"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, Which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therfore, and testify in the LORD, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their own mind, Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart"
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobediant to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisors of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: From such turnaway. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the pormise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Where by the world that than was, being overflowed with water perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence."
"For many decievers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."
I've spent the last few days scouring the internet for any concrete evidence that would render the bible useless, but I found none. Nothing much has changed. I garnered a bit more knowledge on certain issues, but the overall facts remained the same. It didn't matter whether the individual writing the report believed in evolution or creation they were both at fault for stating opinions and theories as fact.
The "scientific facts" of an evolutionist contradicted the "scientific facts" of another evolutionist, the "scientific facts" of a creationist contradicted the "scientific facts" of another creationist, the "scientific facts" of an evolutionist contradicted the "scientific facts" of a creationist, and the "scientific facts" of a creationist contradicted the "scientific facts" of an evolutionist.
Being that that is the case I've decided not to bother building a case against archaeopteryx as an in-between stage from dinosaur to bird as even the evolutionists don't agree on the subject and I could build a believable case either way by just quoting the evolutionists. Instead, I have decided to simply reply to your statements/questions and provide you with numerous links so that you can review the "evidence" and decide for yourself who is stating facts, and who is stating "facts".
In re"unbelievable odds? maybe if chimistry were completely random. there is order in even the most chaotic situations. not to mention that different forms of this first self replicating particle could have been generated, a world of modecules worked on this problem for god knows how long."
"Phillip: Whatever chemical magic may have happened, life presupposes some sort of information system, doesn't it? Paul: Yes, it does. I think that is the essential point. The problem about life is not what we are made of- the hardware-it's the information content, the software. It is the software that makes us living; the biological information contained in us. Phillip: But you reject the notion of that software being a life force. Paul: Absolutely, though to be fair, it does have some elements of the life force in as much as it is non-material. Software, or information, is, by its very nature, something that can be encoded in hardware, but which enjoys a kind of independent existence itself. But otherwise it is really quite different from the idea of a life force because I'm not talking about any sort of magical or mystical extra essence. Information is a familiar concept. In my opinion, the great mystery about the origin of life is where the biological information came from in the first place. That is the crux of the matter, not the complicated chemistry and how it came into being. We won't find the secret of life in the laws of chemistry. The biological information must have come from our environment, of course, but how did it concentrate, how did it go on accumulating, in molecules, to the extent that we would call them living?"
"It's a mistake to suppose that there is a sort of road, with life as its destination, along which a chemical mixture is inexorably conveyed by the passage of time. It isn't just a matter of carrying on doing more of the same, with the amino acids obligingly assembling themselves into proteins and the proteins joining up with nucleic acids, and so on, to eventually make a living thing. It isn't a one- way street like that, and the reason is very basic. Making amino acids is what a physicist would call 'thermodynamically downhill', which means it is a natural process that occurs automatically, like crystallisation. But hooking the amino acids together into long chains to make proteins goes the other way. That is an 'uphill'-a statistically more difficult or unlikely-process. Let me give you an analogy. It's a little bit like going for a walk in the countryside, coming across a pile of bricks and assuming that there will be a house around the corner. There is a big difference between a pile of bricks and a house. Now part of the problem here is that attaching the amino acids together to make proteins costs energy. True, there was no lack of energy on the young Earth, but the problem is not energy per se. Rather, it is how this energy organised itself in such a way as to produce this extremely elaborate thing called a protein."
"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?"
(Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)
In re"science isn't blind faith as you'd believe."
I do not believe science (the study of genes, gravity, sound waves, etc) is a blind faith, but pseudoscience (the belief in evolution) is blind faith as there is no evidence to support it.
In re"any scientist who totally wiped out evolution with a fantastic new theory would first win the nobel prize, second become famous beyond all reason."
??
In re"your right, its 50-75thousand years. i made a booboo, curse that memory. btw, if your proving my point about an old earth how does that mesh with creationism?"
It doesn't. I was simply correcting your apparent mistake, I believe the earth is no more than about 6,000 years old in accordance with the written word of God and the facts (not "facts) of science. In order to declare an absolute date you need to know:
a) the amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen's existence
b) whether there were any daughter isotopes present at the beginning
c) whether parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed
d) that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has always been the same
sources: 1, 2, 3
Notice on the third link how he initially states in regards to the priciples of C14 dating that: "Radiocarbon dating has become one of the most widely known and, perhaps, the most useful absolute archaeological dating method." and then goes on to state the limitations, thus negating the absoluteness of the dating method.
It is therefore clear that radiocarbon dating is not absolute nor will it ever be without the invention of the time machine.
