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 : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Go down  Message [Page 4 of 9]

Laughing Nice to see you, actually reading my old posts! You also need to read some of Hugh Ross's books like The Genesis Question. While your at it, try A matter of Days and More than a Theory as well. These explain Ross's position in more detail than I could hope to in a couple of posts and it would be good for you to learn more facts before you post rubbish and false accusations. There are a great number of Christians that believe the way I do including Hugh Ross and his flock. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't say that I am the only one. You are also making wild accusations when you say that I came out of the Darwinian closet shortly before that post in 2009. I abandoned Darwinism nine years earlier as Hugh Ross led me to Christianity through reading ten of his books. My posts on Genesis 1 were founded on ideas provided by the authors at Reasons to Believe (organization founded by Hugh Ross). He and his staff of other scientists make a very solid scientific foundation for their claims.

By the way, If you think, I am going to let you move on to attacking evolution on a scientific front before you make a Biblical case for your anti-evolution views and instantaneous popping into existence views you are sadly mistaken. I'll address any issues you have on fish, fowl, land animals, trees and grass after you make your BIBLICAL anti-evolution case.


Last edited by InfinitLee on Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:00 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : grammar, redundant words)

View user profile

77Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** Reading your old Posts AGAIN! *** on Mon Nov 14, 2011 4:35 pm

Lee ...

Going back and revisiting your statements from the past was interesting ...
as much as it was during the time when "I" was being relentlessly hammered by EVERYONE
for being too opinionated & not sugar-coated enough with my Posts!
You had just came out of the Darwinian Closet (so to speak)... and I was the only one left
on Team Truth! ... to explain to you where you had left the path that leads to righteousness!

You basically played VERY fast & loose with the facts of Science ... then made some vague
tortured extrapolations about how they fit with the claims stated in Genesis chapter one!
This can hardly be considered a well fleshed out Topic!
You never even addressed anything about when the Fish, Fowls, & land Animals appeared?
And ... don't kid yourself for a minute that I'm going let you get away with that answer about
Day-3 ... with the TREES & GRASS being glossed over with fossilized bacteria samples!
You are the ONLY person on planet Earth that thinks the Bible parallels the (so-called) Fossil Record!
This means if you're right? (and every other person that has ever lived is wrong!)...
Heaven will consist of Jesus, the thief on the cross, and Lee!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

78Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty More Pith in the Posts on Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:55 am

I read every word of your posts and thought that I understood it well. The second time I read it, I got nothing new out of it. I still think that you believe that some plants and animals were popped into existence. I explain this more below.

Remember a little over two years ago when I posted Genesis 1:1-10 A Scientific Account Comparison on Fri Sep 18, 2009 and a short time later Middle Creation 'Week' on Sat Oct 03, 2009. I addressed these challenges that you identified in great detail over many months. Have you read these posts or did you just ignore them? I see no need to waste everyone's time by readdressing this all again. We spent months addressing these subjects in the last half of 2009. You can still access these posts on this blog site. The Hebrew meaning of 'yowm' translated centuries later to day in the Bible can either be 24 hours or eons. Similarly the English word day can also be interpreted to be a short 24 hour period or in other uses like 'day of the dinosaur' or 'ancient of days' can be millions of years or any fixed length of time . So the translation to 'day' works, with the broader meaning of day. Most scholars agree with this view and not the narrow one that the YEs insist on of only 24 hours. Also,there is no difference in the Biblical account versus the scientific account, and you would know this if you bothered to read and understand what I already posted in 2009. Your statement that they are different sequences demonstrates poor exegesis of the Bible.

Your attempt to redirect the discussion topic back to one's we've discussed leads me to believe that my forcefulness in trying to get your Biblical justification for your anti-evolution view is making you squeamish or uncomfortable. This is surprising, I shouldn't have to prod you along to get this from you. I would think that you should have volumes of supporting Biblical data and rational to support your views from the YE organization, since this topic evolution vs creationism is the essence of the debate on how God created all the plant and animal life on the earth. Unfortunately, up to now the traditionalists have produced nothing but fictional statements about the methodology that God used to create plants, animals and mankind. It is time you actually put some pith in your posts rather than just claiming that you do. Even if these outside groups cannot provide you with supporting material and appropriate verses, you should still be able to write a counter arguement to my 20 points. In any case, I challenge you to write up something that is Biblically based using actual verses in a Bible that makes a strong case for your anti-evolution view and especially for your instantaneous miraculous creation of any plants or animals that entered the world that way. I think you would discover the same view that I have, that the Bible supports evolutionary creation and not the traditional YE instantaneous popping view.

Related to your belief in instantaneous creation, you were the first to pull the red herring out of the pickle jar. Here is a quote from you on Sept 30th 2009:

"As far as my take on how ALL living creatures ...(including Humans)... came into being .......God "spoke" them into existence fully formed,male & female, ready to reproduce after their own kind, already programed with limited variability to adapt to a changing environment! Sweet & Simple ... isn't it?"

