Errors in Genisis?

[Malachi]

Greetings good debaters. I have been watching this sight for some time now and though I do not consider myself much of a debater, I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through your arguments. The reason I have chosen to post now is because I have begun a friendly debate through correspondence with my brother who is currently incarcerated and would like to present a few of his arguments in order to get some feedback from both other Christians and atheists. This way I can sharpen my own debating skills and get an opportunity to see the arguments from many angles. Currently, he has sent me a critical essay on the bible and though I could not possibly post all of his arguments on one thread, I would like to present a few.

1.In Genesis, God creates the Earth before he creates the stars, sun and moon; however, we know that the oldest objects in the universe are closer to the rim. there are many stars between the earth and the rim of the universe, so how can it be that the earth is older?
2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?
3. Well, actually points one and two should be enough to keep us busy for awhile. If this goes well I’ll post more latter.

Any thoughts?

[juliod]

The Sun and Moon to not MAKE night and day, they "govern it", as Genesis says.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Sun makes day and night, in consequence of the rotation of the earth. The moon is irrelevant to it. This was as true in the Bronze Age as it is today, but the people back then didn't know it. In other words, the bible is wrong.

Before the sun, God used a temporary source of light for the cycle.

If the bible had meant to say that, it would be written in the bible. You've just made that up. Why do you think you can speak for god?

The "geological conditions" were present in the flood because you have large amounts of water covering vast areas with sediments, which preserve and mineralize the things it buries.

If this were true it would be easy to demonstrate. No creation scientist has demonstrated a fossilization process that could have taken place over the 12-months of the flood. All evidence (100% of it) says that the fossils that exist today did not and could not have formed during a supposed flood.

So yes, you CAN add up the time from Adam to Jesus. And it's not hard to add up the time from Jesus till now. So you get a date of about 6,000 years by the genealogies of Genesis.

Yup! And since we know, without reasonable doubt, that the age of the earth is many orders of magnitude greater than 6e3, we know without doubt that the bible is wrong.

Please explain the wisdom of rejecting the biblical genealogies.

1) They are obviously made up.

2) They contain lifespans that are obviously ludicrous.

3) They refer to events that obviously didn't happen.

4) They give an obviously wrong age for the earth.

Other than that I guess they are ok...

Please demonstrate where science has falsified the flood, the creation, or the tower of Babel. It is not by merely not believing in something that it becomes false.

Obviously I don't have time to cover all three of these. But here are a few pointers to help you out.

The creation is falsified by 100% of astrophysics and 100% of geology and geophysics. The flood is falsified by 100% of geology, geophysics and biology. The Babel story is falsified by 100% of linguistics, history of language, and general history of the world. It is also falsified by large swathes of civil engineering, since the author of the Babel story believed that brick structures could be built more than a few tens of meters high.

Any undergraduate textbook on any of those subjects should help you see the falshoods.

The Bible has been demonstrated to be extremely reliable in all the areas of science that it touches upon.

The phrase "extremely reliable" does not mean "completely wrong". I think you made a typo there.

Here are a mere three example:

1) Human bodies are not made of "dust".

2) The heavens do not "stretch" over the sky.

3) The value of Pi is not 3.0, but 3.1.

Nevertheless, I am very glad to see a strong theist here on the forum. Welcome, etc....

DanZ

[harvey1]

In Genesis, God creates the Earth before he creates the stars, sun and moon; however, we know that the oldest objects in the universe are closer to the rim. there are many stars between the earth and the rim of the universe, so how can it be that the earth is older?

Well, first of all, I don't think the Hebrew scriptures need to be inspired scientifically in any sense of the word. However, if one were to apply the same standard of explanation that fundamentalists use across all scriptures to explain why it is the scriptures do not contradict themselves, then in my view, it is clear that under those rules the first two chapters of Genesis do not contradict science. I'm not saying that's how they should be understood, I'm only saying that they can conform to fundamentalist usage of scripture interpretation.

