Evolutionists Stuck With The Chicken And The Egg Problem........Again

Melipona Bee Defies Evolution

Proving The Existence Of A Designer With Math And Physics

I came across some videos that shed some good light on this intense debate about the origins of life.  Enjoy, and I pray they enlighten the senses so that you realize that it's ok to go where the data leads you.  God is a good God, and he has made this world in a way so that we can understand it as well as himself.  We have rational minds to comprehend all of this data.  If the world was a product of evolution then we would expect to see irrationality and chaos all over.  However, the contrary stands.  We see order, rationality and we can understand the information being portrayed in all that we see.  God is not a puppeteer playing games with you so that you have to figure it all out.  He has revealed himself in the scriptures and is at the door knocking now waiting patiently for you to open it and let him in.  He says "I tell you, now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor 6:2)

Physics Prove The Existence of God (On A Razor's Edge)


Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design

The Evolution Of Fish

Evolutionary Assumptions - Life from dead chemicals?

The Woodpecker's Special Equipment Beak, Feet, Tail, Skull

5 Questions Every Atheist MUST Answer

I think these are fair and intelligent questions which I rarely hear answered. I can only think of a handful of people who have attempted to answer them in a few debates I have listened to. They usually claim it's a societal thing. But I think the video calls that notion into account as well. What do you think? How can Atheism account for such things?

The "Just So" Universe - Fine Tuned For You And Me

Lee Strobel once again pointing to how the universe has a certain "just so" element to it which subsequently causes it to support life on our earth, the only planet we know today which supports it.  It's no wonder that it is said that mathematics is the language of the universe.  There are so many constants in place that this flies in the face of a random universe just coming into play.  It is as though the Universe has been fine tuned for us.  While scripture makes it clear that we need faith to please God one can believe in him solely on the evidence alone.  This is why I am a Christian, because of the evidence I find when I look at Archeology, Astronomy, Biology and History.  They all point to the Creator.  The only thing that separates us on the subject is due to our presuppositions.  Enjoy the video and note the constants and the precision which is needed to support life on our planet that if even one element is slightly altered, life on earth would be impossible.  It takes a great deal of faith to believe that something like this occurred by chance and random processes.

Conviction - Way Of The Master Style

Its been a while since I have done any postings on evangelism. Here is another one of Ray Comfort's interviews with a young man named Michael. I can't stress how important it is today in our evangelistic efforts to stress the law (10 commandments) in evangelism. It is important because the law, though it doesn't save a man if he keeps it alone, it points man to his sin and consequently his need for a Savior.

In an excerpt from another site this is what many of our founding faithful theologians said regarding the law:

Was Martin Luther said, "The first duty of the Gospel preacher is to declare God's Law and show the nature of sin, because it will act as a schoolmaster and bring him to everlasting life which is in Jesus Christ."

John Wesley said, "Before I preach love, mercy and grace, I must preach sin, Law and judgment." Wesley later advised a friend, "Preach 90 percent Law and 10 percent grace."

Charles Spurgeon, who is known as the "Prince of Preachers," said, "They will never accept grace until they tremble before a just and holy Law."

Charles Finney who is labeled as having an 80 percent success rate in his ministry said, "Evermore the Law must prepare the way for the Gospel; to overlook this in instructing souls is almost certain to result in false hope, the introduction of a false standard of Christian experience, and to fill the church with false converts."

John Wycliffe, the "Morning Star of the Reformation" said , "The highest service to which a man may attain on earth is to preach the Law of God."

D.L. Moody, who is credited with having over one million disciples for the Lord, put it in perspective when he said, "God being a perfect God, had to give a perfect Law, and the Law was given not to save men, but to measure them."

If we were to ask the Apostle Paul why the Law was given and if it had any effect on the world today, the Scriptural Text gives us his answers. We would expect to receive the same answer he gave to the Romans "that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" [Romans 3:19].

The most significant tribute to God's Law comes from the Saviour when He said, whosoever does and teaches the Law will be great in the Kingdom of Heaven [Matthew 5:19]. The sad truth is that since the turn of the century, various new ideas have been substituted for the teaching of God's Law and standard in Christendom to the extent that Mr. Finney's above three areas of warning concerning the Law have been self-fulfilling.

