Bowsite.com

Its sad to think that such a talented, intelligent, and accomplished individual can be so ignorant and misguided to fall for the brainwashing of science.

He's been to the heavens and now he's going to hell!! LOL!

Aint that right TF???

Why not do the same for TF?

how bout poke some holes in Glenn's belief in God, he's an anti-atheist n stuff, obviously a rube mesmerized by something as simple as infinite space

I respect Tom's (Two Feathers) views...he's a good man by all accounts, even if he is a Marine ;-) , and I don't have a personal beef with him in any way. I've been sparring with him for well over a decade here.

That said, when someone persists in copy/pasting demonstrably false, misleading information from Answers in Genesis and other Creation (pseudo) "science" organizations, you can reasonably expect that it will be refuted.

With that said, in the last year I read a book and listened to some guys that have made me doubt the literal Genesis interpretation.

Based on studies of the original wording, it is very possible that the earth has existed for millions of years. This just applies to the first few versus of Genesis.

Does this mean I now believe we came from primordial gooo. NO WAY. After the first few verses, it is clear that the wording switches to literal meanings.

Either way, I believe God was the ultimate creator of it all. The time period is irrelevant in the whole scheme of salvation.

I still believe that from the creation of man till now has been 6,000 years roughly.

My doubt is merely related to the time of existence of the planet earth and the universe.

It is only the first two or three verses of Genesis that are open to interpretation, after that the meanings are quite clear.

And it is only a quirky, wierd set of evolutionists who look at the universe and conclude that life began in a primordial soupy swamp, millions of years ago.

If that is so, why is life not still originating in the same way today?

Who is quirky?

As for why those natural processes aren't observed today? First, lack of observation does not necessarily mean they aren't happening, and secondly, the chemistry of the earth 3 billion years ago was very different than it is today, so the conditions may not be right for it to happen currently.

With that respect, I ask how you know that "the chemistry of the earth 3 billion years ago was very different than it is today,"

And, how do you know this? "the fact remains that life has evolved over the last 3 billion years or so."

The truth is that you have accepted as truth something you have read, because the actual truth cannot be known. Same here.

Sundowner,

As I've stated many times before, science(which is a practice/method) cannot account for origins

In all fairness, Creationists can't claim science to prove Creation either because were weren't there to observe it. Observation is a key factor in science.

We can both point to current day observations and make assumptions about the past but in the end, our presuppositions jade our views.

Good thing there is more observable data to support the Creation account. :-))

Gadan,

I'd like to see your "observational data" that supports a literal account of Genesis.

As for your "observation" nonsense, all scientific testing relies on obersvation. You simply dismiss the observations that are made that don't support your idiosyncratic view of Genesis.

"One of the recurring themes at the Feb. 4 debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham was Ham’s continuously harping on a supposed distinction between “observational science” (science we can observe in real time) and “historical science” (science that must be inferred from the past). This strange distinction is almost unique to Ken Ham, although I’m sure he borrowed from older creationist writings somewhere, since I remember reading about it when I researched creationism in the 1980s. Nevertheless, Ham kept pounding on it again and again, refusing to talk about any scientific evidence that couldn’t be witnessed in real time.

As many scientists have discussed, this distinction is complete bunk, and only Ken Ham and his followers seem to think that it makes any sense. Naturally, he pounds on this phony, self-serving, artificial distinction because it plays in his favor. Each time Bill pressed him on one point or another, Ham retreated behind his dodge of no one can know anything of “historical” past, then made the ridiculous assertion that the only reliable source of information about the past is the Bible. (Bill was too much of a gentleman to challenge him on this and ask Ken how he knows this. As Ham always says, “Were you there?”). Most of science tells us that the earth is old, that life has evolved, and so on. Ham wants to throw all this information away, so he creates a convenient but ridiculous distinction that serves his purposes—but bears no relation to what real scientists do or think."

Link to full article.

Said nearly the same thing to a fellow during a discussion recently. Personally (and it is just my opinion), I feel that we should all be much more concerned with our behavior and adherence to the principles set forth by Christ than we should be with arguing about the origin of existence. Whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000 is of little significance when compared with the teachings of Christ.

lefty: "Whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000 is of little significance when compared with the teachings of Christ."

I'm good with that.

I am in total agreement that creationism is not science. It is faith.

