Earthage 101

A creationist forum to discuss how old the Earth is...All about how God may have done it. No argument whether God did it. We all believe he did.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 40]

The Monkey Trials - Day 3. Creation versus Procreation

The Defense calls the Prophet Moses to the witness stand.

Defense: Sir, please describe for the Judge your qualifications for the testimony you are about to give.

Moses: Even though I was slow of speech and sometimes disobedient, the LORD chose me (for his own reasons I might add) to be his spokesman, and I had the incredible honor of having a one-on-one relationship with him. It started in Exodus 3 (v2-16) when he appeared to me in a burning bush and revealed to me his personal name - YHWH! He said I was to go to Pharaoh and tell him to let God's people go. Then he gave me explicit instructions (chapter after chapter: 4-14) what I was to do. It's all recorded there, "The LORD said to Moses ...." -- some 75 times in the book of Exodus alone.

Then in Exodus 19 the LORD called me up to Mt. Sinai and told me that we Jews were to be his people forever, and he was giving me the Law which we were to follow (chapters 20-34). He told me to write down all his words so that we would know exactly what he said (24:3-7; 34:27-28). Then even more amazingly, he wrote down in his own hand the Ten Commandments, twice even (31:18; 32:15-16; 34:1)!

Jesus later testified that all this is true and that I indeed was the LORD's spokesman (John 7:19; 5:46-47). All traditional OT, rabbinic, and NT sources over the millennia have validated this testimony -- that not only what's recorded in Exodus is true and infallible, but so is what I recorded in all five books of the Torah -- including Genesis. God spoke directly to me and I faithfully reproduced what he said, including what this trial is all about -- how he brought Adam and Eve into existence.

I was there at the beginning, in a very real sense, since God gave me his words to record for posterity on how he created the universe and everything in it, including mankind.

Defense: You've seen the plaintiff's testimony concerning evolution. And you've seen how he uses Scripture to suggest that evolution is the mechanism by which human beings were first created. You're here to testify as an expert witness on the Scriptures and not biology. But tell me Sir, what is your opinion about the plaintiff's scientific testimony so far since he is using Scripture to help make his case for evolution?

Moses: Well, to his credit the plaintiff's version of evolution is a significant improvement over the atheistic Darwinist's version in that he defines evolution as being God directed. God does have a plan and purpose for creating mankind. This version of evolution is also wrong, but it is better than the Darwinian version which denies God's direction altogether.

The plaintiff is also correct in declaring that God created all things (the Darwinian version is either atheistic or agnostic at best), and that God is subsequently active in the growth of every living thing he creates (the plaintiff correctly quotes Ps 139:13 and Job 31:15 for example).

We all understand that genetic variation and natural selection play a significant role in adaptation of a species, e.g., to environmental changes. And we all understand that genetic variation can occur. But what all evolutionists fail to acknowledge is that this God-created mechanism is bounded. That is, evolution has been established by God to operate within limits (micro-evolution). But it does not have the power to produce new body plans (macro-evolution). The plaintiff is clearly wrong in extrapolating variation beyond what you call "species" "families" or "orders". There are limits to genetic variation.

The Holy Spirit had me use the Hebrew word "min" to describe those limits. It is usually translated "kinds" in English. While not exactly corresponding to your modern biological classifications, it does indicate a narrow specification of various types of living things (for example see Lev 11:13-23; Deu 14:11-20). The reason God created "kinds" this way is so they would reproduce only according their "min" (Gen 1:20-25; 7:13-15). In the NT, Paul collaborates this in 1 Cor 15:38-39 when he says, "But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another."

The most critical error the plaintiff makes, however, is when he puts humankind into the same classification as the animals. As Luke testified, mankind (male/female) is a totally unique kind of being -- directly and specially created by God in his image. After man's direct creation by God he/she were instructed to procreate in order to fill the earth, but not be independent of his help (Gen 4:1).

Defense: Which brings me to the main testimony I want to elicit from you today -- from your area of expertise, the Scriptures. How did God describe to you creation verses procreation of humankind?

Moses: First, you will see from the plaintiff's testimony how confused he is about the subject. Although I'm delighted to see that he is going to the pages of Scripture for his recent information, he continually quotes verses that are about procreation (i.e., male/female giving rise to offspring) and not creation, i.e., when God brought male and female into existence as unique creatures they had no previous physical history.

The Creator himself testified to this on Day 1 of the trial (Ps 148:5; Job 33:6; 1 Tim 2:13; Mt 19:4; 1 Cor 11:9; Gen 5:2). Then on Day 2, Luke showed how the genealogies testify to the special creation of Adam as the son of God - a special creation (Lk 3:38; Gen 5:1; Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6; Gen 1:27). And then there are the verses that the plaintiff declared allegory and therefore inadmissible. But when I originally wrote those verses down I recorded them as history ( Gen 2:18, 21-24; Gen 3:19b, 20). Any traditional exegetical method clearly reveals that these verses are about the original creation of male and female.

Most all the other verses about origination are about procreation by the male and female and not about creation of them (Job 31:15; Ps 139:13; Ec 11:5; Is 44:2, 24; Jer 1:5; Gen 4: 1, 2, 25; Job 39:1, 2; Ec 3:2; 1 Cor 11:12). Some of these verses the plaintiff uses incorrectly to justify creation through evolution. The other verses the plaintiff quote have either nothing to do with the subject; are taken entirely out of context; or are twisted in an unrecognizable way to any legitimate exegetical method.

Defense: I respectfully request Judge Solomon to carefully examine all the verses presented by both sides and differentiate for the Court those describing the original creation of male and female versus those describing the subsequent procreation by male and female. Also to throw out all the verses that don't meet appropriate exegetical standards. It is the Defense's contention that most of the verses presented by the plaintiff fall into that category.

