If God created...

[6days]

We know the universe has to be over 6000 years old because we see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so we would have to be naive to think the universe is 6000 years old

Not not naieve... but you would have to reject God's Word. (God tells us He spread the stars...How long did that take Him?)

Onward to what Genesis says about creation, does it really say the universe or earth is 6000 years old?

We have about 6,000 *of genealogies from what Jesus referred to as "the beginning of creation" and "the foundations of the earth"

I don’t think it does, I think its a mistranslation of a primitive language ...So many of the Hebrew words were used in multiple ways.

The Hebrew word YOWM and the English word DAY have a variety of similar meanings, which are always determined by the context.

For instance the original meaning of the Hebrew word YOWM (Day) means “to be hot”

Yes... sort of. As Strongs suggests it was the warm hours of the day...sunrise to sunset. *Your suggestion would make scripture goofy... For ex. Gen. 1:5 "And God called the light HOT and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first HOT.

Well when the universe was spoken into existence by God, it took 400 million years for the first stars to form.

Whats God's Word says is "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, (not to govern the HOT) and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.*And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than what we now call a 24 hour day.

So lets take a second and look at the Bible and the WMAP research and see if this matches.

We shouldn't try make God's Word fit secular opinions. His Word tells us He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, rested the 7th (past tense - rested)...and set this as a pattern for us.

Quantum Fluctuations which I contend is God

Random bursts of energy might be YOUR God.*

Remember the verse, a thousand years is like a day and a day like unto a thousand years unto God.

So... the *we can use your leapfrog logic and imagine Jonah was in the fish and undertermined amount of time?*

So we had the Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by Cosmic Microwave background

In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*

The more we look for the answers, the more that science and the bible will converge, if both sides with differing viewpoints would only take their blinders off.

Yes...God's Word and science are always consistent. The problem is you mistake secular opinions for science, and then twist scripture... which ultimately destroys the gospel and the purpose of the cross.

Some might protest that men have been around much longer...

Jesus linked humanity with the beginning of creation? Do you believe Him?

We know the universe has to be over 6000 years old because we see light from stars that are millions of light years away, so we would have to be naive to think the universe is 6000 years old

No, not naieve... but you would have to reject God's Word. (God tells us He spread the stars...How long did that take Him?)

Onward to what Genesis says about creation, does it really say the universe or earth is 6000 years old?

We have about 6,000 of genealogies from what Jesus referred to as "the beginning of creation" and "the foundations of the earth"

I don’t think it does, I think its a mistranslation of a primitive language ...So many of the Hebrew words were used in multiple ways.

The Hebrew word YOWM and the English word DAY have a variety of similar meanings, which are always determined by the context.

For instance the original meaning of the Hebrew word YOWM (Day) means “to be hot”

Yes... sort of. As Strongs suggests it was the warm hours of the day...sunrise to sunset. Your suggestion would make scripture goofy... For ex
Gen. 1:5 "And God called the light HOT and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first HOT.*

Well when the universe was spoken into existence by God, it took 400 million years for the first stars to form.

Whats God's Word says is "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, (not to govern the HOT) and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.*And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than what we now call a 24 hour day.

So lets take a second and look at the Bible and the WMAP research and see if this matches.

We shouldn't try make God's Word fit secular opinions. His Word tells us He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, rested the 7th (past tense - rested)...and set this as a pattern for us.

Quantum Fluctuations which I contend is God

Random bursts of energy might be YOUR God.*

Remember the verse, a thousand years is like a day and a day like unto a thousand years unto God.

So... the we can use your leapfrog logic and imagine Jonah was in the fish and undertermined amount of time?*

So we had the Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by Cosmic Microwave background

In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*

)

The more we look for the answers, the more that science and the bible will converge, if both sides with differing viewpoints would only take their blinders off.

Yes...God's Word and science are always consistent. The problem is you mistake secular opinions for science, and then twist scripture... which ultimately destroys the gospel and the purpose of the cross.