Debate: Joe Sirianni vs Pedro Pequeno On The Big Bang Theory And The Days Of Creation

A few weeks back my good friend Pedro and I somehow began debating via Facebook over the Big Bang theory and the first six days of creation. Pedro and I both profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and consider ourselves to be of the Christian faith. In addition to this, Pedro and I are associated by family, as I am married to his cousin and I have the utmost respect for him and find him to always be about the welfare of others, including myself. And though I do not agree with some of his views it was great to show both sides of this topic and have this exchange with him. I figured I would post the thread in it's entirety for everyone to read on the blog and conclude for themselves what the bible teaches on the subject. A little background on what Pedro and I believe before you read over the debate.

Pedro: holds that the six days of creation are long periods of time (Gap Theory), which in essence teaches that these are most likely millions of years and that God used/guided the process of macro evolution to bring about His creation. He also holds that the Big Bang is true and that it was God's initial start of the creation process.

Joe: holds to a literal six 24 hr day for each of the six days mentioned in the Genesis creation account. He also holds that the word for day "yom" in the Hebrew and in it's proper context is the same word used throughout scripture for the common use of the word which means an ordinary day. He also believes that the Big Bang is scientifically inaccurate based on evidences contrary to it and evidences for a young earth. In addition, he holds that this view is contrary to scripture and God's account of His creation in the book of Genesis and therefore, can't be integrated or reconciled.

Here is the debate word for word:

My initial comment -

Joseph Sirianni I was once having a discussion with an agnostic evolutionist and asked him if he thought out of a million or more attempts at blasting a large pile of rocks what were my chances of producing the exact structure and beauty of the Taj Mahal? He laughed and said probably never. I said exactly. Because chaos can never produce order right? Seemed logical enough to us. Yet he would not for one second hold to the same logic when it came to the big bang. How can a dot the size of a period at the end of a sentence appear from nothing in space (and where did the empty space come from for that matter?) Then blow up (chaos) and produce the complex, orderly and rational (the universe exhibits rationality) universe that we observe today? Doesn't seem logical to me let alone scientific.

January 26 at 11:49pm ·

Pedro Pequeno

Science is probably right about the big bang. The evidence is all over the place. Where they are wrong is that it was a random event. Think about it. Who has the power to create the entire universe from a spec the size of a needle head. God!!!! What science sees as the big bang is really the handy work of God himself. Let's not deny God the praise for such a marvelous creation... the big bang itself.

January 27 at 12:25am ·

Joseph Sirianni

Well now the only problem with that outlook is that its a contradiction to
Gods own account himself in Gen. The Big Bang "theory" teaches that the Sun
and stars were made first and the bible teaches that the Earth was created before the stars. BB teaches that plants formed after the sun formed but the bible teaches that plants were created a few hours before the sun. BB
teaches that the sun formed before the earth did, but the bible teaches that
the sun was created on the fourth day after the earth (God was their light
as is stated in Rev.) BB teaches the sun formed from older stars but the
bible teaches that the sun, moon and stars were created at the same time.
And to further validate all of this, Jesus himself quotes the old testament/Genesis as accurate literal understandable history in the new testament to his disciples and other followers

January 27 at 12:36am via Email Reply ·

Joseph Sirianni

No argument there. I agree. I just don't agree with "how" you say he did
it. He told us how he did it plainly in the scriptures. He "created" them
male and female in the "beginning" of creation. I don't think people have
to give up their belief in the sciences to believe in the creation message. There is no need to attempt to integrate evolution into the bible.

January 27 at 12:40am via Email Reply ·

Joseph Sirianni

Come to think of it, if the evidence fit and the two could be integrated/compatible (bible, the creation account by God himself as a
witness who was there with evolution) I would have no problem adopting the theory as one of God's means to bringing about his creation. The only
problem I have which prevents me from doing so is that they contradict each other so gosh darn much :)

January 27 at 12:43am via Email Reply ·

Pedro Pequeno

Your view of science shouldn’t be so blank and white. Science is like a blind man who can feel the evidence but cannot see it. Try putting a foreign object in a blind man’s hands and ask them to tell you what it is and what it’s used for. The blind man will get some parts of his interpretation right and others wrong. He will however get his description of how it feels right most of the time. We shouldn’t discredit the blind man complete… he does have one sense that works perfectly find. We should view science in this same light. God did create the heavens and the earth. Science is a blind man who can detect and measure the evidence of it fairly accurately, but has to guest mate how it came to being. Whether you like to hear this or not, the truth is that the typical Christian is also a blind man… they can read God’s word in the Bible (so they have the means to interpret it), but they refuse to see the physical evidence as a means to gain a better understanding of the written word. So in essence, we are lead by two blind men’s interpretations which both refuse to work together. If we all open our eyes, there is so much to be gained and appreciated about God’s creation when we stop denying him the praise for all the evidence he has left us of his handy work. I find it sad that most Christians are losing out on this.