Last edited by stu on Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:49 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : grammar)

View user profile

2Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Is. 55:9 on Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:01 am

As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

you want me "to provide [a] rationale why Ge 2:7 cannot be symbolic".
In your terms, basically you want me to provide a natural explanation for a supernatural event.
My rationale is the following: God's Word says it!
Believing in the life, suffering, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect rationale.
Yet at the same time it is amazing, unfathomable and frankly, quite radical.
Romans 5:
7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
It is mind-boggling! Where is the rationale in that? It is because of God's great, unlimited love, but yet there is no rationale for that love, because we are nothing but a bunch of sinners!!!
For this, I refer you to the verse in the subject.

You have the problem that you want to understand/explain everything, and this position you take limits your view of God. Before you get angry, let me explain a bit further:
Is it possible that God has done things that you (Lee) won't be able to understand or explain?
If you must be able to explain everything, where is the requirement of faith?
Note that faith does not mean a blind foolish faith?

Also note that you are not able to explain how the very first living cell came about.
It is impossible to bring the right ingredients together if the water these ingredients are in destroys the sub-assemblies at the same time the next step is being formed.
You will immediately say that God protected the proteins and other assemblies from being destroyed by water.
Well, wouldn't it be possible that God put ALL atoms in the right quantities in the right place in one moment?

And if that is not allowed according to Mr Hummel, then how do you explain the formations of the various elements?
Did the higher elements evolve from hydrogen?

And if that that is what happens according to you, how did hydrogen form?
Did the lone proton find its perfect electron?

And how did those protons form?
Did it evolve by getting the correct three quarks together from your primordial soup?

Your reasoning seems to be frighteningly going to the level that because your flavour of the month translation does not use the verb "to pop", therefore God did not create something instantaneously.

The only verse accompanied by your comments/notes I want to take issue with is your interpretation of the verb "calling" from Is. 41:4.
According to Strong's (among others) this can mean:
Interestingly, there is nothing there that even remotely implies 'evolution'.

View user profile

3Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty *** Lee's BEST post ever! *** on Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:08 pm

Even though I believe that Lee is subjectively grasping at straws here ...
You've got to love any Post that is almost entirely comprised of Scriptures!

These are some of the classic Verses used to show God's sovereignty ...
and to defend the sanctity of life for the unborn!

If God is truly trying to explain to us that He used Evolution over Billions
of years to create animals into Man in these Verses ... then this has to be
one of the most cryptic messages in the entire Bible?

I will concede the fact that the Bible doesn't use the word "popped" when
describing how God created things ... but He does tell us that He created
each thing within a Day!

You claim that Adam was birthed into this World by his mother ... right?
Then what about:

1 Corinthians 11:8-9
King James Version (KJV)

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. (?)

And ... as for some Scriptures that allude to rapid creation:

Genesis 2:19-22
King James Version (KJV)

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,
and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;
but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs,
and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

I don't know how either of these events could possible fit into an Evolutionary scenario?

Mark 10:6
King James Version (KJV)

6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

This is a quote from Jesus Himself !!!
If your proposition is correct ... shouldn't Jesus have said:
"From the VERY END of creation God made them male & female" ???
Don't you believe that God created Adam in the last Million years ...
of His 13.7 Billion years of creation?

20 Bret*11

View user profile
Then please just point me to the verse that says that God popped Adam into existance from dust or clay and I will believe you. Just be aware that making Adam out of dust could have been done in many ways if you plan to quote Ge 2:7. You also need to provide your rationale why Ge 2:7 cannot be symbolic and address my issues stated in prior posts if you still believe Ge 2 and 3 do not contain a lot of symbology. Thus far you have provided no credible justification either Biblically or from physical laws for your belief that God pops animals into existance out of nothing, clay or dust instantaneously.

On the other hand, I have pointed out several verses that describes how God uses evolution (introduces pre-planned genetic modification and selects who survives generation to generation from first organism) to create the various kinds exactly according to His plan (my comments are in {}):

Is 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I, Jehovah, the first, and with the last, I am he. {Notice the word 'calling' instead of using 'popping' or 'instantaneously creating out of nothing'}

Is 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; 'I am' God, and there is none like me; 10declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not 'yet' done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;{Notice everything was predetermined}

Daniel 4:3[NKJ] 3 How great are His signs, And how mighty His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And His dominion is from generation to generation. {Notice the words 'generation to generation'}

Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father: 30but the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows. {Notice that God knows every detail about every living thing and God controls life and death for every creature}

Ge 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the ground. {Notice that God completely controls the weather and uses it to eliminate certain species and that He made every living thing}

Je 1:5 'Before I form thee in the belly, I have known thee; and before thou comest forth from the womb I have separated thee, a prophet to nations I have made thee.' {notice that God formed our genetic code when in the womb in a predetermined manner}

Ps 139:13 (NIV) For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

Jb 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb? {Notice that God formed every man and every living thing}

Jb 39:17- For God hath caused her to forget wisdom, And He hath not given a portion To her in understanding {Referring to the behemoth, notice that God did not give all animals understanding or wisdom, this was only given to humans}

Job 32:8 But it is a spirit in people, the breath of the Almighty, that makes them understand. {breath does not mean respiration but is symbolic of a mind capable of understanding and discernment}

Gen 2:7And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature. {breath of life, like the above, means providing the ability to understand, living means eternally living spiritual creature}

Job 38:36 Who has put wisdom in the heart, or has imparted understanding to the mind? {in reference to God giving this spiritual gift to humans}

Luke 2:6And it came to pass, in their being there, the days were fulfilled for her bringing forth, 7 and she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber. {showing especially that God is capable of knitting himself together in the womb and that God/Jesus was born from a woman, this one of a 'kind' creation was not popped into existance from dust}

And last but not least Ge 1:

Ge 1:11 And God saith, `Let the earth yield tender grass, herb sowing seed, fruit-tree (whose seed [is] in itself) making fruit after its kind, on the earth:' and it is so. 12And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed [is] in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that [it is] good...
Ge 1:20 And God saith, `Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.' 21And God prepareth the great monsters, and every living creature that is creeping, which the waters have teemed with, after their kind, and every fowl with wing, after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good....
Ge 1:24And God saith, `Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind:' and it is so. 25And God maketh the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, and God seeth that [it is] good. {Notice that God didn't pop the kinds into existance but let the water, and earth bring them forth 'each after their kind' and used nature to make each kind in the parent's womb generation after generation}