But evolution requires faith as well.....faith in a human theory that is no where near proven fact.

So, we cannot know the facts until the Creator reveals them to us......right? :)

When people say "Whether the earth is 6,000 years old or 6,000,000,000 is of little significance when compared with the teachings of Christ." I think they don't know the teachings of Christ.

My salvation is based on Christ NOT being a liar. If you are OK with Jesus being a liar, that is your choice.

Sundowner, since you are abusing the word "theory" as it pertains to science, a little education is in order. In common, colloquial usage, the word "theory" means a hunch, a speculation, an educated guess. However, in scientific language, the word "theory" has a very specific, and different meaning. A scientific theory is an explanation for a set of facts...in this case, the observable fact that life evolves. It is an explanation that is subject to revision if new evidence warrants it. A scientific theory is the highest degree of confidence one can give to an explanation for a set of facts. It is equal to a scientific law, which, by the way, is much narrower in scope than a theory.

One more thing...science doesn't "prove" ANYTHING, it supports with evidence, and can be modified by new evidence. "Proof" is only used in mathematics. Again, prove/proof have very different meanings in common usage as compared to scientific usage. FWIIW, ToE is probably the most robust (high degree of confidence) theory in all of science. There has been more research, more evidence, more data to support it than virtually any other theory.

I would never presume to try to educate you. But we can converse and debate as equal, respectful human beings if you like.

My use of the word "theory" was exactly as I intended. No education needed, but thanks anyway.

And one more thing....knowing what I do about man's theories, I believe I will put my faith in a Higher Authority. Wasn't all that long ago that the standing "theory" was that the earth was flat. Wonder where the TofE will be in 500 years?

The rest is pretty much irrelevant.

Rick is genuine. That is a most admirable trait, I think.

Brad. Let it go. Just does not matter

Sundowner, the reason I provided an explanation of the word "theory" is that many apply the common colloquial use to the scientific, when in fact they have different meanings. I seriously wasn't trying to talk down to you. But i do think it is important that when someone discusses a topic, that they understand what it is they are debating.

That's one reason I get so frustrated with the CF's most prominent creationism advocate. No real understanding of what evolution actually IS, just regurgitation of stuff from a couple of creationist organizations who do a tragically magnificent job of misrepresenting what evolutionary theory actually says.

That's a bold, and pretty insulting, statement friend. You don't know me, my heart, or how much understanding I may or may not have when it comes to the word of God. Further, you have no idea what I believe about the age of the earth. My point is that there is very little to be gained by arguing the age of the earth, whether six thousand years or six billion.

Humor me for moment......At no point in the New Testament is the age of the earth discussed, nor are the ages of specific people given special mention (other than the lifespan of Christ). The Old Testament is filled with specific mention of peoples' age, etc. Why the difference between the two? I'd argue that is the case because it doesn't matter a bit when it comes to salvation. I don't the Lord cares whether you and I think the earth is "young" or "old" to use generic terms. The path to salvation is very clearly stated in the teachings of Christ, which I know quite well. At least I hope I know them quite well after a lifetime of study and two college degrees in the field.

Hope everyone is having a good night!

For the record, I know the teachings of Christ fairly well, struggle to live by them at times, but I do know them.

No where does Jesus' teachings conflict with the 6,000 or 6,000,000 year statement.

I was very clear that the interpretation of the original text of the first two or three verses of Genesis can be interpreted differently than the 6,000 interpretation.

NOW, with that said, after the first two or three verses, it is my understanding that the original text is clearly to be taken literally. Therefore meaning that the creation of man and woman was roughly 6,000 years ago.

The ambiguity only relates to the age of the physical planet earth and the universe.

Honestly, I think we all will be shocked when the day comes when the actual truth of the universe is revealed to us.

And YET, America became the premiere science/technology nation during a period when Creation WAS the accepted explanation by the vast majority of both scientists and the populace, most universities were under the control of churches, the Bible was regularly read and studied in both primary and secondary schools, school prayer was often a daily requirement, and a much higher portion of the population attended one church or another an a weekly basis (including teachers who were practically required to attend).

How do you explain that, Iktomi?

leftybearfan, Bold, maybe, but I didn't mean to insult anyone. You said what you thought, and I said what I thought. Please forgive me if I offended you. Maybe I should back up a bit. When you talk about the "teachings of Christ", do you include Mark 10:6 and Matt. 19:4? Or another approach...if the earth is 6 billion years old and if Jesus said "at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'", then male and female people have been on earth for 6 billion years.