I don't know how you came to make the following statement, I have never accused the YEs of believing that all life forms were individually popped into existence from nothing. In one post, Lucien claimed that God created (bara) the 'kinds' by instantaneous creation and I don't know know if he meant from dust or ex nihilo.

"I totally AGREE with you about the Bible NOT saying that EVERYTHING was created individually in an "Instantaneous" manner from "Nothing" !!!"

I persisted in my challenge of your creation view being instantaneous, since you were vague in your response by not identifying which kinds, or plant and animal species, were instantaneous and which were not. Your statement also included the word 'EVERYTHING'. Your wording leads me to the conclusion that you believe that God popped some plants or animal kinds/species into existence instantaneously or near instantaneously instead of making them in the natural way by modifying their seed and growing them from their parent's 'seed' to maturity. To clarify my view if necessary, I do not believe the Bible supports a view that any plant or animal was brought into this world by an unnatural process. I have provided you a roughly 20 point list in two posts detailing why evolutionary creation is the way God created and why instantaneous creation is not supported. These points are inadequately addressed by my fellow debaters and are now a major issue for your credibility until we debate each point. I must conclude that your Biblical support is fiction and imagination thereby non-existent until we do. It is unrealistic to expect me or anyone to believe in your concept of popping, without adequate Biblical verse support and reasonable exegesis. You have no business posting further here if you can't provide it. Recall, your own view and rule, the Bible trumps science.


Last edited by InfinitLee on Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:21 am; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : Added Links, added quote)

View user profile

79Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** Are you kidding me? *** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:19 am

Lee ...

Honestly! ...
Did you even read ONE WORD of my Post ...
past the part where I referred to your propensity
to become quite long-winded when Posting your thoughts?

New Rule!
From now on ... YOU need to read MY (& others) Posts
at least TWICE! ... ALL THE WAY THROUGH! ...
before jumping back onto the Blog to Post nonsensical ramblings!

If I can take the time to read your 1000-word+ Posts ...
and carefully analyze your dozens of claims ...
then respond to WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID! ...
I believe that my request to read my concise and pithy Posts
more than once ... before posting again is reasonable!

My attorney Stu would object to your last Post as ...
*** "ASKED & ANSWERED" !!! ***

20 Bret*11

View user profile
I posted two key analyses of Biblical verses and waited for over a week for any reply. Then I posted again on the scientific justification aspects of genetic comparison. Then I finally got a half baked response from you on the new topic. This was hardly a filibuster. It was your neglect to make any response to my claims. This also has nothing to do with cherry picking verses.

Let's take my claims against your view one at a time. All of the verses and different Bible versions in Ge 1 support the fact that the earth and waters brought the animals forth and none of them say anything about God creating the kinds ex nihilo. Just read the text in every verse you can find and discover it for yourself. If you can find one, please identify it and show it to me. You don't have to be a genius to discover that what you are saying is simply not true. You have imagined that God popped kinds into existence. It certainly does not state it in any Bible or in any verse. It is strictly in your imagination. Other than the first verse where God created or 'bara' ex nihilo the heavens and the earth into existence over some undefined time period, please find one case where the earth 'bara'ed and animal or plant into existence instantaneously.

I will be happy to address homology once you have made a biblical case for what you believe to be true and addressed all the bad exegesis that the traditionalists have scrapped together.


View user profile

81Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** Nit-Picking vs. Cherry-Picking *** on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:48 am

Lee ...

The Most-Posts King vs. The Filibuster King!
I'll let you two sort things out between yourselves ...
just as I did when Stu took you to Court!

I'm glad to hear that you're finally ready to address the tough questions!
As I predicted ... you managed to completely ignore my recent Post on Homology!
Using Homology as the foundation for your Scientific argument to prove Evolution
is illogical at best ... and deceptive at worst!
If you think that there's some more credible Scientific evidence for (Macro!) Evolution
out there? ... then bring it on!

As for your argument that the Bible (clearly?) describes long slow gradualism as God's
method of Creation from "Nothing"-to-"Man"... I beg to differ!
Even though Lucien & Myself have BOTH already admitted this to you before ...
I totally AGREE with you about the Bible NOT saying that EVERYTHING was created
individually in an "Instantaneous" manner from "Nothing" !!!
Would you PLEASE put this Red-Herring back in the Pickle-Jar where it belongs?

Ah! ... so what then do I believe that the Bible tells us about God's manner of Creation?
Well ... here's where I can offer you over a thousand ways to enjoy my view!
Unlike your view ... that requires cherry-picking isolated Verses from a dozen
different translations ... then invoking an obscure 5th or 6th definition on a key
word or two in the sentence ... followed by your attempts to draw some kind of vague
parallel between your morphed passage & the latest hypothesized Scientific Theories
of the week! ...
I can tell you to go ahead and choose ANY of the thousands of translations that have
been written over the last several thousand years ... and then JUST READ WHAT IT SAYS!
Yeah! ... that's right!
Just start right there at the very beginning of the Book! ... Read it! ... then Believe it!
You can even take the most liberal butchered translations ever written ... and
"Eons" instead of "Days"!
"Reproduce ANOTHER Kind" instead of "Reproduce after its OWN Kind"!
or "God made the Sun & the Stars on Day ZERO" instead of "the 4th Day"!

