Double, Double, Toil and Trouble....

[alang1216]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

" I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does."

Nor is this the first time you've been wrong.....far from it.


Part of the calculation in deciding which explanation to accept includes these two facts:

1. Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

2. British scientist Andrew Parker has written about the amazing coincidence of a three millennia-old text, the Bible, having given the exact order of events in creation that modern science posits.

See it here:
View attachment 333603

Of course, with your limited education, and no experience with books, this would be beyond your ken.

f example is useless. Leaving for the moment the question of God's creation, you cite science agreeing with the Bible as evidence for the Bible but also claim that science is flawed. You can't have it both ways.

Genesis 1:3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How would there be a day and night with no sun or earth? But that is not really the question I asked now, was it. Even if nothing in the Bible conflicts with science that doesn't mean the Bible is true, it only that it is not demonstrably false. Hardly the same thing.

I suppose it is good, you demanding education.

We'll put aside for the moment that you are too lazy to get it on your own.....



3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun - D-brief


Throughout history, people have understood “Let there be light” to mean “God created light.” And that is an entirely legitimate translation—“Let there be” (yihee) can mean “Come into being.” But there is no verb here meaning “create,” “make,” or “form.” And that may strongly suggest another meaning. There are scientists who believe in the Bible who understand “Let there be light” to mean that God did not create or make light in this verse; He made light appear.

No light had yet appeared on earth because in earth’s earliest period, the earth’s atmosphere was opaque, either from clouds or cosmological dust and debris, or both. In the words of former MIT physicist and member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission Gerald Schroeder: “There was light, but no sources of light were visible from the earth due to the cloud cover over the still-warm earth. Warm earth = high vapor pressure = clouds.”

…with His words “let there be light,” the atmosphere began to clear, and the light of the sun (but not the sun itself) became visible from the surface of the earth—just as it is visible to us when the skies are overcast: we see the light, but not its source. Thus, …, the sun already exists (but is not seen until Day Four).




1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the production of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the clouds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???




Source of the above.....this is called a 'book'.....perhaps you've heard the term.


View attachment 333615

Prager is interesting and has some very good explanations for Genesis. Unfortunately a lot of it doesn't appear in Genesis and seems to be invented by Prager. What he is essentially doing is rewriting the Bible in light of modern science. He is polishing the Bible to remove the blemishes and that is fine. If you want to get your theology that way, that is your right.

But getting past your digression, even if the Bible didn't conflict at all with science, that would not prove the Bible was how God worked. That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true? Why not?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So what is the evidence FOR creationism? I don't mean your supposed evidence against Darwin but actual evidence for creationism. I'm willing to bet the only evidence you can cite is Genesis.

The existence of the variety and diversity of life on earth.

You never noticed it?

I have noticed it but I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does. Take Madagascar as an example. Evolution and geology says the primates there were separated from the African mainland before monkeys evolved. That is why there are no monkeys or apes on the island. If God was going around creating things couldn't he as easily created monkeys on Madagascar as on the mainland?

" I feel evolution explains it much better than creationism does."

Nor is this the first time you've been wrong.....far from it.


Part of the calculation in deciding which explanation to accept includes these two facts:

1. Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

2. British scientist Andrew Parker has written about the amazing coincidence of a three millennia-old text, the Bible, having given the exact order of events in creation that modern science posits.

See it here:
View attachment 333603

Of course, with your limited education, and no experience with books, this would be beyond your ken.

f example is useless. Leaving for the moment the question of God's creation, you cite science agreeing with the Bible as evidence for the Bible but also claim that science is flawed. You can't have it both ways.

Genesis 1:3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

How would there be a day and night with no sun or earth? But that is not really the question I asked now, was it. Even if nothing in the Bible conflicts with science that doesn't mean the Bible is true, it only that it is not demonstrably false. Hardly the same thing.

I suppose it is good, you demanding education.

We'll put aside for the moment that you are too lazy to get it on your own.....



3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun - D-brief


Throughout history, people have understood “Let there be light” to mean “God created light.” And that is an entirely legitimate translation—“Let there be” (yihee) can mean “Come into being.” But there is no verb here meaning “create,” “make,” or “form.” And that may strongly suggest another meaning. There are scientists who believe in the Bible who understand “Let there be light” to mean that God did not create or make light in this verse; He made light appear.

No light had yet appeared on earth because in earth’s earliest period, the earth’s atmosphere was opaque, either from clouds or cosmological dust and debris, or both. In the words of former MIT physicist and member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission Gerald Schroeder: “There was light, but no sources of light were visible from the earth due to the cloud cover over the still-warm earth. Warm earth = high vapor pressure = clouds.”

…with His words “let there be light,” the atmosphere began to clear, and the light of the sun (but not the sun itself) became visible from the surface of the earth—just as it is visible to us when the skies are overcast: we see the light, but not its source. Thus, …, the sun already exists (but is not seen until Day Four).




1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the production of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the clouds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???




Source of the above.....this is called a 'book'.....perhaps you've heard the term.