Lee flower elephant cat pig monkey

Last edited by InfinitLee on Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:09 am; edited 10 times in total (Reason for editing : grammar, punctuation, clarification, spelling, retitled)

View user profile

5Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty who is wasting time here? on Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:48 am


it might not be a hopeful monster to God, as you imply I did, with the statement "God said He controls everything and has foreknowledge of everything (Is 46:9)". IF (IF IF IF IF IF) it is as you say, of course it would not be a surprise to God.
But it still would be a hopeful monster to any other observer than God.
You described the process as "punctuated evolution is what is observed in the fossil record and also how God planned to bring the species forth. He made many changes to a 'kind's' genome over long periods of time while individual gene expression was suppressed and then allowed expression of one or more genes via the appropriate gene regulation sites to create the functionality for a new kind brought into this world by natural laws and natural birth".

You want Stu, Bret and I to make a reasonable case for a miracle.
Do you even realise what you are asking?
The fact that it is unexplainable (in strictly natural laws) is by definition so BECAUSE it is a miracle, otherwise we would not describe it as such!
The only reason I can give you is this:
God's Word says so, and that is extremely reasonable!!!


View user profile

6Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty A Hopeful Monster Is Not What I've Described on Sat Jul 30, 2011 5:15 am


You obviously have not understood what I've posted if you think I've described anything requiring luck or chance such as a hopeful monster. Darwinism is what you need to address related to hopeful monsters, not my views. I made my views very clear on that subject. God said  He controls everything and has foreknowledge of everything (Is 46:9). I believe He does this through the natural laws (Job 38:4 ), the others posting here disagree with the use of natural laws. Even though everything that exists which includes the physical laws was made by Him and for Him.  (Col 1:16, John 1:3)

You either haven't read my posts or understood them by posting your unfounded commentary and unfounded objections of my views. Everything you have attacked is related to Darwinism; not my view. Otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.

Also, neither Stu or the YEs have made any reasonable case thus far for popping animals from clay. Putting the words 'of course' in Jesus mouth is not a credible rationale for your view!

View user profile

7Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Fair enough Lee on Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:40 pm

So let's strip out all the words said so far that were put into Jesus mouth and other people's mouth.
What are we left with.

Stu: a Biblical case for special creation of the kinds.
Lee: some verses on topics that we all more or less agreed on anyway, so not explaining anything.

Which brings me to the next point.
Your view explains nothing.
You are indeed a hopeful monster follower, with genetic changes building up invisibly over millions of years, until a different creature suddenly arrises.
It is a religious belief, and I propose that Biblical creation just as well (or better) describes the fossils we find and the creatures we see.

View user profile

8Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Thoughts From Kansas to California on Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:17 am

Although I overestimated and expected you to figure it out, I will have to now explicitly spell out the problems for you.  

You are correct in stating that I was being hypocritical since I had Jesus saying things that He really never said. I had hoped by giving Stu a taste of what he was dishing out, that he would stop and try another approach.  Stu had started this practice when He called the first witness Jesus Christ who made several statements as a witness for Stu that were never ever made by Him. Then there was Luke and now Solomon.  The deception just keeps getting worse as more dead witnesses are called. Here are just a few examples:

[Stu]-'So are you saying that we have been formed out of inorganic material and not organic material as evolution requires?'

[Jesus Christ]-Of course. I created man in My own image, in the image of God I created him; male and female I created them (Gen 1:27) and I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images (Is 42:Cool -- especially chimpanzees. ...
[Question from Stu]-But you still could have used evolution and been silent about it in the Bible.

[Jesus Christ]-Blasphemy! How can anything evolve without a mother? ....

[Luke]-' Man did not evolve (descend) from any other life form and the Bible is abundantly clear about it. So anyone who holds to an evolutionary view, even claiming to believe the Bible and that God somehow used evolution to accomplish His purposes, is misguided....Let's get this straight. The people who say this either aren't Bible believers or, if they are believers they are seriously confused. They see things upside down! Man didn't descend from some lower form of life. From the beginning man was created as the highest form of God's creation, ...' 

'Solomon: Stu you may proceed with your defense. '
'Judge Solomon: The plaintiff did not forfeit the trial but I have been informed that he has fled to Kansas for fear of his life...I have thrown out the plaintiff's complaint that the defense has turned the OT/NT writers into zombies...'

At first, I felt that I had no choice but to provide a similar dialogue from Jesus's perspective based on my interpretation of Biblical verses and referenced.   As Stu calls each Biblical witness to support his arguments, he puts words in each witness mouth to make statements that support his view.  However, each witness never actually made these statements.  This is excessively deceptive and I consider it to be a sin, using a saint's good name to commit fraud.  I am sorry that I followed Stu's lead and ever engaged in this sinful behavior. May the Lord forgive him if he repents. I do repent and have escaped His wrath so far back in Kansas.

I like Bret see this as deceptive and evil.  I am surprised that you don't see this as deceit.  I hope you and Stu will eventually come to the same conclusion.  I think a mistrial has occurred  Stu should start over.  Stu should present only Biblical verses and provide his reasoning why each verses make his Biblical case.  He should not be putting words into our dead saint's and Lord's mouth to help make his weak case. 

On a lighter note, you make me laugh as well!  So quick to judge and post flawed commentary without understanding at all what has been stated.  I get chuckles regularly from this.  In this case, punctuated evolution is what is observed in the fossil record and also how God planned to bring the species forth. He made many changes to a 'kind's' genome over long periods of time while individual gene expression was suppressed and then allowed expression of one or more genes via the appropriate gene regulation sites to create the functionality for a new kind brought into this world by natural laws and natural birth. This would appear in the fossil record as a new species with no intermediate forms.  I have been stating this all along and described this in past posts which you were incapable of reading it seems since you tire and give up so easily when you try to discern and understand what I post.