The Bible says that God created (in order)...
The Earth ... then the TREES! ... then the Sun, Moon, & the Stars! ... then the BIRDS & Fish!
then the Land-Animals & Man! ... then He STOPPED! creating !!! (STOPPED!)

Modern-day Science says that NOTHING! created (in order)...
The Stars (& the Sun) ... then the Earth ... then the Fish ... then the Land-Animals
then the Trees ... then the Birds ... then the Monkeys morphed into Man!
And ... new things are continuing to be created ... including more Stars! (Not Done Yet!)

Lee ... one of these two opposing views (logically) has to be wrong!
Which one is it ???

PLEASE! ... break your response into multiple Posts ... if you cannot answer me
in less than a thousand words?


View user profile
Lucien et al,

It seems lately you are intentionately being evasive of this issue by constantly posting red herrings related to my posts. You say I'm confused but there is no confusion on my part. If you would have carefully read and understood my response you would have realized this and not written another useless post. However, you may be confused on the purpose of this blog site when you make statements like 'I have more important stuff to do than read your religious views'. Maybe you're are blogging on the wrong website if you feel this way. This blog was founded to first debate from a Biblical and scientific perspective the age of the earth then views on evolution . If you believe that you don't need to support your own religious convictions and challenge the views of others that interpret the Bible differently, you need to blog somewhere else! Based on your number of posts versus content, you seriously need to think about this possibility. So far neither you, nor any other YE, has produced anything scientific or Biblical to support your claims of instantaneous ex nihilo popping of plant and animal kinds into existence. Bret, was supposed to do this months ago, but it still hasn't happened. Stu, tried but failed in a fictional case. Now, it is up to you based on failure of the others to make a sound foundation for your views.

I suspected from the beginning that you don't care or are being lazy about accurate exegesis of the Bible and reaching logical conclusions about what meaning God wants to convey, you have your mind made up.  Were you just looking for a platform to distribute your fictional and flawed YE views to other Christians regardless of the view's validity? It seems you don't want to waste your time on God's understanding or wisdom; you're going to stick to your ignorant bliss and flawed assumptions that have no Biblical basis while pushing your erroneous YE views to others.

Claiming my interpretation of the verses is liberal is distortion and twisting the truth. You are the one that has been liberal in your interpretation of scripture, ignoring some scripture, and accepting only a very narrow interpretation of certain other verses. We all discovered over the past two years that ancient text can be interpreted legitimately in several ways from the ancient Hebrew and Greek text. There are also a lot of symbolic verses in the Bible that most scholars validate but you and the others YEs ignore. I have pointed these examples out on the subject of evolution to our readers in my last five posts. Yet, there is little to virtually no response. Are you afraid to address them or is it that you can't address them and counter my point of view on each? 

It is the YEs and traditionalists that have not produced any substantiation for there liberal interpretation of popping plants and animals into existence instantaneously ex nihilo. It doesn't allude to this anywhere in the Bible based on my studies and none of the traditionalists have come up with any verses that support this view. Yes, Stu referenced many verses, but none of them even came close to supporting this concept. He had to resort to fictional statements by the saints and blasphemy to support his view in the end in a mock court case. Even Ge 2:7, a highly symbolic verse, only pertains to humans and can be interpreted to support evolution based on this passage and many other verses of the Bible supporting evolution. You are all being liberal with your interpretations to derive this view from the Bible. I am calling you on it. Produce some verses to support it, or withdraw your view! I am testing your YE concept and so far it has failed.

Your latest nit pick is a word that Stu used, 'science', that I challenged. You seem to have missed the point that Augustine did not have access to much modern knowledge of how the physical reality works or the physical laws, that I was trying to make in my original post addressing Stu's claim. This understanding of physical reality came about many centuries after Augustine. For that reason, topics like evolution would not be a understood concept by him. However, it is useless to split hairs on this topic, this is just another red herring you are sending out, while the key points I've surfaced go unaddressed by your team.

Let's get one thing straight, I am not upset for your challenging my views or pointing out that you interpret differently verses that I surface to support my view. Pitifully, I enjoy your red herring show and your inability to correctly assess and respond to any of my posts. I often look forward to see what any of you will come up with next. I welcome your responses as long as they are honest, thoughtful, curteous, and logical. What I get upset about is your personal attacks, evasiveness in addressing the issues, and the lack of commitment and capability to support your strongly held views or challenges to your views made on this blog. Mad I am elated by what seems to be a total lack of Biblical support for your anti-evolution view, the unsupported view of the popping into existence ex nihilo of plant and animal kinds, and your apparent ineptness to address this major challenge to your views on this debating blog. Smile

Lee Wink

Last edited by InfinitLee on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:28 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : word duplication)

View user profile

83Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty simple on Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:22 am

I haven't read the remainder of your claims as I have more important stuff to do than read your religious views.
I might get to the rest later, perhaps.