So, to answer your questions. Genesis doesn't have to be talking about any other creation than that of our solar system. The term "heavens" quite frequently refer to the atmosphere, in fact Genesis 1:8 even suggests this.

As for the moon, that's easy. It appears the moon was formed after the earth. As for the stars, technically Genesis doesn't say the stars were formed in Genesis 1:

And God made the two great lights, the great light to rule the day, and the small light to rule the night, -- and the stars. (Darby's English Translation)

So, technically, Genesis could be saying that the light from the moon should rule the night, even rule the light coming from the stars. That's an interpretation that does not contradict science. Certainly, everyone will agree, the moon is by far the brightest object at night, and that light "rules" the night in that there is no comparison to that light.

But, ah, the sun. That's the tough one. But, the fundamentalist could say that the sun was not complete until after the moon and life were well established on earth. The reason is that the sun was much fainter in the early solar system. In fact, this is called the young faint sun paradox. The light from day 1 to day 3 could be interpreted as light from the uncompleted sun. So, "let there be light" is equivalent to the proto-sun undergoing nuclear fusion.

Hence, Genesis, I think, with some creative license in the re-construction could be made to make Genesis consistent with evolution and science.

2. Chapter 6 verse 4 of Genesis talks about their being giants “in those days.” Well, where are the fossils?

In the ground?

[The Swiss Watchmaker]

I am going to try to keep this response as short as I can, but bear with me…

I would not say they are opposites. Much depends on the interpretation one takes of scripture. I am a Christian, but do not interpret Genesis as literal.

In other words: Genesis is diametrically opposed to Big Bang cosmology only if you take it literally. Your point against my claim inadvertently supports it. You are saying that if we interpret Genesis as a literal account of creation, it disagrees with the Big Bang. If they didn't disagree, you wouldn’t need to interpret it metaphorically.

1. The text itself seems to me to be more amenable to a metaphorical interpretation.

I don’t see any reason why you would think the text is more amenable to a metaphorical interpretation (other than the obvious fact that you like to interpret it that way), especially since it is historical narrative http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... 5/0617.asp)

2. The scientific evidence from God's creation indicates to me that a literal interpretation is not valid.

When you say “Scientific evidence” you obviously mean “the secular scientists interpretation of the evidence” because you are ignoring the Creation scientists interpretation of the evidence. Creationists and Evolutionists have the same evidence. The interpretation of the evidence is what we are concerned with. Perhaps you have not yet learned the difference between ‘Experimental Science’ and ‘Origins Science.’

3. Many other portions of scripture are commonly understood to be metaphorical.

You can’t use the fact that other portions of Scripture are understood as metaphorical to support the belief that Genesis is metaphorical. We know from grammatical analysis which sections are metaphorical or not. Also, Jesus clearly took Genesis literally. That should count for something for a believer.

5. The central message of the Bible is spiritual, not physical or biological.

Even if the central message of the Bible is spiritual it doesn’t mean that everything the Bible says about physical things is to be spiritualized away. When God says that creatures reproduce after their kinds, is it a metaphor for something deep and spiritual? OR is he saying plain and simply that biologically, creatures reproduce after their own kinds (which they obviously do)?

Genesis and Evolution are not so much opposites as they are focussed on different aspects of our being. Genesis covers the spiritual, evolution the biological.

They are clearly opposites. One says God formed man out of the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life on the sixth day of creation. The other says live evolved on earth of millions of years of death and struggle and that man came from ape-like ancestors. There is a huge difference between what God COULD have done, and what God SAID he did. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... lution.asp

… I would consider the idea of a worldwide flood as pretty much falsified. There are several threads on the forum with arguements on this one. I will also suggest Hugh Ross' Reasons to Believe website, where you can find good arguements, both scientific and scriptural against a global flood (see here for one article). Ross is no friend of evolution, is an evangelical Christian, and an astronomer, but does not believe in a young earth or a global flood. He believes the flood was local, restricted to the Mesopotamian valley.

