, it's released by breaking electron or nuclear bonds - not created.

What this has to do with God creating earth is beyond me

Obviously.

In the beginning... God said let there be light, and BANG! the Universe was.

Now, again, how long was a day in the context of the transition between E=0 and E=(Total Universal Energy), in the corresponding time period between T0 and T0+1?

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds, a

No, it's released by breaking electron or nuclear bonds - not created.

created, released

It's just a semantics argument.

then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller

Maybe you do, but "physics" does not.

The localized effects of the eigenstate of any system would've been relatively the same within the bounds of the corresponding manifold coordinate system.

created, released

It's just a semantics argument

LOL.

All the energy in the universe was Created at T=0

FAIL.

Most energy is created by breaking electron bonds

Meh. Stupid laws. Who needs 'em anyhow - it's all "just a semantics argument".

en.wikipedia.org/wi ki/Conservation_of_energy

So are you suggesting that God created stars and galaxies up to billions of light years away, then created all the light between them to simulate the way it would be if the light had actually traveled on its own for billions of years?

This would include creating the light of, say, supernovas in far away galaxies that we estimate happened one million years ago? Only they didn't actually happen because the universe is only 6000 years old?. It was just an illusion God created, perhaps because He was too impatient to wait billions of years for it to happen naturally?

Was the plan to fool scientists into thinking the universe was older than 6k years? Surely, God is NOT the author of confusion or deception!

Creation was a finished product. As the source and summit of creation God also defined the physical material properties and laws of the universe.

Fool scientists? Deception is in our own hearts and minds. I don't poke scientists in the eye. They base all of their facts and assumptions on the observable material universe. I would probably come to the same conclusions if I did not know God can act on His own creation with the supernatural. Creation is a miracle.