Some might protest that men have been around much longer...

Jesus linked humanity with the beginning of creation? Do you believe Him?

 

[Jonahdog]

Just as the screw in the watch can not self assemble, neither can molecular motors such as ATP synthase.

Still looking for the evidence to support your claim.

 

[Jonahdog]

Not not naieve... but you would have to reject God's Word. (God tells us He spread the stars...How long did that take Him?)
We have about 6,000 *of genealogies from what Jesus referred to as "the beginning of creation" and "the foundations of the earth"



The Hebrew word YOWM and the English word DAY have a variety of similar meanings, which are always determined by the context.


Yes... sort of. As Strongs suggests it was the warm hours of the day...sunrise to sunset. *Your suggestion would make scripture goofy... For ex. Gen. 1:5 "And God called the light HOT and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first HOT.

Whats God's Word says is "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, (not to govern the HOT) and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.*And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than what we now call a 24 hour day.


We shouldn't try make God's Word fit secular opinions. His Word tells us He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, rested the 7th (past tense - rested)...and set this as a pattern for us.

Random bursts of energy might be YOUR God.*

So... the *we can use your leapfrog logic and imagine Jonah was in the fish and undertermined amount of time?*


In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*


Yes...God's Word and science are always consistent. The problem is you mistake secular opinions for science, and then twist scripture... which ultimately destroys the gospel and the purpose of the cross.


Jesus linked humanity with the beginning of creation? Do you believe Him?


No, not naieve... but you would have to reject God's Word. (God tells us He spread the stars...How long did that take Him?)
We have about 6,000 of genealogies from what Jesus referred to as "the beginning of creation" and "the foundations of the earth"


The Hebrew word YOWM and the English word DAY have a variety of similar meanings, which are always determined by the context.


Yes... sort of. As Strongs suggests it was the warm hours of the day...sunrise to sunset. Your suggestion would make scripture goofy... For ex
Gen. 1:5 "And God called the light HOT and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first HOT.*

Whats God's Word says is "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, (not to govern the HOT) and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.*And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than what we now call a 24 hour day.


We shouldn't try make God's Word fit secular opinions. His Word tells us He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, rested the 7th (past tense - rested)...and set this as a pattern for us.

Random bursts of energy might be YOUR God.*

So... the we can use your leapfrog logic and imagine Jonah was in the fish and undertermined amount of time?*


In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*

)
Yes...God's Word and science are always consistent. The problem is you mistake secular opinions for science, and then twist scripture... which ultimately destroys the gospel and the purpose of the cross.


Jesus linked humanity with the beginning of creation? Do you believe Him?

Ah, more "not even wrong".

 

[Stuu]

Thank you for your post. I wonder how sure they are that the bacteria predates the Cambrian era?

So you are not willing to just accept that it is written in a special book or is preached?

Good for you.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Just as the screw in the watch can not self assemble,

Who is claiming it does? What kind of ridiculous analogy is that?

neither can molecular motors such as ATP synthase.

Well, it does self-assemble, otherwise you would not be making ATP right now.

What do you think about the possible direct relationship between the proton gradient used in ATP synthesis and the proton gradients found around sea floor vents that could have powered biochemical synthesis at the start of life on earth?

Or is it all about your invisible friend doing magic?

Stuart

 

[6days]

Well, it does self-assemble, otherwise you would not be making ATP right now.

You must also think that babies self assemble? Otherwise people wouldn't be making babies right now. (Yes... that is illogical). *ATP synthase never SELF assembles. It is only in living organisms requiring a code and code transcription system that organizes the correct chemicals, building the ATP 'motor' and and transmits the 'blueprint' so that 'baby' ATP motors are created.*

What do you think about the possible direct relationship between the proton gradient used in ATP synthesis and the proton gradients found around sea floor vents that could have powered biochemical synthesis at the start of life on earth?

