Proof God Created The Earth In One Day

Originally posted by twhitehead
If it is true that they are 'advocates of creation science' then they should be striped of their degrees because they haven't even learn't what the word 'science' means and have no business holding degrees in any science. Although I can understand the mathematicians not understanding science as science is not a prerequisite for maths.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I hate to say it, but jaywill has been temporarily deceived into believing the false teachings of Hugh Ross without checking the truthfulness from the writings in the Holy Bible. A true believer must not compromise the clear teachings of the Holy Bible in order to agree with the teachings of sinful man. It is not a requirement for the Holy Bible ...[text shortened]... was a worldwide flood if the waters covered the mountains everywhere under the heavens.[/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to mix truth with lies. It is true that science can test things, but they can't test everything. When they have created granite and a living thing then come back and then you might be able to teach me something. Right now, you are nothing but a child trying to teach a grownup something he knows more about than that child. I reccommend that the child go away and get an education and then come back with his head out of his arse.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are reading it wrong. Let's look at it again.

[b]Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

Genesis 2:1-2 NASB)

In the beginning of God's work He created the heavens and the Earth. (Gene ...[text shortened]... verything, including the Earth, was created in six days and God rested on the seventh day.{/b][/b]

Originally posted by colinwbs
Dear RJ Hinds

Does the Bible teach anything about respect and humility?

God created the universe, the earth and everything in them, including science, and could have put the exact method in the Bible. If he had, the Bible would be so big, it would be no use for helping us to develop a closer relationship with him. It would make sense just to ...[text shortened]... all of us laid it to rest and concentrated on developing a closer relationship with our God.

Originally posted by colinwbs
Dear RJ Hinds

Does the Bible teach anything about respect and humility?

God created the universe, the earth and everything in them, including science, and could have put the exact method in the Bible. If he had, the Bible would be so big, it would be no use for helping us to develop a closer relationship with him. It would make sense just to ...[text shortened]... all of us laid it to rest and concentrated on developing a closer relationship with our God.

Originally posted by finnegan
I see so when we disagree with you we can cite Jaywill and when we disagree with Jaywill we can cite you then?

Hugh Ross, of course, is a total fraud and I responded a long time ago to one of his videos for Jaywill. Like your sources, he lies about what science says in order to construct his arguments.

However, the case for arguing that everyone who ...[text shortened]... an atheist is looking even more thin don't you agree? You are both on the lunatic fringe here.

Originally posted by colinwbs
Dear RJ Hinds

It was not me I was suggesting you show repect to

As for Ignorance; I feel my faith, knowledge of the Bible, scientific reading, science degree, medical degree and post-graduate fellowship exams leave me educated enough to comment on this subject.

As I suggested in my last post, this is not a profitable line of discussion for spreading God's love.

I shall follow my own advice regarding this

Regards

Originally posted by colinwbs
Dear RJ Hinds [...] This debate does not promote God or his ideals, perhapse it is time all of us laid it to rest and concentrated on developing a closer relationship with our God.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's just super. Now show us the peer reviewed papers they wrote refuting evolution or proving the older than Judaism 6 day creation story.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It was clear to me that you have not been following this discussion for long and regardless of your educational background you should not jump in so arrogantly with such a lack of knowledge. There are many ways to spread the message of God and He is not against tough love either. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

P.S. Do you disagree that God created the heavens and the Earth in one day?

Originally posted by finnegan
What a vicious outburst in response to a very gentle and thoughtful contribution.

It is not hard to read through this thread - or a set of threads - so to say he has not been following this discussion for long is rediculous and patently absurd. It certainly does not take long to clearly identify that you are collecting a longer and longer hate list as ...[text shortened]... ats using engines. A number of very strong players I have encountered just can't see the point.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When are you going to contribute anything worth paying attention to. You still refuse to look at and critique the first video I submitted that nobody will pay any attention to. All you guys want to do is blast what I have to say without using any reason, logic, and real evidence worthy of consideration. So until someone can, then I will continue to present evolution as a lie of Satan the Devil.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you will find the following video informative and worth your while in viewing.

YouTube&feature=related


Why do I rise to the bait you may ask? Maybe just to show I am prepared to listen and not be bigoted. Maybe for the entertainment value when I spot the lies and the rhetorical tricks employed.