In regards to the issue of circularity in the dating game (ie: the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks) on talk origins this statement is made "Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation)." That statement implies that the author was physically and mentally aware of how every evolutionary date was arrived at, an impossibility. Was it based on arrogance and blind faith towards the theory of evolution, you be the judge.
Nonetheless, he then goes on to prove that circular reasoning is involved in the dating of the fossils when he says"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.
If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong.""
I obviously misunderstood your inference in regards to the creationists using already refuted material. I have heard Creationists refer to statements made by evolutionists on a number of occasions as "proof" that the evolutionists are wrong. That evolutionists then dispute the evolutionists that the creationists used as sources doesn't change the fact that it was the evolutionists that initially disagreed with evolutionists (thus no bias, less work). Two obvious examples are: Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, and piltdown man.
While God's word has undergone numerous attacks as to it's accuracy over the course of time, once all the facts were in it prevailed. Even today there are numerous "facts" which contradict what the bible says, but a "fact" is NOT a fact. And until such a time as a fact proves the word of God to be untrue, I will continue to regard it for what it claims to be, the Truth.
Please keep in mind what God said "Ye Israel are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,...therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God"
Dave
PS Here are some links: By mostly evolutionists against evolution Quotes1, Quotes2
Some links to evolution and creation link lists:
page1, page2
As well, google is usually very good for finding articles on specific subjects, although you may have to go through a number of pages to get a good sample of opinions. (I had been searching for a number of hours on archaeopteryx/compsognathus before stumbling on an article in National Geographic that admitted on the back page that the new dinosaur finds in China were a hoax, an issue that had been mentioned on a few previous sites I had visited.)
Bible quotes are from the King James bible and are located:Ephesians 4:14-18, 1 Corinthians 3:18-20, 2 timothy 3:1-7, 2 peter 3:3-9, 2 John 7-9, Isaiah 43:12 respectively.
"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobediant to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisors of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: From such turnaway. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the pormise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Where by the world that than was, being overflowed with water perished: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence."
"For many decievers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."
I've spent the last few days scouring the internet for any concrete evidence that would render the bible useless, but I found none. Nothing much has changed. I garnered a bit more knowledge on certain issues, but the overall facts remained the same. It didn't matter whether the individual writing the report believed in evolution or creation they were both at fault for stating opinions and theories as fact.
The "scientific facts" of an evolutionist contradicted the "scientific facts" of another evolutionist, the "scientific facts" of a creationist contradicted the "scientific facts" of another creationist, the "scientific facts" of an evolutionist contradicted the "scientific facts" of a creationist, and the "scientific facts" of a creationist contradicted the "scientific facts" of an evolutionist.
Being that that is the case I've decided not to bother building a case against archaeopteryx as an in-between stage from dinosaur to bird as even the evolutionists don't agree on the subject and I could build a believable case either way by just quoting the evolutionists. Instead, I have decided to simply reply to your statements/questions and provide you with numerous links so that you can review the "evidence" and decide for yourself who is stating facts, and who is stating "facts".
In re"unbelievable odds? maybe if chimistry were completely random. there is order in even the most chaotic situations. not to mention that different forms of this first self replicating particle could have been generated, a world of modecules worked on this problem for god knows how long."
"Phillip: Whatever chemical magic may have happened, life presupposes some sort of information system, doesn't it? Paul: Yes, it does. I think that is the essential point. The problem about life is not what we are made of- the hardware-it's the information content, the software. It is the software that makes us living; the biological information contained in us. Phillip: But you reject the notion of that software being a life force. Paul: Absolutely, though to be fair, it does have some elements of the life force in as much as it is non-material. Software, or information, is, by its very nature, something that can be encoded in hardware, but which enjoys a kind of independent existence itself. But otherwise it is really quite different from the idea of a life force because I'm not talking about any sort of magical or mystical extra essence. Information is a familiar concept. In my opinion, the great mystery about the origin of life is where the biological information came from in the first place. That is the crux of the matter, not the complicated chemistry and how it came into being. We won't find the secret of life in the laws of chemistry. The biological information must have come from our environment, of course, but how did it concentrate, how did it go on accumulating, in molecules, to the extent that we would call them living?"
"It's a mistake to suppose that there is a sort of road, with life as its destination, along which a chemical mixture is inexorably conveyed by the passage of time. It isn't just a matter of carrying on doing more of the same, with the amino acids obligingly assembling themselves into proteins and the proteins joining up with nucleic acids, and so on, to eventually make a living thing. It isn't a one- way street like that, and the reason is very basic. Making amino acids is what a physicist would call 'thermodynamically downhill', which means it is a natural process that occurs automatically, like crystallisation. But hooking the amino acids together into long chains to make proteins goes the other way. That is an 'uphill'-a statistically more difficult or unlikely-process. Let me give you an analogy. It's a little bit like going for a walk in the countryside, coming across a pile of bricks and assuming that there will be a house around the corner. There is a big difference between a pile of bricks and a house. Now part of the problem here is that attaching the amino acids together to make proteins costs energy. True, there was no lack of energy on the young Earth, but the problem is not energy per se. Rather, it is how this energy organised itself in such a way as to produce this extremely elaborate thing called a protein."