I essentially answered this above. You have a giant leap of hope and faith to think a chemical reaction can create life. Finding a similar component in a rock, or chemical reaction in a sea vent is not life. It is a false hope (and psuedoscience) believing that life comes from non-life.

Or is it all about your invisible friend doing magic?

My Friend is not so invisible Stuu. He wants to be your friend... your Savior. "For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God" Rom. 1:20

 

[Rondonmonson]

Quote Originally Posted by 6days
Not not naieve... but you would have to reject God's Word. (God tells us He spread the stars...How long did that take Him?)

How long did spreading the stars take? How old is the Universe? Simple. And the truth is you just can't grasp the Holy Word of God in this instance, and YES, IMHO, anyone that thinks the universe is 6000 years old is VERY NAIVE. It hurts our testimony to an degree also when we have people preaching Santa Clause live (Analogy)

We have about 6,000 *of genealogies from what Jesus referred to as "the beginning of creation" and "the foundations of the earth"

You can have all the "Genealogies" you want, if you are speaking about the Creation of man, I stated that happened about 6000 years ago, so can you read English? I don't even get your point since we agree. Now you do understand the V=Creation and the Genealogy of man are not one and the same. Or do you? Who knows.

The Hebrew word YOWM and the English word DAY have a variety of similar meanings, which are always determined by the context.

And since you can't understand Gods Point of View you change it to fit into your "understanding" even though that is quite clearly wrong. "Darkness was on the Face of the Deep" there was 400 Million years of Darkness according to WMAP Map, but of course it proves God scriptures right, so you reject the very Science that shows His Holy Word true and cling to your misconceptions. Its called pride, and people are too often, way to full of our own opinions it seems.

Yes... sort of. As Strongs suggests it was the warm hours of the day...sunrise to sunset. *Your suggestion would make scripture goofy... For ex. Gen. 1:5 "And God called the light HOT and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first HOT.

There was no Sun (our Sun) for 9.2 Billion years. So to be Hot means Stars started Forming after 400 Million years of Darkness. Thus we have the Evening first and then the Morning. Its very OBVIOUS. Darkness is Evening and the Stars are HOT are the Not? Not only do the Stars give light, but they give warmth, without which nothing would grow on our earth. Without which the universe would be at absolute ZERO (Minus 459.67 Degrees), so to bee Hot is a very important equation to creation, much more important than you seem willing to admit.

And what about Light? Yo you understand how we get light? It has to be reflected, do you ever wonder why as soon as we enter Space (Leave our Atmosphere) the Light diminishes greatly? Ever thought about why Space is darker that our atmosphere? All light is REFLECTIVE, except for the Beam of light, without this reflection everything would be dark except for the Beams of Light.

God used/uses Water to reflect the Light, thus in verses 2 and 3, we know understand what God meant by "God moved on the Face of the Waters".

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

So God creates the Water throughout the Universe to reflect the lights of His Stars. Thus we understand our Atmosphere and what God means later by creating the Seasons/Lights, God created a Perfect Atmosphere for light to be reflected on the Earth. And God set the Seasons by placing the Moon and Earth at just the perfect position. The Earth and Moon were pretty much the same size, then they had a violent crash which was only a glancing blow, our both the earth and moon would have been destroyed, the earth gained much of the moons matter after the impact, thus the Earth became dominant, and the earths atmosphere was formed, and the moon became our satellite so to speak that keeps our earth from wobbling, which produces season in an orderly fashion etc. etc.

Whats God's Word says is "God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, (not to govern the HOT) and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars.*And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day. The Hebrew context does not allow for anything other than what we now call a 24 hour day.

Again, you refuse to believe reality. Like I stated YOWM has 50 or more uses, Day as in 24 Hour Day is one of them. Its can also a Period of Time, so its up to you to figure out the proper context, that seems to be kind of difficult for you to understand. The Universe is not 6000 years old, you believing it is ain't going to change he facts.