January 27 at 10:20am ·

Pedro Pequeno

If you step out of the box (the mainstream Christian interoperation), the word of God leaves plenty of room for the physical evidence that the big theory relies on. … the evidence that the entire universe originated from a single point the size of a needle head. Your evidence against it was Genesis 1:1-3 … here is one interpretation which does notcontradict Gods word what so ever: “Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This was the moment of the big bang itself. This part of creation happened trillions of years prior to Day 1 of the rest of God’s creation. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts this point (except that we don't know exactly when it happened). ... Then starts God’s account of the rest of his creation in “Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” In such a violent big bang event, we could understand why the earth lacked form and was empty. Then God starts his second phase of creation in “Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light," and there was light.” The sun itself was not created during the big bang… it was created during this second phase of God’s work. This would be completely consistent with both the Bible and science’s observations of how stars (suns) are created over time. One only has to step out of the box to see the truth and marvel at Gods work. God reveals this scientific evidence to humanity so we can praise him for it, not deny him of it.

January 27 at 10:53am ·

Joseph Sirianni

As for the analogy I'm not sure it completely correlates with the scenario. I understand no man can ultimately know all of the truth all of the time, but we can know truth. We don't have to be "blind men" according to scripture. Jesus himself said "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" this goes beyond the message of salvation. As far as the "physical evidence" for the big bang, we will never see eye to eye on this (believers and non) because of our "presuppositions". Evolutionist assume evolution to be true first and foremost (both stellar and macro evolution) so they will interpret the evidence based on that presupposition. Christians see the Gen account as God's witness account (which is compatible with modern day physics and science) of the creation. Physics show that a six day creation is possible (http://www.drdino.com/read-article.php?id=30)

There is a major misunderstanding that Christians don't believe in science or don't accept modern science. This is extremely false and one of my biggest pet peeves. I love science! But you and I differ on what is called science. Man's speculation about the past (especially with humanistic and uniformitarianism as his guide) is not science. By it's very definition it is not observable, repeatable and you cannot demonstrate it. No one can know what happened here 20 billion years ago, no one. Christians build a "model" based on the Gen acct and what we see in modern science today. We don't even call it fact. Evo's see the Grand Canyon as taking millions of years to form and Christians see the evidence showing it was formed 4400 years ago in a rapid world wide flood. I absolutely do not use Gen 1:1-3 as "evidence against it" (big bang). Not sure where you got the impression. I don't use the bible to disprove it though it can be used for it. Modern day science itself disproves the theory of stellar evolution if anyone takes the time to study it. And not to mention the evidence for a young earth (such as the earth not reaching equilibrium yet) disproves a 4.5 billion year old earth. The evidence alone for that doesn't put over 30,000 years. You have many many obstacles in your path to account for that theory and it is extremely incompatible with scripture. I don't understand why believers or how for that matter they can integrate them.

for just a fraction of those obstacles, check this out:
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html

....and: The best evidence against the Big Bang is the existence of Polonium Halos.

American physicist Robert V. Gentry's research shows that rocks known as Precambrian granites were created almost instantly as a part of the creation (as recorded in Genesis 1:1) and "are not the product of the evolution of the earth."

He says "the Big Bang version of primordial polonium is without any scientific basis."

“Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” This was the moment of the big bang itself.