Well this 49 minute video clip sets out in a deeply sarcastic manner a curious proposition.

Science (it says) attributes life to a combination of matter + energy + random chance.
Creation Science atrtributes life to a combination of matter + energy + information.

It then waxes lyrical on the sheer complexity of DNA and the vast amount of information contained there and the incredibly organised way in which that information is transmited and copied from DNA to RNA to proteins and so forth. Such a display of clear, intelligble and unarguable erudition lends credibility to this speaker's scientific credentials. We even lern early on that he has spent 150,000 dollars getting an education in medicine, the foundation of whcih, as he points out, is evolutionary biology. So whatever else is wrong with evolutionary biology, he concedes that it is the foundation of medical science and so must have some value I would suggest.

It proposes (at about 23 minutes e.g.) that according to Science, this information got into the DNA code by random chance. That is such a crazy, improbable eventuality that it must be dismissed.

It would be a decent argument if it was true but it is FALSE. It is true enough that many scientists say that evolution arises by chance and not by design. But the manner in which this happens is not random and chaotic.

What happens by random chance is that there are errors in transmitting the code during replication. That is not surprising in a complex process as described so well in the video. The majority of such errors result in a failure of the process - at some stage, the error makes the DNA replication a failure. However, some transmission errors do not damage the viability of the new DNA and are retained. What effect this might have on the subsequent new organism is highly questionable. For example, it may have zero effect, since much of the DNA sequence does not appear to do anything useful at all. Or it may produce a slight difference that is normally unimportant - an example might be that some peas are smooth and some are crinkled, depending on which version of the DNA message gets transmitted.

What also happens by chance ( not truly random however, it must be said, but chance all the same) is that the environment into which each organism is born varies over time. It may become more dry or more wet, a new predator may arrive on the scence, etc.

Now two things are not contentious. One is that individual differences arise in every species of life. eg some individuals are taller or shorter, or have longer fingers or shorter ones, and so forth for every feature of the creature's structure. The other is that the environment is subject to continual change.

In the theory of evolution by natural selection, all that is claimed is that as the environment changes, some individuals turn out to have a slight advantage over others on account of their individual differences, and as a result are more likely to reproduce successfully and produce new individuals sharing their DNA, as compared with less favoured individuals. That is all. It is a product of chance differences but it is not a random process. It is highly deterministic, in that it is shaped by the environment. Far from being random, any new creature that was cursed with a feature making it harder to compete and survive is going to die without reproducing. Most random changes in any organisms are going to cause trouble. Random change is dangerously risky. The change only survives if it enhances the prospects of reproducing or at best if it does not restrict those chances.

Evolutionary changes in DNA arise over immense timescales and by means of a long series of minor changes, never very significant at all at the level of one or even a few generations. It takes many many generations for any change to become significant and many more before a species diverges to establish a new and different species and many different species stand in the ancestry of most (though not all) modern species. Nobody can ratioanally claim that any modern species (or its DNA) has arisen out of the blue by random chance. Since this would be a nonsensical misrepresentation of the theory of evoution by natural selection, then the entire video is, I regret to say, a hoax.

It does not explain how any of its arguments can be derived from the Bible, unless there is a reference to the sin of Onin. To arrive at this version of Creation Science, one must start with the findings of modern evolutionary biology and work backwards. Whenever something interesting happens, insert the word "creation" for the scientific account.

This is also, of course, just one of the various versions subsumed under the heading Creationism. So the Creationists can have long and interesting debates together to determine who is being confused by Lucifer's little imps and who has a direct line to God.

Informative? Not about anything else, just about the kind of propoganda referred to in support of Creationism. Worth my while viewing? Only if it is worth taking the trouble to respond to its lies, since otherwise they go uncontested.
Thread: Chance or by Design ? Forum: Spirituality

Originally posted by finnegan
What a vicious outburst in response to a very gentle and thoughtful contribution.

It is not hard to read through this thread - or a set of threads - so to say he has not been following this discussion for long is rediculous and patently absurd. It certainly does not take long to clearly identify that you are collecting a longer and longer hate list as ...[text shortened]... ats using engines. A number of very strong players I have encountered just can't see the point.