This programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074m5l/Ancient_Apocalypse_Death_on_the_Ni\
le/
was rebroadcast on the BBC last week and is available to watch until tomorrow;
though it would probably not be easy to achieve this outside UK!  It posited a
mini Ice Age as the cause of a decades-long drought/famine in turn causing the
demise of the Old Kingdom in Egypt.

They had various scientists giving evidence from glaciers / deep-sea sediments
in the Atlantic, and stalactites in Israel, the dating of which they presented
as unquestioned fact and did not say precisely how they had ascertained it. 
They also dug for sediment in a lake in Egypt and found none in the period
required, which they said was evidence it had dried up completely.  There again
there was no question raised about the fixedness of the dates concerned.

I guess you can see where I'm going here, yet presumably there is some evidence
that *can* be gathered using available dating methods and available records?  Or
would creationist scientists regard dating even post-Flood as so unreliable that
one can deduce nothing from it?

Presumably anyone using a chronology directly derived from the Bible (i.e.
similar to that of Ussher) would have doubts about proposed events with dates
this close to that of the flood, especially as we presumably have to fit in THE
big Ice Age before them?

Is there any respectable work that has been done on the chronology of Ancient
Egypt, which presumably creationist scientists would believe must be entirely
post-flood?  I looked at David Down's book "Unwrapping the Pharaohs" on the
Answers in Genesis site, but the dating problems it covered seemed to be mainly
those of a much later period, and there didn't seem to be a huge amount of
engagement with the problems of dating the earlier dynasties, which I found
surprising in a book subtitled "How Egyptian Archaeology confirms the Biblical
Timeline".

The period I'm talking about was described thus: "   	   Dynasty 7–10
  	  	  	 [to be identified with 15–16]

There was no First Intermediate Period. The dark ages of the First Intermediate
Period have been confused with the dark ages of the Second Intermediate Period.
We are in the dark about them. "

Kind regards

Peter Reynolds
Tain, Scotland

Graphic for this post is located at:
http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/05/sn-1987a.html
Evolutionists confirm a biblical prediction when they make astronomical
“age of the universe” claims. 2 Peter 3:3-5 predicts that mockers will
actively ignore the evidence that the ouranoi (plural heavens) esan
ekpalai. Ek, in ekpalai, means to come out from a point of origin. Palai
has to do with vibrations, repetitive events, orbits. Peter explained that
the mockers will actively choose or prefer (thelo) to ignore the evidence
that the plural heavens came out long ago because they think all things
remain the same (panta houtos diamenei).

On February 23, 1987 an astronomer in Chile noticed an exploding star in
the Large Magellanic Cloud. At 0736 UT that day, three underground
experiments recorded 25 neutrino events within 13 seconds. Evidently that
was when the first light from SN-1987a arrived. The light from the
explosion faded but eighty days later it began to brighten to a double peak
at 240 and 400 days. We now know that the exploding star is surrounded by
gas rings, evidently ejected by previous explosions. The inner ring has an
approximate diameter of 0.808 arc seconds (0.00022444 degrees). The front
half of the ring glowed with reflected light by day 240 and the reflection
from the far side arrived by day 400. A high school student can calculate
that the light was in transit for 240 / tan (0.00022444 degrees): over
6,000,000,000 modern days. Scientists assume that days and years are linear
when they estimate that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Their
calculations presume that the properties of all things are fixed as Peter
predicted.

The Bible records genealogies that add up to ~ 4,000 pre New Testament
years. If we accept the text literally, in its cultural and grammatical
context, those could not be linear years. Elohim continued to form the Sun,
Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place (raqiya)
half way through the creation week according to the creation account.
Orbits that spread apart - accelerate. Jacob claimed that his days and
years were shorter and worse than the days and years of the fathers
(Genesis 47:9). The Greek words for eon, eons and eonian occur almost 200
times in the New Testament. Christ came at the end of the plural eons to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Job mentioned several geological
markers for the few days of his life in chapter 14. One of his age markers
was the dried sea (Hebrew west). Drill cores show that the deep
Mediterranean dried as evidenced by thick layers of salt, gypsum and
stromatolite sandwiched between marine oozes. Scientists estimate the last
Mediterranean drying occurred five million years ago. The biblical Job
lived about 4,000 years ago during the age of dinosaurs (see Job 40 & 41).
Job also mentioned how their faces changed, doubled, before they died. We
find the skulls of the ancients with thick brows and we measure how our
brows slowly grow as we age. If we lived for geological ages our faces
would grow Neanderthal. The Neanderthal children did not have the thick
brows of their grandparents, evidence that the grandparents lived for eons
like the ancient poets and the Bible mentioned. Where is the evidence for
linear days and years?

1. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency
than modern atoms, and the differences usually correlate with distance.
NASA sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system on Pioneer 10 and 11.
Their transmitted clock signals  slowed, when compared to NASA’s hydrogen
maser clocks. The ratio of frequency slowing to distance was the Hubble
ratio scientists use to estimate galactic distances by comparing ancient
light clocks with modern atoms.

2. We see strings of blue globs in equally spaced chains  around the redder
cores of many early galaxies. We observe, at many ranges, how these globs
took up more space and changed their clock frequencies as they moved
outward in orbits that did not close. Billions of galaxies visibly grew
into local growth spirals without evidence of accretion or growth by
collisions.

3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in
galaxies, (see Job 38:33), then the solar system must have been much
smaller when atoms ticked at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern
clocks. Ancient astronomers optically measured a decreasing solar parallax
over the centuries, which has continued even after radar established the
canonical distance to the Sun using atomic clocks. The earliest
astronomical record of Venus could only be valid if the solar system was
contracted. Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical
authors, mentioned the crushing of a nearby planet a few millennium ago?
The volcanic and sedimentary rocks on angular asteroids and comets support
the four references to this planet shattering in the Bible.

4. A river of cold hydrogen links the Magellanic galaxies with the southern
end of the Milky way. This is simple evidence that these galaxies were
ejected from the Milky Way. The Biblical God says He calls the stars to
come out in unbroken continuity and none go missing (Isaiah 40:26). The
several rings around the SN-1987a progenitor star suggest that previous
explosions did not destroy the star. The material from the latest ejection
is oblong, instead of spherical.

5. What could cause solar system orbits to accelerate outwards? We know
that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This
should produce a different gravitational “pull” on the trailing side of the
Earth than on the leading side. Indeed, paraconical pendulum change their
precession rate depending on the relative positions of the Sun, Moon and
apparently even the planets. This imbalance must accelerate days and years
equally. The same gravitational affects would also accelerate the planet
orbits so that the whole solar system should expand.

6. We measure local orbits and they are clock like, screams the scientist.
Only when you compare orbits to clocks, instead of angles. But we measure
gravity and it does not change! No one has ever isolated any gravity and
your measuring system was contrived with the idea that Peter predicted. You
assumed that atoms are perpetual motion engines and have built a great
structure of mathematical empiricism based on a blind creed. No perpetual
motion atoms gleam from billions of ancient galaxies. We visually correlate
how atoms keep changing their clock rates along with emerging star stream
orbits as spiral galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. Despite the fact
that no physical constants are visible in the whole universe, scientists
keep on claiming to empirically measure how many years ago an event
occurred.

The picture of the Pinwheel Galaxy is courtesy NASA. The red color is
infrared (imaged by Spitzer) shining through dust. The yellow is starlight,
as imaged by Hubble. Blue represents ultraviolet (imaged by GALEX) and
purple represents X-rays from Chandra. When we compare the Pinwheel with
earlier spirals, we observe how the stars spread out from formerly naked
cores just like the biblical creation account records.

Victor


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven from
the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary.  Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism.  Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.

Just my thoughts.  But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks.  Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently.  It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.

--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
> late?
>
>
>
> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
> Biblical <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I>  Significance of
> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
>
>
>
> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
> and more being resorting to insults.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>
> Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
>
> Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
>
> Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
>
> Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>  Talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Some of this is valid comment, but mixed up with things that are dubious
and detract from the rest.

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 11:31 -0700, Victor McAllister wrote:
> Ek, in ekpalai, means to come out from a point of origin. Palai
> has to do with vibrations, repetitive events, orbits

ek = out of

palai = of old

palai is the adverb from palaios

palaios means old as opposed to new.  There is nothing about vibrations
or orbits  or repetition.  Where does this idea come from?

> The Bible records genealogies that add up to ~ 4,000 pre New Testament
> years. If we accept the text literally, in its cultural and
> grammatical context, those could not be linear years.

What does "linear year" mean?  In the context, these years are orbits of
the earth around the sun, just as now, and just about the same length as
now.  It is currently about 6,000 years since creation.  But there is no
need to assume that time has passed at the same rate in the outer
universe.  It is possible for billions of years to have passed there in
between day 4 and day 6 of creation measured from earth.
http://creation.com/new-creation-cosmology

> Elohim continued
> to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the
> spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation week according
> to the creation account. Orbits that spread apart - accelerate.

If an orbiting body moves further away from the body around which it
orbits, it slows down in the process.  Thus the moon loses energy
through tidal drag, slows down, and moves further away form the earth.
So in what sense are things accelerated by being spread apart?

> Jacob
> claimed that his days and years were shorter and worse than the days
> and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9).

"And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are
an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of
my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the
life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."

Abraham lived to 175, Isaac to 180, and Jacob was dying at 130.  Why
look for complicated explanations when there is an obvious simple one?

David,

First, I disagree with your statement that YEC drives Christian from the church.
If they leave it is not because of YEC beliefs, it is because they don't want
truth. Read "Signature in the Cell" and "The edge of evolution" and you will see
why naturalism fails every test of logic and science in proclaiming the
naturalistic origin of life and the evolution of life. Just for starters, if you
look at the number of differences between chimp and human genomes, you find that
you would have to have over 200 positive mutations leading to change every
single generation of chimps and humans. Now, let's count the number of positive
function increasing mutations that have been discovered in multi-celled
creatures.... Zero. How about single celled creatures?... Zero. How many
mutatons are known to cause death or some negative-life-altering harm in
humans?... over 20,000. Not one single study has ever shown that life from
non-life or evolution of one kind into another is possible.

I just had a several-e-mail exchange with a God-hater responding to our latest
newsletter (which we mail to every home in Sedona AZ every 3 months). (
http://www.cryingrocks.org/nl/12_CNU_Spring_Web.pdf in case you want to take a
peek.) He was good at name-calling but could refute nothing I said regarding
science and presented no evidence to support his thoughts. My experience is that
those on both sides who speak with hostility are those who know virtually
nothing and then have to result to name-calling because they can't actually
defend themselves. And, it won't go away because... we are all sinners.


Take Care,


Guy Forsythe

Guy@...
http://www.cryingrocks.org

On May 29, 2012, at 1:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:

> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
>
> Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
>
> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
> > discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
> > late?
> >
> >
> >
> > The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
> > first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
> > about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
> > Biblical <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I> Significance of
> > Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
> > manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
> > meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
> > encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
> > creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
> > and more being resorting to insults.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> >
> > Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
> >
> > Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
> >
> > Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
> >
> > Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?

Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.

Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
myth and one part fraud.

I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.

And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
somehow re-defining Christianity.

Temlakos

On 05/29/2012 04:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:
> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary.  Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism.  Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
>
> Just my thoughts.  But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks.  Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently.  It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
>
> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck"<chuckpc@...>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
>> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
>> late?
>>
>>
>>
>> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
>> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
>> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
>> Biblical<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I>   Significance of
>> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
>> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
>> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
>> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
>> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
>> and more being resorting to insults.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>>
>> Genesis Science Mission<http://gscim.com/>
>>
>> Online Store<http://store.gscim.com/>
>>
>> Genesis Mission<http://genesismission.4t.com/>
>>
>> Creation Science<http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>   Talk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ============================================
> CreationTalk email listserv
> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Temlakos,
there is no need to reconcile evolution with creation.  Evolution is simply one
of Gods tools of creation.  Or, more precisely, a tool of diversification.  I
do not know why your reading of scripture would conflict with the evidence of
creation. I personally feel that the book of Gods words cannot conflict with
the book of his works, that is creation.  Perhaps if you point out where you
think there is a conflict that would allow you to clarify either your
understanding of evolution or your understanding of scripture.  Generally, when
folks feel the need to see the evidence of creation as opposed to the Bible,
they misunderstand one or both.

If you beleive that the case for evolution is six parts myth and one part fraud,
you are very unlikely under a misconception as to either what evolution/
creation is or what the evidence is.  I may be able to help with that if you
like.

Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out of context
and out of meaning to create support their alternative science, without
acknowledging that they are being, at best, selectively literal.  In example,
the biblical geneologies contain many gaps of indeterminate length.  Young
earth folks from Bishop Usher to Ellen White (the Seventh Day Adventist
prophetess who started todays young earth movement) have had to assign length to
these gaps without biblical support.  If you like I can suggest some very good
studies on the history of the young-earth movement for you.  It's alwasy good
to know the history of ones' particular church, as well as the church as a
whole.

Best to you.  The creation we have been given is certainly jaw dropping and a
reason to worship our creator God.  -David


Message flagged
Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:13 AM
 
Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?

Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.

Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
myth and one part fraud.

I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.

And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
somehow re-defining Christianity.

Temlakos




________________________________
From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty


 
Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?

Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.

Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
myth and one part fraud.

I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.

And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
somehow re-defining Christianity.

Temlakos

On 05/29/2012 04:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:
> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
>
> Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
>
> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck"<chuckpc@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
>> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
>> late?
>>
>>
>>
>> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
>> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
>> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
>> Biblical<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I> Significance of
>> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
>> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
>> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
>> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
>> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
>> and more being resorting to insults.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>>
>> Genesis Science Mission<http://gscim.com/>
>>
>> Online Store<http://store.gscim.com/>
>>
>> Genesis Mission<http://genesismission.4t.com/>
>>
>> Creation Science<http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ============================================
> CreationTalk email listserv
> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David,

Could you suggest some realistic lengths of time for the genealogical gaps that
would satisfy the claimed billions of years of earth history? How do you propose
that accurate records of names and details were kept throughout these
multi-million year gaps?

God Bless,

Jeremy
<}}><

--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, David Evarts <davidevartsii@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Temlakos,
> there is no need to reconcile evolution with creation.  Evolution is simply
one of Gods tools of creation.  Or, more precisely, a tool of
diversification.  I do not know why your reading of scripture would conflict
with the evidence of creation. I personally feel that the book of Gods words
cannot conflict with the book of his works, that is creation.  Perhaps if you
point out where you think there is a conflict that would allow you to clarify
either your understanding of evolution or your understanding of scripture. 
Generally, when folks feel the need to see the evidence of creation as opposed
to the Bible, they misunderstand one or both.
>
> If you beleive that the case for evolution is six parts myth and one part
fraud, you are very unlikely under a misconception as to either what evolution/
creation is or what the evidence is.  I may be able to help with that if you
like.
>
> Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out of
context and out of meaning to create support their alternative science, without
acknowledging that they are being, at best, selectively literal.  In example,
the biblical geneologies contain many gaps of indeterminate length.  Young
earth folks from Bishop Usher to Ellen White (the Seventh Day Adventist
prophetess who started todays young earth movement) have had to assign length to
these gaps without biblical support.  If you like I can suggest some very good
studies on the history of the young-earth movement for you.  It's alwasy good
to know the history of ones' particular church, as well as the church as a
whole.
>
> Best to you.  The creation we have been given is certainly jaw dropping and a
reason to worship our creator God.  -David
>
>
> Message flagged
> Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:13 AM
>  
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty
>
>
>  
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
> On 05/29/2012 04:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:
> > Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
> >
> > Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
> >
> > --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck"<chuckpc@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
> >> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
> >> late?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type,
The
> >> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was
talking
> >> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
> >> Biblical<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I> Significance of
> >> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
> >> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
> >> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
> >> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
> >> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
> >> and more being resorting to insults.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> >>
> >> Genesis Science Mission<http://gscim.com/>
> >>
> >> Online Store<http://store.gscim.com/>
> >>
> >> Genesis Mission<http://genesismission.4t.com/>
> >>
> >> Creation Science<http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================
> > CreationTalk email listserv
> > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> > CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> > ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of davidevartsii
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:52 PM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty





> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been
driven
> from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could
be
> anti-evolutionary.



Actually it is evolutionary theory that is inherently anti-Biblical
creation.  The entire big bang to man evolutionary theoretical system is
based on inherently atheistic and anti-Biblical principles and assumptions.
The men who started these ideas like Charles Lyell were not Godly; Bible
loving Christians who after struggling to explain what they were seeing in
the rocks by way of the Genesis Flood abandoned it. They were men that hated
Christianity and the Bible and were specifically trying to overturn the
Biblical view of world history. Even today this evolutionary theoretical
system starts with the atheistic world view of Naturalism where God is
assumed not to exist and the Genesis account is assumed to be Bronze Age
mythology.



It is also not surprising that people raised in churches the don't defend
the Biblical view of history might leave the faith when confronted with the
full out attack on the Bible they get in many secular collages and even some
so called Christian collages. It is also highly likely that many of these
people were never genuinely saved and that these attacks on the Bible simply
gave them the excuse they were already looking fore.



>Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so far in creating
a new
> alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they alone are
bilbical creationists
> that many folks with an understanding of science, but without and
understanding of
> the variety and history of normative, orthodox Christianity have felt
driven to
> agnosticism or atheism.



Your use of the term "Young earth anti-evolutionists" betrays your attitude
on the topic as being decisively anti-young earth creation. That said Young
earth creationists have not created a new alternative Christianity but stand
in firm agreement with the historical Christian view of origins from before
about1800.  It is also the position one naturally comes to when you start
with the Bible alone without trying to insert atheistic mythology into it.
You are also confusing an understanding of science with the acceptance of
that atheistic mythology. With a true understanding of science one will
realize that when you strip away the evolutionary and atheistic conclusions
and assumptions from any scientific paper and look at the actual data from a
Biblical perspective it fits well with Young earth creation..



> Although the anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the
incivility, anti-evolutionists
> should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more obnoxious
(generally young
> anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing thoughtful Christians
and scientists out
> the door they are harming people and causing a back-lash.



Translation if we bow the knee to the atheists the way they want us to they
will be nicer to us.

> Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired
that when folks
> create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs and
claim that it is
> the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some folks.



If we were creating a brand new Christianity you would have a point but
Young earth creationists stands with the historic view of origins of
Christianity rather than the compromise views have been developed to try to
reconcile it with atheistic mythology.



> Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of
> the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently.



WRONG!!! on both counts. The Young earth creation view is the most natural
view one gets when interpreting the Bible without trying to include
atheistic mythology. Also the Young earth creation views only  run counter
to the vast majority of atheistic evolutionary interrelations of scientific
evidence and not the evidence it self. Once one strips away those atheistic
evolutionary interrelations and assumptions the actual scientific evidence
fits well with Young earth creation.







------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/>  Mission

Online <http://store.gscim.com/>  Store

Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/>  Mission

Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Guy,
Let me first say that I am sorry that you have been flamed by anti-theists.  I
know the feeling.  I routinely am called deragatory names by both
anti-evolutionary folks and anti-theists.  There is a lot of passion out
there.  We Americans in particular, seem to have some juvenile notions about
what constitutes a discussion and the extremes are especially drawn to the
internet as a new form of scrawling slogans on walls.
       Yes, young earth anti-evolutionary dogma drives folks from the
church and creates angry anti-theists.  No one, to my knowledge, has done the
sociological work to quantify this, but the anecdotal evidence is
overwhelming.  If you ask an anti-theist about their religious background, you
will find, far more often than not, that they come from a Pentecostal and/ or
fundamentalist church that denies evolution.  Very, very few anti-theists or
atheists come from traditional church backgrounds.  You will also find that
they are very likely to have felt betrayed when they examined the evidence and
found that the earth and universe are indeed very old and that evolution is at
least as well supported as atomic theory, germ theory and gravity.  I also
routinely meet Christians who regained their faith or whose faith was rescued,
because they discovered that young-earthism is but one branch of Christianity
and not "the correct" or most orthodox
  reading and that Christianity is not opposed to science and does not require an
alternative science.  Creationists need to step up in increasing numbers to
point this out in order to defend our faith.  We should also note that
anti-theists and anti-evolutionary folks share the view that the Bible is
opposed to the age of the earth and to evolution, but do not share this view
withmany and perhaps most Christians and that this view is at most one stream of
Christian thought.

Now, to your evidence.  Let me start by noting that the ID movement, like other
anti-evolutionary movements, should they succeed in showing insurrmountable
problems with evolution (at this point very unlikely) will not have supported YE
ideas.  If you can show that the oven does not contain ham, you have not shown
that the oven contains chicken.  However, the ID writers that you cite have
only succeeded in dressing weak philosophy in mis-stated molecular biology.  It
looks like science, but is not.  In "The Edge of Evolution" Behe conceeds
common descent, that is that evolution does happen, and concedes that his
examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be irreducible.  I have
yet to read "The Signature in the Cell", but if it shares the ideas in Meyers'
other writings, it fails to provide any real challenge to the theory of
evolution and contains a good number of misleading arguements.  I tend to
follow the maxim that "all truth is
  Gods" and conversely "all that is not true is not of God."  When
anti-evolutionists repeat untrue arguments, it demonstrates that their arguments
are not Godly.  You are probably unaware of this, but two of the arguments that
you repeated are not, by this standard, Godly.  Although YE folks posit a
super-speed evolution to acount for rapid diversification since the ark, 200
"positive" mutations per generation is indeed far to high for an organism to
sustain and has not been seen in nature.  However, it would not require 200
"positive" mutations per generation for chimps and homo sapiens to have
differentiated from our common ancestor, unless one "monkeys" with data. 
Likewise, you have to repeatedly shift the goal posts on what constitutes a
"positive" mutation in order to say that no mutations conferring a adaptive
benefit have been observed in both multi-cellular or single-celled organisms. 
Even "complex, specified information" has been
  observed to develop.  Do you really want to claim that God is on the side of
weak arguments, shifting goal posts and denial of the data?  Or that defending
creation takes extraordinary leaps? 

Indeed, we are all sinners.  One area in which we can strive to live with less
sin is in examining the evidence.  If you look to Christianity and science,
outside of the YE/ID box, you can examine wether the arguments you have been
taught are biblical or scientific and confirm your views or correct them.

May the Lord richly bless your journey, David


________________________________
From: Guy Forsythe <guy@...>
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty


 
David,

First, I disagree with your statement that YEC drives Christian from the church.
If they leave it is not because of YEC beliefs, it is because they don't want
truth. Read "Signature in the Cell" and "The edge of evolution" and you will see
why naturalism fails every test of logic and science in proclaiming the
naturalistic origin of life and the evolution of life. Just for starters, if you
look at the number of differences between chimp and human genomes, you find that
you would have to have over 200 positive mutations leading to change every
single generation of chimps and humans. Now, let's count the number of positive
function increasing mutations that have been discovered in multi-celled
creatures.... Zero. How about single celled creatures?... Zero. How many
mutatons are known to cause death or some negative-life-altering harm in
humans?... over 20,000. Not one single study has ever shown that life from
non-life or evolution of one kind into another
  is possible.

I just had a several-e-mail exchange with a God-hater responding to our latest
newsletter (which we mail to every home in Sedona AZ every 3 months). (
http://www.cryingrocks.org/nl/12_CNU_Spring_Web.pdf in case you want to take a
peek.) He was good at name-calling but could refute nothing I said regarding
science and presented no evidence to support his thoughts. My experience is that
those on both sides who speak with hostility are those who know virtually
nothing and then have to result to name-calling because they can't actually
defend themselves. And, it won't go away because... we are all sinners.

Take Care,

Guy Forsythe

Guy@...
http://www.cryingrocks.org

On May 29, 2012, at 1:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:

> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
>
> Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
>
> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
> > discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
> > late?
> >
> >
> >
> > The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
> > first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
> > about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
> > Biblical <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I> Significance of
> > Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
> > manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
> > meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
> >
> >
> >
> > Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
> > encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
> > creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
> > and more being resorting to insults.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> >
> > Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
> >
> > Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
> >
> > Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
> >
> > Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A complete study has been done on why young people are leaving the church.  The
major factor is due to compromises to the truth of the Bible that lead to
disbelief in God’s word which we know

From Timothy is “God Breathed�.  One major factor in turning away is the
general theory of evolution which is anti-Creator, anti-God, and anti-Biblical. 
Why don’t these superior thinkers who support evolution inside the church sit
down and debate with someone like Jonathan Sarfati?  I am still looking for any
of them to explain universal information (code based) and where it came from in
life.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Oliver Elphick <olly@...> wrote:

> Some of this is valid comment, but mixed up with things that are dubious
> and detract from the rest.
>
> On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 11:31 -0700, Victor McAllister wrote:
> > Ek, in ekpalai, means to come out from a point of origin. Palai
> > has to do with vibrations, repetitive events, orbits
>
> ek = out of
>
> palai = of old
>
> palai is the adverb from palaios
>
> palaios means old as opposed to new.  There is nothing about vibrations
> or orbits  or repetition.  Where does this idea come from?
>
> > The Bible records genealogies that add up to ~ 4,000 pre New Testament
> > years. If we accept the text literally, in its cultural and
> > grammatical context, those could not be linear years.
>
> What does "linear year" mean?  In the context, these years are orbits of
> the earth around the sun, just as now, and just about the same length as
> now.  It is currently about 6,000 years since creation.  But there is no
> need to assume that time has passed at the same rate in the outer
> universe.  It is possible for billions of years to have passed there in
> between day 4 and day 6 of creation measured from earth.
> http://creation.com/new-creation-cosmology
>
>
As you mentioned ekpalai is an adverb. The verb esan from eini is
imperfect, active indicative. An imperfect verb shows an action that
repeatedly happens. As you mentioned ekpalai has to do with a great while
ago, ancient. Why would the combination of ek (to come out from a point of
origin) and palai indicate antiquity? Palin has to do with again,
repetitions, once more.