You said the word science did not exist in St Augustine's day, which was not true, therefore I wanted to point this out.
You have now admitted this ('scientia' meant knowledge in ancient Latin), but then immediately after state that it originated in the 1300's, which shows us how confused you really are.

If you want to interpret 'made with thee' to mean the same as 'made the same as you' then again it shows us what disturbing liberal views you take with language.
Basically the way you come across is that anything can mean whatever Lee wants it to mean, and then you get upset with us for challenging you on that.

Sorry Lee, but your freedom of interpreting things that way you want them to be soe your worldviews is not challenged won't hold in a court of law...

View user profile
I find it amazing Lucien, that you always seems to nit pick a couple of minor points but avoid addressing the major points against your view. I will have to assume that you accept the remainder of my claims. Over the last few weeks, my arguments have devasted your traditional view. Are these red herring statements and questions all that you have to offer? So far I have seen nothing Biblical to substantiate your fundamental views that the earth was created in seven 24 hour days and all of the animal kinds were popped into existence instantaneously. Stu, certainly didn't do the job, since his defense of the traditional view was a long compilation of fiction, blasphemy, and bad exegesis of Bible verses. It is time for you to stop nit picking my claims and produce some kind of solid foundation for yours, either Biblically or scientifically. Otherwise, our readers will think you as foolish.

To address your irrelevent points though, L 'scientia' meant knowledge in ancient Latin. Long after Augustine, the word 'science' originated in the 1300s from it as people started to test nature and develop physical law concepts that supported the results of those tests. Yes, science is based on the test of nature and reality as opposed to the insanity of basing knowledge on the imagination of people.

My fourth point the ASV has an equivalent translation in the WEB 'which I made as well as you', and in the NET 'which I made as I made you'. The YLT and the KJV translate it as 'which I made with thee' and can also be interpreted the way I have presented it. You present no counter argument here which nullifies my point in 4).

Lee cheers

View user profile

85Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Different versions on Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:14 am


you are still keen on using various translations at different moments, which is of course your prerogative.
But why don't you look up one verse in a few versions, like proper Biblical students do.

If you would have done that for your 4th bullet, you would have noticed you are off the mark.

I also (a synonym for 'as well') hope you understand that Biblical creationists understand that the normal course of new generations coming to be in the world nowadays is quite different than the first generation of each of the kinds.
You may not like this, but that is what the Bible says.


Last edited by sumiala on Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:18 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : missed letter/word, typo)

View user profile

86Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Augustine and science on Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:05 pm


I think you mean to say that the naturalistic definition of science did not exist in the day of Augustine.
Because the word 'science' comes from the Greek, which of course you know existed then since the NT was written in that language.


View user profile

87Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Did God Really Say? + Another Victory Lap on Sun Oct 30, 2011 3:48 am

It seems we're playing a new form of football now instead of debating. This is better than my fellow debaters sighting red herrings for distraction though, so I'll play with you for a round or so. The new rules seem to include for the moment making the statement 'Did God really say?' followed by an egregious mis-statement fantasized by Stu. Just to misguide our reader and sling mud my way, He quotes atheist Darwinist views that have no bearing in our debate. Unfortunately, he can't separate out the various versions of evolution like theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism with Christians, against the ever popular secular atheistic Darwinism and lumps them all together in his statements. He should be ashamed for his misrepresentation of the views of evolutionary creation but still shows no remorse. Not very Christian, if this is intended. I believe it is! The word incorrigible comes to mind. How confused he is even after I have clarified the positions several times for him. Rolling Eyes

He even claims that St Augustine didn't take a scientific position or believe in evolution. This was because the words science and evolution didn't exist in Augustine's generation. Stu also didn't explain that Augustine was very confused about the time line presented in the Bible and writes extensively about it. His writings confess a large degree of confusion about creation and about how God accomplished it. This was a very reasonable position for him to take as an early traditionalist without having any scientific knowledge or archeological data. Since he was a scholar and interested in logical analysis of the facts related to creation, I am sure he would express an entirely different opinion if he were alive today.

It now seems that everyone is waiting for me to take my turn so here are my statements about the traditionalist views that are being made by my fellow debaters. This looks like fun and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did in writing it!

1) The traditionalist said to everyone, “Did God really say ' 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; '

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that He instantaneously created each kind ex nihilo instead of the earth and its natural processes bringing them into existence as it states. In spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, each plant species must stay exactly like its kind. You need to accept our assumption here that there is no variation allowed in the kinds, even though the Bible does not state this in the verse.

2) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say ' 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.'

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that He instantaneously created each kind ex nihilo by speaking the kinds into existence instead of the earth and its natural processes bringing them into existence as it states. In spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, again trust us that each animal species must stay exactly like its kind. Even though the words in the Bible don't indicate that the descendents like cattle of each kind such as mammals don't have to be exactly the same as their parents just ignore what it states and believe us.

3) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say ' 1 Cor 15:38-39 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body'

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that He instantaneously created each kind ex nihilo fully formed and mature by speaking each kind into existence. Just ignore the use of the word seed in this verse. He certainly did not grow each kind from its parent's seed generation by generation. Surely God did not control this process of conception, modification, and growth of the gametes inside of the parent to a mature seed according to His will and then have the seed grow into the mature plant, animal, or human naturally.

4) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say ' Jb 40:15 ASV 15 Behold now, behemoth, which I made as well as thee; He eateth grass as an ox.'

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that He made humans differently than other animals. God 'specially' created humans from the dust by instantaneously using a different process than He made everything else.

5) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say ' Luke 1:35And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;'

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that He doesn't make special creations in the womb of the mother. Surely this cannot be controlled by God because we believe the scientists and their statement that the process of genetic code modification is based on random chance instead of being pre-determined by God. Surely the animals cannot be made this way either, even though Jesus was made this way and is a special creation of God Himself.

6) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say ' 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;
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.
Ps 139:13 NET Certainly you made my mind and heart; you wove me together in my mother’s womb. ESV For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
Ge 2:7 YLT And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature.
Ge 25:23 ASV And Jehovah said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels. And the one people shall be stronger than the other people. And the elder shall serve the younger.'

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean this because we know that genetic mutations are random and cannot occur in each parent's womb according to God's plan. This is why we fight evolution so tenaciously, it's because Darwinists claim this process is random and relies on natural selection and we believe them instead of God! We can't accept evolutionary creation either because evolution is part of the name and unfortunately for those Christians they are guilty by association even though it could be the process God uses to create with. We just don't want any association with the Darwinists, so we can't accept any process that involves evolution. Just ignore the verses in the Bible where is states God modifies the seed or knits or formed beings together in their parents womb generation to generation or where He made Jesus (a very special creation) in Mary's womb without a human father. 'formeth the man - dust of the ground,' must mean instantaneous popping into existence. This evolutionary creation alluded to here can't be the way He created the kinds because that would give limited credibility to the Darwinists.

7) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say '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. '

The Traditionalist says surely He cannot allow a life and death process to be based on nature as the Darwinists claim with their natural selection claim. Ignore the fact that God states in the Bible He uses divine selection and nature to cull the herd, wither the vine, grow nations of people of an individual parent, etc. We reject all natural means of growing and developing new kinds or individual beings generation to generation and insist on new physical laws which He uses to pop people and animals into existence.

8 ) The traditionalist said to everyone, did God really say 'Ge 1:21 YLT And 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.
and then a few verses later,
Ge 1:27And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

The Traditionalist says surely He does not mean to use the same term 'prepareth' for both man and beast. We surely believe that man is a special creation and this means that God must have created man by a special process as well and we think it must be popping man into existence fully formed and instantly knowledgeable. Nevermind the problems with free will and accountability for bad decisions like the original sin. Nevermind, all of the Biblical references to forming man in his mother's womb and all of the references to 'seed' that to pertain to plant, animal and mankind. Mankind did not come from a seed, God popped Adam into existence instantaneously directly from dust based on our interpretation of Ge 2:7, no other verses should be considered in the Bible.

9) The traditionalist said to everyone, did Peter really say 'But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.2 Peter 3:7-9
'Your father’s blessings are greater than the blessings of the ancient mountains, than the bounty of the age-old hills. Ge 49:25

The Traditionalist says surely he did not mean deep time or an age during the creation week as it would allow evolution to occur. This would permit a natural process that would be capable of creating all of the organisms that ever existed on earth including mankind. God couldn't have created life this way. Ignore all of those verses that suggest evolutionary creation is exactly the way that He did create all life generation after generation from the beginning.

Talk about creative interpretation of the Bible verses, the Traditionalist takes this to an unbelieveable extreme in their creation myth view and ignores many other verses on how God states he creates .
Your turn! cheers


Last edited by InfinitLee on Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:56 am; edited 3 times in total

View user profile

88Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty I am at a loss on Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am

Watching the footie.
The players are kicking the BALL, with their FOOT!

(I hope Stu understands better your analogy)

View user profile

89Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** Booth Review? *** on Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:02 am

Stu ...

About your last "Trial" Post!
For myself ... and those sitting around me in the stands ...
your last Post was clearly a Touchdown!
Spiking the ball ... and the cartwheels in the end-zone were also a nice touch!
But ...