We shouldn't try make God's Word fit secular opinions. His Word tells us He made the heavens and the earth in 6 days, rested the 7th (past tense - rested)...and set this as a pattern for us.

These so called "Secular opinions" are proving the Bible true, if you would just take your blinders off. The Earth is not flat, reckon that was understood first by scientists also. The Truth is the truth, even if a dof tells it unto us.

Random bursts of energy might be YOUR God.*

You clearly do not get it do you? These Quantum Fluctuation live OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE thus the were there before our Universe, thus they are God speaking the Universe into Existence, they can be nothing else but the Force of Gods will. The Laws of Nature/God.

Do you think they just APPEARED FROM NOTHING like the Atheists? I don't think so.

So... the we can use your leapfrog logic and imagine Jonah was in the fish and undertermined amount of time?

That totally went over your head. Is Jonah God? I win the argument........case closed.

In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*

No he didn't, that's just you not understanding and mixing up scriptures, when you get to heaven Jesus is going to hake his head at your naivete, a Nebula forms and the planets and Sun form from this ball of Gasses. Please man, get real. And God is still forming the STARS.....Don't you understand that? The very first COMMAND brought forth the Universe, that's how God RESTED as in CEASED CREATING and yet Stars still form unto this day, you just do not use logic Brother at all. The stars are still forming, yes God created the Stars with His COMMAND 13.7 Billion years ago, and they are still being created today and were still being created when the Author of Genesis wrote the book, isn't it amazing how accurate that statement is now that you understand Stars were formed BEFORE our SUN....which is a Star, and STARS were formed AFTER our Sun....boom. So God did create the Stars didn't he? BEFORE DURING AND AFTER OUT Sun and Planets were created !!

Yes...God's Word and science are always consistent. The problem is you mistake secular opinions for science, and then twist scripture... which ultimately destroys the gospel and the purpose of the cross.

Honestly, I never hear a descent argument from you, its all cliched pat answers you have been saying for years. The real problem is you are wrong and always will be. That's your problem not mine.

Jesus linked humanity with the beginning of creation? Do you believe Him?

Over a 13.7 Billion year period, DO YOU BELIEVE HIM?

You keep telling everyone your story. When you get to Heaven Jesus is going to be incredulous and roll his eyes, look at me and say, this guy takes everything way to Literal Ron. :chuckle:

 

[Stuu]

You must also think that babies self assemble? Otherwise people wouldn't be making babies right now. (Yes... that is illogical).

Logical fallacy of straw man argument.

*ATP synthase never SELF assembles. It is only in living organisms requiring a code and code transcription system that organizes the correct chemicals, building the ATP 'motor' and and transmits the 'blueprint' so that 'baby' ATP motors are created.*

Yep, that's all part of the self-assembly. Which part are you thinking isn't 'self'?

Stuu: What do you think about the possible direct relationship between the proton gradient used in ATP synthesis and the proton gradients found around sea floor vents that could have powered biochemical synthesis at the start of life on earth?

I essentially answered this above. You have a giant leap of hope and faith to think a chemical reaction can create life. Finding a similar component in a rock, or chemical reaction in a sea vent is not life. It is a false hope (and psuedoscience) believing that life comes from non-life.

Great, so that means you must have a pretty good idea of what life is, and exactly how it comes into existence. Do tell! What is the energy system that powered organic synthesis in early life?

My Friend is not so invisible Stuu.

Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 John 4:12, John 5:37, John 6:46, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16.

He wants to be your friend...

Matthew 25:31-33, 41, 46, Revelation 14:10-11.

Stuart

 

[6days]

How long did spreading the stars take?

Well God created and spread (still spreading) the stars on the 4th day and Adam could see them on the 6th day. The stars were created AFTER the earth. There have always been people trying to twist God's Word and add time to it (Even in the NT we see Paul arguing against 'old earthers').* Early church father, Theophilus even argued against your old earth opinions... "On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it."* (Theophilus, To Autolycus 2.4, Oxford Early Christian Texts)

You can have all the "Genealogies" you want, if you are speaking about the Creation of man

Oh... Jesus was talking about the creation of man? So Jesus must have said* “from the beginning of man” or “from the time of their creation”? No... What Jesus said was “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female"* Matt 19:4 "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ Mark 10:6

And since you can't understand Gods Point of View you change it to fit into your "understanding" even though that is quite clearly wrong.