How do you know that? How do you know that was the moment of the big bang? If you are arguing what happened before the days of creation, then I would never argue that. I would never dare to speculate what happened before the 1st day of creation. If one wants to say the earth has been sitting there for billions and billions of years then I'm not inclined to changed their minds. We just don't know. It very well could have been. The word in the Hebrew just means the earth was sitting "empty and void", formless. that's all. But if you're trying to show that each of the 6 days of creation in Gen are really millions of years each then you have a serious problem there. You will most certainly have a difficult time showing God did it this way using scripture which he himself inspired and gave to man. Is he not capable of making it easy for us to understand his word when it says: "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" and when Moses and others say "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" and in Hebrews; "And on the seventh day God rested from all his work" The 7 days in Gen are an example given to us from God for how our week should be presented. Work for six like he did and rest on the seventh like he did. God doesn't need to "rest" as humans do, it was an example given for us. And for instance, you would have to ignore proper Hebrew grammar regarding the six day creation acct. In the Hebrew, whenever the word "day" (Yom in Hebrew) is used in conjunction with a number like the 1st or 2nd day etc... then it always means a literal 24 hr day. And in the Hebrew add "there was morning and evening" and it's God's way of saying how else can I get it across to you that these are ordinary days?

January 30 at 9:07pm ·

Joseph Sirianni

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Please note that Professor Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Professor Barr said,

“Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah's flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the 'days' of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

. This part of creation happened trillions of years prior to Day 1 of the rest of God’s creation. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts this point (except that we don't know exactly when it happened). ...

How can anyone know that? and yes more than you know contradicts this. I think you're not realizing that scripture interprets scripture. You need to leave Gen now and venture throughout all of scripture where there are dozens of more references to Gen and creation. Not just in Gen alone.

And as the article states:

"Now there are those who say that maybe God used the "big bang" to create the world.

Well, God is God, and he can do anything he wants but scripture tells us that this is not how he created.

God’s creation was one of order, not random processes.

Those who try to reconcile the Big Bang with scripture do themselves and the Bible injustice. For the Creation account and the Big Bang differ greatly in the order of events"

"The sun itself was not created during the big bang… it was created during this second phase of God’s work"

Well this contradicts the big bang theory then, because it plainly teaches that all of the "stars" and all of matter came out of the big bang even though that contradicts the first law of thermo dynamics which states; "matter can neither be created nor destroyed"

Good articles on the subject: Why God didn't use evolution to bring about his creation:

‘He could have done it that way … couldn’t He?’ (Operation: Refuting Compromise (ORC))
http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0204lead.asp

Why wouldn’t God use evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/1223.asp

Did the Creator use Evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/evolution.asp

What’s the problem with theistic evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/2005/0520.asp

And as always........... I love you Pedro :)

January 30 at 9:08pm ·

Joseph Sirianni

More evidence against the Big Bang Theory:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=big+bang&site=default_collection#q=big+bang&site=default_collection

January 30 at 11:01pm ·

Pedro Pequeno

First, let me just say thank you for presenting your points in a constructive manner. I was reluctant to post on this topic because I didn’t want things to go down the same path they did last time. I am really happy to see this change. Thank you.

There are a couple things we can agree on which I don’t want people to miss in these long exchanges. Instead of spending time hashing out our differences, I’m just going to focus on what we can agree upon and leave our differences for some other time.

First, we both agree that God is the creator. We only disagree on the method he used, or more accurately put, we disagree on the methods he couldn’t have used.

The second thing we agree on is that the Bible does not state when the Earth and Heavens (prior to Genesis 1:2) were created or how they were created. … and just to be absolutely clear, I am referring to the creation of the earth prior to the creation of life on it. This both Joe and I can clearly agree upon.

Based on this, clearly we are free to *speculate* (yes, I agree that is all we can do) how the Earth and Heaven’s were created (prior to Genesis 1:2) based on scientific observations… and there is nothing wrong with doing this. So with this said, we can say that if a Christian hears that science has observed a pattern in space which suggests that all matter in space originated from a single point in space, they can accept it as a plausible scenario for Creation as long as they understand it does not include the things that God said he created after Genesis 1:1. They should however understand that while this observation is plausible, science has taken this single observation and extrapolated on it endlessly into an overall theory of the Big Bang, which contains many points that are not Biblical. As a result, Christians should not accept all the points of the Big Bang theory without close Biblical proofing… but yet, they can accept the single most important point observation of the Big Bang theory mentioned above as *plausible* and not contradictory to the Bible. This is something we can agree upon, correct? I know you did not say anything to the contrary in your posts above, so I am not trying to prove anything here you did not already say. I am just trying to bring absolute clarity to this point and the fact that we agree on it.

We can also agree that the Bible does not specify *when* the Earth (without life) and Heavens were created (prior to Genesis 1:2). There again, we are free to *speculate* how long the Earth (without Life) and Heavens have been in existent (prior to Genesis 1:2) based on scientific observations and there is nothing wrong with doing this. Can we agree on this, correct? Again, you did not contradict this, so I am not trying to prove anything other than we agree on it.