Even though Lee was not on the field ... under the new rules this year ...
every Touchdown has to be reviewed ... and guess who (even though he's completely
detached from the Game)... is sitting in the small darkened room reviewing the Play?
You got it!

Now here's the Call ...

After review ... the Receiver clearly had full possession of the Ball in the End-zone!
But ... his 2nd foot touched the line as he was coming down!
Therefore ... the Play is ruled as an incomplete Pass!
The Ball is now turned over to the opposing Team on downs!

After the Game ... the Booth Review Official (Lee) was interviewed about the Call?

"Well ... you see ... Stu kept referring to the conversation that Eve had with the
Serpent in the Garden of Eden!
He also made reference to the Tree of Knowledge ... and the Fatal consequences of
eating its Fruit!
So ... you see ... He was CLEARLY out of bounds here!
We all know now ... that that never actually happened!
These statements have been removed from having actual meaning in my NEW Rules Book
that I am currently working on!
I'm so sure that the Commissioner will accept my NEW Rules Book (and throw out the old one)...
as soon as I'm finished penning it ... that I've decided to start enforcing MY New Rules now!
If the Fans don't like? ... then they should just have another Beer ... and try to get used to it!"

Side note for brother Lucien ...
I'm making a "Football" analogy!
Not that Thespian Kickball that you guys watch across the pond! cheers

20 Bret*11

View user profile

90Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Bret -- that's great. I look forward to it. on Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:07 am

One of my heroes of the Faith is Augustine (c. 400 AD) who spent decades studying and writing about Genesis 1-3. He decided that he was not going to hitch his wagon to any scientific theory du jour as it would just prove tentative. Instead Augustine arrived at his view using "the full counsel of Scripture" to interpret Scripture. We know that's the safest place to be. He was also humble and open to further understanding. I would like to be like that. In fact, I am coming to a more nuanced view helped by our 2+ year discussion which I'll get into later after I finish polishing up The Trial. bounce

Speaking of "popping into existence" Augustine decided that creation was instantaneous (not 24 hours nor millions of years) relying on Psalm 33:6-9 as his basis: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made ...He spoke and it was done;" and also that God is continually involved with the creation (Jn 5:17). He offers no support for evolution as He says, "God has established fixed laws governing the production of kinds and qualities of being,and bringing them out of concealment into full view." He regularly uses the imagery of popping seeds into existence under the sovereign control of God. The seed then unfolds over time within its pre-ordained limits.

View user profile

91Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** Back in Business! *** on Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:15 am

Yeah Stu! ...

A couple of trips to the Genius Bar and a new hard-drive later ... and Bingo!
Plus ... I've been really busy helping to start-up a new business!

Lee has been running around the Blog ... taking (self-imposed) victory laps!
He has created a straw-man argument against Biblical "Popping"...
and has convinced himself that if we cannot prove that everything was instantly
popped into existence from absolutely nothing ... then (by default)... everything
must have slowly Evolved over Billions of years!

Now that the Trial is over ... I plan on stepping in with some death-blows to
Lee's tainted view of the Bible ... and Christianity!

20 Bret*11

View user profile
Bret - Thank you for showing Lee the current science (2011 vs 2005), and regardless how his logic fails. What concerns me much more than his lack of current scientific information and his bluster, is his lack of any humility regarding 2000 years worth of orthodox interpretation of the Scriptures.

Lucien - I think you may be responding to my use of the term "she"? For your sake and for my wife's I changed it back to "he" Embarassed I was trying to acknowledge that the Bible is not sexist. But I don't want my corrective attempts to be distracting either.

I concur with your definition of "good."

During the Trial Luke was exploring the same questions as you are. I don't see any of the theistic evolutionists dealing with these obvious implications. Thanks for pointing them out.

View user profile

93Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty I wonder... on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:53 pm

if theistic evolution were true,
at which point did Adam and Eve become "made in the image of God"?

1) Was it at conception?
2) Was it when they were born?
3) Was it when they turned 18?
4) none of the above.

And were they born in the Garden of Eden, or did they make their way into it later?
And if they were born in the Garden of Eden, were mum and dad still there after they became "made in the image of God"?
And if so, did Adam and Eve go to their parents for a cup of tea after church? Or was all communication cut, since perhaps mum and dad could not speak, but Adam and Eve could?

Oh, so many questions...

View user profile

94Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty something else to ponder on Sat Oct 22, 2011 8:15 pm

Besides that I did not realise that the noun Christian was feminine,

I saw this:

Stu: "God created everything and it was good."
Jesus: "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God." (Matt. 19:17, Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19)

Is good not defined as 'without fault'?