I am familiar with Dr. Ross and his compromised views. Have you read Dr. Jonathan Sarfati’s book ‘Refuting Compromise’ that is a direct refutation of Hugh Ross’ claims? I highly recommend it. As for the Flood, it has by no means been falsified, it has only been willingly ignored, as the Bible predicted would happen - "3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” 2 Peter 3:3-6

One very telling piece of evidence to me is the 40,000 or so annual ice layers in the Greenland ice sheet, as well as data from other ice sheets. The ice sheets show no evidence of a global flood in any of there layers, besides having too many layers for a 6000 year old earth. See here for a discussion of the Vostok ice cores, and here for some discussion of problems with the flood model, including a discussion of the Greenland ice sheet.

Everyone just assumes the uniformitarian interpretation to be automatically indisputable because they don’t understand that evidence is interpreted. Scientific models of the Creationists show that had the worldwide flood occurred, an Ice Age would be inevitable. Immediately after the flood the oceans would have been warmer from volcanic activity and friction of the moving continents. Thus more water would evaporate into the atmosphere. The continents were cooler because much of the sun was blocked out by volcanic ash. The excessive moisture in the warm air would have condensed and fallen as snow on the cold continents continually, possibly for centuries. It wouldn't wouldn’t melt during the summer because of the lack of solar heat, so the snow would pack down and begin to spread out as a large continental glacier (Morris, The Geology Book, Pg. 67). For an explanation of the Greenland ice sheet specifically, go here - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/ ... .asp.

...there is a LOT of evidence that is inconsistent with the occurrence of a global flood in the last several thousand years.

Simply SAYING there is a lot of evidence does not suffice nor constitute a lot of evidence.

There is a great deal of independent evidence to support evolution. It is not subjective or simply based on faith. I am not sure this is the thread to get into all of it, but we could perhaps look at some of the evidence that relates directly to Genesis, referring to other threads as appropriate.

You have not cited a single piece of evidence which objectively and independently constitutes evidence for evolution (although this isn’t even about that…). Evolution is a faith, as are all worldviews

"‘A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to coordinate men’s beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.’

‘Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterized by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally.’" – Sir Julian Huxley

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Sun makes day and night, in consequence of the rotation of the earth. The moon is irrelevant to it. This was as true in the Bronze Age as it is today, but the people back then didn't know it. In other words, the bible is wrong.

I will ask you kindly not to insult my intelligence with such remarks. My point stands. You don’t need the sun to have day and night. All you need is a stationary source of light and a rotating earth. This is not difficult to comprehend. Simply saying the Bible is wrong doesn’t make it wrong so show me where the Bible made a REAL mistake.

If the bible had meant to say that, it would be written in the bible. You've just made that up. Why do you think you can speak for god?

I could ask you, who gave you the right to speak for evolutionists? I have every right to defend God if I so choose so why not stick to debating? Oh, and it is written in the Bible. It’s exactly what the Bible says. God made the light and separated it from the darkness. Thus began the first DAY. There was a source of light and a rotating earth. I don’t know what is so difficult to understand.

No creation scientist has demonstrated a fossilization process that could have taken place over the 12-months of the flood. All evidence (100% of it) says that the fossils that exist today did not and could not have formed during a supposed flood.

Actually, it is easy to demonstrate. Many examples have been found of fossils which have formed very quickly. Fossils are found of creatures almost frozen in time while giving birth, eating, etc. Sacks of flour were fossilized rather recently and it has been demonstrated that fossilization can occur in as little as three weeks under ideal conditions. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /flour.asp click here to see a petrified bowling hat and a petrified ham.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... rawera.asp
For a number of articles supporting the evidence of fast fossilization click here http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ossils.asp
A petrified man was discovered in 1980. You could argue that the man was buried thousands of years ago if it were not fr the cowboy boot that he was wearing which was made sometime after 1950. Please provide a single piece of evidence or a single logical reason why fossilization cannot happen quickly. I suggest actually doing research instead of just assuming you know what Creationsist have and have not been up to.