View user profile

9Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Goodness me! on Thu Jul 28, 2011 6:45 am

Lee you should be ashamed of yourself.

Accusing others of putting words in the mouth of a (now indeed) dead author of some of the NT.
Your lack of Scripture support on the points where it really matters shows your case is really weak and not based on the Bible and putting words in the mouth of our Lord Jesus is simply disgraceful and accusing others of doing the same to Luke in fact is quite hypocritical.

On a lighter note, you can still make me laugh:
"the brief history of the earth which is 4.6 billion years"

And you still keep contradicting yourself:
"to add a specific sequence of informational changes (almost 40 million changes) over a few million years"


"Punctuated evolution seems to be the way that God created the various species based on the fossil record"

Actually you are not contradicting yourself, but shooting holes in your ever changing views...


View user profile

10Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Ruling on the Rainbow Allegations on Wed Jul 27, 2011 12:23 pm

Judge Solomon: The plaintiff did not forfeit the trial but I have been informed that he has fled to Kansas for fear of his life. Since he did not withdraw his case against the Church the trial will proceed without him.

I have thrown out the plaintiff's complaint that the defense has turned the OT/NT writers into zombies. They have been examined by the Court doctors and theologians and their testimony stands reliable since they speak from the pages of Scripture.

Now that all the rulings are out of the way, will the defense please proceed.

View user profile

11Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Somewhere Beyond the Rainbow on Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:39 pm

Toto, I don't think were in Kansas any more. It looks like the case has moved somewhere under London in the Wizard's Ministry of Justice where 'he who shall not be named' has edicted the new rules for conducting the trial or should I say a kangaroo court. I must say that I think I agree with Bret this time that the Lord would not be happy about this in that 'he who shall not be named' is instructing the dead witnesses on what to say which is different than what they originally saw, heard, and stated in their original testimony recorded in the Bible thousands of years ago. They have been brought back to life for the trial and converted into puppets or zombie's to convict an innocent Christian willing to stand up against 'he who shall not be named' and the Ministry. Let's go back to Kansas to remove ourselves from the evil here and potentially God's wrath from striking everyone involved dead! There's no place like home. There's no place like home.....

Lee affraid

Last edited by InfinitLee on Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:55 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Clarification)

View user profile

12Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty *** Scopes Trial? or Kangaroo Court? *** on Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:38 am

Gentlemen ...

At first ... I thought using a courtroom format was a good (even clever) idea!
But now ... (predictability) the focus (& fun) is fading towards flatulence!
This is not a Blog about Court procedures or Legal etiquette!

I think that it's pretty easy to predict our Lord's reaction to all of the
objections, sidebars, & extended recesses? Sad (John 11:35)

20 Bret*11

View user profile

13Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Mistrial? Ruling by the Reviewing Court. on Sun Jul 24, 2011 9:21 am

The current Judge is incompetent and has been removed from the case. He will be re-assigned to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

There has been no mistrial. However, new strict guidelines are laid down and will be enforced:

Lee is the plaintiff's attorney. He brought the case against the Church's traditional view. You will not use the term "prosecutor" as that is reserved for criminal cases; this is a civil matter. Lee will be labled "P" for "plaintiff" in future testimony. Stu is the defender of the Church's traditional view and will be labled "D" since he is the defense attorney.

Stu gets to present his defense in full before Lee gets to cross-examine. The plaintiff has previously agreed to that. "Stu, congrats on your decision to document your views. Take your time, just please address the real issues with a compelling set of logical and Biblical arguments" (Lee 6/24)

Stu was out of order by requesting that Lee cross examine his first witness before he finished his defense. So as an accommodation to the plaintiff, Stu has agreed that if Lee wants to comment on each defense witnesses' testimony he may continue to do so. But the defense is not required to answer the commentary at this time, nor wait while the plaintiff prepares its case. Official cross-examination will not begin until after the defense rests.

Stu has submitted his list of witnesses and it includes all the writers of the OT and NT. Even though they are physically dead their witness is "living and active" (Heb 4:12) and is infallible. To suggest a séance; that the defense paid off a writer of the NT; or that Luke may an imposter, are breathtaking accusations. Solomon, the new Judge will not stand for these shenanigans and throws out the plaintiff's requests. If the plaintiff doesn't like the ruling he may forfeit the trial.

Solomon: Stu you may proceed with your defense.

Last edited by stu on Sun Jul 24, 2011 11:41 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added explanation of "plaintiff")

View user profile

14Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Procedural Issue, Mistrial? on Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:44 am

[Lee]- Your Honor may I approach the bench relating to a procedural issue?
[Judge] - Counsels please see me in my chamber.
[Lee]- Your honor I realize that the first witness' testimony was shocking to you, but to allow the prosecuting counsel Stu to call a new witness Luke while I was out of court during a recess was a serious violation of procedure. Perhaps also, you did not realize that this witness is posing to be someone that died and supposedely went to heaven almost two thousand years ago. You have allowed this court to become a seance and quite possibly a new pulpit for the devil in this court as we take testimony from this imposter. You have allowed him to do this prior to my completing my cross-examination of the first witness, Jesus Christ who is still alive and can still speak to us. This new testimony is out of order and potentially fallacious. This is further exacerbated by allowing Stu to refer to himself as defense instead of the prosecution. This is confusing the jurors. Quite clearly, he, thinks he is the defense since he believes he is defending his traditional views. However, he has forgotten obviously, that he brought this case against me and called the first witness which is a prosecution obligation. It was he that has put my views on trial here since he and his clients disagree with them. All this is inexcusable and could result in a mistrial if we proceed in this manner.

[Lee]- However, I will accept this surprise testimony from this suspect witness Luke that Stu has obviously paid to testify for him based on the biased testimony against evolution which he shouldn't know anything about supposedly having lived two thousand years ago and who is obviously a historian of the Bible era. Your honor I will again need a few day recess to prepare my cross-examination questions for him since he is a surprise witness making new false statements against my views. I respectfully request your observance of proper court procedure in the future and during this recess or I will be forced to call for a mistrial.