So with this said, we can say that if Christians hears that science has observed a number of things about the Earth which suggest it may be millions upon millions of years old, they can accept it as a *plausible* scenario for Creation as long as they understand it does not include the things that God said he created after Genesis 1:1. They should however understand that while this theory is plausible, they should understand that science has taken this and extrapolated on it endlessly into an overall theory of live on earth, which contains many points that are not Biblical. As a result, Christians should not accept all the points of science’s theories without close Biblical proofing… but yet, they can accept the single point (and significant point) that the Earth itself (excluding everything God created in Genesis 1:2 and beyond) *could* theoretically be millions and millions of years old. This includes things on earth like rocks, minerals, water, etc… there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts that these things could be millions upon millions of years old. Again, you did not contradict this, so I am not trying to prove anything other than we agree that this is *plausible* and that the Bible does not contradict science in this area.

I have a feeling you’re going to think these points are insignificant and rather pointless; however, I think they are very significant. These points don’t prove much, but they do prove that Christians should not throw the baby out with the bath water (as they often do) when it comes to scientific theories. As I said, science is like a blind man. Even though the blind man’s overall theory about an object he’s holding may be very wrong, many of the fine details about how it feels to them will be right. Christians need to see science the same way… we should not just disregard a scientific theory as a whole, but instead dig deeper and see the details that aren’t contradictory to the Bible and hold them as plausible. … Once we do that, a whole new appreciation for God opens up… it also helps us connect with non-Christians on the topic of creation in a way that often closes the divide. This is very significant and shouldn’t be marginalized.

January 31 at 12:44pm ·

Joseph Sirianni

Yep I agree with most if not all of the points regarding speculation up to and before day 1 of creation. However, I think one thing you stated that I agreed upon which I don't is

"that the Earth itself (excluding everything God created in Genesis 1:2 and beyond) *could* theoretically be millions and millions of years old. This includes things on earth like rocks, minerals, water, etc… there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts that these things could be millions upon millions of years old."

I would have to disagree with this point because when I state "before the days of creation...." I'm referring to the "empty, void and formless" earth which is referred to in scripture in Gen 1:2. According to this rendering the earth was formless and void meaning there was nothing in it ie mountains, valleys etc... And if I'm not mistaken, you're eluding that there were some formations such as mountains, rocks etc...

I think this small article does a wonderful job showing how there was nothing on the earth before the first day of creation leading up to the verse "The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the WATERS." The reference points towards nothing being there before God started creating, just a big ball of water to put so plainly.

"The gap theory—Part B"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/gap_theory.asp

Other than that I would just like to point out the main reason I don't understand why Christians are trying to integrate the theory: the Big Bang theory was derived as an "alternative" to the creation message. So I don't understand why they are trying to mix the two. It's an attempt to explain the origin of the universe "without a God" being responsible for it. So why try to say God did it?

One article stated by Dr. Jason Lisle (PhD in Astro Physics. he wrote the book which I love "The Ultimate Proof Of Creation" which you may borrow anytime you want:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Ultimate-Proof-of-Creation-The,6134,186.aspx

"This story of origins is entirely fiction. But sadly, many people claim to believe the big bang model. It is particularly distressing that many professing Christians have been taken in by the big bang, perhaps without realizing its atheistic underpinnings. They have chosen to reinterpret the plain teachings of Scripture in an attempt to make it mesh with secular beliefs about origins."

Another thing you're forgetting is what the Big Bang teaches about the future.

"Many people don’t realize that the big bang is a story not only about the past but also about the future. The most popular version of the big bang teaches that the universe will expand forever and eventually run out of usable energy. According to the story, it will remain that way forever in a state that astronomers call “heat death.” But the Bible teaches that the world will be judged and remade. Paradise will be restored. The big bang denies this crucial biblical teaching."

for more on this and to see some crucial evidence which contradicts the big bang read this short article;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/does-the-big-bang-fit

If anyone else wants to read more on this and other similar topics in the Creation Evolution debate you can head over to my blog @ www.narrowminded7.blogspot.com

Thanks again Pedro

Joe

January 31 at 8:34pm ·

Pedro Pequeno

The goal is not to integrate one with another. The goal is to discover more about God’s creation through the clues he’s left us in the natural world. These clues are out there and God allows scientists to discover them. Of course scientist take these discoveries and create theories that don’t involve God… what do you expect… they don’t believe in God. Even so, God reveals many thinks to humanity through these scientists (clearly the Bible supports the fact that God uses non-Christians when he wants to). It’s up to Christians to throw out the secular theories but embrace the raw scientific observations and interpret them through the Bible. I believe that in just about every major scientific theory, there are some raw scientific observations that are true. Let’s not throwing out these small bits of scientific truth just because they have been wrapped up in untrue secular theories.