Yup! And since we know, without reasonable doubt, that the age of the earth is many orders of magnitude greater than 6e3, we know without doubt that the bible is wrong.

You obviously have no understanding of how scientists try to “date” the earth. The earth is not “many orders of magnitude greater than 6e3.” In fact, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that suggests the earth cannot be any more than 10,000-100,000 years old, such as the decay rate of the earth magnetic field. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... gnetic.asp
But I guess skeptics know everything already so they don’t ned evidence to support their claims.

The creation is falsified by 100% of astrophysics and 100% of geology and geophysics. The flood is falsified by 100% of geology, geophysics and biology. The Babel story is falsified by 100% of linguistics, history of language, and general history of the world. It is also falsified by large swathes of civil engineering, since the author of the Babel story believed that brick structures could be built more than a few tens of meters high.

This is no different from my saying “The Big Bang is falsified by 100% of astrophysics and 100% of geology and geophysics. Uniformitarianism is falsified by 100% of geology and geophysics. Biological evolution is falsified by 100% of linguistics, history of language, and general history of the world and biology. Oh, and FYI, the builders of the Tower of Babel did not’ think that brick structures could be built more than a few tens of meters high. It sure is fun to be able to prove people wrong “100%” without ever providing a sliver of evidence.

Any undergraduate textbook on any of those subjects should help you see the falshoods.

I have studied at secular college where I was taught physical anthropology. I have two textbooks from that program in my library. I have read a number of pro-evolution books and many articles from Scientific American, National Geographic, not to mention the skeptic websites all their so-called proofs against the Bible. Your elephant hurling isis not anything new. If you can’ add anything of substance, consider not commenting at all. An undergraduate lesson in elementary logic should help you see the falsehoods in your own assumptions.

1) Human bodies are not made of "dust".
2) The heavens do not "stretch" over the sky.
3) The value of Pi is not 3.0, but 3.1.

Actually, when we die we rot and decay until we become dust. We started as “dust”, we were made flesh, and we die and become dust again. Wow, what a mind bender… The Bible does not ’ say we are MADE of dust, it’s says God formed man from dust then made him flesh. Kind of goes hand in hand with the whole supernatural thing. What would you prefer God used to make us? The heaven’s stretching over the sky is a figure of speech, like when we say the sun rises. And 1 Kings 7:23 actually does not’ say that Pi equals 3.0. That’s your bad. Maybe having an open mind and studying the opposite side of the argument would do you some good.

Anyway, this thread seems to have gone off topic, though it's kind of hard not to do that since there are many facets to each question. Maybe "we" should keep our posts a bit shorter

[micatala]

As you say, there is a lot of ground to cover if we get into discussing details of the evidence, but I will keep this one short and only address a couple of things.

Actually, when we die we rot and decay until we become dust. We started as “dust”, we were made flesh, and we die and become dust again. Wow, what a mind bender… The Bible does not ’ say we are MADE of dust, it’s says God formed man from dust then made him flesh.

This also goes hand in hand with the idea that people evolved naturally 'out of the dust.' In fact, the Bible even says that the 'earth brought forth plants.' I don't see any necessary conflict between evolution and Genesis here.

The heaven’s stretching over the sky is a figure of speech, like when we say the sun rises.

That these are figures of speech is one interpretation. As pointed out in the Copernicus and Darwin thread, it was not the interpretation of Luther, Calvin and many other early Protestant leaders, not to mention the eventual condemnation of Copernicanism by the Catholic church. I would agree that there are clues that help us decide which parts of the Bible to take figuratively and which more literally, but it is not an exact science and 2000 years of discussion have not brought Christians to a consensus on many, many issues. There is not even consensus on the interpretation of 'yom' (day) as it appears in Genesis.