During the biblical age, people never held the notion that time existed or
flowed. You could not run out of time unless you died since time was
associated with the events of your life. The new moon was an event and when
you saw the new moon you blew the trumpet to indicate that the event had
arrived. Plutarch mentions that 2750 years ago, the Roman months sometimes
had 20 days and sometimes 35. The month was not a measurement of time, but
the cyclical return of the new moon. If it was raining and you could not
see the moon, the month ran for more days. The first Roman calendar also
had only 10 named months. September 7, October 8, November 9, December 10
were numbered months. The months Janauarius and Februarius were not named
until the days of king Numa.Evidently a month without agricultural activity
had no need for a name. Time had no independent existence.

No one during the biblical age could imagine that the cycles of the heavens
were linear. Their histories were about how the planet positions had
changed since the days of their fathers and how the earliest people lived
for eons. Hesiod groaned that he was born in the iron generation when men
never stopped laboring by day and dying by night. His ancestors lived in
the age of kronos when life ran for vast eons. He believed this
degeneration would continue until children are born with grey temples.
People who think like that cannot imagine linear time.

All ancient people told stories about the crushing of a planet. Since the
Bible mentions this four times, using language similar to the Canaanites,
we should accept that a planet really was crushed. Yet the bible condemns
worshiping the planets as gods, such as Baal (Jupiter). The Bible, like the
ancient Babylonians, mentions a close passages that affected things on
earth, in the manner the Babylonians recorded (rain in the mountains).
Judges 5:20 mentions the (plural) kokabiym fought from their courses. This
word can refer to stars but kokab is also Mercury and kokab nogah is Venus.
Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every inferior conjunction
(which will happen next week). The same longitude on the surface of Venus
points to the Earth at each conjunction. Yet we do not experience Venusian
tides today. All ancient people feared the days when Venus passed and
brought devastation to Earth.

During the biblical age, people looked back with longing on the times of
their fathers who lived in the great time when the cycles of the heavens
were ponderously slow (Genesis 47:9). We confirm that they were right
because we observe in innumerable spiral galaxies how the star streams
spiraled out, accelerating continually. What we observe is the most
powerful evidence for a biblical creation, that the universe has vast age,
yet few orbits have occurred because everything is changing in the very
manner that Paul explained in Romans 8:19 - 22. The degeneration is an
orderly submission, the creation is enslaved to change and he characterized
this with two Greek together verbs (relational change).

It is not easy for Western people to take the Bible literally when it comes
to Earth history, because of a little assumption. This assumption is the
very one Peter predicted, the notion that all things remain the same. We
imagine that matter is not changing itself even though we can see tha past
all the way back to the creation age. Not only are the atomic clocks
accelerating but the galactic stars streams are also accelerating. He warns
us not to be wise in ths age, because He is taking the wise with their own
skills. Telescopes are recording the creation right now as it hapenned long
ago. What is visible confirm the Biblical creation and also shows how
utterly He will make foolish western science, the system that was founded
on the very idea Peter predicted for the mockers of the last days.

> Elohim continued
> to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the
> spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation week according
> to the creation account. Orbits that spread apart - accelerate.

If an orbiting body moves further away from the body around which it
> orbits, it slows down in the process.  Thus the moon loses energy
> through tidal drag, slows down, and moves further away form the earth.
> So in what sense are things accelerated by being spread apart?
>
> > Jacob
> > claimed that his days and years were shorter and worse than the days
> > and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9).
>
> "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are
> an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of
> my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the
> life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."
>
> Abraham lived to 175, Isaac to 180, and Jacob was dying at 130.  Why
> look for complicated explanations when there is an obvious simple one?
>

  Notice that Isaac lived more years than Abraham. Yet in the context of how
people though in Jacobs day, Abraham lived in the age when days and years
had longer durations.


> ------------------------------------
>
> ============================================
> CreationTalk email listserv
> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David:

Thank you for your time.

First, when I hear the word /evolution/, I envision a triad--or a
tri/dent/, called Satan's Trident--of wrongheaded ideas, all intended to
make Scripture unnecessary, or to contradict the Scriptural account. The
teeth of the trident are:

1.    Uniformitarianism: the notion that processes operating today, have
/always/ operated /since the beginning of time,/ and /at the same rate./
"The present is the key to the past," is how Charles Lyell put it, and
how his latter-day counterparts put it to me.

2.    Abiogenesis: /the development of life from non-life./

3.    Common descent. Specifically, descent from /one, and only one,
ancestor/ of all of life.

In contrast, the evidence supports:

1.    Catastrophism. Or more accurately, /cataclysmism/. The word in
Greek for the Flood is /cataclysm/, which literally means "The Mother of
All Storms." (Recall that the Greek word for a nor'easter is
/Euroclydon/, "The Storm from Europa," from the same root.) Understand:
I do not speak of multiple catastrophic events, each laying down one
stratum in the "geological column." I assert that /The/ Cataclysm laid
down /all/ the strata /in one event/.

2.    Biogenesis. Life from life. The first life was the Great Planting,
on Day Three of Creation. Animal life came on Days Five and Six.

3.    Descent within kind. God made plants, and then animals, in
/created kinds/. The kinds correspond (except in the case of man) to the
/family/ in taxonomy. Hence, the Deer Kind (/Cervidae/), from moose to
white-tail and everything in-between; the Dog (or Wolf) Kind
(/Canidae/), including wolves and man's familiar "best friend"; the Cat
Kind (/Felidae/), including lions, tigers, leopards, and similar beasts.
The result, instead of a /tree/ of life, is an /orchard/. Hence all deer
types, from moose to white-tail, descend from an ancestral "deer form."

Now: you say that the biblical genealogies have gaps in them. I flatly
deny that. I know of /no/ reason, /none/, to deny or doubt that the
average longevity of man was nine hundred years in the 1,654 years
before the Flood. After that, human longevity fell ninety percent in
eleven generations, as the Annals of Terach (Genesis chapter 11, latter
half) clearly show. Why? Two reasons:

1.    Noah and his family are a population bottleneck, and an extreme one.

2.    Carbon-14. This did not exist in such vast quantities before the
Flood. During the Flood, the earth's crust shook at magnitude 10 to 12,
and created radioactive materials. They also created an environment
conducive to /cluster decay/, which is anything in-between alpha decay
and fission. Carbon-14 is the most common cluster decay product known to
nuclear physics. And when you take carbon-14 into your system, you face
two hazards. One is what a beta particle can do when it smashes into
something. The other is an atom of carbon turning into an atom of
nitrogen. The damage adds up.

The Carbon-14 Curse is why we don't live so long. Pre-Flood man did not
labor under that curse.

You malign Ussher. I've read his /Annals/. Not cover-to-cover, but
certainly as far as the history of the Hebrew Kings. He never assigned
any gaps. He calculated creation by playing it straight through.

And I have held frequent converse with a man whom I consider the
greatest creation scientist of our day: Walter T. Brown, originator of
the Hydroplate Theory.

I will uphold young-earth creation science against any attack from any
quarter. I've been doing that ever since I realized, way back in 1990,
that the old-earth evolutionists have been, quite simply, lying to me.

And--ahem, AHEMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!--I hope I am not running into
similar misdirection here.

Temlakos

On 05/30/2012 11:27 AM, David Evarts wrote:
> Hi Temlakos,
> there is no need to reconcile evolution with creation.  Evolution is simply
one of Gods tools of creation.  Or, more precisely, a tool of diversification. 
I do not know why your reading of scripture would conflict with the evidence of
creation. I personally feel that the book of Gods words cannot conflict with the
book of his works, that is creation.  Perhaps if you point out where you think
there is a conflict that would allow you to clarify either your understanding of
evolution or your understanding of scripture.  Generally, when folks feel the
need to see the evidence of creation as opposed to the Bible, they misunderstand
one or both.
>
> If you beleive that the case for evolution is six parts myth and one part
fraud, you are very unlikely under a misconception as to either what evolution/
creation is or what the evidence is.  I may be able to help with that if you
like.
>
> Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out of
context and out of meaning to create support their alternative science, without
acknowledging that they are being, at best, selectively literal.  In example,
the biblical geneologies contain many gaps of indeterminate length.  Young earth
folks from Bishop Usher to Ellen White (the Seventh Day Adventist prophetess who
started todays young earth movement) have had to assign length to these gaps
without biblical support.  If you like I can suggest some very good studies on
the history of the young-earth movement for you.  It's alwasy good to know the
history of ones' particular church, as well as the church as a whole.
>
> Best to you.  The creation we have been given is certainly jaw dropping and a
reason to worship our creator God.  -David
>
>
> Message flagged
> Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:13 AM
>
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Temlakos<temlakos@...>
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty
>
>
>
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
> On 05/29/2012 04:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:
>> Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
>>
>> Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
>>
>> --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck"<chuckpc@...>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
>>> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
>>> late?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type, The
>>> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was talking
>>> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
>>> Biblical<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I>  Significance of
>>> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
>>> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
>>> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
>>> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
>>> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
>>> and more being resorting to insults.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>>>
>>> Genesis Science Mission<http://gscim.com/>
>>>
>>> Online Store<http://store.gscim.com/>
>>>
>>> Genesis Mission<http://genesismission.4t.com/>
>>>
>>> Creation Science<http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>  Talk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> ============================================
>> CreationTalk email listserv
>> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
>> CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
>> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ============================================
> CreationTalk email listserv
> Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 08:27 -0700, David Evarts wrote:
> Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out
> of context and out of meaning to create support their alternative
> science, without acknowledging that they are being, at best,
> selectively literal.  In example, the biblical geneologies contain
> many gaps of indeterminate length.

That's selective in itself.  The genealogy in Matthew is selective, but
the one in Luke is not.  The genealogies in Genesis give the age of the
father at the birth of each son from Adam down to Abraham.  So the flood
occurred about 1656 years after creation and Abraham was about 2000
years after creation.  There isn't any gap in those genealogies, nor did
anyone think there was any need to claim there was until people in the
18th century began (for no good reason) to claim the biblical account
was not true.

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 09:26 -0700, David Evarts wrote:
>        Yes, young earth anti-evolutionary dogma drives folks from the
> church and creates angry anti-theists.  No one, to my knowledge, has
> done the sociological work to quantify this, but the anecdotal
> evidence is overwhelming.  If you ask an anti-theist about their
> religious background, you will find, far more often than not, that
> they come from a Pentecostal and/ or fundamentalist church that denies
> evolution.

One of the arch anti-theists, Richard Dawkins, had an Anglican
upbringing.  Christopher Hitchens was raised nominally Christian.  I
think those people who reject faith after being brought up in it are
hostile to the particular features that were significant, but I think
your anecdotal evidence is inadequate.

A number of people are converted to Christianity when they realise that
the standard long-ages-and-evolution story does not have to be accepted,
and that the evidence for it is quite inadequate.  See the archives of
answersingenesis.org and creation.com for examples.

>   Very, very few anti-theists or atheists come from traditional church
> backgrounds.  You will also find that they are very likely to have
> felt betrayed when they examined the evidence and found that the earth
> and universe are indeed very old and that evolution is at least as
> well supported as atomic theory, germ theory and gravity.

Are you doing the standard bait-and-switch on the term "evolution"?
Natural selection and consequent speciation is well supported, but the
development of one kind of animal or plant from another is certainly
not!

>   I also routinely meet Christians who regained their faith or whose
> faith was rescued, because they discovered that young-earthism is but
> one branch of Christianity and not "the correct" or most orthodox
>  reading and that Christianity is not opposed to science and does not
> require an alternative science.

Christianity is not opposed to science at all.  It is opposed to
philosophical naturalism, which is the basic assumption behind long ages
and common descent.

>  Creationists need to step up in increasing numbers to point this out
> in order to defend our faith.  We should also note that anti-theists
> and anti-evolutionary folks share the view that the Bible is opposed
> to the age of the earth and to evolution,

and they are correct

>  but do not share this view withmany and perhaps most Christians and
> that this view is at most one stream of Christian thought.

But it is the one that has support from the bible and from all of
Christian tradition up to the 18th century.

> Now, to your evidence.  Let me start by noting that the ID movement,
> like other anti-evolutionary movements, should they succeed in showing
> insurrmountable problems with evolution (at this point very unlikely)
> will not have supported YE ideas.  If you can show that the oven does
> not contain ham, you have not shown that the oven contains chicken.
> However, the ID writers that you cite have only succeeded in dressing
> weak philosophy in mis-stated molecular biology.  It looks like
> science, but is not.  In "The Edge of Evolution" Behe conceeds common
> descent, that is that evolution does happen, and concedes that his
> examples of irreducible complexity have been shown to be irreducible.

Did you mean to write that?

>  I have yet to read "The Signature in the Cell", but if it shares the
> ideas in Meyers' other writings, it fails to provide any real
> challenge to the theory of evolution and contains a good number of
> misleading arguements.  I tend to follow the maxim that "all truth is
>  Gods" and conversely "all that is not true is not of God."  When
> anti-evolutionists repeat untrue arguments, it demonstrates that their
> arguments are not Godly.  You are probably unaware of this, but two of
> the arguments that you repeated are not, by this standard, Godly.

The first standard for truth is Jesus, who is the Truth, and the word of
God, which is his word and which he vouched for to the last letter (Matt
5:18; John 10:35).  So if science, which is only ever tentative even
according to its own claims, contradicts the scripture, the science is
wrong.

>   Although YE folks posit a super-speed evolution to acount for rapid
> diversification since the ark, 200 "positive" mutations per generation
> is indeed far to high for an organism to sustain and has not been seen
> in nature.  However, it would not require 200 "positive" mutations per
> generation for chimps and homo sapiens to have differentiated from our
> common ancestor, unless one "monkeys" with data.