[Judge]- You are right this was out of order and I apologize. Stu, you better get your act together, you are the prosecution not the defense. Please refer to yourself this way in the future. I will also be checking into the authenticity of your witness and your relationship to him. He had better not be an imposter.

Last edited by InfinitLee on Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:07 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : grammar)

View user profile

15Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Cross-Examination Day 2 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:36 pm

The court has now reconvened from its recess and the defense is asked to continue its cross-examination of the witness Jesus Christ previously called by the prosecution attorney Stu .

[Lee]- I am very happy to see that the various court members and prosecution have recovered from their trance-like states when I requested a recess last week and are now able to continue.  I would also like to thank Lord Jesus for His continuing patience with our many flawed views and our misunderstandings related to His Word.  Do you have any comment related to our long recess?

[Jesus]- This trial is of great interest to me, since this conflict divides and creates hostility among so many of my brothers and sisters. I will be happy to answer questions that help resolve the issues however long it takes. I am glad to be called as a witness as too many pretend that we don't exist (Rom 1:20-21), yet we see and hear everything that occurs, (even every thought) (2 Corinthians 10:5) from our nearby eternal home in Heaven.  So we appreciate this opportunity to voice our views in a public forum.  Please continue your questioning.

[Lee]- Thank you Lord for your helpful spirit and divine patience with us.  My next question relates to one of the responses that you provided to Stu's question:
'So are you saying that we have been formed out of inorganic material and not organic material as evolution requires?'

[Lee]- Lord, You responded with: 'Of course. I created man in My own image, in the image of God I created him; male and female I created them'...

[Lee]- In light of your other testimony about Elihu being naturally born from his mother but also made from clay, this seems inconsistent to me.  Would you please explain this inorganic versus organic material concept to help us understand how it applies to the creation of Adam and His descendents?

[Jesus]- Yes, the world started as mostly inorganic compounds but We evolved some of these compounds into organic ones by creating microbial life early in the earth's history. Life converts these inorganic compounds into organic materials based on complex processes defined by RNA, DNA, and the proteins defined by it into a large biomass observable today in it's many forms or species.  The information that We provided to make the genetic code in RNA, DNA, and proteins for each kind of microbe, animal, and plant permits the conversion of the earth's inorganic matter to the living organic matter that make up your bodies (as well as mine when I was born of Mary long ago).  All life consisting of organic compounds is built from inorganic compounds found on the earth and disbursed in the waters and soils. This is true of all life that proceeded Adam as well and hence the expression 'dust to dust' (Ge 3:19, Eccl 3:20, ).  It was all made from the inorganic matter available from the earth and returns to dust via decay and microbial action.  That is the source of my previous comment 'of course'.  

[Jesus]- I want everyone to understand that it is the information that We have added to countless organisms that performs this essential conversion to organic compounds. It didn't happen by chance and natural selection as Darwin suggested.  Consequently, all life developed and grew from inorganic materials ingested and transformed by the information and deterministic fixed laws that we created (Col 1:16,Job 38:33,Is 46:9 ).

[Jesus]-I knew Stu was referring to Darwinian evolution when he stated 'not organic material like evolution requires'.  He was implying, that natural organic materials alone have sufficient information in them to generate new species by chance and natural selection (2 Corinthians 10:5).  This view is preposterous (Jn 1:3,Jn 8:58), only Our minds collectively are capable of implementing the precise changes in the genetic codes of parents to improve and modify the information in the genetic code in their offspring (Is 41:4) along with divine selection (Jb 38:41, Is 40:24 ) that brings new species forth (Ge 1:12, 20, 24), during the brief history of the earth which is 4.6 billion years (Ps 90:2, Ha 3:6, Deut 33:15).  Organic materials require complex information (Is 42:5, Is 41:4) which only We can provide and utilize in our deterministic natural laws (Is 46:9). Entropy and chance without natural selection guiding this process would lead only to degeneration of species over time.  Only We, the Trinity, can generate and control these laws and information residing in the parent to improve and produce new species with new capabilities in progeny and insure their well-being.(Is 41:4)  The necessary organic materials to produce Adam naturally through evolution from sub-humans required an intentional effort to add a specific sequence of informational changes (almost 40 million changes) over a few million years to build up the monkey genetic code to human code (Ge 1:27).  We started with monkey genetic code many generations earlier, but you are nothing like your early primitive relative's (Jb 39:17, Je 1:5) Coco and Bongo or your previously unnamed subhuman relatives, Ad and Eek.  The human kind came from the hominids that We evolved from the mammal kinds with Adam being the first human.

[Jesus]- I made my statement regarding idolatry because I also wanted to emphasize that We would get very angry if We started to see anyone building an idol of your primitive relatives to glorify them instead of Us. (Ex 20:4,5) This is insulting to us, after working on our plan for billions of years.  (Ps 90:2, Is 41:4) We are the ones responsible for the creation; not any of the creations themselves such as the monkey whether alive or carved from stone. They can do nothing for you, your spiritual future and eternal life solely depends on Us! It requires a mind to create everything that exists in your world, and humans are the first to have one in your world that is capable of creating anything of eternal value (Ps 139:13,Luke 1:43).  

[Jesus]- Now I have told you the way in which you are made in our spiritual image of us, the information that we added to your genetic code that permits you to reason abstractly like us so that you can acquire wisdom and understanding. You are body and spirit; not just body.  We are spiritual creatures that are not confined to any material object (Ex 13:21-22, Ex 19:18, Ex 24:17, Ex 33:20, Ex40:38),  similarly, our Spirit is not confined to a human body (Lk 23:46 ).  Part of you is eternal and will long outlast your human form (Lk 16:22-28) in this way you are made in our image: eternal, logical, knowledgeable, spiritual, creative, and non-material (Job 32:8, Job 38:36).  