It is quite possible that, without the extra-biblical evidence provided by science, we would not today believe that the sun rising and the sky stretching were figures of speech. The Hebrews and most other early civilizations, even up to Copernicus' time, believed the sky was a solid dome, the so-called "firmament." This belief was not based solely on the Bible, of course, but the Bible was interpreted to mean exactly this.

Given this history (and many other consideration of course), I don't see any reason to insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I would agree that an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis would be counter to the Big Bang model and the basic model of evolution. However, any interpretation is potentially, perhaps necessarily, different than what the Bible or God actually mean.

[juliod]

There was a source of light and a rotating earth. I don’t know what is so difficult to understand.

WHere does it say there was a source of light and a rotating earth in the bible? It doesn't. You're making up things for god again. If you didn't already know from science (not from the bible) that the earth rotates, you wouldn't have said that. You might think that the sky merely glows during the day and not at night. (Also see Micatala's comments)

I could ask you, who gave you the right to speak for evolutionists?

Columbia University, when they confered a Ph.D. in Biology on me....

Sacks of flour were fossilized rather recently

Ok, earlier you were upset with me because of what you perceived as an insult to your intelligence. How about AIG? How intelligent do you think they think you are? A fossilized sack of flour? Ha! Surely you can reason better than that. I won't believe you if you say that you accept this flour as a viable example. I get that result every time I try to make biscuits.

There's a bit of difference between hardening a polymer, like flour or epoxy, and the mineralization processes of fossilization. Sure, there are fast mineralization reactions. Concrete is one example. Plaster-of-Paris is another. But it's pretty well established that these are not the general principles of fossilization.

You've agreed, if it were possible to make fossils over a year or so it would have been demonstrated by these creation "scientists". It hasn't been demonstrated because it isn't possible.

In fact, there is a great deal of scientific evidence that suggests the earth cannot be any more than 10,000-100,000 years old, such as the decay rate of the earth magnetic field.

If the earth is 10,000 years old then the bible is completely wrong. If the earth is 100,000 years old then the bible is completely wrong. Of course, these ages for the earth have been totally refuted, long ago. But I don't know why you bring it up since even if it were true your position would still be false.

This is no different from my saying “The Big Bang is falsified by 100% of astrophysics and 100% of geology and geophysics.

Except that you would be lying, whereas I am telling the truth.

The Bible does not ’ say we are MADE of dust, it’s says God formed man from dust then made him flesh.

You can't make flesh from dust. Dust is a mixture of inorganic carbonates, silicates, and other compounds. Flesh is principally composed of water, with a solid structure of organic carbon in the form of proteins and lipids. (edited to add: And carbohydrates!)

When we die we do not decay to dust, but to humus. This is an important distinction because when god created adam there was no organic humus in the soil since there were no plants or animals to decay.

But the Bronze-Age authors of the bible did not know of the distinction. They only knew that animals and plants broke down into particles too small to see.

So you have to ask yourself, when do you want to live, in the bronze age, or now?

The heaven’s stretching over the sky is a figure of speech, like when we say the sun rises.

As Micatala says, it wasn't taken that way.

OTOH, if this is metaphorical language, why not accept the rest of Genesis as metaphorical? Most christians do....

And 1 Kings 7:23 actually does not’ say that Pi equals 3.0.

No, it says that pi equals 30 divided by 10. I happened to have a calculator handy...

DanZ

[nikolayevich]

I could ask you, who gave you the right to speak for evolutionists?

Columbia University, when they confered a Ph.D. in Biology on me....

<sigh> I think most of us are mindful of the value of education to the extent that you use it, but not when dangling it as evidence of a right to say something. The evidence that you have something to offer is based on what you say, not from which throne you say it.