Ever since we started talking about origins months ago, I have been trying to get you to see the trees and not just the forest. You’re so wrapped up in fighting the overall scientific theories that it seems difficult for you to support any tad-bit of underlying science that may be true. What we need to do is embrace those truths and interpret them through the Bible. Too many Christians are just not willing to go there because it makes them feel like traders… they feel like if they support any of the underlying science, they are essentially supporting the overall secular theories. That is nonsense. It is a limitation imposed by our minds, and not reality. We need to re-evaluate our limits and bust through these barriers to truly find breakthroughs.

As far as your assertion that the earth did not contain any rock or minerals prior to the creation (starting in Genesis 1:2) that has no basis in either science or the Bible. From a scientific standpoint, you can go to the flattest places under the sea, dig there and you will certainly find rocks and minerals there (at one depth or another). This is also supported from a Biblical standpoint in Genesis 1:9. It reads “And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."” God didn’t say he created the land… he said he caused it to appear by parting the waters… clearly suggesting that the land existed under the water. Land as we know it has always contained rock at one depth or another. There is no place on earth where you will find only soil from top to bottom.

February 1 at 12:45am ·

Joseph Sirianni

The advice your giving me goes both ways. The whole thing I have been trying to show you is that if the plain teaching of scripture can be 're-interpreted" then ALL of scripture can be re-interpreted and this does the Christian an injustice. How so? If you can take this scripture "And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day" etc.. and say those days probably aren't ordinary days but that they are millions of years (gap theory) then we are re-interpreting God's plain teaching. What do you tell the man who says well if those days are not literal days then maybe Jesus' resurrection wasn't literal either, maybe it was symbolic. What do you say to that? What do you say to the person who says well then maybe Mary's conception wasn't miraculous but just symbolic, she wasn't really a virgin? After all science has never seen a virgin give birth before right? Do you see the dilemma you put yourself in? What do you say to that person when he/she tells you that if we shouldn't take the days of creation literally then we shouldn't take a lot of things in scripture literally? I'm fighting for the non-compromising of the scripture to appease the so called scientific community who develops theories contrary to God so they don't have to acknowledge or answer to Him. Remember Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University? He said:

"I do not want to believe in God," Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. "Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (quote may be false - still verifying)

I have replaced the quote with a biblical one

Romans 1:25 "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen."

and Sir Julian Huxley?

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores"

I most certainly do not hate or discredit real science or the like. There are plenty of bright Christian scientist of whom many I have quoted material from, why are they wrong and the secular big bang theorist probably right according to you? If you and I place the bible to the side and argue against the bib bang theory on a scientific only basis, you say there is all of this evidence and I say there isn't, and that there is all of this evidence for a young earth no more than 6,000-10,000 years old. So why such a difference? It will always come down to our presupposition, point blank. We will always interpret that evidence according to our presuppositions.

For instance: your note about the rocks etc.

"As far as your assertion that the earth did not contain any rock or minerals prior to the creation (starting in Genesis 1:2) that has no basis in either science or the Bible. From a scientific standpoint, you can go to the flattest places under the sea, dig there and you will certainly find rocks and minerals there (at one depth or another)"

Well that's not the kind of rock we are talking about, those are the continents still connected (I hope you don't adhere to the Pangea theory, because that's a whole different argument I don't wish to debate) The bible is clear that the land God formed was connected all around (which you agree they were pushed up to "appear"). Evolutionist push the Pangaea theory and state that over millions of years the continental land masses moved toward each other to form the major land masses we see today. Consider what Jonah said after his ordeal;

Jonah 2:5-6 “The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head. I WENT DOWN TO THE ROOTS OF THE MOUNTAINS; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.” (emphasis mine)

Jonah here describes the land masses being connected under water and that these are the "roots of the mountains". This contradicts the Pangaea theory.