"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?"
(Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)
In re"science isn't blind faith as you'd believe."
I do not believe science (the study of genes, gravity, sound waves, etc) is a blind faith, but pseudoscience (the belief in evolution) is blind faith as there is no evidence to support it.
In re"any scientist who totally wiped out evolution with a fantastic new theory would first win the nobel prize, second become famous beyond all reason."
??
In re"your right, its 50-75thousand years. i made a booboo, curse that memory. btw, if your proving my point about an old earth how does that mesh with creationism?"
It doesn't. I was simply correcting your apparent mistake, I believe the earth is no more than about 6,000 years old in accordance with the written word of God and the facts (not "facts) of science. In order to declare an absolute date you need to know:
a) the amount of the parent isotope at the beginning of the specimen's existence
b) whether there were any daughter isotopes present at the beginning
c) whether parent or daughter isotopes were added or removed
d) that the decay rate from parent to daughter isotope has always been the same
sources: 1, 2, 3
Notice on the third link how he initially states in regards to the priciples of C14 dating that: "Radiocarbon dating has become one of the most widely known and, perhaps, the most useful absolute archaeological dating method." and then goes on to state the limitations, thus negating the absoluteness of the dating method.
It is therefore clear that radiocarbon dating is not absolute nor will it ever be without the invention of the time machine.
In regards to the issue of circularity in the dating game (ie: the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks) on talk origins this statement is made "Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation)." That statement implies that the author was physically and mentally aware of how every evolutionary date was arrived at, an impossibility. Was it based on arrogance and blind faith towards the theory of evolution, you be the judge.
Nonetheless, he then goes on to prove that circular reasoning is involved in the dating of the fossils when he says"When a geologist collects a rock sample for radiometric age dating, or collects a fossil, there are independent constraints on the relative and numerical age of the resulting data. Stratigraphic position is an obvious one, but there are many others. There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied. The data are determined by the rocks, not by preconceived notions about what will be found. Every time a rock is picked up it is a test of the predictions made by the current understanding of the geological time scale. The time scale is refined to reflect the relatively few and progressively smaller inconsistencies that are found. This is not circularity, it is the normal scientific process of refining one's understanding with new data. It happens in all sciences.
If an inconsistent data point is found, geologists ask the question: "Is this date wrong, or is it saying the current geological time scale is wrong?" In general, the former is more likely, because there is such a vast amount of data behind the current understanding of the time scale, and because every rock is not expected to preserve an isotopic system for millions of years. However, this statistical likelihood is not assumed, it is tested, usually by using other methods (e.g., other radiometric dating methods or other types of fossils), by re-examining the inconsistent data in more detail, recollecting better quality samples, or running them in the lab again. Geologists search for an explanation of the inconsistency, and will not arbitrarily decide that, "because it conflicts, the data must be wrong.""
I obviously misunderstood your inference in regards to the creationists using already refuted material. I have heard Creationists refer to statements made by evolutionists on a number of occasions as "proof" that the evolutionists are wrong. That evolutionists then dispute the evolutionists that the creationists used as sources doesn't change the fact that it was the evolutionists that initially disagreed with evolutionists (thus no bias, less work). Two obvious examples are: Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, and piltdown man.
While God's word has undergone numerous attacks as to it's accuracy over the course of time, once all the facts were in it prevailed. Even today there are numerous "facts" which contradict what the bible says, but a "fact" is NOT a fact. And until such a time as a fact proves the word of God to be untrue, I will continue to regard it for what it claims to be, the Truth.
Please keep in mind what God said "Ye Israel are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed,...therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God"
Dave
PS Here are some links: By mostly evolutionists against evolution Quotes1, Quotes2
Some links to evolution and creation link lists:
page1, page2
As well, google is usually very good for finding articles on specific subjects, although you may have to go through a number of pages to get a good sample of opinions. (I had been searching for a number of hours on archaeopteryx/compsognathus before stumbling on an article in National Geographic that admitted on the back page that the new dinosaur finds in China were a hoax, an issue that had been mentioned on a few previous sites I had visited.)
Bible quotes are from the King James bible and are located:Ephesians 4:14-18, 1 Corinthians 3:18-20, 2 timothy 3:1-7, 2 peter 3:3-9, 2 John 7-9, Isaiah 43:12 respectively.