I think Swiss's point was valid since he was being accused of speaking for God. You won't have the same responses or views as other evolutionists, just like he won't have the same views as all Christians. So his turning the question around is valid. Basically, you don't have more of a right to speak for evolutionists abroad than he does for Christians abroad, which I don't think he was attempting anyway. He speaks from his view of the world, and you from yours. As we all do.

[phoenixfire]

For point 1, the real problem is that Genesis says day and night were created before the sun. That's an impossibility since day and night are caused by the rotation of the earth reletive to the sun.

You are putting naturalistic constraints around GOD, which seems to be a common fallacy among evolutionists. If GOD exists then he can do whatever he wants. He exists outside of the laws of physics, and he can change the laws of physics at will. If he wants to create the earth before the Sun and create a temporary light source he can do that because he's GOD. That's the cool thing about being GOD; GOD is all-powerful. The statements in Genesis are perfectly logical and consistent in a universe where God actually exists. It only becomes impossible when you place those events in a world without God, but then you are assuming the point to be proven.

[The Swiss Watchmaker]

To micatala:

This also goes hand in hand with the idea that people evolved naturally 'out of the dust.' In fact, the Bible even says that the 'earth brought forth plants.' I don't see any necessary conflict between evolution and Genesis here.

The Bible doesn’t say the plants evolved by some yet unobserved natural process. The earth brought forth plants. You could interpret it to mean they evolved from the earth as long as your comfortable interpreting that verse literally. Is this consistent with your assertion that Genesis is metaphorical in nature? The scripture doesn’t say that man evolved over million of years ‘out of the dust.’ It says that God formed man out of the dust (i.e., he made a “sculpture”) and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of, life at which point man became a living being.

As pointed out in the Copernicus and Darwin thread, it was not the interpretation of Luther, Calvin and many other early Protestant leaders, not to mention the eventual condemnation of Copernicanism by the Catholic church. I would agree that there are clues that help us decide which parts of the Bible to take figuratively and which more literally, but it is not an exact science and 2000 years of discussion have not brought Christians to a consensus on many, many issues. There is not even consensus on the interpretation of 'yom' (day) as it appears in Genesis.

People often assert that the Catholic Church believed in geocentricism because they interpreted the Bible literally and that Copernicus proved them wrong. This was simply not the case. The Church of that day was doing the same thing the Church of today is doing; compromising with secular ideas and using them to reinterpret the Bible.

Aristotle taught that the earth was the centre of the universe. Ptolemy expanded this idea. In the 16th century Copernicus proposed a better explanation, heliocentricism. In the 17th Century, Galileo refuted Aristotle and Ptolemy and supported Copernicus theory. The astronomers of Galileos day followed the Ptolemaic system and thus opposed heliocentricism. “They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo ’s writings.” Many leaders in the Church were persuaded by the Aristotelians at the Universities that the Aristotelian view was taught in Scripture, thus convincing them that Galileo was opposing the Bible. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... alileo.asp)

Linguistics is no less ‘exact’ than any other discipline like history or archaeology. I doubt a linguist would agree with you on that (are there any linguists on this forum?). The word ‘yom’ (day), is as well-defined as the English word day; it can have multiple meanings dependant upon context and the context makes it obvious what the meaning is. So, how was your day? Some day I’m going to be a pilot. In my grandfather’s day they didn’t have email. In three days I’ll be in New York. Multiple meanings, same word, never a problem understanding it. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... istics.asp)

The Hebrews and most other early civilizations, even up to Copernicus' time, believed the sky was a solid dome, the so-called "firmament."

Can you cite a source that can substantiate your claim that the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome? It is certainly not implied in the Bible.

I don't see any reason to insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Given that the history of this time period is generally distorted and that old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists are making the same mistake the Church made in the time of Galileo, I think that they ought to reconsider their position in light of the fact that fallible man’s theories are constantly changing. When the big Bang is replaced by a better theory (white hole cosmology?) then compromising Christians will have to change their beliefs again, as Hugh Ross has been forced to do. I don’t see any reason to reinterpret the Bible to mean anything other than what it says. In fact, the only part of the Bible that is disputed so much is the first chapters of Genesis. If can’t understand what the Bible means then why would we believe it at all?

[The Swiss Watchmaker]

To juliod:

I apologize for the length of this one, bear with me...

WHere does it say there was a source of light and a rotating earth in the bible?

"3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

God makes light. God separates light from darkness, thus creating a source of light. There was evening and morning. We know that evening and morning result from the earth’s rotation. The Bible doesn’t need to cater to the demands of every skeptic who demands more from the Bible than any other historical document. Seeing as Christianity provided the philosophical basis for science and remember that God told Adam to study the earth, perhaps God wanted us to figure some stuff out on our own.

[quote:6a8e2615dc]I could ask you, who gave you the right to speak for
evolutionists?[/quote:6a8e2615dc]

Columbia University, when they confered a Ph.D. in Biology on me....

I was unaware that only PhD’s are allowed to voice opinions. I certainly don’t believe you waited to receive your PhD before you started speaking your mind.

A fossilized sack of flour? Ha! Surely you can reason better than that. I won\'t believe you if you say that you accept this flour as a viable example. I get that result every time I try to make biscuits.

So baking biscuits gives the same result as mineralization? You assume that fossilization takes a long time and so you assert, falsely, that it is impossible for it to happen in a short time. No evidence of rapid fossilization would convince you since, by definition, it can’t happen anyway. You have not rebutted but simply ignored or ridiculed the articles and evidences I have provided for you, showing that you are willfully ignorant of anything that doesn’t fit your worldview.

The flour isn’t simply hardened like Plaster-of-Paris, nonetheless, it flour was not the only example I provided and you haven’t answered those. In fact, you haven’t even provided and example of a fossil which took millions of years to form. You haven’t described the process of fossilization or why it should take millions (or even hundreds of years). The flour is not simply hardened, it has turned to stone. Even the sacks the flour is held in have been mineralized and are solid. And as the article states, they know the process by which this occurred, why it occurred, etc. – “The bags became petrified after they were saturated by water from the spring. Minerals from the limestone strata dissolved in the spring water before it flowed from the earth. Later those minerals precipitated in the waterlogged flour sacks—turning them into solid rock.” This is real science because it is based on observation, unlike your assumed millions of years. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... /flour.asp)

You\'ve agreed, if it were possible to make fossils over a year or so it would have been demonstrated by these creation \"scientists\".

How do you define “scientist”? Which of these Creationists isn’t a scientist by your definition?

• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
• Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
• Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
• Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
• Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
• Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

These are some creationists from the past, which ones are not scientists by your definition?


• Francis Bacon
• Galileo Galilei
• Johann Kepler
• Robert Boyle
• Isaac Newton
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz
• Carolus Linneaus
• Michael Faraday
• Louis Pasteur
• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin
• George Washington Carver
• Arthur E. Wilder-Smith

It hasn\'t been demonstrated because it isn\'t possible.

It has been demonstrated time and time again. If it took millions of years to fossilize then soft tissue would never fossilize because it would rot long before mineralization could take place. But I’m sure a slight wave of your hand can “demolish” that point as well. Just because you don’t acknowledge something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

If the earth is 10,000 years old then the bible is completely wrong. If the earth is 100,000 years old then the bible is completely wrong. Of course, these ages for the earth have been totally refuted, long ago. But I don\'t know why you bring it up since even if it were true your position would still be false.

In case you don't notice, by saying the Bible is "completely wrong," you are saying that you are also wrong about many things as the Bible states many things you would agree with, including wise insights and historical events that have been verified by archaeologists. So your statement is self-refuting in a way. By the way, how much of the Bible have you actually read?