I think God made His Word easy to understand for truckers like myself. (I'm not changing it.) He said "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Ex. 20:11

"Darkness was on the Face of the Deep" there was 400 Million years of Darkness according to WMAP Map

No... not according to WMAP. You are trusting secular opinions of WMAP, rather than God who says "darkness was upon the face of the deep...And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
So, we seem to have 400 million years of difference between God's Word and yours.*

If you want to read opinions from Christian astronomers on WMAP, there are many articles such as https://creation.com/wmap-proof-of-big-bang-fails-normal-radiological-standards

There was no Sun (our Sun) for 9.2 Billion years.

God says " God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day ... there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day." The plants had been created the previous day.*

So to be Hot means Stars started Forming after 400 Million years of Darkness.

No... Hot means hot.* Yowm* in the Bible means 'day'.* As Strongs says "from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next". There is no major team of translators that think YOWM should be translated as 'HOT. And there is not a Hebrew professor at an major university in the world who would say the days in Genesis 1 refer to anything other than a day / night period.*

The Earth and Moon were pretty much the same size, then they had a violent crash which was only a glancing blow, our both the earth and moon would have been destroyed, the earth gained much of the moons matter after the impact, thus the Earth became dominant, and the earths atmosphere was formed, and the moon became our satellite so to speak that keeps our earth from wobbling, which produces season in an orderly fashion etc. etc.

That's what you believe. This is what God tells us. "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night." Gen. 1:16
*

Like I stated YOWM has 50 or more uses, Day as in 24 Hour Day is one of them. Its can also a Period of Time...

The meaning is ALWAYS determined by the context.* The word has many uses in the OT, and they are always easy to understand. For example there are 2 different meanings to the same word (day) in Genesis 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.4*These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens"
See..... Easy!

These Quantum Fluctuation live OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE thus the were there before our Universe, thus they are God speaking the Universe into Existence, they can be nothing else but the Force of Gods will. The Laws of Nature/God.

You are a heretic... denying both the Bible and science.*

Do you think they just APPEARED FROM NOTHING like the Atheists?

God's Word tells us He spoke creation into existence. No... God is not nothing. *
"For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command." Psalm 33:9


In the beginning was God who created the heavens and earth. *He created light before the sun and stars. He created our watery planet before the stars.*

No he didn't (create light before the sun and stars....created our watery planet before the stars.

You should read Genesis 1.

And God is still forming the STARS

The Bible tells us that God finished creating... He is not still creating. If you wish, I can link articles from Christian astronomers and astrophysicists on the topic.*

*

So God did create the Stars didn't he? BEFORE DURING AND AFTER OUT Sun and Planets were created !!

Again... You need read Genesis 1... and please do so without trying to add secular, and even heretical ideas to God's Word

(Jesus linked humanity) Over a 13.7 Billion year period

You deny Christ. You deny the purpose of the cross. If God created over 13.7 billion years using a process of pain, suffering, death and extinctions,* then the cross becomes meaningless. Christ would not need defeat "the final enemy" if it was part of the creative process.

 

[Jonahdog]

Well God created and spread (still spreading) the stars on the 4th day and Adam could see them on the 6th day. The stars were created AFTER the earth.

2 sentences in and totally wrong.

 

[Jonahdog]

Roughly 6000 years, yes, though an upper limit of about 10,000 years old.

Wrong, you need to study more.

 

[Jonahdog]

logic and evidence. (Do you think the screw you mentioned self assembled?)

Still waiting for the evidence to support your position. And no, I don't think the metal screw self assembled.