How do you work that out?  How many mutations would be required, and how
many more deleterious mutations would be suffered at the same time?
Bear in mind that no information-adding mutations have been observed, to
my knowledge, and Lenski's experiment, using bacteria that gained or
recovered the ability to digest citrate, took 40,000 generations to
achieve a minor change, without the handicap of sexual reproduction.

http://creation.com/chimp-genome-sequence-very-different-from-man

> Likewise, you have to repeatedly shift the goal posts on what
> constitutes a "positive" mutation in order to say that no mutations
> conferring a adaptive benefit have been observed in both
> multi-cellular or single-celled organisms.  Even "complex, specified
> information" has been
>  observed to develop.

In order to achieve the evolution of all kinds of animals from a common
ancestor, information-adding mutations have to be common, but in fact
they are not observed.  Most if not all examples given are
information-losing.

> Do you really want to claim that God is on the side of weak arguments,
> shifting goal posts and denial of the data?  Or that defending
> creation takes extraordinary leaps?

It doesn't.  Evolution is based on story-telling rather than proper
evidence, and not only contradicts the scripture but removes the whole
basis for salvation, whereas biblical creation agrees with the word of
God and with good science.

What it comes down to is this: if you choose atheistic starting
assumptions, you will come to atheistic conclusions.  If you start with
God and his revealed word, you will come to conclusions that agree with
it.

Hi Chuck, I'll just deal with a couple of the misunderstandings in your note.

"Even today this evolutionary theoretical
  system starts with the atheistic world view of Naturalism"

I can understand why naturalistic methodology gets confused with atheism,
particularly as many anti-theists beleive that nothing can be true that cannot
be tested empirically.  This makes it especially important to differentiate
between naturalistic methodology and philosophical naturalism.  Naturalistic
methodology is the practical technique of limiting science to that which can be
tested.  It is used by YE and other anti-evolutionary folks, as well as other
scientists wether they are Christian or otherwise and has been quite useful. 
Science can only inform us about those things that can be tested.  As God, love
and philosophical naturalism cannot be tested empirically they are outside the
realm of science.  In the case of God, we would say God supercedes science.
Evolution cannot speak to the existance of God or that he is responsible for
creation.  It can only test natural phenomena.  A young earth can be tested and
found not to match the evidence.  Evolution can be tested and found to match the
evidence.  In this way wrong ideas about scripture can be discounted.  At one
time, most Christians felt that the Bible taught that the sun revolved the
earth.  This matched their understanding of scripture. We were able to test this
using the tool of naturalistic methodology and find that it was indeed a
misreading of scripture.

  "It is also not surprising that people raised in churches the don't defend
> the Biblical view of history might leave the faith when confronted with the
> full out attack on the Bible they get in many secular collages and even some
> so called Christian collages. It is also highly likely that many of these
> people were never genuinely saved and that these attacks on the Bible simply
> gave them the excuse they were already looking fore."

You might note that few atheists and anti-theists come from traditional
churches.  If you speak with many of these folks, you are likely to find that
the majority of those who have a church background come from YE churches.

  Your use of the term "Young earth anti-evolutionists" betrays your attitude
> on the topic as being decisively anti-young earth creation.

I am indeed decisevly against a young-earth view and anti-evolutionary ideas.  I
have yet to read any that is convincingly scientifically or biblically sound. 
However, I use the terms young-earthist or young-earth anti-evolutionary as the
most accurate that I can find.  I recently noted that some anti-evolutionary
folks use the term "biblical creationist."  This is highly inaccurate.  All
Christians are creationists and most do not accept YE and/or anti-evolutionary
views.  As YE views are but one understanding of the Bible and include a large
amount of extra-biblical ideas and recent additions, it's innacurate to suggest
that they are more biblical than most of Christianity.

" Translation if we bow the knee to the atheists the way they want us to they
will be nicer to us."

A correct translation of my statement would be "If we accept the truth of the
Bible and the truth displayed in creation, we will not drive away truth seekers
and will please God."  It is irrelevant, though interesting, that atheists and
YE folks both seem focused on a false dichotomy between evolution and creation
and both claim that God and science are opposed or rather that he Bible requires
an alternative science. Or perhaps, if you'd like to focus on atheists, you
could translate it as "It's not surprising that when a very vocal sub-set of
Christianity claims that the Bible is opposed to well founded science that
anti-theists would agree with them."

--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
>
> From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of davidevartsii
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:52 PM
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been
> driven
> > from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could
> be
> > anti-evolutionary.
>
>
>
> Actually it is evolutionary theory that is inherently anti-Biblical
> creation.  The entire big bang to man evolutionary theoretical system is
> based on inherently atheistic and anti-Biblical principles and assumptions.
> The men who started these ideas like Charles Lyell were not Godly; Bible
> loving Christians who after struggling to explain what they were seeing in
> the rocks by way of the Genesis Flood abandoned it. They were men that hated
> Christianity and the Bible and were specifically trying to overturn the
> Biblical view of world history. Even today this evolutionary theoretical
> system starts with the atheistic world view of Naturalism where God is
> assumed not to exist and the Genesis account is assumed to be Bronze Age
> mythology.
>
>
>
> It is also not surprising that people raised in churches the don't defend
> the Biblical view of history might leave the faith when confronted with the
> full out attack on the Bible they get in many secular collages and even some
> so called Christian collages. It is also highly likely that many of these
> people were never genuinely saved and that these attacks on the Bible simply
> gave them the excuse they were already looking fore.
>
>
>
> >Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so far in creating
> a new
> > alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they alone are
> bilbical creationists
> > that many folks with an understanding of science, but without and
> understanding of
> > the variety and history of normative, orthodox Christianity have felt
> driven to
> > agnosticism or atheism.
>
>
>
> Your use of the term "Young earth anti-evolutionists" betrays your attitude
> on the topic as being decisively anti-young earth creation. That said Young
> earth creationists have not created a new alternative Christianity but stand
> in firm agreement with the historical Christian view of origins from before
> about1800.  It is also the position one naturally comes to when you start
> with the Bible alone without trying to insert atheistic mythology into it.
> You are also confusing an understanding of science with the acceptance of
> that atheistic mythology. With a true understanding of science one will
> realize that when you strip away the evolutionary and atheistic conclusions
> and assumptions from any scientific paper and look at the actual data from a
> Biblical perspective it fits well with Young earth creation..
>
>
>
> > Although the anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the
> incivility, anti-evolutionists
> > should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more obnoxious
> (generally young
> > anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing thoughtful Christians
> and scientists out
> > the door they are harming people and causing a back-lash.
>
>
>
> Translation if we bow the knee to the atheists the way they want us to they
> will be nicer to us.
>
> > Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired
> that when folks
> > create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs and
> claim that it is
> > the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some folks.
>
>
>
> If we were creating a brand new Christianity you would have a point but
> Young earth creationists stands with the historic view of origins of
> Christianity rather than the compromise views have been developed to try to
> reconcile it with atheistic mythology.
>
>
>
> > Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
> majority of
> > the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently.
>
>
>
> WRONG!!! on both counts. The Young earth creation view is the most natural
> view one gets when interpreting the Bible without trying to include
> atheistic mythology. Also the Young earth creation views only  run counter
> to the vast majority of atheistic evolutionary interrelations of scientific
> evidence and not the evidence it self. Once one strips away those atheistic
> evolutionary interrelations and assumptions the actual scientific evidence
> fits well with Young earth creation.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>
> Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/>  Mission
>
> Online <http://store.gscim.com/>  Store
>
> Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/>  Mission
>
> Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Jeremy, although old-earth anti-evolutionists do exactly that, I, personally
would propose that it is not a worthwhile pursuit to attempt to build a
chronology or length of time out of the old testament. It is not meant to be
read as a chronological history.  My point is that one cannot claim any given
length of time for the old testament without adding to the text and changing
its meaning. 

It might surprise you to learn that many of the first geologists that stumbled
upon the old age of the earth were Christians who were searching for evidence of
an old earth to counter the then fashionable atheist idea that the earth was far
younger than the age that many Christians suggested their understanding of the
old testament would create.  There is some evidence to suggest that Bishop
Usshers highly speculative age of the earth that is now popular amongst young
earth anti-evolutionists was also an attempt to counter the then popular older
chronologies of some Christians, so derided by atheists.

It's really kind of funny that the views have changed and still folks are trying
to make the Bible fit their expectations, rather than reading it for its intent
and accepting the evidence that God provides.

May the Lord bless and keep you.  -David


________________________________
From: jem_sixdays <jem_dasen@...>
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 10:00 AM
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty


 
David,

Could you suggest some realistic lengths of time for the genealogical gaps that
would satisfy the claimed billions of years of earth history? How do you propose
that accurate records of names and details were kept throughout these
multi-million year gaps?

God Bless,

Jeremy
<}}><

--- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, David Evarts <davidevartsii@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Temlakos,
> there is no need to reconcile evolution with creation.  Evolution is simply
one of Gods tools of creation.  Or, more precisely, a tool of
diversification.  I do not know why your reading of scripture would conflict
with the evidence of creation. I personally feel that the book of Gods
words cannot conflict with the book of his works, that is
creation.  Perhaps if you point out where you think there is a conflict
that would allow you to clarify either your understanding of evolution or your
understanding of scripture.  Generally, when folks feel the need to see the
evidence of creation as opposed to the Bible, they misunderstand one or both.
>
> If you beleive that the case for evolution is six parts myth and one part
fraud, you are very unlikely under a misconception as to either what evolution/
creation is or what the evidence is.  I may be able to help with that if you
like.
>
> Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out of
context and out of meaning to create support their alternative science, without
acknowledging that they are being, at best, selectively literal.  In example,
the biblical geneologies contain many gaps of indeterminate length.  Young
earth folks from Bishop Usher to Ellen White (the Seventh Day Adventist
prophetess who started todays young earth movement) have had to assign length to
these gaps without biblical support.  If you like I can suggest some very
good studies on the history of the young-earth movement for you.  It's alwasy
good to know the history of ones' particular church, as well as the church as a
whole.
>
> Best to you.  The creation we have been given is certainly jaw dropping and
a reason to worship our creator God.  -David
>
>
> Message flagged
> Wednesday, May 30, 2012 5:13 AM
>  
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Temlakos <temlakos@...>
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 2:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty
>
>
>  
> Are you trying to reconcile evolution with creation?
>
> Because I cannot reconcile evolution with Scripture.
>
> Nor do I /need/ to reconcile evolution with creation. I have nothing to
> reconcile. The case for evolution is no case at all. It is six parts
> myth and one part fraud.
>
> I'm pretty sure that I can lay out a case for a young earth.
>
> And I don't buy the notion that young-earth creation advocates are
> somehow re-defining Christianity.
>
> Temlakos
>
> On 05/29/2012 04:52 PM, davidevartsii wrote:
> > Some part of it may be due to the number of Christians who have been driven
from the faith by the mistaken idea that biblical creationism is or could be
anti-evolutionary. Young earth anti-evolutionists, in particular, have gone so
far in creating a new, alternative Christianity and insisting that they and they
alone are bilbical creationists that many folks with an understanding of
science, but without and understanding of the variety and history of normative,
orthodox Christianity have felt driven to agnisticism or atheism. Although the
anti-theists are certainly at fault for much of the incivility,
anti-evolutionists should both claim responsibility for and denounce the more
obnoxious (generally young anti-evolutionists) and understand that by tossing
thoughtful Christians and scientists out the door they are harming people and
causing a back-lash.
> >
> > Just my thoughts. But, it seems neither unexpected, nor even undesired that
when folks create a brand new Christianity, such as anti-evolutionary YE beleifs
and claim that it is the true, traditional Christianity, it embitters some
folks. Considering that YE views are extra-biblical and run counter to the vast
majority of the scientific evidence, it would be wise to go gently. It's
fortunate that more young Christians aren't routinely calling YE folks
satanists.
> >
> > --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck"<chuckpc@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Has anyone else noticed that rather engaging us in an actual intellectual
> >> discussion that Evolutionists have simply gotten nasty and insulting of
> >> late?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The last three comments to my videos on YouiTube have been of this type,
The
> >> first two just made the baseless claim that I did no know what I was
talking
> >> about in a rather sarcastic way but today some posted a comment at my video
> >> Biblical<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDwtoze8N4I> Significance of
> >> Quantum Mechanics that went so far as to tell me to shut up in profane
> >> manner. He used an abbreviation that a simple Google search showed the
> >> meaning of. Has any one else noticed this trend?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now I am not saying that all Evolutionists are this way because I have
> >> encountered some that are not but this trend would seem to indicate that
> >> creationists have won the intellectual argument and Evolutionists are more
> >> and more being resorting to insults.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
> >>
> >> Genesis Science Mission<http://gscim.com/>
> >>
> >> Online Store<http://store.gscim.com/>
> >>
> >> Genesis Mission<http://genesismission.4t.com/>
> >>
> >> Creation Science<http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================
> > CreationTalk email listserv
> > Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
> > CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
> > ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>
> Christianity is not opposed to science at all.  It is opposed to
> philosophical naturalism, which is the basic assumption behind long ages
> and common descent.
>
>
Science and philosophical naturalism are one and the same. There is not a
single verse in the Bible that requires a scientific mindset to understand
it as the author could have intended. In fact western science was recently
built on philosophical ideas (metaphysics) first attempted by the pagan
philosophers and later modified and established as dogma by medieval
friars. The Bible predicted the idea upon which western science was
contrived - that all things remain the same. Almost every definition,
measuring unit and mathematical theory in science depends on the
unsupported assumption that the properties of matter are fixed, not
emerging. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change
(Greek phthora) which we confirm with sight since we can directly compare
the past to the present with light transmitted long ago.

I am a Changing Earth Creationist, which is fundamentally different from
either a young earth or old earth creationists. Changing Earth Creationists
try to understand the literal creation and earth history texts in the
system of reasoning current during the biblical age, which was the opposite
to how scientists think. Ancient people saw never ending change in the very
places scientists imagine constants. The visible history and age of  the
cosmos support the simple, ancient non philosophical way of thinking.
Indeed the vast age of the cosmos is  the most powerful evidence for a
literal biblical creation. We see the creation as it happened long ago and
what is visible is exactly what the literal text describes. However, no
scientist, YE, OE or evolutionist can believe the visible history of the
cosmos because everything is changing and in their system matter is not
allowed to change by definition.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:55 -0700, Victor McAllister wrote:
> As you mentioned ekpalai is an adverb. The verb esan from eini is
> imperfect, active indicative. An imperfect verb shows an action that
> repeatedly happens.

That is one use of the imperfect, translated as "used to do".  Another
use is continuing action, translated as "was doing".  Continuing action
is the first choice for translation, particularly with a verb like "to
be".

> As you mentioned ekpalai has to do with a great while
> ago, ancient. Why would the combination of ek (to come out from a point of
> origin) and palai indicate antiquity? Palin has to do with again,
> repetitions, once more.

And here we are not dealing with "palin", but with "ekpalai".  This is
taking your conclusions and forcing them into the text with a
sledgehammer.  It is Humpty Dumpty's approach to language!

> During the biblical age, people never held the notion that time existed or
> flowed.

Biblical evidence?

> You could not run out of time unless you died since time was
> associated with the events of your life. The new moon was an event and when
> you saw the new moon you blew the trumpet to indicate that the event had
> arrived. Plutarch mentions that 2750 years ago, the Roman months sometimes
> had 20 days and sometimes 35. The month was not a measurement of time, but
> the cyclical return of the new moon. If it was raining and you could not
> see the moon, the month ran for more days. The first Roman calendar also
> had only 10 named months. September 7, October 8, November 9, December 10
> were numbered months. The months Janauarius and Februarius were not named
> until the days of king Numa.

Our knowledge of what happened during the days of the kings is very
sparse.  King Numa himself is not even certainly known to have existed!
Knowledge of that time was not particularly great even in the time of
Plutarch, who wrote 800 years after the founding of the city.

The Roman calendar was not automatically fitted to the solar year until
the time of Caesar and it was the responsibility of the pontifex maximus
to insert intercalary days and months to keep the months in line with
the seasons.  Some of them bothered and some of them didn't, which could
lead to large changes when a new man came into office.

> Evidently a month without agricultural activity
> had no need for a name. Time had no independent existence.

That does not logically follow.  The months are actually governed by the
moon, which is visible to everyone.  After all, that is why God made the
heavenly bodies - to regulate times and seasons. (Genesis 1:14)

> No one during the biblical age could imagine that the cycles of the heavens
> were linear. Their histories were about how the planet positions had
> changed since the days of their fathers and how the earliest people lived
> for eons. Hesiod groaned that he was born in the iron generation when men
> never stopped laboring by day and dying by night. His ancestors lived in
> the age of kronos when life ran for vast eons. He believed this
> degeneration would continue until children are born with grey temples.
> People who think like that cannot imagine linear time.

This is very speculative, and furthermore it is in the Greek culture,
not in the Hebrew one.

> All ancient people told stories about the crushing of a planet.

Give me one example.  This language rather assumes a modern knowledge of
what a planet is, doesn't it?

>  Since the
> Bible mentions this four times, using language similar to the Canaanites,
> we should accept that a planet really was crushed.

Bible references, please.

> Yet the bible condemns
> worshiping the planets as gods, such as Baal (Jupiter). The Bible, like the
> ancient Babylonians, mentions a close passages that affected things on
> earth, in the manner the Babylonians recorded (rain in the mountains).
> Judges 5:20 mentions the (plural) kokabiym fought from their courses. This
> word can refer to stars but kokab is also Mercury and kokab nogah is Venus.
> Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every inferior conjunction
> (which will happen next week). The same longitude on the surface of Venus
> points to the Earth at each conjunction. Yet we do not experience Venusian
> tides today. All ancient people feared the days when Venus passed and
> brought devastation to Earth.

I've heard the theory that Mars' orbit used to approach the earth's
closely, which is why it is regarded as ominous.  I have never heard
this about Venus.

Wikipedia on orbital resonance:
"A number of near-integer-ratio relationships between the orbital
frequencies of the planets or major moons are sometimes pointed out (see
list below). However, these have no dynamical significance because there
is no appropriate precession of perihelion or other libration to make
the resonance perfect (see the detailed discussion in the section
above). Such near resonances are dynamically insignificant even if the
mismatch is quite small because (unlike a true resonance), after each
cycle the relative position of the bodies shifts. When averaged over
astronomically short timescales, their relative position is random, just
like bodies that are nowhere near resonance. For example, consider the
orbits of Earth and Venus, which arrive at almost the same configuration
after 8 Earth orbits and 13 Venus orbits. The actual ratio is
0.61518624, which is only 0.032% away from exactly 8:13. The mismatch
after 8 years is only 1.5° of Venus' orbital movement. Still, this is
enough that Venus and Earth find themselves in the opposite relative
orientation to the original every 120 such cycles, which is 960 years.
Therefore, on timescales of thousands of years or more (still tiny by
astronomical standards), their relative position is effectively random."

>
> During the biblical age, people looked back with longing on the times of
> their fathers who lived in the great time when the cycles of the heavens
> were ponderously slow (Genesis 47:9).

And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my sojourning are
130 years. Few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and
they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my
fathers in the days of their sojourning.�

Again, this is forcing your theory into the text.

>  We confirm that they were right
> because we observe in innumerable spiral galaxies how the star streams
> spiraled out, accelerating continually. What we observe is the most
> powerful evidence for a biblical creation, that the universe has vast age,
> yet few orbits have occurred because everything is changing in the very
> manner that Paul explained in Romans 8:19 - 22. The degeneration is an
> orderly submission, the creation is enslaved to change and he characterized
> this with two Greek together verbs (relational change).

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons
of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but
because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will
be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the
glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has
been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.

Again, you cannot get your theory out of this text.  It has to be forced
into it.

> It is not easy for Western people to take the Bible literally when it comes
> to Earth history, because of a little assumption. This assumption is the
> very one Peter predicted, the notion that all things remain the same. We
> imagine that matter is not changing itself even though we can see tha past
> all the way back to the creation age. Not only are the atomic clocks
> accelerating but the galactic stars streams are also accelerating.

But I think you are claiming that orbits are moving further apart.  IN
that case, the orbital speed must be slowing down and years becoming
longer.

>  He warns
> us not to be wise in ths age, because He is taking the wise with their own
> skills. Telescopes are recording the creation right now as it hapenned long
> ago. What is visible confirm the Biblical creation and also shows how
> utterly He will make foolish western science, the system that was founded
> on the very idea Peter predicted for the mockers of the last days.

Science was founded on the bible.  The methodology of science is fine
for the things to which it is appropriate, and the proof of that is the
technological advances it has brought.  Its methodology is not so
appropriate for investigating creation history.

> > Elohim continued
> > to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the
> > spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation week according
> > to the creation account. Orbits that spread apart - accelerate.
>
> If an orbiting body moves further away from the body around which it
> > orbits, it slows down in the process.  Thus the moon loses energy
> > through tidal drag, slows down, and moves further away form the earth.
> > So in what sense are things accelerated by being spread apart?

I notice you have not answered this.

> > > Jacob
> > > claimed that his days and years were shorter and worse than the days
> > > and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9).
> >
> > "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are
> > an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of
> > my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the
> > life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."
> >
> > Abraham lived to 175, Isaac to 180, and Jacob was dying at 130.  Why
> > look for complicated explanations when there is an obvious simple one?
> >
>
>  Notice that Isaac lived more years than Abraham. Yet in the context of how
> people though in Jacobs day, Abraham lived in the age when days and years
> had longer durations.

Again, you are assuming your conclusion.  A 5 year difference in
lifetime between father and son is not significant.  On the other hand,
Jacob's lifetime is significantly shorter, in line with the average
trend down from 900+ years lifespans down to 70+ years.

There is no need to indulge in fanciful stuff like this to account for
the age of the outer universe.  Relativistic effects are a much more
likely answer.

The reason that we see time as linear is that our culture is ultimately
based on the bible, which sees time moving from creation, through fall,
to redemption and ultimate restoration, as opposed to the Hindu idea of
everything repeating.

David,

Me thinks you have been drinking the Kool-aid of naturalism. You give your
opinions as though they are fact while admitting you have no study to cite. One
thing I learned for certain in grad school is that is is not so difficult to
find relationships in data and even to link data as related.  But determining
which data is the cause as which is the effect is not so easy. You are making a
leap when you say that evangelicals are easiest to turn to atheists because they
were brought up young earth.  First, many evangelicals are not young earth.
Second, it is more likely the problem s that the youth were not taught the good
science of young earth.

Here is why the Bible teaches against evolution-long ages, which are directly
related.  Old age is required to support evolution, though not the converse. All
the days of creation are called good and summarized at the end as very good. 
The last enemy is death. If death occurred before the fitst man (day six in
Genesis) then the previous time before death was not good. Some argue that the
only problem here is spiritual death, but that does not follow logically because
the entire creation groans for redemption. If death occurred before Adam, then
Adam walked around on fossils of dead things. This is scripturally impossible.
If Adam did not walk around on fossils then the fossils were deposited in the
flood and in the 4200 years since the flood.


David says: "It might surprise you to learn that many of the first geologists
that stumbled upon the old age of the earth were Christians who were searching
for evidence of an old earth to counter the then fashionable atheist idea that
the earth was far younger than the age that many Christians suggested their
understanding of the old testament would create.  There is some evidence to
suggest that Bishop Usshers highly speculative age of the earth that is now
popular amongst young earth anti-evolutionists was also an attempt to counter
the then popular older chronologies of some Christians, so derided by atheists."

The paragraph of yours above is absurd.  Please cite a source form a
professional journal of philosophy of science or some other reputable area of
study. I have studied this extensively. Materialism began the takeover of the
intellectuals in the 1600s and became quite strong in the 1700s.  By the 1800s,
materialist were in control of the universities.  Christians that began
accepting an old earth in the late 1700s and early 1800s, thereby undermining
the truth of the Bible, did so so they would be acceptable to the
materialist/university hierarchy. Unlike you, I will cite a source:

Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard, in
‘Natural History’ Feb 1975 p.16.

‘Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most
brilliant briefs published by an advocate. … Lyell relied upon true bits of
cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First,
he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more
empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require
catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To
circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the
evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must
interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The
catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded
theological apologists.’

Do you know what Lyell's straw-man argument was?  If you don't, you need to
start doing some research and read Lyell's Principles of Geology.  All 3 volumes
are available from google books at no cost. First note that Lyell was not a
geologist.  Second he stated in correspondence to a friend that this goal with
his work in geology was to "remove Moses from geology."  In other words, he
hated God and was seeking to overthrow the flood story in the Bible.  Note that
Gould shows it was the YEC who were doing the real science at the time.  Lyell's
suggestion is to ignore what we can see and image what we cannot see (as long as
your imaginative geology doesn't show any catastrophe). Lyell was quite willing
to lie to support his hate of God. He spent one day at Niagara Falls. The
Niagara River is about 25,000 feet long.  He asked the folks of the area how
much the falls erode back each years. They told him 3 to 7 feet, He returned to
England,and finished volume three in which he stated the erosion was occurring
at the rate of 1 foot per year (Ranney: Carving Grand Canyon, 2007).  Why?
Because at one foot per year it would take 25,000 years and EVERYBODY knew that
the Bible taught the earth was only 6000 years old. (The evos get it, it seems
you are the only one who doesn't.)

I can gave you quotes form Hubble to Hawking to the Dawkins that show they
believe what they believe, not because of scientific evidence, but because the
idea of God or the idea that the Bible is true is unacceptable. Here are a few
for you reading pleasure:

Why the big bang:  Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42:

"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same
whichever  direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special
about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe
all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of
the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might
look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we
have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence
for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it
would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction
around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

“Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position… But the
unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs… is
intolerable… moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the
theory postulates homogeneity.”  Hubble The Observational Approach”  1937, pp.
50-59 (This was by Hubble after he saw that all stars are moving away form us...
the evidence taken without overriding philosophy indicated that we are at the
center of the universe).

From the "Richard Dawkins" of the 1950s and 60s:

1954 There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous
generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of
God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture
and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as
a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically
because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that
which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution. Dr. George Wald professor emeritus biology Harvard University. Nobel
Prize winner in biology. The Origin of Life, Scientific American, Vol. 190,
August 1954, pp. 44-53

1955 Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous
to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show
deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known
which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body
reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to
their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority,
and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in
the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics,
and Man (1955), p. 105  (this is still true)

1971 After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Richard
Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly
micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would
still be no new species." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried Pg. 33. 1971

1978 Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the
desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the
very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and
Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the SORRY REMAINS of
the SON of GOD. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is
what evolution means, then CHRISTIANITY is NOTHING. G.R. Bozarth, The Meaning of
Evolution, American Atheist, 9-78, Vol. 20, p. 30.

1980 In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations
to fit with it. H.S. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin,
Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)

Take Care,


Guy Forsythe

Guy@...
http://www.cryingrocks.org

On May 30, 2012, at 12:08 PM, David Evarts wrote:

> It might surprise you to learn that many of the first geologists that stumbled
upon the old age of the earth were Christians who were searching for evidence of
an old earth to counter the then fashionable atheist idea that the earth was far
younger than the age that many Christians suggested their understanding of the
old testament would create.  There is some evidence to suggest that Bishop
Usshers highly speculative age of the earth that is now popular amongst young
earth anti-evolutionists was also an attempt to counter the then popular older
chronologies of some Christians, so derided by atheists.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Victor says: "Christianity is not opposed to science at all. It is opposed to
> philosophical naturalism, which is the basic assumption behind long ages
> and common descent."

The assumption behind science is methodological naturalism, not philosophical
naturalism.  It is the same assumption used by anti-evolutionists when they
attempt to advance alternative "science".  It is necessary and useful to assume
that the natural world is knowable and evidence of itself and that testing and
predictive power are strong indicators of material reality.  Essentially,
anti-evolutionary folks have taken "philosophical naturalism" with it's beleifs
that are outside of science, as an excuse for the fact that the material world
does not match their predictions. 

Victor says: "Science and philosophical naturalism are one and the same."

That is your opinion and not one for which I have been shown any biblical,
scientific or logically compelling evidence.

Victor says: " There is not a
single verse in the Bible that requires a scientific mindset to understand
it as the author could have intended. In fact western science was recently
built on philosophical ideas (metaphysics) first attempted by the pagan
philosophers and later modified and established as dogma by medieval
friars. The Bible predicted the idea upon which western science was
contrived - that all things remain the same. Almost every definition,
measuring unit and mathematical theory in science depends on the
unsupported assumption that the properties of matter are fixed, not
emerging. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change
(Greek phthora) which we confirm with sight since we can directly compare
the past to the present with light transmitted long ago."

Victor, you seem to have a number of problem there.  How can you compare the
past with the present with light transmitted long ago, if in the past the nature
of light and all else was different?  There may be indications of change, as you
suggest and, in fact, science is often looking for and often finding indications
that properties of matter have changed. What you need to do, if you'd like to
present science rather than somewhat garbled philosophy is to formulate your
hypothesis and based on that submit your predictions.  If your predictions can
be tested, you are using the tool of empirical science (i.e. naturalistic
methodology).

Victor says: "I am a Changing Earth Creationist, which is fundamentally
different from
either a young earth or old earth creationists. Changing Earth Creationists
try to understand the literal creation and earth history texts in the
system of reasoning current during the biblical age, which was the opposite
to how scientists think. Ancient people saw never ending change in the very
places scientists imagine constants. The visible history and age of the
cosmos support the simple, ancient non philosophical way of thinking.
Indeed the vast age of the cosmos is the most powerful evidence for a
literal biblical creation. We see the creation as it happened long ago and
what is visible is exactly what the literal text describes. However, no
scientist, YE, OE or evolutionist can believe the visible history of the
cosmos because everything is changing and in their system matter is not
allowed to change by definition."

That's interesting.  How do the predictions of Changing Earth Creationists
differ from those of young earth creationists?  Are CECs also
anti-evolutionary?  Do they postulate a 6-10,000 yeard old earth? What should
the universe look like under a changing earth scenario?  Your last line seems a
bit of hyperbole.  YE folks may postulate that the properties of matter never
change or that they change in unexpected ways or any number of things. 
Scientists, on the other hand, expect change.  In example, evolution is change. 
We cannot make useful predictions if some properties of matter are subject to
change.  In example, if God is routinely changing the properties of atoms in
order to make the earth look younger, we can't test that.  We have to assume
that God is not a charlatan and that, for the purpose of testing, matter is what
it is.  But, there are sometimes ways that we can detect change and predictions
that can be made based on change and
  those can fall within the realm of science.  In example young-earthers often
claim that various radiometric dating techniques routinely give ages far too
long. If you predict an age that is longer than the radioactive decay allows,
the result (for someone who can follow the math) is that the age you read is
very short.  So, your task as a changing earth creationist, if you'd like to
apply the understandably limited, but powerful within their realm, tools of
science is to make a clear hypothesis and following predictions, preferabbly
those predictions that would be unlikely to look the same under any other
hypothesis and think about how you would detect your expected results.  Good
luck.

May the Lord quicken your thoughts.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stevee says "A complete study has been done on why young people are leaving the
church. The major factor is due to compromises to the truth of the Bible that
lead to disbelief in God’s word which we know

From Timothy is “God Breathed�. One major factor in turning away is the
general theory of evolution which is anti-Creator, anti-God, and anti-Biblical.
Why don’t these superior thinkers who support evolution inside the church sit
down and debate with someone like Jonathan Sarfati? I am still looking for any
of them to explain universal information (code based) and where it came from in
life. "

Stevee, if you mean the books on the subject published by Answers in Genesis Ken
Ham.  It's methodologically too weak to use as evidence and seems to be focused
more on polemics than useful sociology.  Jonathon Sarfatis ideas have been
addressed numerous times on both the scientific and biblical levels.  A quick
google search will show you as much.   You may not be aware of this as a large
segment of young-earthists really do not want to acknowledge that their
interpretation of the Bible and their alternative science relies on assumptions
that most Christians and most scientists (and yes, at least half of working
American biologists are Christians) find unfounded.

May the Lord bless your search for truth. :)  -David

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 20:59 -0700, Victor McAllister wrote:
> >
> > Christianity is not opposed to science at all.  It is opposed to
> > philosophical naturalism, which is the basic assumption behind long ages
> > and common descent.
> >
> >
> Science and philosophical naturalism are one and the same.

No they are not.  Science is the investigation of the material world as
it is, a universe created by God.  Philosophical naturalism denies God
as one of its axioms.

>  There is not a
> single verse in the Bible that requires a scientific mindset to understand
> it as the author could have intended.

That may be true. I can't think of a counter-example at present.

>  In fact western science was recently
> built on philosophical ideas (metaphysics) first attempted by the pagan
> philosophers and later modified and established as dogma by medieval
> friars. The Bible predicted the idea upon which western science was
> contrived - that all things remain the same. Almost every definition,
> measuring unit and mathematical theory in science depends on the
> unsupported assumption that the properties of matter are fixed, not
> emerging. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change
> (Greek phthora) which we confirm with sight since we can directly compare
> the past to the present with light transmitted long ago.

Rubbish.  This is yet another example of tendentious translation.  φθο�α
means "decay", not "change".  In modern scientific terms, this is
entropy and more; in biblical terms it is the curse resulting from
sin.

Science assumes that things remain the same, and it is founded not on
mediaeval friars but on the bible, because it is Christ who maintains
the universe and he is faithful, so that it does not arbitrarily change.
It is because of this foundation that science and technology took off
with the Protestant reformation.

Indeed, the scripture promises that things will remain unchanged until
the end:

Ascribe to the LORD the glory due his name;
bring an offering and come before him!
Worship the LORD in the splendour of holiness;
tremble before him, all the earth;
yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved.
(1 Chr 16:29-30)

He set the earth on its foundations,
so that it should never be moved.
(Ps 104:5)

> I am a Changing Earth Creationist, which is fundamentally different from
> either a young earth or old earth creationists. Changing Earth Creationists
> try to understand the literal creation and earth history texts in the
> system of reasoning current during the biblical age, which was the opposite
> to how scientists think. Ancient people saw never ending change in the very
> places scientists imagine constants.

Evidence?  And even if it is true, were they right?

> The visible history and age of  the
> cosmos support the simple, ancient non philosophical way of thinking.
> Indeed the vast age of the cosmos is  the most powerful evidence for a
> literal biblical creation.

What?!?  You seem to be going out of your way to say that you don't
believe in the literal biblical account, which gives us creation over 6
days, about 6,000 years ago, and then you say the opposite?  Presumably
your definition of literal is not literal.

> We see the creation as it happened long ago and
> what is visible is exactly what the literal text describes. However, no
> scientist, YE, OE or evolutionist can believe the visible history of the
> cosmos because everything is changing and in their system matter is not
> allowed to change by definition.

I consider all this to be garbage of the first order.

Guy:

Thank you for two things:

1. Defending YEC against an in-house canard, and

2. Providing valuable insight that I did not previously have.

I tend not to care what others think. I speak the truth as I see it.
When someone has a good idea, I can talk to them by telephone or in
person. So I didn't research Charles Lyell that closely. I knew he was a
liar and a pompous fraud, but I didn't know /how big a fraud/ until you
just showed this group.

I knew that Edwin Hubble wanted to remove the very idea that the
universe had a center, and we were at it. I likewise knew that Stephen
Hawking was and is an extremely bitter man. (And one willing to sound
lurid alarms about /extra-systemic attack/.) I didn't catch Hawking's
finding that a center would be "remarkable." You want to know what /I/
find remarkable? That anyone would take seriously a universal geometry
that shows that the universe that we live in, lacks a center!

And there's something else to consider: to the extent that mutations
change anything, they add up to make things worse. Things are so bad
that humanity is looking at certain extinction. Or it would, except for
one thing: God is planning a Big Operation to conquer Satan's domain and
give humanity a thousand years of peace--under Direct Divine governance.
I don't usually cite eschatology when discussion creation, because after
all, creation is about first thing, not last. But it's relevant this
time. If laypeople fully realized what's been happening to the human
race all this time, they'd likely go utterly mad. ("And they're coming
to take us away, ha-haaa!" Who's coming? Blank-out.) Could this be what
Jesus meant when He said, "Except these things be shortened, no one
would be saved alive"? Could be.

Temlakos

On 05/30/2012 11:16 PM, Guy Forsythe wrote:
> David,
>
> Me thinks you have been drinking the Kool-aid of naturalism. You give your
opinions as though they are fact while admitting you have no study to cite. One
thing I learned for certain in grad school is that is is not so difficult to
find relationships in data and even to link data as related.  But determining
which data is the cause as which is the effect is not so easy. You are making a
leap when you say that evangelicals are easiest to turn to atheists because they
were brought up young earth.  First, many evangelicals are not young earth.
Second, it is more likely the problem s that the youth were not taught the good
science of young earth.
>
> Here is why the Bible teaches against evolution-long ages, which are directly
related.  Old age is required to support evolution, though not the converse. All
the days of creation are called good and summarized at the end as very good. 
The last enemy is death. If death occurred before the fitst man (day six in
Genesis) then the previous time before death was not good. Some argue that the
only problem here is spiritual death, but that does not follow logically because
the entire creation groans for redemption. If death occurred before Adam, then
Adam walked around on fossils of dead things. This is scripturally impossible.
If Adam did not walk around on fossils then the fossils were deposited in the
flood and in the 4200 years since the flood.
>
>
> David says: "It might surprise you to learn that many of the first geologists
that stumbled upon the old age of the earth were Christians who were searching
for evidence of an old earth to counter the then fashionable atheist idea that
the earth was far younger than the age that many Christians suggested their
understanding of the old testament would create.  There is some evidence to
suggest that Bishop Usshers highly speculative age of the earth that is now
popular amongst young earth anti-evolutionists was also an attempt to counter
the then popular older chronologies of some Christians, so derided by atheists."
>
> The paragraph of yours above is absurd.  Please cite a source form a
professional journal of philosophy of science or some other reputable area of
study. I have studied this extensively. Materialism began the takeover of the
intellectuals in the 1600s and became quite strong in the 1700s.  By the 1800s,
materialist were in control of the universities.  Christians that began
accepting an old earth in the late 1700s and early 1800s, thereby undermining
the truth of the Bible, did so so they would be acceptable to the
materialist/university hierarchy. Unlike you, I will cite a source:
>
> Gould, Stephen Jay, Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard, in
'Natural History' Feb 1975 p.16.
>
> 'Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most
brilliant briefs published by an advocate. ... Lyell relied upon true bits of
cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First,
he set up a straw man to demolish. ... In fact, the catastrophists were much
more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require
catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To
circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the
evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must
interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The
catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded
theological apologists.'
>
> Do you know what Lyell's straw-man argument was?  If you don't, you need to
start doing some research and read Lyell's Principles of Geology.  All 3 volumes
are available from google books at no cost. First note that Lyell was not a
geologist.  Second he stated in correspondence to a friend that this goal with
his work in geology was to "remove Moses from geology."  In other words, he
hated God and was seeking to overthrow the flood story in the Bible.  Note that
Gould shows it was the YEC who were doing the real science at the time.  Lyell's
suggestion is to ignore what we can see and image what we cannot see (as long as
your imaginative geology doesn't show any catastrophe). Lyell was quite willing
to lie to support his hate of God. He spent one day at Niagara Falls. The
Niagara River is about 25,000 feet long.  He asked the folks of the area how
much the falls erode back each years. They told him 3 to 7 feet, He returned to
England,and finished volume three in which he sta
> ted the erosion was occurring at the rate of 1 foot per year (Ranney: Carving
Grand Canyon, 2007).  Why? Because at one foot per year it would take 25,000
years and EVERYBODY knew that the Bible taught the earth was only 6000 years
old. (The evos get it, it seems you are the only one who doesn't.)
>
> I can gave you quotes form Hubble to Hawking to the Dawkins that show they
believe what they believe, not because of scientific evidence, but because the
idea of God or the idea that the Bible is true is unacceptable. Here are a few
for you reading pleasure:
>
> Why the big bang:  Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42:
>
> "Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same
whichever  direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special
about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe
all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of
the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might
look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we
have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption. We have no scientific evidence
for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it
would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction
around us, but not around other points in the universe!"
>
> "Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position... But the
unwelcome supposition of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... is
intolerable... moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the
theory postulates homogeneity."  Hubble The Observational Approach"  1937, pp.
50-59 (This was by Hubble after he saw that all stars are moving away form us...
the evidence taken without overriding philosophy indicated that we are at the
center of the universe).
>
> > From the "Richard Dawkins" of the 1950s and 60s:
>
> 1954 There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous
generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of
God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture
and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as
a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically
because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that
which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution. Dr. George Wald professor emeritus biology Harvard University. Nobel
Prize winner in biology. The Origin of Life, Scientific American, Vol. 190,
August 1954, pp. 44-53
>
> 1955 Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous
to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show
deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known
which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body
reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to
their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority,
and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in
the normal environments are unknown. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics,
and Man (1955), p. 105  (this is still true)
>
> 1971 After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Richard
Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly
micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would
still be no new species." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried Pg. 33. 1971
>
> 1978 Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the
desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the
very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and
Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the SORRY REMAINS of
the SON of GOD. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is
what evolution means, then CHRISTIANITY is NOTHING. G.R. Bozarth, The Meaning of
Evolution, American Atheist, 9-78, Vol. 20, p. 30.
>
> 1980 In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all
scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations
to fit with it. H.S. Lipson, A Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin,
Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980)
>
> Take Care,
>
>
> Guy Forsythe
>
> Guy@...
> http://www.cryingrocks.org
>
> On May 30, 2012, at 12:08 PM, David Evarts wrote:
>
>> It might surprise you to learn that many of the first geologists that
stumbled upon the old age of the earth were Christians who were searching for
evidence of an old earth to counter the then fashionable atheist idea that the
earth was far younger than the age that many Christians suggested their
understanding of the old testament would create.  There is some evidence to
suggest that Bishop Usshers highly speculative age of the earth that is now
popular amongst young earth anti-evolutionists was also an attempt to counter
the then popular older chronologies of some Christians, so derided by atheists.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ============================================
> CreationTalk email listserv
> Northwest Creation Networkhttp://nwcreation.net/
> CreationWikihttp://creationwiki.org/
> ============================================Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of davidevartsii
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 4:02 PM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty



> Hi Chuck, I'll just deal with a couple of the misunderstandings in your
note.

You seem to be the one with the misunderstandings

>>Even today this evolutionary theoretical system
>>starts with the atheistic world view of Naturalism"

>>I can understand why naturalistic methodology gets confused with atheism,
>>particularly as many anti-theists beleive that nothing can be true that
cannot
>>be tested empirically. This makes it especially important to differentiate

>>between naturalistic methodology and philosophical naturalism.

I am nit confusing metrological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. I
was specifically referring to philosophical naturalism. The simple fact is
that the enter Big Bang to man evolutionary theoretical system has
philosophical naturalism as a starting assumption the fact that atheists use
metrological naturalism get others to accept their Godless assumptions does
not change this fact. Also YE's do not technically use metrological
naturalism since metrological naturalism still refuses to consider
supernatural explanations and YE's even if sparingly.

> Evolution cannot speak to the existance of God or that he is responsible
for
> creation. It can only test natural phenomena.

Except for the fact that when it come to Big Bang to man evolution or even
Microbe to man evolution the central presupposition is that there no
inelegant involvement in origins. The entire goal of the evolutionary
theoretical system is to eliminate any need for God. Adding God to this
atheistic mythology is like painting fire on a car an expecting it to go
faster. That is you are adding a logically usless and meaningless extra.

> A young earth can be tested and found not to match the evidence.

> Evolution can be tested and found to match the evidence.



You are confusing evidence for the way that evidence is interpreted. You can
not use the interpretation of evidence from one theoretical system to test
another theoretical system to. This is a logical fallacy. What you are
calling evidence is actually an evolutionary interpretation of the actual
evidence. So it is no surprise that a Young Earth model would not match
these interpretations while Evolution does.



> In this way wrong ideas about scripture can be discounted. At one time,
most
> Christians felt that the Bible taught that the sun revolved the earth.
This matched
> their understanding of scripture. We were able to test this using the tool
of
> naturalistic methodology and find that it was indeed a misreading of
scripture.



This a false analogy. No place in the Bible does is actually say the sun
revolves around the Earth. The geocentric interaction of the Bible was
actually are result of an external view that had its roots in the  Ptolemy
model of universe. The Young Earth interpretation is taken from the Bible
alone with out ans in spite of external influences.

> As YE views are but one understanding of the Bible and include a large
amount of
> extra-biblical ideas and recent additions, it's innacurate to suggest that
they are more
> biblical than most of Christianity.



While it true that the Young Earth interpretation is but one interpretation
is the one historically held by Christians prior to the 1800's and it is
based in what the Bible actually says with out adding to it. The "large
amount of extra-biblical ideas" you speak of are a scientific theoretical
system built on the Bible. If you strip all of that away you still have the
purely Biblical ideas at the foundation.

>It's not surprising that when a very vocal sub-set of Christianity claims
that the Bible

> is opposed to well founded science that anti-theists would agree with
them."



What well founded science would that be? No Gravity. Not Relativity, Not
Quantum Mechanics. Since we are specifically talking Young Earth Creation we
are talking about the 4.5 billion year age sited for the Earth. That age is
based on a paper called "Age of meteorites and the earth" by Claire
Patterson in 1956. He assumed that the Solar system including the Earth
naturally formed from a collapsing cloud dust and gas.



1. This assumption is contrary the Young Earth Creation and Biblical idea of
the Earth being created by God on day one of creation. As result it is no
surprise that the results don't fit Young Earth Model.

2. The nebular model of planet formation has had a lousy track record of
predicting planetary armaments around other start resulting in it being
patched so as to fir reality.

3. Patterson his self indicates that if the Earth did not form in the way he
assume it that the Earth could be any age less than 4.5 billion year. Last
time I checked a math book 6000 was less than 4.5 billion and so fits with
that point.



So once again what we well founded science are you referring to. Also how do
define "well founded science"?



A Creation Science Research Group called RATE studied the issue of
radiometric dating and found evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the
Helium diffusion rates in Zircon crystals. The modeled a supernatural
creation about 6000 years ago with accelerated nuclear decay and the
evolutionary date for the sample of 1.5 billion years and predicted the
Helium diffusion rates that would produce the amount helium in the zircon
crystals they were studying. The actual measurements matched the creation
model exactly and were orders of magnitude larger that predicted by the
evolutionary model. So which view opposes science?







------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/>  Mission

Online <http://store.gscim.com/>  Store

Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/>  Mission

Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern scholars would generally beg to differ with
you, especially regarding your idea that it wasn't until the 1800s that folks
noticed the gaps in geneologies. 



________________________________
From: Oliver Elphick <olly@...>
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty

On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 08:27 -0700, David Evarts wrote:
> Young-earth advocates appear to take bits and peices of scripture out
> of context and out of meaning to create support their alternative
> science, without acknowledging that they are being, at best,
> selectively literal.  In example, the biblical geneologies contain
> many gaps of indeterminate length.

That's selective in itself.  The genealogy in Matthew is selective, but
the one in Luke is not.  The genealogies in Genesis give the age of the
father at the birth of each son from Adam down to Abraham.  So the flood
occurred about 1656 years after creation and Abraham was about 2000
years after creation.  There isn't any gap in those genealogies, nor did
anyone think there was any need to claim there was until people in the
18th century began (for no good reason) to claim the biblical account
was not true.



------------------------------------

============================================
CreationTalk email listserv
Northwest Creation Network http://nwcreation.net/
CreationWiki http://creationwiki.org/
============================================Yahoo! Groups Links



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Oliver Elphick <olly@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 11:55 -0700, Victor McAllister wrote:
> > As you mentioned ekpalai is an adverb. The verb esan from eini is
> > imperfect, active indicative. An imperfect verb shows an action that
> > repeatedly happens.
>
> That is one use of the imperfect, translated as "used to do". Another
> use is continuing action, translated as "was doing". Continuing action
> is the first choice for translation, particularly with a verb like "to
> be".
>

Agreed, teh plural heavens continue to do something that makes them very
ancient.

>
>
> > As you mentioned ekpalai has to do with a great while
> > ago, ancient. Why would the combination of ek (to come out from a point
> of
> > origin) and palai indicate antiquity? Palin has to do with again,
> > repetitions, once more.
>
> And here we are not dealing with "palin", but with "ekpalai". This is
> taking your conclusions and forcing them into the text with a
> sledgehammer. It is Humpty Dumpty's approach to language!
>

Palin is a related word.


>
>
> > During the biblical age, people never held the notion that time existed
> or
> > flowed.
>
> Biblical evidence?
>

Solomon plainly stated in Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God put olam in our minds
(same as heart in Hebrew), Olam is the Hebrew name for eons, time out of
mind because it is not now present. In this chapter He uses eth (the event
time 32 times. It is because God put time in our minds (olam) that we
cannot understand the perfections of all that God has done from beginning
to end. We cannot understand earth history because we have time in our
minds. He only uses olam in one other reference in this chapter. What GOd
does is for olam, eons, which unlike what we do since the eth cycles
destroy all that we build. God judges the past, not the future. Time does
not exist either for man or for God. Time is a concept in our mind.

Most modern Christians seem to follow Augustine's concept of time which is
diametrically opposite to Solomon's, the biblical version of time.
Augustine imagined that God created time, that He is not in time but we
are. That God is eternal and sees all of time at once. He got these ideas
from the pagan philosopher Plotinus, not from the literal text of the
Bible. Literally time has no existence. It is a concept that is very
important - because we it to frame history,m to make appointments, to
predict the future - but there is not time entity. It is in out minds just
like Solomon stated.


>
>
> > You could not run out of time unless you died since time was
> > associated with the events of your life. The new moon was an event and
> when
> > you saw the new moon you blew the trumpet to indicate that the event had
> > arrived. Plutarch mentions that 2750 years ago, the Roman months
> sometimes
> > had 20 days and sometimes 35. The month was not a measurement of time,
> but
> > the cyclical return of the new moon. If it was raining and you could not
> > see the moon, the month ran for more days. The first Roman calendar also
> > had only 10 named months. September 7, October 8, November 9, December 10
> > were numbered months. The months Janauarius and Februarius were not named
> > until the days of king Numa.
>
> Our knowledge of what happened during the days of the kings is very
> sparse. King Numa himself is not even certainly known to have existed!
> Knowledge of that time was not particularly great even in the time of
> Plutarch, who wrote 800 years after the founding of the city.
>
> The Roman calendar was not automatically fitted to the solar year until
> the time of Caesar and it was the responsibility of the pontifex maximus
> to insert intercalary days and months to keep the months in line with
> the seasons. Some of them bothered and some of them didn't, which could
> lead to large changes when a new man came into office.
>
>
No ancient calendar measured time. They were simply recording the passage
of astronomical events. They tuned their lives to nature, not to calendars.
They adjusted their calendars to fit the cycles of nature, not concepts of
fixed time like we do. Scientists have filled the universe up with magic,
undetectable things like spacetime that changes the frequencies of all
light passing through the void in order to fit the western concept of time.
No clock, when we observe the universe near or far, is clocking the
frequencies of modern atoms yet yet force the whole universe to fit our
concept of time whith which we measure thousands of symbolical versions of
reality - empirical science.


>
> > Evidently a month without agricultural activity
> > had no need for a name. Time had no independent existence.
>
> That does not logically follow. The months are actually governed by the
> moon, which is visible to everyone. After all, that is why God made the
> heavenly bodies - to regulate times and seasons. (Genesis 1:14)
>
> Did you notice on this day that Elohim continued to FORM the Sun, Moon and
stars and continued to place them in the spreading place (raqiya). Over the
centuries astronomers have continued to measure a decreasing solar
parallax. THe parallax to nearby planets has also continued to change even
during the 2004 Venus transit. We should expect from the literal text of
the Bible that the solar system has continued to expand for which there is
ample historical evidence. Yet scientists measure the solar system with a
CONCEPT of linear time and claim the orbits are clock-like. Yet we can see
the history of galaxies how they formed, which exactly fits the Biblical
statements about how GOd continues to spread out the plural heavens. The
atomic clocks and the stars streams both accelerate together (optically) in
billions of galaxies at many ranges.


>
> > No one during the biblical age could imagine that the cycles of the
> heavens
> > were linear. Their histories were about how the planet positions had
> > changed since the days of their fathers and how the earliest people lived
> > for eons. Hesiod groaned that he was born in the iron generation when men
> > never stopped laboring by day and dying by night. His ancestors lived in
> > the age of kronos when life ran for vast eons. He believed this
> > degeneration would continue until children are born with grey temples.
> > People who think like that cannot imagine linear time.
>
> This is very speculative, and furthermore it is in the Greek culture,
> not in the Hebrew one.
>
>

No ancient civilization could imagine time the way we do nor could they
even dream that it was linear. Read  "Cosmos And History The Myth Of The
Eternal Return"
by Mircea Eliade who documented how ancient people resisted the modern
concept of history.


Give me one example. This language rather assumes a modern knowledge of
> what a planet is, doesn't it?
>

The pagans followed the planets in their cycles, read Babylonian
Astronomical Cuneiform Texts by Neugebauer. They worshiped them as gods as
well as invented lists of expectations (omens) for what would happen when
the planets returned to some previous position. The Bible clearly condemns
the worshiping of the planet gods, which in the case of the Canaanites was
sexual. Every 399 days Jupiter (Baal) disappeared into the underworld and
the Canaanites practiced immorality trying to bring the planet back to the
visible sky.

Yet the Bible mentions the shattering of rahab (mighty stormy) four times
in language almost identical to the Canaanites for the shattering of one of
their planet gods. Evidently a planet really was shattered since we find
thousands of angular planet pieces complete with volcanic crystals and
rocks formed in liquid water in the asteroids and comets.

Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in
the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not You who cut
Rahabin pieces, Who pierced the dragon?"
(The dragon is a tanniyn - a sea serpent). Three other passages mention the
crushing of Rahab - Job 9:13; Job 26:12 and Palm 89:10. The word
Rahabmeans storm, pride or arrogance. (
Rahab
the woman and Rahab the sky object are not spelled the same in Hebrew). The
Canaanites recorded that Baal (Jupiter) smote Leviathan the twisting
serpent, the tyrant with seven heads.
Perhaps each watery planet chunk produced a trail of vapor that combined
into what looked like a seven-headed snake to the Canaanites. Thousands of
asteroids and comets orbit our Sun
containing rocks that formed in liquid water (cubanite) and others that
formed under volcanic conditions (fosterite). Evidently a watery planet was
shattered, as ancient people recorded.

Isaiah wrote that Rahab was crushed in the generations of long ago. How
long ago was that? Don't try to twist the Bible to fit modern notions of
linear time and clock-like orbits. Creationsts have been tailoring the
Bible to fit science now for several generations and the more they do the
more they drive people away from the truth of the Bible.



> > Since the
> > Bible mentions this four times, using language similar to the Canaanites,
> > we should accept that a planet really was crushed.
>
> Bible references, please.
>
>
THe Bible uses the word

>
> > Yet the bible condemns
> > worshiping the planets as gods, such as Baal (Jupiter). The Bible, like
> the
> > ancient Babylonians, mentions a close passages that affected things on
> > earth, in the manner the Babylonians recorded (rain in the mountains).
> > Judges 5:20 mentions the (plural) kokabiym fought from their courses.
> This
> > word can refer to stars but kokab is also Mercury and kokab nogah is
> Venus.
> > Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every inferior conjunction
> > (which will happen next week). The same longitude on the surface of Venus
> > points to the Earth at each conjunction. Yet we do not experience
> Venusian
> > tides today. All ancient people feared the days when Venus passed and
> > brought devastation to Earth.
>
> I've heard the theory that Mars' orbit used to approach the earth's
> closely, which is why it is regarded as ominous. I have never heard
> this about Venus.
>

I wrote a short essay on the Venus resonance here:

http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/05/venus-resonance-and-biblical-history.html


>
> Wikipedia on orbital resonance:
> "A number of near-integer-ratio relationships between the orbital
> frequencies of the planets or major moons are sometimes pointed out (see
> list below). However, these have no dynamical significance because there
> is no appropriate precession of perihelion or other libration to make
> the resonance perfect (see the detailed discussion in the section
> above). Such near resonances are dynamically insignificant even if the
> mismatch is quite small because (unlike a true resonance), after each
> cycle the relative position of the bodies shifts. When averaged over
> astronomically short timescales, their relative position is random, just
> like bodies that are nowhere near resonance. For example, consider the
> orbits of Earth and Venus, which arrive at almost the same configuration
> after 8 Earth orbits and 13 Venus orbits. The actual ratio is
> 0.61518624, which is only 0.032% away from exactly 8:13. The mismatch
> after 8 years is only 1.5° of Venus' orbital movement. Still, this is
> enough that Venus and Earth find themselves in the opposite relative
> orientation to the original every 120 such cycles, which is 960 years.
> Therefore, on timescales of thousands of years or more (still tiny by
> astronomical standards), their relative position is effectively random."
>
>
> >
> > During the biblical age, people looked back with longing on the times of
> > their fathers who lived in the great time when the cycles of the heavens
> > were ponderously slow (Genesis 47:9).
>
> And Jacob said to Pharaoh, “The days of the years of my sojourning are
> 130 years. Few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and
> they have not attained to the days of the years of the life of my
> fathers in the days of their sojourning.”
>
> Again, this is forcing your theory into the text.
>
> Theories are based on principles. Science got its principles from Friar
Aquinas and Scotus, who modified the principles of the pagan Aristotle to
fit the Bible. We should get our principles from the text of Scripture, not
science, whose principle is predicted in the Bible and clearly
denied.Science was founded on a single idea - that all things remain the
same. The definitions, methods, measuring symbols and mathematical
constants of science were constructed on that assumption which is why
creation scientists have been so utterly unable to tailor the Bible to fit
science. If we stick to the text, as a contemporary would have understood
it, the evidence for creation is overwhelming since we can see it happening
in the distant sky long ago. No scientist can believe the visible creation
because it is a violation of the creed of science, that the properties of
matter are fixed, not continually emerging relationally. He commands us in
the imperative to lift up our eyes and look and what we see is exactly what
the Creator says He is doing and has done.




>
> > We confirm that they were right
> > because we observe in innumerable spiral galaxies how the star streams
> > spiraled out, accelerating continually. What we observe is the most
> > powerful evidence for a biblical creation, that the universe has vast
> age,
> > yet few orbits have occurred because everything is changing in the very
> > manner that Paul explained in Romans 8:19 - 22. The degeneration is an
> > orderly submission, the creation is enslaved to change and he
> characterized
> > this with two Greek together verbs (relational change).
>
> For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons
> of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but
> because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will
> be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the
> glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has
> been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.
>
> Again, you cannot get your theory out of this text. It has to be forced
> into it.
>
> I am running out of time to respond at present. I have written extensively
on interpreting the Romans  8 text grammatically and literally instead of
scientifically. Here is an old one.

http://godsriddle.com/testimony/principles.html



> > It is not easy for Western people to take the Bible literally when it
> comes
> > to Earth history, because of a little assumption. This assumption is the
> > very one Peter predicted, the notion that all things remain the same. We
> > imagine that matter is not changing itself even though we can see tha
> past
> > all the way back to the creation age. Not only are the atomic clocks
> > accelerating but the galactic stars streams are also accelerating.
>
> But I think you are claiming that orbits are moving further apart. IN
> that case, the orbital speed must be slowing down and years becoming
> longer.
>
>
> > He warns
> > us not to be wise in ths age, because He is taking the wise with their
> own
> > skills. Telescopes are recording the creation right now as it hapenned
> long
> > ago. What is visible confirm the Biblical creation and also shows how
> > utterly He will make foolish western science, the system that was founded
> > on the very idea Peter predicted for the mockers of the last days.
>
> Science was founded on the bible. The methodology of science is fine
> for the things to which it is appropriate, and the proof of that is the
> technological advances it has brought. Its methodology is not so
> appropriate for investigating creation history.
>
> On the contrary science was founded on principles that came from the
philosophers. He warns us in the imperative (Colossians 2:8, that the
elementary principles of the world and philosophy would take us prisoner.
It is terrible to have ones mind in shackles.


>
> > > Elohim continued
> > > to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the
> > > spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation week according
> > > to the creation account. Orbits that spread apart - accelerate.
> >
> > If an orbiting body moves further away from the body around which it
> > > orbits, it slows down in the process. Thus the moon loses energy
> > > through tidal drag, slows down, and moves further away form the earth.
> > > So in what sense are things accelerated by being spread apart?
>
> I notice you have not answered this.
>

You are referencing your statement to clock, not to the visible history of
galaxies. All orbits in billions of spiral galaxies acclerate outward, as
the atomic clocks also acclerate, visibly not referenced to scientific
concepts of time,mass or energy that were contrived with the first
principle of science, the idea the Bible predicts and denies.

>
>
> > > > Jacob
> > > > claimed that his days and years were shorter and worse than the days
> > > > and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9).
> > >
> > > "And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage
> are
> > > an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of
> > > my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the
> > > life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage."
> > >
> > > Abraham lived to 175, Isaac to 180, and Jacob was dying at 130. Why
> > > look for complicated explanations when there is an obvious simple one?
> > >
> >
> > Notice that Isaac lived more years than Abraham. Yet in the context of
> how
> > people though in Jacobs day, Abraham lived in the age when days and years
> > had longer durations.
>
> Again, you are assuming your conclusion. A 5 year difference in
> lifetime between father and son is not significant. On the other hand,
> Jacob's lifetime is significantly shorter, in line with the average
> trend down from 900+ years lifespans down to 70+ years.
>
> There is no need to indulge in fanciful stuff like this to account for
> the age of the outer universe. Relativistic effects are a much more
> likely answer.
>
> The reason that we see time as linear is that our culture is ultimately
> based on the bible, which sees time moving from creation, through fall,
> to redemption and ultimate restoration, as opposed to the Hindu idea of
> everything repeating.
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/>  Mission

Online <http://store.gscim.com/>  Store

Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/>  Mission

Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>

   _____

From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of David Evarts
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:27 PM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty



> Although YE folks posit a super-speed evolution to acount for rapid

> diversification since the ark, 200 "positive" mutations per generation is

> indeed far to high for an organism to sustain and has not been seen in
> nature.  However, it would not require 200 "positive" mutations per
> generation for chimps and homo sapiens to have differentiated from
> our common ancestor, unless one "monkeys" with data.



On what are you basing this 200 "positive" mutations per generation bit?



In the model I know of the variation is a result in recombination and non
fatal detrimental mutations and requires no positive mutations at all.



>  Even "complex, specified information" has been observed to develop.



Please site a specific paper on this. I have read such claims before and
have actually turned out to be a loss of complex, specified information.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"Rubbish. This is yet another example of tendentious translation. φθο�α
means "decay", not "change". In modern scientific terms, this is
entropy and more; in biblical terms it is the curse resulting from
sin. "

Are you one of those who beleive the universe and/or the genome is decaying? 
Just curious.  I realize that YE views are in transition and not all beleive
the same things, but for those who follow the decay thing and apply their ideas
to the genome, you've got a testable proposition there. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is no "monkeying" with the data. The data is clear and the math simple.
The chimp genome is 8+% larger than the human genome. The latest studies are
showing the difference is at least 12% and may very likely be 30%. A chimp
generation is 13 years.  For convenience use 13 for a human generation (it is
actually longer).  I has been supposedly about 6 million years since the common
ancestor of chimps and humans. Divide 6 million years by 13 for the number of
generations.  Multiply by two for both species.  That is the total number of
generations in which the change can occur. The human genome is about 3 billion
base pairs. Multiply 3 billion by .12.  That is the number of changes between
the two genomes.  Divide that number by the number of generations calculated
above. Now try it with a 20% difference. Note that even an unrealistically low 
4% difference requires so many changes per generation that it could not be
sustained.

You defenders of evolution... bind your hands so yo can no longer pick up the
glass of kool-aid. You speak in generalities because real computation show the
foolishness of the idea of evolution.

Take Care,


Guy Forsythe

Guy@...
http://www.cryingrocks.org

On May 31, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Chuck wrote:

>
>
> ------ Charles Creager Jr.
>
> Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission
>
> Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store
>
> Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission
>
> Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>
>
> _____
>
> From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of David Evarts
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2012 12:27 PM
> To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Evolutionists getting nasty
>
> > Although YE folks posit a super-speed evolution to acount for rapid
>
> > diversification since the ark, 200 "positive" mutations per generation is
>
> > indeed far to high for an organism to sustain and has not been seen in
> > nature. However, it would not require 200 "positive" mutations per
> > generation for chimps and homo sapiens to have differentiated from
> > our common ancestor, unless one "monkeys" with data.
>
> On what are you basing this 200 "positive" mutations per generation bit?
>
> In the model I know of the variation is a result in recombination and non
> fatal detrimental mutations and requires no positive mutations at all.
>
> > Even "complex, specified information" has been observed to develop.
>
> Please site a specific paper on this. I have read such claims before and
> have actually turned out to be a loss of complex, specified information.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]