Evolutionist use the geologic column which doesn't even exist other than in the minds of men, to refer to their old ages, they use the rocks with strata layers. They don't use the rock or land or whatever you want to call it under the ocean (they use the fossils they find) to come up with those long age dates The rock (or mountains) your talking about under water have no erosion or strata layers. Evo's use those layers to determine their long ages etc.

"God didn’t say he created the land… he said he caused it to appear by parting the waters… clearly suggesting that the land existed under the water. Land as we know it has always contained rock at one depth or another. There is no place on earth where you will find only soil from top to bottom."

See, I agree, but this isn't the land which evolutionists use to date the age of the earth. Just study their geologic column and you will find this to be accurate.

Anyway, good conversation man. It was fun.

Joe

February 1 at 3:36am ·

Pedro Pequeno

Here is some food for thought. If I asked an engineer to describe how they created a new electrical/mechanical system from scratch… and told them the intended readers were 8 year old children … what would that engineer’s description read like. Now substitute this same scenario, but instead of an electrical/mechanical system, let says it’s… well the whole universe and substitute the engineer for the greatest engineer of them all; God, and the little children for humanity (which is probably giving us too much credit). Now do me a favor… crack open Genesis and read the first chapter. … Does it feel like your reading a description of creation written from an engineer to an engineer or from an engineer to a child? … Christians need to first understand their place in relation to God before they can ever understand Genesis. We are God’s little infant child… Get real… Genesis is a mile-high overview of creation for God's infant children, not a step by step engineering manual for God’s equals. You are reading Genesis as if it were. I whole heartedly believe you are wrong. Days in Genesis don’t represent real days. The story is illustrative, not literal time. God’s time is not the same as yours. God is not constrained by your sense of time. God is also not constrained to only telling literal stories to his Children. Just because much of the Bible is written as a firsthand account, proves nothing. I see no dilemma in that. It’s quite obvious that Genesis is a quite different method of storytelling than the rest of the bible. It’s plain for anyone to see.

You’re obviously fighting a fight against Science as a whole because it Godless. You claim to be open to science, but you’re really not. For you, any scientific observation that is a part of any overall scientific theory is unsupportable. It does not matter how true or how accurate the scientific observation is… it does not matter if the Bible supports the possibility of that observation being accurate… nothing matters, because if that observation so much as supports a scrape of an overall scientific theory, like the big bang, you are against it. Why? It’s ridiculous. You can support the scientific observation without supporting the over-extrapolated theory. It does not make you a follower of science to do that you know. You act as though it does.

I just proved to you that the Bible supports the possibility of multi-million year old rocks on earth. … yet, you will not support it because its a scrap that support part of an over-extrapolated theory of the big bang. Yes Joe, the details of the Big Bang are wrong... but no, not every detailed scietific observation that is used to construct the Big Bang theory is wrong. Some of them are right even though the overall Big Bang theory is not right.

In the middle ages, Christians persecuted scientists who claimed that the Earth was not the center of the Universe as well as scientist who claimed that the Sun didn’t revolve around the Earth. You’re not being any better in my opinion.

February 2 at 12:43am ·

Pedro Pequeno

You and I could obviously go on for ever on this stuff. Thanks for discussing it. We obviously have very different points of view on it. We do have to stop somewhere otherwise this thread of posts will go on for every. My post above will be my last on this thread. I assume you will probably post another, but I am done. For anyone reading all these posts... don't get the wrong idea. I highly respect Joe and love the guy. We don't see these discussions as fights but instead enjoyable discussions. We do like to push each other's buttons once in a while, but its all Cool with us. I just don't want anyone to get the wrong idea and think that Joe and I are fighting or anything.

February 2 at 1:11am ·

Joseph Sirianni

Yeah I guess we'll agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion though

However, if you are willing I would like to do some role playing by having
you answer or give your thoughts on a couple of questions

No long rebuttals to your replies, just me asking you a few questions and
you replying for any readers who are actually following the posts

Question:

Could you tell me, was Jesus in the grave for 3 days or was he in the grave
for a long period of time as in the days of Genesis?

If you say they are three ordinary days could you explain why they are
ordinary days in the gospel acct but millions of years for the first six
days of creation? They are the same exact word in the Hebrew "yom" and are
being used in the exact context (with a number)

Thanks