 

[Jonahdog]

There have been other false religions that have been around far longer than Darwinism. It is a non falsifiable belief system.

And your claim is somehow a way to show that Darwin was wrong? Really? Please explain.

 

[6days]

Darwin was wrong? Really? Please explain.

Sure.... But Darwin was wrong about different things. For example...
1. Darwin was wrong about God
Darwin turned his back on God, rejecting Him and blaming God for evil.
Darwin said "A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God...it revolts the understanding to suppose that his benevelonce is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time" . (Autobiography of Charles Darwin 'Religious Belief')
Darwin was influenced by evolutionary teaching of his grandfather, church and school to accept that there was death, pain, suffering and evil before the fall. Or, rather it is a rejection of the Bibles account of the fall.

2. Darwin was wrong about Science
Darwin was mostly a philosopher, not a scientist. Darwin was not an experimental scientist. (some experiments with worms and ants because he wanted to explain human behavior through naturalism). Darwins only degree was in theology and he*was committed to philosophical naturalism...not the scientific method. He started with a pre-determined position. Darwins conclusions were usually based on extrapolations of huge amounts of time.

3. Darwin was wrong aboutGeology
Darwin wrote that the Santa Cruz river valley was formed by small amounts of water over vast amounts of time. He used this valley to support his belief in deep deep time. (He sort of took that belief and said humans evolved one mutation at a time, over almost endless time). But the Santa Cruz river valley leads down from the Andes Mountains, glaciers and glacial lakes and the valley was almost certainly a result of catastrophic flooding of a galacial lake at the end of the ice age.

4. Darwin was wrong about the fossils
Actually.... Darwin was at least partially correct about the fossil record because he said it essentially falsified the ToE
Darwin said...
Re Cambrian explosion "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrtian system I can give no satisfactory answer..." Darwin understood the sudden emergence of diversity of life did not fit his model.
Re Stasis, Darwin said that the most eminent paleontologists and geologists (Cuvier, Agassiz, Barrande Lyell, Sedgewick and more) argue for the immtalitity of species.
That is not to say that animals don't change...but they remain the same kind. (See Marks thread on this in religion channel)* Darwin admitted animals remain same kind by saying "Why then is not every geological stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."
Darwin was wrong when he suggested that more time and more fossils would support his theory.* Billions of fossils have now been collected to give us a fairly accurate picture. The transitionals Darwin hoped for are missing.
Stephen Jay Gould says "The extreme raity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret pf paleontology...."
Or from a couple other famous evolutionts...
Eldredge and Tattersall ""...120 years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions..."

5. Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
In 2009, the cover of New Scientist says "Darwin was Wrong...cutting down the tree of life"
The latest research shows Darwins tree is collapsing.
One of the scientists interviewed in that article W.F.Doolittle was also published in Scientific American (Feb 2000) saying the imagined tree of life is a tangled mess.

6. Darwin was wrong about Nature of Life.
Darwin thought life was simple..(.it 'ain't'. A single cell can be compared to a huge city with manufacturing plants, busy highways, side streets., workers etc. Its information system is like the internet. single cell*has an energy system like a citys energy grid. And... This 'city' has a design that allows rapid duplication.).... Darwin said "But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts (These are all over the world) light, heat, electricity ETC...that a protein (Ha, Darwin had no idea how complex a protein is) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes"
Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case"
Darwin was wrong because he didn't know anything about genetics or modern biology.

7.Darwin was wrong about natural selection
Darwin*made the mistake of unbounded extrapolation. He said*"Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I see no limit to the amount of change...by natures power of selection". (Breeders understand there are limits to selection) Funny and sad, but Darwin believed given enough time nature could change a bear into a whale.
Lynn Margulis, evolutionary biologist and one time wife of Carl Sagan explained that natural selection can elimininate...it can not creat.
Anyways... Darwin was wrong about what selection can do. It helps to preserve life forms but can't create.

Does it matter that Darwin, one of the most famous people in history was wrong?
Well...It mattered to Darwin. He seems to have literally sold his soul to obtain fame, and went to a Christless eternity.
It mattered to Darwins* family (sons) who also rejected Christ and ended up leading a eugenics movement.
It matters that Darwin was wrong to the hundreds of millions*of souls who*rejected the gospel over a false belief system.

Darwinism is toxic to to faith in our Savior, Jesus Christ. Encourage your family and those you know to move away from the darkness that results from Darwinism, and accept the true light of the world.... Jesus.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wrong, you need to study more.

Wrong according to whom? You?

 

[Jonahdog]

Wrong according to whom? You?

Your claim that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 is simply absurd. Other than your holy book, what evidence is there for your claim?

 

[Jonahdog]

3. Darwin was wrong aboutGeology
Darwin wrote that the Santa Cruz river valley was formed by small amounts of water over vast amounts of time. He used this valley to support his belief in deep deep time. (He sort of took that belief and said humans evolved one mutation at a time, over almost endless time). But the Santa Cruz river valley leads down from the Andes Mountains, glaciers and glacial lakes and the valley was almost certainly a result of catastrophic flooding of a galacial lake at the end of the ice age.

Hunh, catastrophic flooding at the end of the ice age. How long ago was that?

 

[Interplanner]

Hunh, catastrophic flooding at the end of the ice age. How long ago was that?

1st my apologies for my recent post that called the Argentine river the Vera Cruz; it's Rio Santa Cruz.

There are complete scenarios of the end of the cataclysm's ice age lasting only about 500 years. Answers Research Journal. Drs. Sylvestru; Baumgartner; Schnelling; Oard, come to mind. The abrupt and total change of atmosphere prob took place 9K ago (Lake Morse, Lake Missoula, Niagara's start). There are way too many abrupt crust changes that were both massive and quick to take distant uniformitarianism seriously.

For ex., Siccar Point, Scotland, happened (see the abundance of photos), the collision lines are still quite sharp or "fresh." If it had taken place over a kabillion years, it would be mush. There are thousands of indicators around like this. Today there is one on MS Windows 10 screensaver. The Pacific NW you can hardly drive without one abrupt smashed, crushed, uplifted crust chunk showing somewhere in the Olympics or on the coast. We have burnt layers of shale that are bent in U and S shapes. One straight line of Hurricane Hill on the north side of the Olympics facing the towns of Port Angeles and Joyce has an exposed segment at least 500 feet, which might suggest some calmer movement, except for the fact that it is 5000 feet up in the air and removed from its 'mother' and the break looks clean and fresh today.

I keep looking for kabillions of years of slow imperceptible movement anywhere I can, but all I come up with are the few thousand of rivers moving sandbars left and right year after year.

U'ism has no geologic or radioisotopic or fossil record to stand upon.

 

[6days]

Hunh, catastrophic flooding at the end of the ice age. How long ago was that?

The question you asked was about Darwin being wrong.
From Wiki "He (Darwin) was wrong. The expedition (The Beagle) ended due to fast water and turned around, had they gone a bit further they would have discovered the true cause of the river valley to be a glacial lake at the foot of the mountain" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Cruz_River_(Argentina)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your claim that the earth is between 6000 and 10,000 is simply absurd.

Your 'ad absurdo' argument is not welcome here.
Please stop with your fallacious arguments and actually debate the point.

Other than your holy book, what evidence is there for your claim?

There is plenty of extra-biblical evidence available.

For example, you'd think that if the earth was billions of years old, that it would be relatively stable, yet just within the past 7 days in Mexico, there have been a total of 115 earthquakes. You'd expect that the weather patterns would have stabilized as well, yet Harvey through Maria? Earth doesn't seem very stable for a planet that's existed for the past couple billion years. Yet these weather patterns make sense if there was an earth shaking event that happened only a few thousand years ago.

(People who are interested can Google "Hydroplate Theory")