[Lee]- Have you ever created any biological organism by popping it into existance or did life always have a natural parent or origination?

[Jesus]- The closest that We ever came to popping any species into existance, was the time We created microbial life near an ocean floor smoker early in earth's history.  We designed and planned it though so well from the beginning that the right molecules came together at just the right moment that no intervention by us was necessary. If left to chance (which doesn't exist from Our perspective), this would have taken trillions of years. Instead, the little psuedo-virus that could make copies of itself from assembling nearby materials just came together as planned. The perceived miracle is really just good planning and execution! (Mt 10:29, Is 41:4, Is46:9) It had nothing to do with microbes from outer-space landing on our planet or random chance as fools believe.

[Lee]- One last question Lord, when you made the statement 'The Lord commanded and they were created', were you referring to Adam and Eve like Stu claims or the heavens?:
Ps 148:5 [relating to the heavens] They do praise the name of Jehovah, For He commanded, and they were created. The Lord sent forth His spirit and they were created:

[Jesus]- this was an inappropriate reference that Stu added to my testimony,  this verse applies to our creation of the heavens as the complete set of verses indicate and was not an intended reference to the creation of Adam and Eve.  All of our verses describing the creation of Adam and Eve from dust, clay, or flesh were meant to be symbolic of our use of natural processes and laws to create them as I have just described.  They were not popped instantaneously into existance; both had sub-human parents.

[Lee]- Thank you Lord Jesus for your revealing testimony.   Your honor, I have no further questions at this time, but would like the opportunity to recross-examine if the prosecution asks further questions of the witness.


Last edited by InfinitLee on Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:12 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Clarification)

View user profile

16Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty 2-0 on Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:41 am

but let's be fair, Lee is entitled to cross-examine.

View user profile

17Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty The Monkey Trials - Day 2. The Descent of Man? on Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:57 am

My friend believes the historicity of the biblical accounts as well as the theories of evolutionary science. He believes that both tell the story of the descent of man from a common ancestor and that these disparate accounts can be reconciled.

As the Defense (D) of the traditional evangelical Christian view I say that reconciliation is misguided and damaging to the faith. In support of this position the Defense calls Luke to the witness stand.

D: State your name and occupation for the Court.

Luke (L): I am a physician; companion to the apostle Paul; and author of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts. I was chosen to be the historian of the New Testament.

D: Tell us what your credentials are for being the historian.

L: God inspired me to compile an account of the life of Jesus and his deeds. I interviewed the eyewitnesses of his life and the servants of the word which they handed down. After I investigated everything very carefully, I wrote it out in consecutive order so that we might know the exact truth (Lk 1:1-3). I recorded the details of Jesus' history in the Gospel of Luke as well as the details of the early Church in the Book of Acts. That was not an act of my own will whereby I could have made a mistake. Rather I was carried along by the Holy Spirit who spoke the words from God. You see false teachers were continuing arising and introducing heresy. But God wanted us to know the truth so He personally supervised the process of creating Scripture. Peter explained all this in 2 Pet 1:21,22; 2:1.

Even modern day secular historians such as A.N. Sherman-White have acknowledged the accuracy of my work. He said, "For Acts the confirmation of its historicity is overwhelming ... any attempt to reject its historicity , even in matter of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."

D: Evolution claims that the history of mankind can be traced back to a beginning of primitive bacteria. And that by a process of random variation, natural selection and genetic drift animals are eventually created over billions of years. In the last 7 million years or so Adam descended from a series of bipedal primates which included ape and chimpanzee ancestors as well as the hominids creature of various sorts. What's so "anti-biblical" about that?

L: First of all, only human-beings have a history. Animals, including apes and chimpanzees, do not. They have a timeline but they are obviously not capable of recording facts derived from investigation and rational analysis. They were not created with the ability to do so and are in a different class altogether. Moses will testify to that when you have him on the stand.

My testimony is that the lineage of mankind recorded in the Bible demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Adam was the first human being and specially created by God. Man did not evolve (descend) from any other life form and the Bible is abundantly clear about it. So anyone who holds to an evolutionary view, even claiming to believe the Bible and that God somehow used evolution to accomplish His purposes, is misguided.

D: In your gospel account Chapter 3, starting in verse 23 you trace Jesus' lineage backwards from the time he began His ministry at about age 30. Please summarize for the Court what you recorded.

L: Jesus' human father was Joseph who was the son of Eli (v 23). Then I trace Eli's ancestry back to Judah, the son of Jacob; then back to Isaac and Abraham's (v24-34); then trace his ancestry back to the great flood showing he was related to Shem, the son of Noah (v34-36). I continue to trace his ancestry all the way back to the first man Adam through the ancestral line of Seth, Enoch and Methuselah (v36-38).

D: Why did you stop your ancestral tracing at Adam? The prosecution says that Adam descended from a hominid, which descended from some ape-like creature, which descended from something else, etc. -- all the way back to some "little pond" where nature supposedly gave birth to the "primordial bacteria."

L: Let's get this straight. The people who say this either aren't Bible believers or, if they are believers they are seriously confused. They see things upside down! Man didn't descend from some lower form of life. From the beginning man was created as the highest form of God's creation, not the lowest. He was created to rule over the animals, not descend from them! Moses recorded all this in the Torah:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him;)male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “(Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Gen 1:26,27)

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created.(Gen 5:1)

For in the image of God He made man. (Gen 9:6b)

Paul and James reaffirmed it several times in the NT:

"Man ... is the image and glory of God" (1 Cor 11:7). "Put on the new self ... according to the image of the One who created him" (Col 3:10). ", who have been made in the likeness of God" (Jms 3:9).

L: There was no ancestry before Adam. If there was such a thing the Holy Spirit would have made sure that it was recorded it that way. Instead we are told that Jesus' lineage begins with Adam and that's what I recorded in 1:38: "Adam was the son of God," not some hominid! Adam was directly created by God -- that's where human ancestry begins.

D: But how can you be sure that God didn't evolve Adam's physical from some lower form of animal as the prosecution says?