If not let's use 100 billion

Matters not one bit

Who are you to call anyone a fanatic? The shoe fits this statement. Were you there when God spoke the worlds into existence? Seems like you are making statements way above your paygrade Rick.

God bless, Steve

Certainly I include all the words of Christ when I speak of His teachings. I do believe that when he said "from the beginning He made them male and female" means exactly that...from the beginning. I was trying to say, and doing a poor job of it, that when it comes to the plan of salvation I don't see where it matters if humans have been on earth for 6 billion years or 6 thousand. I have no idea if the days listed in the OT are literal 24-hour days, if they counted time the way we now do, etc. All that is inconsequential in my mind when trying to do what we are taught must be done. The steps we are instructed to take to get to heaven are the same whether the earth is "old" or "young".

Hope that explains my thoughts a little better.

Aint that right TF???"

No, that's not right! One doesn't go to hell because they believe in evolution, one goes to hell because they haven't repented of their sins and invited Jesus Christ into their life as Lord and Savior.

gadan - "Good thing there is more observable data to support the Creation account. :-))" X3

Yep, we share a similar opinion when it comes to our opposition dismissing evidence not to their liking.

On the topic of science and that debate..... Bill Nye had his posterior handed to him in that debate and repeatedly dodged the questions asked of him.

On the definition of science, you cannot observe something you can't observe. You can speculate based on data or presuppositions. I practice chemistry and can speculate, for instance, that a material that is comprised of an 80% butyl acrylate resin will demonstrate a (MOE)modulus of elasticity of less than 100psi. I do that by presupposing that resins of that type will perform that way. I then cast films, cut samples, and put them on my calibrated tensile tester and actually test the material. I have complete control of every variable in the process and can see the results being generated and even retest additional samples to confirm my results. That is science being put in practice. Science is a process that must include all the elements in order for it to meet the definition. This is operational science.

When one says the earth is billions of years old, that is not operational science. No one was there billions of years ago to observe the earth being 'formed'. Forgetting all the conflicting data on isotope dating, by using elemental analysis of rocks, one can reach an age of the earth, but those ages are based on presuppositions. Presuppositions that say that at the 'formation' of the earth, only parent isotopes existed. That is not just fantasy but not tenable. Billions only works when you start with that presupposition. That is historical science, or better titled, historical theorizing.

In the time when creationism was the predominant paradigm, the field of biology, biomedical research, and especially genetics was in its infancy or non-existent. Try using creation-anything as a scientific model for molecular biology and see how far that gets you today.

I'll also note that some fields of science are so narrowly focused that you can do good work within that field and still believe whatever quackery you wish to believe. As long as your belief in creationism doesn't intrude onto your narrowly focused field, you can get by.

Let me ask all of you creationists this: If "creation science" provides a more accurate model for the way the world actually works, there should be all SORTS of wondrous advances that are the result of practicing good "creation science". Where are they? Oh, right....there aren't any.

Is much of what science has "discovered" accurate? Undoubtedly. Is much of what man has tried to do (religion or science) faulty? Absolutely.

We can only know God and His works by faith, never by science.

There are a number of more recently (not necessarily in our lifetimes, but long after the Bible was written) discovered facts that are mentioned in the Bible. One is mountains under the ocean and another is springs at the bottom of the ocean.

The bible describes the earth as a circle and mentions that it "hangs on nothing."

As created beings, we do not have the capacity on our own to fully understand God or his Creation. Science by any name cannot do it for us.

Isaiah 55:8-9

8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Try using creation-anything as a scientific model for molecular biology and see how far that gets you today. I'll also note that some fields of science are so narrowly focused that you can do good work within that field and still believe whatever quackery you wish to believe. As long as your belief in creationism doesn't intrude onto your narrowly focused field, you can get by."

Well, it appears you are quite a bit more reasonable than most other evolutionists, including Bill Nye. You are recognizing that operational science like I practice daily, is not dependent on some belief in evolution. That is a big step for some. I'd challenge you to support your premise that molecular biologists must comport to such a belief, however. I personally know a professor of Biology who doesn't believe in the TOE and could name many more as well. Granted, the vast majority do, but precedent is historically a bad gauge for rightness. See flat earth syndrome...