Your millions of years assumptions are based on outdated 18th century science and have been refuted for years. But I don’t know why you bother arguing the age of the earth, since even if the earth was millions of years old, evolution would still be impossible. An even if it was possible, there hasn’t been enough time for life to evolve to its present complexity. But maybe you’ll use Haekel’s fraudulent embryos, “vestigial organs,” or peppered moths to “prove” me wrong.

[quote:6a8e2615dc]This is no different from my saying “The Big Bang is falsified by 100% of astrophysics and 100% of geology and geophysics.[/quote:6a8e2615dc]

Except that you would be lying, whereas I am telling the truth.

You seem to define truth as anything you are convinced of. Is that objective?

You can\'t make flesh from dust. Dust is a mixture of inorganic carbonates, silicates, and other compounds. Flesh is principally composed of water, with a solid structure of organic carbon in the form of proteins and lipids.

When we die we do not decay to dust, but to humus. This is an important distinction because when god created adam there was no organic humus in the soil since there were no plants or animals to decay.

You’re right. I can't make flesh from dust. Neither can you. But that’s not the question at hand is it? The question is “can God do it?” When the physical universe is left to itself (in its present condition) it tends toward disorder. God does the opposite. He takes chaos and makes it orderly and complex.

We decay into humus, but what does humus decay into? Or does it stay the same for all those millions of years?

The word for dust given in Genesis is “`aphar” which can mean “dry earth, dust, powder, ashes, earth, ground, mortar, rubbish.” Humus is an English word, not a Hebrew one. So there is a good reason we don’t find it in the original language of the Bible. Humus easily fits into the above definition of “dust.”

Tell me, how did inorganic matter (before humus) become flesh all on its own? While we’re on the subject, how did the universe create itself from nothing? Or do you believe the universe has always existed?

Again, if the all-powerful God can’t make man from “dust”, can he make man from humus? If God can create the universe out of NOTHING he can surely create man from earth. This may seem silly to you because, as an evolutionist, you KNOW that only an unintelligent, blind, natural process can create something from nothing and create order and specified complexity by random chance. Once you add an intelligent creator, that’s when it becomes impossible, am I wrong?

So you have to aks yourself, when to you want to live, in the bronze age, or now?

If your arguments are representative of “now”, I would honestly rather “live” in the Bronze Age. Do you want to follow the outdated theories of neo-Darwinism? Or will you stop ignoring the evidence for design and live in the now?

OTOH, if this is metaphorical language, why not accept the rest of Genesis as metaphorical? Most christians do....

First, have you ever used a metaphor? If you have, then why can’t I interpret everything you say as metaphorical? If everything you say is not literal and I can interpret it to mean whatever I want, so your opinions don’t necessarily contradict my view.

Second, if you have such a difficult time comprehending the difference between metaphors and historical narrative, perhaps you shouldn’t trust yourself to interpret what a passage is supposed to mean in the first place.

Three, popular opinion doesn’t decide truth. Jesus and Paul took Genesis literally. Literary analysis of the language of Genesis demonstrates that it is to be taken as historical narrative, not primarily metaphorically.

No, it says that pi equals 30 divided by 10. I happened to have a calculator
handy...

Once again, you jump to conclusions without taking all available data into account. For an explanation as to why the Bible does not say pi equals 3.0, read the following article - http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/pi.asp

[Lotan]

These are some creationists from the past, which ones are not scientists by your definition?


• Francis Bacon
• Galileo Galilei
• Johann Kepler
• Robert Boyle
• Isaac Newton
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz
• Carolus Linneaus
• Michael Faraday
• Louis Pasteur
• William Thompson, Lord Kelvin
• George Washington Carver
• Arthur E. Wilder-Smith

Do you really think that it helps your case to list 'creationist scientists' like Galileo who died before Darwin was even born?
Why don't you give us a list of 'creation scientists' who have actually done 'creation science', like publishing research papers?