L: Because ancestry, what the Bible calls genealogy, was one of the most important things God wanted us to know about. Knowing our ancestry is one of the primary ways we can test for and reject false prophets. Please let me explain to the Court the purpose of genealogy.

Before the creation of the world God chose to create a unique creature in His image (man); chose a unique people to reveal Himself through (Jews); a unique nation of people (Israel); a unique Messiah to save all people (Jesus); and a unique future for all who are saved (Christians).

From the beginning Satan, the adversary and liar, has been continuously counterfeiting these unique purposes of God. So God set up a way to identify Satan's counterfeits. He lists in great detail man's ancestry so that when false pathways to the truth are proposed, one can identify them with confidence since they won't line up with the total testimony of Scripture. In this way one doesn't have to defend against a myriad of false teachings. Rather one can just learn the truth and the false teaching reveals itself and self-destructs. That's what will happen with so-called "common ancestry" if you search the Scriptures.

My fellow prophets, Moses, Matthew, Mark, Paul, and Jude, who were likewise "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:21), all have given the same testimony when they authored their contribution to the Bible.

Moses testifies that he clearly identified the "beginning ancestry" of all things -- that all creatures were specially created by God and did not evolve. Starting with the creation of Adam he uses the formula in Genesis, "This is the book of the generations" so that our human ancestry can be clearly traced. Starting with verse 5:1 he says, "This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man..." From there Moses gives the record of the continuous ancestry to Noah (Gen 6:9); then to the sons of Noah (10:1); then to Abraham (11:27) and then to Isaac (25:19). So to trace Jesus' "legitimate descent" (Hb - yahas), i.e. back in time, you can verify his claim to his office as prophet, priest, king, and Messiah. And most importantly for this discussion, his identity with the first man - Adam (1 Cor 15:45).

My historian counterpart in the OT, the prophet who wrote 1 Chronicles, gives even more detail of this ancestry stating with Adam (1:1-26). He details the ancestry back through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his 12 sons. He pays special attention to the ancestry back to King David and through the line of Judah (1:27-2:24)and the Levitical priesthood (4:1-8:32).

Even with these detailed lineages given so we can sort out the truth, a multitude of false teachers of strange myths and speculative genealogies, such as "common descent," keep crawling into the faith. Paul warns us not to pay any attention to it since it works against faith and it does not "further the administration of God" (1 Tim 1:3,4). Paul says these kind of controversies are unprofitable and worthless (Titus 3:9). He even issues a strong warning to "reject a factious man (who teaches such a thing) and after a first and second warning, know that such a man is perverted, is sinning and becomes self-condemned" (v 9, 10).

You will recall from when Jesus testified that Adam and Eve were created at the very beginning. They were the first human parents from which ancestry would proceed. As Jesus testified, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female" (Mt 19:4), and "from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." (Mk 10:6). From this first marriage the whole earth was populated in order to fulfill God's command to, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28; 9:1,7). And from this one union of male and female God made "every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth" as I recorded in Acts 17:26.

So to summarize my testimony. Scripture is very precise about beginnings and ancestry. The fundamental premise of evolutionary biology that mankind is the result of "common descent" from a "common ancestor" is a myth. Scripture knows nothing about this "speculative genealogy." Paul warns us to not pay attention to it as it is destructive to the faith. Mankind is the paragon of God's creation from the beginning. He did not did evolve from primordial bacteria nor have common ancestry with the animals. Any teaching that claims this should be purged from the faith.

We were made in the image of God. Our body is a temple of the Holy Spirit -- it does not share common ancestry with a monkey; and most certainly Jesus doesn't. The wisdom of this world is many times just foolishness before God and that most certainly is the case here when trying to blend evolution with biblical revelation (1 Cor 3:16-21).

View user profile

18Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty An excerpt from a CMI article on Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:30 pm

Because we have touched on some of these topics, I thought it would be interesting to share. (note the Spaghetti Monster!!!)
Taken from:

So from here on in, pretend I’m ‘atheist Calvin’ …

"As an Old Earth Creationist, I disagree with the literal six-day interpretation given in Genesis."

Why? Most Hebrew scholars agree that the days in Genesis were intended as literal days. Is it because science has disproven the Bible? Didn’t the church fathers and the majority of Christians believe in a young earth and a 6 day creation up until recently until science proved it wrong?

"Could God have created the universe/world in six days? Of course."

I thought the Bible recorded what God did do, not what he ‘could’ have done. God ‘could’ have created the world using a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that’s not what it says he said in the Bible!

"Science does seem to be painting a different picture however,"

Science seems to be painting a different picture regarding talking snakes, talking donkeys, floating axe heads, people living in whales for 3 days, virgin births and dead people coming back to life after 3 days as well.

How come you want to accept science in one area and change the plain meaning of what the Bible says because of it but not in the other areas? Isn’t that inconsistent and illogical? By the way, science says that animals evolved (made themselves), weren’t created. Why don’t you believe science regarding that?

Last edited by sumiala on Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : formatting)

View user profile

19Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty *** Speaking of Bananas *** on Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:01 pm

Lee ...

So ... when CoCo & Bubbles gave birth to Adam ... he was born with this uniquely new
region of the brain that his parents did not possess?
Or ... are you saying that this new region of the brain evolved in Adam from his birth
unto his adulthood?

Was Eve Adam's sister? ... or was she born to a different set of fugitives from an organ grinder?

Were Adam & Eve both Black?

Where did they learn how to speak?

Don't you think that Adam & Eve must have eaten their fair share of Bananas ...
being that their parents were both monkeys?

Do you believe in the "Hopeful Monster" theory or are you a "Gradualist"?

Last question! ...

When is your next vacation? ... and where are you going this time? Smile

20 Bret*11

View user profile

20Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Lee, what are you talking about? on Wed Jul 13, 2011 6:08 am

I have no idea why you are talking about half-winged humans.
No clue whatsoever!