View attachment 333615

Prager is interesting and has some very good explanations for Genesis. Unfortunately a lot of it doesn't appear in Genesis and seems to be invented by Prager. What he is essentially doing is rewriting the Bible in light of modern science. He is polishing the Bible to remove the blemishes and that is fine. If you want to get your theology that way, that is your right.

But getting past your digression, even if the Bible didn't conflict at all with science, that would not prove the Bible was how God worked. That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true? Why not?

Where, in my post, is there any conflict with science?

Fact it, it is verified by scientists I quoted.



3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day."
Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun - D-brief


Throughout history, people have understood “Let there be light” to mean “God created light.” And that is an entirely legitimate translation—“Let there be” (yihee) can mean “Come into being.” But there is no verb here meaning “create,” “make,” or “form.” And that may strongly suggest another meaning. There are scientists who believe in the Bible who understand “Let there be light” to mean that God did not create or make light in this verse; He made light appear.

No light had yet appeared on earth because in earth’s earliest period, the earth’s atmosphere was opaque, either from clouds or cosmological dust and debris, or both. In the words of former MIT physicist and member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission Gerald Schroeder: “There was light, but no sources of light were visible from the earth due to the cloud cover over the still-warm earth. Warm earth = high vapor pressure = clouds.”

…with His words “let there be light,” the atmosphere began to clear, and the light of the sun (but not the sun itself) became visible from the surface of the earth—just as it is visible to us when the skies are overcast: we see the light, but not its source. Thus, …, the sun already exists (but is not seen until Day Four).




1.11 God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation: seed-bearing plants, fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so.

1.12 The earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.”

’How can we have plants when the sun doesn’t appear until the next day?’ There were the sun, moon, and stars—but they were not visible from the earth’s surface. The earth was still hot at this time and therefore high vapor pressure enveloped it in thick clouds.

The Earth's atmosphere at this time was also much heavier. Its mass was similar to that of today's oceans, and it pushed down on Earth's surface with a pressure of hundreds of bars. (For comparison, the average pressure at the Earth's surface today is 1 bar). It was also opaque — "you would not have been able to see much, just clouds covering everything," [Dave Stevenson, a Caltech professor of planetary science said].” Giant Moon-Forming Impact On Early Earth May Have Spawned Magma Ocean



“I have personally measured photosynthesis, the growth of plants and the production of oxygen from that photosynthesis on days when the overcast was so heavy no sun or even hints of a sun could be seen through the clouds, but there was plenty of light and the plants were doing fine with their photosynthesis. By the time of Day Four, the earth had cooled; the clouds were opened and the sun, moon, and stars could be visible from the earth.

At first, clouds make it impossible to see if there is a sun, but….photosynthesis can occur.

“As a result, the atmosphere cleared and the sun, moon, and stars became visible. Prior to this period, although the sun’s light could reach the earth, the actual body of the sun was not visible from the earth due to the heavy cloud cover. I personally have measured the photosynthetic production of oxygen on days that were so heavily overcast that although there was light penetrating the clouds, there was no indication of the glow of the sun behind the clouds.” The Age of the Universe: One Reality Viewed from Two Different Perspectives



Sooo…..where’s the problem???




Source of the above.....this is called a 'book'.....perhaps you've heard the term.

 

[alang1216]

But getting past your digression, even if the Bible didn't conflict at all with science, that would not prove the Bible was how God worked. That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true? Why not?

Where, in my post, is there any conflict with science?

Fact it, it is verified by scientists

If you had taken the time to read my reply you'd see that I wasn't pointing out any conflicts but I did as a question you didn't or couldn't or wouldn't answer:

That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true?​

However, if you're just looking for something in the Bible that was not verified by scientists you need go no further than the Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Since there were no witnesses and certainly no scientists around how could this possibly be verified?

 

[PoliticalChic]

But getting past your digression, even if the Bible didn't conflict at all with science, that would not prove the Bible was how God worked. That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true? Why not?

Where, in my post, is there any conflict with science?

Fact it, it is verified by scientists

If you had taken the time to read my reply you'd see that I wasn't pointing out any conflicts but I did as a question you didn't or couldn't or wouldn't answer:

That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true?​

However, if you're just looking for something in the Bible that was not verified by scientists you need go no further than the Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". Since there were no witnesses and certainly no scientists around how could this possibly be verified?

There are no such conflicts.

 

[alang1216]

There are no such conflicts.

Meaningless claim since you can't offer any answer to a simple question:

That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true?​

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are no such conflicts.

Meaningless claim since you can't offer any answer to a simple question:

That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true?​

Nothing in my post is in conflict with science.

Isn't that the case?

 

[alang1216]

There are no such conflicts.

Meaningless claim since you can't offer any answer to a simple question:

That other book you love, the Quran, can also be shown not to conflict with science. Do you accept the Quran as true?​

Nothing in my post is in conflict with science.

Isn't that the case?

Sure Genesis is accurate. You just have to overlook the fact that

• the Earth was created before the Sun or moon,
• day and night were created before the Sun,
• every animal and plant were created before the Sun,
• all the stars were created at the same time,
• life on land was created before life in the sea

If you ignore all these conflicts then you're fine.

I answered your question, how about answering mine?