View user profile

95Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Epilogue to the Trial on Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:13 pm

The Scripture tells us that God spoke Adam and Eve into existence from of the dust of the Earth; separately from all the other creatures He had made. God personally crafted Adam and Eve in His image; endowed each with a soul; and placed them in the hierarchy of creation just a little lower than Himself. The Bible goes to great lengths to reveal mankind as a special and separate creation from the animals; created to be a temple of God the Holy Spirit for the purpose of bringing glory and honor to their Creator. God lovingly breathed the breath of life into Adam and then Eve and gave each of them unique capabilities in consciousness, intellect, moral accountability, an appreciation of beauty, and relational capacities with each other as well as with Himself. Capacities that no other creature was given.

To this, Theistic Evolution responds as the serpent did, with "Did God really say?"

The Bible says that it alone is God's supernatural "breathed" product -- a document totally of a higher order than any produced by human sources. The Bible is "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword." In it God reveals Himself, but doesn't always explain Himself. Through it we get to know God personally -- His transcendence, sovereignty, character, purposes and infinite capabilities. He tells us that He is so far above the natural laws He created and that He will intervene in them whenever He pleases and in any way He chooses. In fact He is continuously intervening holding all things together.

To this, Theistic Evolution responds as the serpent did: "Did God really say?"

The Bible gives us God's plan of redemption. God created everything and it was good. But Adam rebelled and plunged humankind into the sin problem which could only be solved by Jesus Christ. God sent His only Son, fully deity and fully human, born of a virgin (not descended from an animal) clearly identified as the "second Adam," not the son of a hominid.

To this, Theistic Evolution responds with "Did God really say?"

Scripture is very clear about Satan and his wiles, and how he doesn't usually perform evil directly. More often than not he tempts humans into doing his bidding -- getting them to distrust God's Word first, and then luring fallen man into actions that bring about his desired evil consequences.

To this Theistic Evolution responds with, "Did God really say? Let's go eat of the tree because it is desirable to make one wise."

The Scripture records the dialog between God and Job, a truth-seeker. "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Who has put wisdom in the innermost being, or has given understanding to the mind? Will the faultfinder contend with the Almighty? Let him who reproves God answer it." Job comprehends at last and responds with humility, "Behold, I am insignificant; what can I reply to Thee. I know Thou canst do all things. And that no purpose of Thine can be thwarted. I have declared that which I did not understand. Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.. now my eyes see Thee. Therefore I retract, and I repent in dust and ashes."

Theistic Evolution responds with: "God didn't just pop things into existence, that would violate natural law. It doesn't fit the scientific consensus of today's biologists." In this author's opinion, God should respond as He did to Job's friends, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has."

The Evangelical Church -- the Body of Christ-followers who believe in Christ's Deity and the inerrancy of God's Word, are the hope for the world. Evolution denigrates Christ's humanity by not accepting Him as the "second Adam" in the way that Paul portrays Him. It denigrates God's Word by not accepting what God clearly says. Why would any Christian want to have association with that kind of thinking?

The negative consequences of accepting evolution as a cultural worldview is all around us. Today's intellectual elite say that mankind does not occupy a special place before God, but rather he has common ancestry with the animals. Why would any Christian want to go down that road when he knows that he has been elected before the foundation of the world, and specially created to follow Jesus along the narrow path?

The wide path of secularism leads to destruction when we regard mankind as an evolved animal. This evolutionary paradigm reigns far beyond biology and into every corner of human thought and action.

Those who follow the elite will recognize the tenets as "The Gospel of Evolutionism" which leads to the demise of Goodness, Truth, and Beauty. The Christian theistic evolutionist naively assumes that he or she will avoid the cultural consequences of evolutionary thought since they believe that God is guiding their brand of evolution. But God does not associate Himself with anything that leads to death: "In the day that you eat of the fruit of that tree you will surely die."

Here is some of the fruit of the tree of evolution. Each of these themes are near quotes from high profile evolutionary leaders. No Christian should want to take a taste of their fruit.

  • The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored
    Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day

    We share a common ancestry with monkeys -- and so do Adam and Jesus

    Human beings are nothing more than "meat puppets"

    Life is nothing more than the survival of the fittest

    Evolution shows the superiority of the white races over inferior darker ones

    Human behavior can only be judged in terms of survival value, not in terms of right and wrong

    The basis of ethics does not lie in God's will. Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate

    We are not free moral agents but automatons, acting out our genes' evolutionary instructions. It's not our fault

    We should not raise our standards because we cannot escape our animal origins

    Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and practice in order to be effective

    Why should we want to keep old sick people alive?

    The mammalian backgrounds of human behavior justify the reasonableness of being involved in every sort of sexual activity

    Casual sex is just an evolutionary adaptation that gives reproductive advantage

    Babies are subhuman. The fetus is nearer to an unborn ape than it is to a human being

    Killing newborns and partial birth abortion is just an adaptive parental response

    Just like chimps, kids need to be socialized by other kids more so than by parents

    A "Prom Mom" killing her baby is just in the grip of emotions fashioned by the slow hand of natural selection and can be judged only in terms of survival value, not in terms of right and wrong

One of the world's most respected evolutionary biologists, Harvard's Edward O. Wilson sums up what he considers evolutionism's positive intellectual perspective, "Once evolutionary thought is fully grasped, everything else falls into place." The biblical perspective of Wilson's thinking, however, views "fall" in precisely the opposite way. T. S. Elliot, arguably the most important American poet of the 20th century, put it this way: "If Christianity goes (falls) the whole of our culture goes (falls). Then you must start painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready-made. You must wait for the grass to grow to feed the sheep to give the wool out of which your new coat will be made. You must pass through many centuries of barbarism."

