quote:

We do have scientific explanations for these phenomena, and they are not supernatural.

quote:

when a theistic evolutionist reads the Bible, he/she reads it and interprets it with his/her knowledge as the foundation/guideline. This makes a very relative interpretation for any individual because everyone's knowledge is not the same. What one believes is not what the other believes, and basing your interpretation of Scriptures on evolution leads to a post-modern way of Scriptural interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

And somehow I now don't believe any of the rest of it (the Bible). I think that's right. I just want to get this straight, I mean, I THOUGHT I was a Christian, but now you've got me worried. Maybe I'm not. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh maaan, this is gonna keep me up all night. It might not be all that bad though: I suppose I can vote Democratic now, use logic and reason, conserve stuff like gas and oil and electricity, and...hey! this opens up a WHOLE NEW WORLD!

I pray this was sarcasm. Am I correct?

quote:

You have just got to explain to me how not taking Genesis literally contradicts the rest of the Bible.

I'm sure there have been threads on this subject. If not, perhaps I should start one? The reason it is so important is simple. There is absolutely no indication throughout Genesis that would lead one to believe it is NOT literal. When one tells you "my dog died" what is the first thought you have? You think about that person's dog being dead, because that is what he said. Genesis is written as a historical account (not just the creation account, but the ENTIRE book. Why would one single chapter be myth/allegory/parable and not the rest?) and nowhere does it sound like a mythical/allegorical parable.

So, here's the problem. If one can claims GENESIS is not literal, then one can rightfully claim the same for ANY passage in Scriptures. Who's to know the Gospels aren't literal? Do you think Luke sat around one day and wrote fairy tales? He was a historian, not William Shakespeare. You simply can not pick and choose which parts of the Bible are literal and which are not according to your knowledge of science. When God speaks, He does not speak in riddles and confusing language. He is not the author of confusion, and if Genesis is NOT literal, He is the MOST confusing individual I have ever met. When one tells me "such and such happened" I don't sit for hours on end, pondering that persons statement to see if there is any hidden messages. No, if "such and such happened" then "such and such happened." It's as simple as that. God is simple, don't make Him out to be confusing. Just admit that you have given evolution the right of arbiter to interpret God's Word and there will be no need to debate this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon

#1 Wow, I didn't realize this was a Thou Shalt Not Talk About Cosmology thread. The person who asked the original question asked for sceintific evidence of God Creating the wrold -- which INLCUDES Cosmology (and geology and astronomy) not just biology.

quote:

And the Fossils (geology) are the #1 "proof" of evolution --

quote:

If God DID want us to believe that the flood destroyed the whole world, how could he have clearly worded it in a way we would understood? Would this work? -- "I have decided to destroy all living things, for they have filled the earth with violence. (6:13) Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes. Everything on earth will die. (6:17) It will rain for forty days and forty nights, until I have wiped from the earth all the living things I have created. (7:4) What if He described it as, "Finally the water covered even the highest mountain on the earth,, rising more than twenty-tow feet above the highest peaks. (7:20) All the living things on the earth died. Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. God wiped out every living thing on the earth. All were destroyed(7:21-24)."

quote:

God did not create moss (non-vascular plants) and then a billion years later, decide to create ferns (vascular plants).

quote:

"they [non-vascular plants] do not seem to be the ancestors of the vascular plants [Tracheata] or of the hornworts or liverworts." And again, "no intermediate fossils have been found … . Chloroplast DNA comparisons suggest that psilophytes’ closest relatives are non-lycophyte vascular plants such as ferns … [but the] chemical evidence … fails to support a strong evolutionary relation between the psilophytes and the ferns … . Ancestral groups for psilophytes … are unknown at present". Margulis L. and Schwartz K.V., Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth, 3rd ed., Freeman, New York, 1998.

quote:

why these evolutionists don't know what they are talking about as you accused evolutionist Løvtrup, Søren and the Nobel-prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle

quote:

Then why did you say they did not exist?

quote:


Evidence for expanding universe:

quote:

I don't understand you at all. Evolutionists know that the universe is expanding. There are verses in the Bible that say God strecthed out the heaves. As a thiestic evolutionists, why do want to claim that God did not intend to inform of us this?

quote:

Why are you so bent up on what word God chose to use?

quote:

Regarless of how old the earth is, we see stars billions and billions of light years furhter away than the age of the earth.

quote:

I am not putting the Big Bang into scripture. God did. God spoke, and bang it happened.

quote:

The scientific evidence is there, evolutionsits just date it farther back than God. I think He knows more than them.

quote:

Apperently as a thiestic evolutionist, you disagree with secular evolution

quote:

Or perhaps you also know more than everyone at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who say:

quote:

"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms."

quote:

Are you a biolgist? Do you have a degree(s) in biology? I just ask becuase that would make me even more at a disadvantage, as I am a little girl from philly who never went to college and who makes her living delivering teeth.

quote:

evolutionist disagree with both you and Dawkins.

quote:

In the Evolution Hanbook (formerly: The Evolution Cruncher) updated 2006, it states in the chapter on Fossils: This is the largest and one of the most important chapters in this book. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real hope of finding evidence that evolution might have occurred in the past.

quote:

Of course they never suggested that evolutions was false. That would mean they might have to believe in God -- horror of horrors.

quote:

And when I did quote an evolutionist saying that evolutions was false: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" you accused them of not knowing what they were talking about!

quote:

Again, the original thread question asked for scientific evidence that God created the world.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

hellohellohi:

I don't think evolution is very post-modern.

What I meant was that evolution is the culprit for relativity and post-modernism in terms of interpreting God's Word. As shown by Gluadys, when a theistic evolutionist reads the Bible, he/she reads it and interprets it with his/her knowledge as the foundation/guideline.

quote:

Simply put, a theistic evolutionist values evolution above Scriptures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

I think gluadys is a she! Right? Didn't you say that, gluadys?

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod
This is exactly my point. Arguing with an Atheist about a God who could have created using supernatural events is POINTLESS. You don't believe a God exists, and therefor you don't believe that the cause of certain phenomena could be supernatural, and therefor we have nothing to debate.

quote:

This is a Christian website, and I wish to debate Christians on science, not Atheists. Why? Because debate is impossible. If I wanted to debate Atheistic science, I'd go to an Atheism forum. We won't find common ground, so asking about interpretations of God's Word is meaningless. Bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

I thought your name might be gladys. It's Gluadys? :) oh well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

Gluadys, I apologize mistaking you for a he. I believe I made that mistake once, and It must have slipped my mind.

BTW, I didn't know Gluadys was your actualy name. How do you pronounce it? I can honestly say I have never heard or seen that name before.

quote:


No, it's not my actual name. But it was my mother's actual name--though spelled more conventionally as Gladys. I used the variant because the normal spelling was already being used by others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:


No, it's not my actual name. But it was my mother's actual name--though spelled more conventionally as Gladys. I used the variant because the normal spelling was already being used by others.

Is it American (English)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops

Evidence for a Young earth: Mercury
Mercury is (now) the smallest planet in our solar system, and unusual in a number of ways. Evolutionists have trouble fitting it into their cosmology. Mercury has a magnetic field, but it is too small to have the fluid, molten core required by the dynamo theory of magnetic fields, which is the only theory which allows a billion-year-old planet to still have a magnetic field.

quote:

Young-earthers, however, don't have any trouble explaining Mercury. There are several young-earth theories on magnetic fields that allow Mercury to be magnetic, one of which is provided by Dr. Russel Humphreys here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops

(Sorry to take so long posting, got seriously distracted)
Okay, ES, I guess that wasn't the best evidence for a young earth. But I still espy one problem for evolutionists: now they have to explain how little Mercury, which was supposed to have gone solid eons ago, still retains a molten core.

quote:

But just what do you want for evidence, anyway? Something like radioactive dating that comes up with a specific date that the earth is this many years old?

quote:

It's easy for Old-Earthers to prove their theory: all they have to do is come up with one rock that is supposed to be a few million years old and already the earth is old!

quote:

But if a Y-E comes up with a rock only a few thousand years old, it doesn't prove Y-E; it just means that particular rock is a few thousand years old. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth itself is just a few thousand years old.

quote:

It seems that evidence for a young earth is in the absence of signs of an old earth. When it comes to people, it's usually the lack of signs of the wear of time that tell us an adult person is still youg; the absence of wrinkles and gray hairs. That's why YEC's spend so much time attacking evidence that the world is old and explaining how things that seem to require long ages only require a short time during a major catastrophe.

quote:

That being said, one evidence YEC's cite for a young earth is the fact that no trees have rings measuring more than a little over 4,000 years. The oldest known tree, a bristlecone pine, is about 4,600 years old.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops

(Sorry to take so long posting, got seriously distracted)
Okay, ES, I guess that wasn't the best evidence for a young earth. But I still espy one problem for evolutionists: now they have to explain how little Mercury, which was supposed to have gone solid eons ago, still retains a molten core.

quote:

But just what do you want for evidence, anyway? Something like radioactive dating that comes up with a specific date that the earth is this many years old?

