Creation vs. Evolution

markm2553 · Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:34 am Post subject:

II Peter 3:8

Says something about our day and Gods day... Wink

PunkStar · Posted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject:

There is a really good book on this subject that I have sitting in front of me right now. "The Genesis Record" by Henry M. Morris. He is actually a geologist and theologian. That book is actually a verse by verse discussion on all of Genesis, but it is a really good scientific look at creation too.

Dertsa, the book I just mentioned also says that Yom always refers to a literal day. Either as the 24 hour period, or as the specific daylight portion for a day. Here is another piece of ammunition to back that up though. God certainly couldn't have meant for Yom to be more than one literal day, because he actually defines his meaning. Genesis 1:5b "And the evening and the morning were the first day."

Your second paragraph makes a fair point if someone tries to tell you that evolution and creation coexist.

jon_baptist_89 · Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:39 am Post subject:

Hi, i'm Jonathan from KL
and i couldn't help but to add a few things for you all to consider:

All this nonsence about the earth being billions of years old is causing a stir in the Malaysian Education sector.

Just want you all to know that that the moon moves away from the earth by a small distance annually. Had the Evolutionists been correct in their theories, the earth wold have been out of sight by now. Less that a billion years ago, the earth would have been TOUCHING the moon!!!

So you see, the main prob here is not the age of the universe but actually the very existence of God.
These guys want God out of the equation so that they can be boss of their lives. With Him in the picture, you would have to submit, no?

dertsa · Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject:

jon_baptist_89,

Just a quick question. Where did you get your information about the moon moving anway from the earth? I would love to have either a copy of that, or some kind of way to show some people that. Awesome point by the way. God bless

Sam

jon_baptist_89 · Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:12 pm Post subject:

I got my facts from a few books in the Creation Science Series
well i came across them in my church's library and i thought i might find out some answers for myself.

i think the particular title is Evolution and the age of the universe.
in that book also the proof of radiohalos is brought up as evidence that that the earth was created in a very very short amount of time, almost immediately.

i'll post later on more of the subject as soon as God allows.
Thanks anyway 4 replying the post, i'm a freshie, you see... Wink

PunkStar · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:48 pm Post subject:

Welcome to the board jon, nice to have you with us. And it's always good to have another well-read individual with us.

I have also seen the fact that the moon is moving further way here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

Bates15 · Moderator Joined: 19 Feb 2002 Posts: 1084

That is indeed some interseting info there! Welcome to the board and we are looking forward to your next posts!

jon_baptist_89 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:20 am Post subject:

Right.
Anyway, as I've promised: RADIOHALOS

Basically, radiohalos are signatures caused by radioactive materials found in its natural state in rocks.
Because if the shape of the marks, hence the name halo.
Now, one may argue, "So what? That doesn't prove a thing."
My answer is that some of the isotopes that create those beautiful halos will become incapable of burning their signature mark within seconds.
That's because their half-life is very very short.

Now you just can't insert radioactive material (i.e. uranium, plutonium, etc.) directly into the rock.
Radiohalos only happen when the radioactive substance is inserted into the rock WHILE IT WAS IN ITS FORMATIVE, MOLTEN STAGE.
So it baffled leading geologists because it just isn't possible.
Correction: Humanly Possible.

Now, my bible tells me that in the beginning was the Word, and out from that Word came a royal command: "Let there be light!" and there was light. And in likewise manner sprung forth the rocks (and the radiohalos in them) as another testimony from God.

Stamped by his hand, the rocks cry out even when the lips of men are dumb.

God says in the epistle to the Romans: I am revealed through nature, that man may have no excuse to ignore me. (paraphrased)

P.S. pls forgive the poetic prose, i get carried away sometimes when i think of God's glory and grace.

markm2553 · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:26 am Post subject:

Welcome to the board!

Great points.

dertsa · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:47 am Post subject:

I went to a seminar acouple years ago where they were talking about radiohalos. It's a really intresting topic. Great points. God bless.

Sam

jeff_osu · Tiger Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 838 Location: Oklahoma

Robert Gentry is a little shady in my opinion for a scientific source. He's trying to use science to support faith, and this typically leads to skewed results. When something called "The Institute for Creation Research" tries to enter the scientific community, that's an immediate red flag to me.

Gentry pretty much runs closed experiments, discounts decades of geological research that proves there was indeed a Precambrian time period, and doesn't give out data to allow other scientists to run independent studies of his research. It's basically pseudoscience.

His research for radiohalos is based on isotopes decaying from a parent material, but there's no explanation for the parent material other than "God put it there." I have no problem with someone saying "God put it there" from the very get go, but I do have a problem with someone going through various steps and then at the end saying "Um.....mysterious ways." That offends me as a scientist, not a Christian, because if I did that in a course I would fail.

jon_baptist_89 · Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:37 am Post subject:

i totally agree with jeff_osu.

you see, science is what we know of the things God created.
now, who knows better: the watch or the watchmaker who engineered it?

seeing the bible from the worldly scientific perspective is to look at a reflection of yourself in a distorted mirror.
it just can't be as true to yourself, plus it doesn't do your figure justice.

how can one explain the formation of the cosmos?
heck, can anyone even logically explain the parting of the Red Sea?
or the death of the entire assyrian army when they defied The Most High as they sat on Israel's doorsteps?
or the stopping of the sun in Joshua's day?
or the miraculous feeding of the five thousand?

back in school, i 'worshipped' science. i thought it was reliable, and 100% trustworthy. but it wasn't so. i learned that today's possible can be tomorrow's common. with every paradigm shift, the world of science is stood on its head once again. nothing can ever be certain in science.

no, brothers, we must see the bible as it is, relevant today as it was then.
science may change, but God never.

markm2553 · Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:51 am Post subject:

Romans 1:19-22 (NLT)

For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.

jeff_osu · Tiger Joined: 17 Sep 2003 Posts: 838 Location: Oklahoma

I definitely agree that science can be misused.....

From what I've seen, the abuse of science as an end-all to everything comes from stagnant thinking by non-scientists (and most atheists). There aren't as many laws as one might think (irrefutable truths, such as gravity), and most "theories" aren't even a proper theory but still a hypothesis. People tend to take a hypothesis and proclaim it true without the rigorous testing required for it to be a theory, and even then there should be enough time elapsed for any new technology or research to possibly disprove it.

One case that comes to mind is how Smokey the Bear relates to grassland destruction. People have the misconception that Fire=Bad because it's ingrained into our mind from preschool on, when in reality prescribed burning is a necessity. It's why the Red Cedar is swallowing up native grasslands on the prairies and also why there are huge, uncontrollable forest fires. For the latter, without prescribed burning dead timber just accumulates and then presto, big fire. For grasslands, if they don't burn every 3 years or so like they have done for millenia they get choked down by trees. So all these "Green" people come out and oppose any prescribed burning, and it just ruins these places....and they just simply do not know any better.

So I agree with what you all are saying about the Know-It-All utter fools, but I can't help but defend the majority of scientists who are doing the research. Science in its purest form has no political or ethical motives, it's very detached and motivated only by the urge to test and present results. Of course, as soon as science is implemented or attempted to be politics come into play, but when a physicist, chemist, biologist, etc is researching, personal motives should be left out. That's where I tend to have a problem with radiohalos.

jon_baptist_89 · Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 12:22 am Post subject:

Well, i don't have a problem with science, unless it conflicts with the bible.

Assuming that the evo theory is credible enough, it causes a lot of damage in various and far reaching aspects.

if darwin was right, then man is not held accountable for his sins because he is the ultimate form of evolutionary selection. this means that man is able to do all things, regardless of ethical or moral issues. he is permitted to commit murder and robbery, because of the "survival of the fittest". he can exploit the environment because he is king.

unfortunately darwin was wrong.
way wrong.
in his last days he expresses his doubts about his fairy tale.
too bad, one life wasted: Darwin.
countless others dragged to hell because of his ideas.
so sad...