We see all around us a culture falling down the path to destruction -- and it is accelerating. Standing alone against the fall is the Church and God's Word: "I made you in My image and love you. Follow Me, not the world. You are not the descendent of an animal. I specially endowed you with a soul and you are infinitely precious to me. I sent My only Son as a human being to die for you so that you can dwell with Me forever. You don't want to eat of the tree of Theistic Evolution and experience what Eve did. You will surely die."

False ideas are the greatest obstacle to embracing the true Gospel. Theistic evolution is a false idea and leads to a false Gospel. Any Christian should reject it.

Yes, I believe God really did say that!

Last edited by stu on Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:58 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : grammar and edit changes)

View user profile

96Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty *** When the Cat is away .......*** on Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:34 pm

Steve Jobs passes away ...
and less than a week later my MacBook decides to join him!
I love my IPad2 ... but using it to Post to the Blog is not one of its strong points!

I've exposed this 99% Monkey Man fallacy several times now!
EVERY time that I do ... Lee has yet to challenge my data?
Time passes ... and several Months later ... Lee will repost the false propaganda
again verbatim as if this cat has never been let out of the bag!

This is nothing more than a "Word" game!
It is akin to water-boarding the Data ... until it confesses what you want to hear!

Lee ... read your own linked article!
The 2nd sentence of the 8th paragraph reads as follows:

"The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical"


Do you understand what that means?
Yes! ... the parts that are similar ... are very similar!
BUT! ... the 30% of the Genome that is dissimilar ... is for the most part EXTREMELY dissimilar !!!

The 70% anatomical Homology matches up with the 70% DNA genetic Homology!
Homology is a moot Topic!
It makes EQUAL sense for both views to find a high level of similarity in God's created kinds!
Without any transitional forms between the created kinds ... the similar Creator argument
gains huge strength over the gradual information accumulation morphing argument!

This is NOT a Scientific argument in favor of Evolution!
This is nothing more than a Propaganda Campaign based on intentionally distorted data!
Stop carrying the (stagnant) water for the ungodly!
Perpetuating LIES! ... will NEVER lead you to the Truth!

20 Bret*11

View user profile

97Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty something to ponder on Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:44 am

Including the statement:
"Our research also shows that highly selective and stringent alignment methods can exclude important data, providing inflated genome similarity estimates."

View user profile

98Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Chimp and Human Genetic Comparison on Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:34 am

Since there doesn't seem to be a debate any longer as the Bible provides strong support for evolutionary creation, I might as well turn my attention to an informative article from the American National Institute of Health that described the differences and similarities between the human  and the chimpanzee genomes. Lucien questioned the 99% similarity value that I used in an earlier post.  As you can see from the excerpts that I pulled from the article below, there is good technical support for my claim that the two species are 99% the same for the genome portions that encode proteins and 96% the same for the entire genome. Proteins are the nano machines and building blocks that perform the cellular functions and constitute much of its structure.

Excerpts from Article Titled New Genome Comparison Finds Chimps, Humans Very Similar at the DNA Level In the NIH News Published Aug 31st, 2005
"The consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

The researchers discovered that a few classes of genes are changing unusually quickly in both humans and chimpanzees compared with other mammals. These classes include genes involved in perception of sound, transmission of nerve signals, production of sperm and cellular transport of electrically charged molecules called ions. Researchers suspect the rapid evolution of these genes may have contributed to the special characteristics of primates, …

Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, like most mammalian genomes, contains about 3 billion base pairs. In addition, there are another 5 million sites that differ because of an insertion or deletion in one of the lineages, along with a much smaller number of chromosomal rearrangements. Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome."

With this kind of hard data supporting our similarity with other primates and the Biblical support for evolutionary creation, I don't see why you can have any doubt that God created us in an evolutionary process generation by generation according to His will.

If you would like to read the entire article, here is the link:

Lee monkey vs Cool

Last edited by InfinitLee on Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:37 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Grammar)

View user profile

99Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty Page Count? Where's the Beef? on Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:04 am

Lucien et al,

I enjoy getting your responses to my posts, but would you please provide something of substance related to our debate on the earth's age and evolution. I have put a lot of thought and effort into my posts and would like to respond to posts that have done the same.

Lee sunny

View user profile

100Young Earth or Old Earth?  Here is where to post your thoughts! - Page 4 Empty The last two Lee posts... on Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:49 am 15 pages if copied into Word.

View user profile

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 4 of 9]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

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