quote:

It's easy for Old-Earthers to prove their theory: all they have to do is come up with one rock that is supposed to be a few million years old and already the earth is old! But if a Y-E comes up with a rock only a few thousand years old, it doesn't prove Y-E; it just means that particular rock is a few thousand years old. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Earth itself is just a few thousand years old.

quote:

It seems that evidence for a young earth is in the absence of signs of an old earth. When it comes to people, it's usually the lack of signs of the wear of time that tell us an adult person is still youg; the absence of wrinkles and gray hairs.

quote:

That's why YEC's spend so much time attacking evidence that the world is old and explaining how things that seem to require long ages only require a short time during a major catastrophe. Show how enough of the evidence for an old earth can actually have happened in a very short amount of time, and eventually there's hardly any signs of age, so the default reasoning is that the earth must be young.

quote:

That being said, one evidence YEC's cite for a young earth is the fact that no trees have rings measuring more than a little over 4,000 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrimsonMoon

#1 Wow, I didn't realize this was a Thou Shalt Not Talk About Cosmology thread. The person who asked the original question asked for sceintific evidence of God Creating the wrold -- which INLCUDES Cosmology (and geology and astronomy) not just biology.

The OP asks for evidence of a Young Earth. But your quote mining spree continually referred to evolution and evolutionists. Cosmology is not part of evolution.

quote:

And the Fossils (geology) are the #1 "proof" of evolution --

In the first place, nothing in science is proof of anything. It is evidence, not proof. Learn the difference and why science relies on evidence rather than proof.
In the second place, although fossils are good evidence of evolution, they are far from the #1 line of evidence. There are many other lines of evidence equally good or even better.

quote:

If God DID want us to believe that the flood destroyed the whole world, how could he have clearly worded it in a way we would understood? Would this work? -- "I have decided to destroy all living things, for they have filled the earth with violence. (6:13) Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes. Everything on earth will die. (6:17) It will rain for forty days and forty nights, until I have wiped from the earth all the living things I have created. (7:4) What if He described it as, "Finally the water covered even the highest mountain on the earth,, rising more than twenty-tow feet above the highest peaks. (7:20) All the living things on the earth died. Everything that breathed and lived on dry land died. God wiped out every living thing on the earth. All were destroyed(7:21-24)."

What would it matter how he worded it? If God destroyed the whole world in a flood within historical times, and wanted us to know it, he would not have magically removed all evidence that he did it and replaced it with evidence that he did not. For example, he would not have left evidence that the Egyptians went right on building pyramids in the middle of the flood and never noticed that their population had disappeared. He would not have filled up the gap in their written records so that it looks as if they kept on collecting taxes and taking inventory right through the flood. And he might have had some of their scribes take notice of the flood.

quote:

God did not create moss (non-vascular plants) and then a billion years later, decide to create ferns (vascular plants).

Right. It was only about 100 million years later. The earliest fossils of plant spores are only somewhat more than 400 million years old so plants have not been around for a billion years.

quote:

"they [non-vascular plants] do not seem to be the ancestors of the vascular plants [Tracheata] or of the hornworts or liverworts." And again, "no intermediate fossils have been found … . Chloroplast DNA comparisons suggest that psilophytes’ closest relatives are non-lycophyte vascular plants such as ferns … [but the] chemical evidence … fails to support a strong evolutionary relation between the psilophytes and the ferns … . Ancestral groups for psilophytes … are unknown at present". Margulis L. and Schwartz K.V., Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth, 3rd ed., Freeman, New York, 1998.

Plant fossils are much rarer than marine and vertebrate fossils and more difficult to interpret. Luckily we do not need to depend on fossil evidence to determine relationships. Did you read that book or are you lifting a partial citation from a secondary source?

quote:

why these evolutionists don't know what they are talking about as you accused evolutionist Løvtrup, Søren and the Nobel-prize winner, Sir Fred Hoyle

They may be evolutionists but they are not biologists. To be an expert in evolution you need to understand biology. Hoyle was a physicist, not a biologist. I don't know Soren's specialty, but it does not seem to be biology.

quote:

Then why did you say they did not exist?

I said nothing about the verses not existing. I said none of them referenced the expansion of the universe. And none of them do.

quote:


Evidence for expanding universe:

Unecessary. I know the universe is expanding (or at least that is the current scientific consensus). I also know the bible contains no reference to an expanding universe.

quote:

I don't understand you at all. Evolutionists know that the universe is expanding. There are verses in the Bible that say God strecthed out the heaves. As a thiestic evolutionists, why do want to claim that God did not intend to inform of us this?