I like punctuated equilibrium as a concept.
this is because it is a very clever construction:
Evolution happened too quickly to leave fossils of links, but is too slow now to be observable.
Are you sure you are part of this crowd?
Would be interesting to find posts of you where you state gradual mutations over eons of time.

Bara, 1254 in the Genesis chapters, means creation out of nothing. Not from pre-existing matter.

Stu remains at 1-0, in spite of your nobel effort to include verses.
Verses that you quote are not relevant or are those where you and Stu (and the YE's even) agree on anyway.
(oh, and YE's do not believe we are bananas, not sure where you got that idea from)
Some of the verses you quote seem vastly imaginary to your cause, for example Job 39:17.
I also noted that in some instances you require the NET translation, I guess because other version do not support your cause?
Sorry, but if I were the judge, your case is still extremely weak.

It will be even weaker when you admit to my question if you are willing to stick that the order of creation in Genesis 1 is reflected in the geological column.
You have already, but it would be good for the record to get it stated again.


View user profile

21Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Half-Winged Humans and Minds From Fruit on Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:38 am

Bret and Lucien,
While you were imagining half winged people and fruit creating TP lobes in the brain, I went back and updated my last post with Biblical references. I thought you would know the Biblical history of the statements made initially, but it was clear from your post Lucien, that you didn't make the connection. You were correct, in that I should have included them in the original post like Stu did.

Also one of the meanings of 'bara' is create from nothing. So God created the heavens which includes the Sun and moon on the first 'Day'.

Punctuated evolution seems to be the way that God created the various species based on the fossil record, I'm still not sure why you have focused on non-existant half winged people. I see no reason for God to evolve such a creature, nor is their fossil evidence for it.

Relating to fruit for thought, has it occurred to you that we are body and spirit? The brain is evolved over time and experiences as it matures to grow fine structures related to our memories, thoughts, and decisions. We are the product of this maturing process which is both structure and experiences. Certainly some aspects of human morality is physical but this moral filter that you posted about is also developed during our lifetimes and can develop quite differently between people of different cultures. Just ask an Assyrian, Philistine, or Moabite, if you can find one. God destroyed these cultures because of their inclination for evil. Morality does not come from fruit. Contrary to YE views, you are not bananas or any other kind of fruit!

Lee monkey

Last edited by InfinitLee on Wed Jul 13, 2011 4:45 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Missing Title)

View user profile

22Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty *** Time + Imagination = Evolution! *** on Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:33 pm

Lucien ...

Of course! ... Evolutionists can dream-up an explanation for anything & everything!
It is impossible to ever falsify the "Theory" of Evolution ... as we have seen the
amazing amount of mental & rational contortionism thrown at us over the years to make
absolutely ANY set of data seemingly fit under their umbrella!

There is ONLY one Silver-Bullet available to kill this morphing monster of mysticism!

*** TIME ***

Deep-Time was created out of whole-cloth so Evolution could replace God as the creator!
If you recognize the True amount of time since Creation began ... the debate is OVER !!!

My reason for posting the discovery of a particular region of the Brain as being
responsible for our ability to make moral judgments ... was to prove to Lee (who else?)
that God did/could-have ... create(d) Man's brain with this ability intact ... but
turned off (or blocked?)... until Man (or Woman) ate from the Tree of Knowledge!
He claimed (earlier)... that this was just not possible or rational !!!

Thanks for all of the cool Bible references to support my claim!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

23Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty I hate to say this Bret... on Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:55 am

...but don't you think the evolutionists will say that we can switch that part of the brain off, but the information stored there is acquired over time?
I.e. not pre-programmed...

We of course know better, that in fact moral IS instilled within us.

Heb. 8:10
This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.

Heb. 10:16
“This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”

Psalm 37:31
The law of their God is in their hearts

Psalm 40:8
I desire to do your will, my God; your law is within my heart.

Jer. 31:33
This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.

And possibly the best portion of Scripture, Rom. 2:14-15
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

View user profile

24Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty *** Just like flipping a Switch! *** on Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:26 am

Moral judgments can be altered
MIT neuroscientists influence people’s moral judgments by disrupting specific brain region

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — MIT neuroscientists have shown they can influence people's moral judgments by disrupting a specific brain region — a finding that helps reveal how the brain constructs morality.

To make moral judgments about other people, we often need to infer their intentions — an ability known as "theory of mind." For example, if a hunter shoots his friend while on a hunting trip, we need to know what the hunter was thinking: Was he secretly jealous, or did he mistake his friend for a duck?

Previous studies have shown that a brain region known as the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) is highly active when we think about other people's intentions, thoughts and beliefs. In the new study, the researchers disrupted activity in the right TPJ by inducing a current in the brain using a magnetic field applied to the scalp. They found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions — for example, a failed murder attempt — was impaired.

The researchers, led by Rebecca Saxe, MIT assistant professor of brain and cognitive sciences, report their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the week of March 29, 2010.

The study offers "striking evidence" that the right TPJ, located at the brain's surface above and behind the right ear, is critical for making moral judgments, says Liane Young, lead author of the paper. It's also startling, since under normal circumstances people are very confident and consistent in these kinds of moral judgments, says Young, a postdoctoral associate in MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

"You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior," she says. "To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing."

Hmmm ...

It kind of looks like Moral Knowledge is a pre-programmed part of the Brain ...
(and NOT a learned behavior)... that can be flipped On & Off with a simple Magnet
or (maybe even) a piece of Divine Fruit?

20 Bret*11

View user profile

25Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! Empty Another comment I nearly let escape on Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:06 pm


I know how you like to think I know little of genetics, but I need to point this out:

The point I was making and somehow you completely missed, even though I repeated it, was that
half a wing is no wing at all!

If God added the mutations for wings over eons of time (technically He could, but Biblically He didn't), then we would have wings in development, which would be more of a hinder then a gain.
Especially if the creature had to give up its legs:
Not able to walk, and not ready to fly yet.
What a miserable creature and what an easy prey for its predators.

Hope it is clear now.


View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 40]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3 ... 20 ... 40  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum