Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

[DriftingSand]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

The Pentateuch, although attributed to Moshe, was written by at least 5 authors. This is incredibly easy to prove, not just because of the very disparate writing styles, but also because the 5 books were finished AFTER Moshe died. LOL.

So, men wrote holy books.

I fail to see why Fundamentalistic Christians, who are very quick to remind that Jesus taught in parables, suddenly want to take everything else quite literally. What if one day as described by Ad-shem actually means 1 billion years of our time? Hmmm???


Creationism is a belief system, not a science. To try to turn it into a science is just plain old batshit crazy.

To use scientific methods, however, to support what is purported in the Torah, is absolutely acceptable, in my opinion. But there is a strong difference between the two.

Do you believe that Adam was an atom? Please enlighten the world with your undeniable truth and wealth of eyewitness knowledge, oh sage.

 

[DriftingSand]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

 

[konradv]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

 

[DriftingSand]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Thanks. Very helpful!!!

So far, we have 4 or 5 mere, mortal men with finite brains each agreeing wholeheartedly that the Genesis account of origins MUST BE WRONG but I would be willing to lay down money that no two of you will agree on exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

But ... as long as we can all jump on the anti-Bible bandwagon then all is good.

FAIL!!

 

[ogibillm]

God did it.
Creationist Cosmos from Funny Or Die, Timothy Simons, Charles Ingram, NickCorirossi, Jack Allison, Emily Strachan, Betsy Koch, Jason Carden, Sean Dacanay, Brian Lane, BoTown Sound, Jessica Leigh Schwartz, Candy Lopez, and Becca Scheuer

 

[sealybobo]

August 14th & 15th, Dallas News featured a story about the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). As far as mainstream media goes the article was written in a pretty fair manner. Anyone who is truly interested in science (whether religious or non-religious) should give ICR a look-see. They do present some compelling evidence for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation:

Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation | Dallas Morning News

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.
“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

The Institute for Creation Research
Institute for Creation Research

But as Farwell reported, "Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."1 He included statements from ICR's scientists about numerous compelling evidences for recent creation such as galaxies' spiral winding problem, genetic mutation clocks, and soft tissues found in fossils. But Farwell ended the article with a quote from SMU professor Dr. Ronald Wetherington, who claimed ICR scientists "are not scientists" and that they "cherry-pick data" to justify the Genesis account.1

If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us?

Exactly! The lies in the bible should tell you that the biblical god doesn't exist and superstitious men wrote the wild stories in the bibles both old and new.

And it doesn't seem to even matter. A lot of theists on USMB admit they don't believe the organized religions but still somehow they believe in god. Why? Because it has been hard wired into their brains.

 

[sealybobo]

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Theistic speculation is not correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

 

[The Irish Ram]

It's funny how the ICR worries about "God lying to us" because of a book written by men, but don't have a problem with being lied to if the earth is really six thousand years old but appears be much older because of fossils, geology, DNA, radioisotopes, etc. Wouldn't all of that evidence also be a lie, if it proved not to be true?

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Truth is that the mechanics God used to create all of this is what our scientists pat themselves on the back for discovering. You want science? Nachmanides. Want his source of data? Genesis. He got what others don't from the book because he was scientifically inclined. And what he gleaned has stood the test of scientific time.

Here are three scientific notables who enlightened us concerning dimensions. Hawking, Einstein, and God. Of the three only one has enough knowledge to describe their properties. And He put it in book form before the other two were born. God's scribes took the dictation. I know that because what they wrote would have required scientific knowledge of the attributes of dimensions. They had no background to describe what they described. They weren't capable of writing it on their own. Only someone who understood physics could have explained physics. And NO MAN can provide even one page written with the same criteria that God used. If you think the Bible was written by man then prove it by emulating it's numerical style. The method God used is available to anyone who wants to prove that man wrote that book.

The pond scum, simple life form to complex theory met it's doom with DNA. There is no simple form of DNA. The first life form was complex from the very beginning. The first eye was complex from the beginning.
DNA is the "Complex Beginning Law". It has been proven. It is not a theory. Life has never had a simple form. Single celled Amoebas are complex. We just thought they were simple because we hadn't discovered their DNA yet. Just like Hawking hasn't discovered that dimensions can be torn, burnt, and rolled up yet. In fact, you are going to see one split in half when Christ returns.

And DNA is mutant unfriendly. The opposite of what Darwin's understanding required. His theory is predicated on mutation. DNA works to correct any mutation that might occur. It was designed to do so. For a species to mutate into an entirely different species million and millions of years of the exact, precise, same mutation (< and there is your real oxymoron) would have to take place, over and over. One mutation of the millions of years of mutating occurs and the "new species" is rendered obsolete before it makes it to the starting gate. We would be walking on the mounds of missing links.

God designed us, not the other way around. Before science found out we really are made of clay, He told us we were. Finely sculpted clay. With the breath of life from our Father, and that's how you were born.

 

[alang1216]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

In Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

In Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

There are two creation epics in Bereshit (Genesis).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Truth is that the mechanics God used to create all of this is what our scientists pat themselves on the back for discovering. You want science? Nachmanides. Want his source of data? Genesis. He got what you don't from the book because he was scientifically inclined. And what he gleaned has stood the test of scientific time.

Here are three scientific notables who enlightened us concerning dimensions. Hawking, Einstein, and God. Of the three only one has enough knowledge to describe their properties. And HE put in book form before the other two were born. God's scribes took the dictation. And NO MAN can provide even one page written with the same criteria that God used. If you think the Bible was written by man then prove it by emulating it. The numerical method God used is available to anyone who wants to prove that man wrote that book.

The pond scum, simple life form to complex theory met it's doom with DNA. There is no simple form of DNA. The first life form was complex from the very beginning. The first eye was complex from the beginning.
Extreme complexity in simple life forms is the oxymoron. Life has never had a simple form. Single celled Amoebas are complex. We just thought they were simple because we hadn't discovered DNA yet. Just like Hawking hasn't discovered that dimensions can be torn, burnt, and rolled up. In fact, you are going to see one split in half when Christ returns.

And DNA is mutant unfriendly. The opposite of what Darwin's limited understanding required. His theory is predicated on mutation. DNA works to correct any mutation that might occur. It was designed to do so. For a species to mutate into an entirely different species million and millions of years of the exact, precise, same mutations would have to take place, over and over. One mutation of the millions of years of mutating occurs and the "new species" is rendered obsolete before it makes it to the starting gate. We would be walking on the mounds of missing links.

God designed us, not the other way around. Before science found out we really are made of clay, He told us we were. Finally sculpted clay. With the breath of life from our Father, and that's how you were born.

Nonsense.

There is no evidence of any such "truth."

 

[Rikurzhen]

Please ... inform all of us of what the "truth" is (using your words only). Thanks.

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

Thanks. Very helpful!!!

So far, we have 4 or 5 mere, mortal men with finite brains each agreeing wholeheartedly that the Genesis account of origins MUST BE WRONG but I would be willing to lay down money that no two of you will agree on exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

The path to understanding doesn't imply that one must also be a champion of a viewpoint. To be the champion of a viewpoint means that one is an advocate. Understanding and advocacy are two different creatures.

To understand a topic often involves disproving positions. Every position you disprove increases your understanding because now you KNOW that what you just disproved wasn't the answer.

So when the Biblical account of Genesis is disproved by those 4 or 5 men, their understanding increases even if they don't have an answer to replace Genesis.

To say "I don't know" is preferable to saying "This is the truth" when you know that what you claim is actually false.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

In Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

God spoiling His children, as only God can, had everything done for His children, before His children arrived.

 

[alang1216]

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

In Genesis 1: Then God said, “Let the land sprout with vegetation—every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.” And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation—all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

God spoiling His children, as only God can, had everything done for His children, before His children arrived.

God either created Adam as the first man or he didn't. Which is it, even God could not do both.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

[MENTION=46449]Delta4Embassy[/MENTION] serious question delta, just for you, because I respect you when it comes to knowing the Torah.

Does Genesis 4:14-16 read different in other languages or does it mention anyone besides Cain's wife?

In all the versions I've read, it hints that others might find and kill Cain, but he could have been talking about his parents or siblings, and it is possible that Cain had already married his wife(yes his sister), before murdering Abel.

Also in verse 17, it says Cain built a city and named it after his son Enoch. If there were already people there, wouldn't they have already named the city?

I look forward to your response.

 

[DriftingSand]

It would involve study and experimentation, NOT just reading one book and only looking for those things that bolster its contentions.

exactly how the universe and man's existence DID come to be.

Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Theistic speculation is not correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

Then you certainly can't rule God and the Genesis account out.

 

[DriftingSand]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

@Delta4Embassy serious question delta, just for you, because I respect you when it comes to knowing the Torah.

Does Genesis 4:14-16 read different in other languages or does it mention anyone besides Cain's wife?

In all the versions I've read, it hints that others might find and kill Cain, but he could have been talking about his parents or siblings, and it is possible that Cain had already married his wife(yes his sister), before murdering Abel.

Also in verse 17, it says Cain built a city and named it after his son Enoch. If there were already people there, wouldn't they have already named the city?

I look forward to your response.

Exactly. Cain was expelled and moved east to a pre-named place and took a wife from that place. The Bible even partially records his genealogy.

 

[guno]

&#8216;Creation science&#8217; is an oxymoron.

Creationism is religion, not &#8216;science,&#8217; it&#8217;s just as false and subjective as all other religion.

And we wonder why America is becoming the laughing stock of the world, with these Low IQ science illiterate buffoons trying to pass their magical thinking asshattery off as a science

 

[guno]

August 14th & 15th, Dallas News featured a story about the ICR (Institute for Creation Research). As far as mainstream media goes the article was written in a pretty fair manner. Anyone who is truly interested in science (whether religious or non-religious) should give ICR a look-see. They do present some compelling evidence for the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation:

Dallas researchers out to scientifically prove biblical version of creation | Dallas Morning News

“Our attempt is to demonstrate that the Bible is accurate, not just religiously authoritative,” said Henry Morris III, CEO of the nonprofit with a 49-person payroll and an annual budget in the $7 million range.
“The rationale behind it is this: If God really does exist, he shouldn’t be lying to us,” he said. “And if he’s lying to us right off the bat in the book of Genesis, we’ve got some real problems.”

The Institute for Creation Research
Institute for Creation Research

But as Farwell reported, "Young-earth creationists like those at ICR argue that everything in the known universe began 6,000 to 10,000 years ago."1 He included statements from ICR's scientists about numerous compelling evidences for recent creation such as galaxies' spiral winding problem, genetic mutation clocks, and soft tissues found in fossils. But Farwell ended the article with a quote from SMU professor Dr. Ronald Wetherington, who claimed ICR scientists "are not scientists" and that they "cherry-pick data" to justify the Genesis account.1

You can't prove a negative. Genesis can't be proven because it isn't literally true. Thinking the human race must have started off with 1 man and a 1 woman is logical, but wrong. Genesis is actually a story based off the Epic of Gilgamesh in the pre-extant Babylonian religion which preceeded Judaism.

Radiometric dating methods like carbon-14 dating tell us how old things are. And if you accept the dates for things like the Shroud of Turin using such methods you really have to ask yourself why c-14 dating is unreliable when it was reliable enough for the Shroud and various religious texts. And other methods are used for the ages of fossils and other things going further back than c-14 can tell us maxxing around 60,000 years.

The Earth is billion of years old, not thousands. If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

The Earth is billion of years old, not thousands. If your faith requires you to reject science, and embrace lies you really gotta ask what kind of religion is that?

A backward primitive Low IQ baboonish religion

 

[DriftingSand]

Interestingly, Torah actually substantiates the many at once idea since 1 man 1 woman who make 2 sons couldn't have started the human race without unprecedented inbreeding. Plus when Cain goes off into exile where'd he eventually wind up but among other humans who weren't his relations. (Genesis 4:14-16)

Absolutely proves your total lack of biblical knowledge:

Adam and Eve were "formed" after the "creation" of "men and women" (plural).

The men and women of Genesis 1 were created, fiat. Adam (Genesis 2) was formed from the dust (a created substance) after the fact.

In Genesis 1: Then God said, &#8220;Let the land sprout with vegetation&#8212;every sort of seed-bearing plant, and trees that grow seed-bearing fruit. These seeds will then produce the kinds of plants and trees from which they came.&#8221; And that is what happened. 12 The land produced vegetation&#8212;all sorts of seed-bearing plants, and trees with seed-bearing fruit. Their seeds produced plants and trees of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.
13 And evening passed and morning came, marking the third day.
26 Then God said, &#8220;Let us make human beings[b] in our image, to be like us.


In Genesis 2: When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 neither wild plants nor grains were growing on the earth. For the Lord God had not yet sent rain to water the earth, and there were no people to cultivate the soil. 6 Instead, springs[b] came up from the ground and watered all the land. 7 Then the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground.

from https://www.biblegateway.com New Living Translation (NLT)

Did Genesis 1 come before or after Genesis 2 or are they telling the same story? Sounds to me that there were no humans before Adam and Adam and Eve were "formed" before the "creation" of "men and women". Am I reading that wrong?

Let's read Genesis 2:5 from a non-corrupt version of the Bible:

Genesis 2:5, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground."

Prior to Adam the men and women that existed were not tillers of the soil. Farming was something exclusive to Adam and his posterity. But, as we can see from the verse above, plants DID exist. The 6 day creation came to be as God spoke it into existence. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (John 1:1). In Genesis chapter 2 we see that Adam was formed from the dust which was part of His earlier creation. It would be impossible to form Adam from the dust if the dust had not already been created. Therefore, the chronological order of events as reflected in Genesis 1 and 2 are correct.