God did inform us---through creation. Not through scripture. What makes you think God has to say everything through scripture?

quote:

Why are you so bent up on what word God chose to use?

God didn't choose the words. Isaiah did. The prophets were not secretaries taking dictation like Mohammad. If you want a dictated scripture, it is the Qu'ran you are looking for.

quote:

Regarless of how old the earth is, we see stars billions and billions of light years furhter away than the age of the earth.

Right. The earth is less than 5 billion years old and we see light that is more than twice as old as that. It still took that light 13+billion years to come into our range of vision. So the stars it comes from must be at least that old. (For all we know, some of those stars no longer exist, but it will take billions of years for that news to reach us.--If we last that long.)

quote:

I am not putting the Big Bang into scripture. God did. God spoke, and bang it happened.

The text says nothing of the sort. One of the things I constantly find is that those who most insist on literalism are also most prone to play fast and loose with the text. My literary background again, I suppose. I bristle when a text is not respected.

You are not reading from the text (exegesis). You are reading your background information into the text (eisegesis). Proper hermeneutics only allows for exegesis based on the author's originally intended meaning.

quote:

The scientific evidence is there, evolutionsits just date it farther back than God. I think He knows more than them.

The scientific evidence is in creation, not in the scripture. And it is God's creation that provides the age of the earth. "Evolutionists" (do you mean "biologists") do not date the earth at all. Geologists and physicists date the earth based on the evidence provided by the Creator.

quote:

Apperently as a thiestic evolutionist, you disagree with secular evolution

No, I don't. There is only one scientific theory of evolution and it is neither theistic nor secular. People are theists or secularists, not scientific theories.

quote:

Or perhaps you also know more than everyone at the University of California Museum of Paleontology, and the National Science Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, who say:

I have learned a lot about evolution from those sites, especially UCMP's Understanding Evolution site. Have you explored that one yet? In the teacher's version they have a neat section on dealing with common misunderstandings of evolution. It would be well worth your while to peruse it.

quote:

"Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using multiple lines of evidence, including geology, fossils, and living organisms."

Note that the difference is one of scale and time. There is no difference in process. The same process that produces evolution on a small-scale within a species also produces the larger-scale evolution that transcends species and accounts for the whole scope of macroevolutionary history. At every stage we find mutation, variation, natural selection, adaptation and speciation. We do not find any additional mechanism necessary to macro-evolution alone. Nor do we find any blockage that prevents micro-evolution from having macro-evolutionary effects over time.

quote:

Are you a biolgist? Do you have a degree(s) in biology? I just ask becuase that would make me even more at a disadvantage, as I am a little girl from philly who never went to college and who makes her living delivering teeth.

Nope, but apparently I have learned biology better than Fred Hoyle did. I am just a little girl from Ontario who is really more interested in theology and literature than science, but found herself reading up on biology in order to expose the horrendous theology of creationism. I did get to college and did take one undergrad course in biology, but I am not a scientist at all and definitely not an expert in the field. However, unlike many people, I do listen to the experts like Method who are professionals and do understand evolution.

quote:

evolutionist disagree with both you and Dawkins.

I take it you mean evolutionists who are ignorant of biology like Hoyle and Sovrup. Whatever his religious beliefs (which I thoroughly disagree with) Dawkins is an expert in genetics and evolution.

quote:

In the Evolution Hanbook (formerly: The Evolution Cruncher) updated 2006, it states in the chapter on Fossils: This is the largest and one of the most important chapters in this book. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real hope of finding evidence that evolution might have occurred in the past.

I assume a book formerly called the Evolution Cruncher which refers to scientists as "evolutionists" and thinks fossils are the only relevant evidence for evolution was produced by a group of anti-evolutionists. Why should I accept their opinion?

quote:

Of course they never suggested that evolutions was false. That would mean they might have to believe in God -- horror of horrors.

Since many of them do believe in God, what's your point?

quote:

And when I did quote an evolutionist saying that evolutions was false: "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science" you accused them of not knowing what they were talking about!

You still don't know what you are talking about. "darwinian myth" is ID speak for "natural selection". It is not a synonym for evolution. Many supporters of ID who reject the "darwinian myth" also accept evolution complete with common ancestry. Their quarrel is not with evolution but with a particular theory (neo-darwinism aka modern synthesis) of the mechanisms of evolution.

quote:

Again, the original thread question asked for scientific evidence that God created the world.

No it did not. It asked for evidence of a young earth. After all lots of people believe God created an old earth. So it is not a question about creation. It is a question of when creation happened.