Most Adventist members today would support what is called Young Earth Creationism (YEC) - a statement of faith which says at the very least that all life on earth was craeted in a literal creation week less than 10,000 years ago.

However I recently learned about a 1994 survey done among SDA college science teachers where only about 43% would go along with that belief.

I have also recently heard about an SDA forum/session/meeting that took place in 2002 and 2004 where theologians and science scholars within the SDA church met to reaffirm the doctrinal statement. However that meeting also revealed that there was a lot of variance with that position even though a general statement of support could be obtained by some means.

Question for the group -- why in the world would anybody be taking evolutionism seriously these days now that some many of it's junk-science frauds have been exposed. (Most recently the Neanderthal dating fraud).

Plus we have Dr Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and Darwin himself all giving personnal testimony to the fact that Darwinism destroys Christian faith.

(And we have the witness of post-Christian Europe confirming the fact that once 90+% of your population goes along with Darwinism so-ends-the-church)

Any ideas?

Also - is there some place where Adventists are contributing to the support of the defense of Academic Freedom in pursuing Intelligent Design?

in Christ,

Bob

You might get more response to this thread topic if you post in the Origins forum, Bob.

For my own part, I'd just say that if YEC is true then we serve a trickster God, because the evidence sure *looks* as though the earth, and life on earth, is much older than that.

I also don't agree with the position that tries to tie the loss of belief in YEC with the loss of belief in God/Jesus/Christianity... except partly as a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, people are told "If you don't believe in YEEC, you can't believe in God". So when the evidence convinces them that the world is older, they feel they have to leave the church.

I've seen this happen too often. We have to come to terms with (and teach our children) that belief is a choice we make, not dependent on being able to prove any particular set of facts, scientific or otherwise. What we believe about the Bible or about God cannot be proven in an objective sense. Our evidence is subjective, internal, something we feel. That doesn't make it less real or meaningful, but it does make it a different kind of truth.

First of all thanks for pointer to the Origins forum - I will go there for the science part of this topic.

But the problem with evolutionism is worse than simply pointing out areas where it is being propped up by junk-science (probably a topic for the Origins section).

1. Darwinist evolutionism exposes the fact that it is distinctively atheist when it comes to it's opposition to Intelligent Design. Remember that Romans 1 claims that non-believing non-Bible aware barbarians CLEARLY SEE the invisible attributes of God through the things that have been MADE and yet Darwinists claim a distinctively atheist opposition that claims nothing is "seen to have been made" regardless of the amount of time involved.

So that distinctively atheist undercut of Christianity (as Richard Dawkins, Dr Provine, P.C Meyers, and Darwin himself admit) becomes an anti-Christian argument that in fact (as Dawkins points out in the movie Expelled and in his book "the God delusion") is at war with Christians.

It is in fact a very religionist system that is the mirror or antithesis the Christian view.

As for God making the earth fully functional (as Adam was not created single-cell-zygote to preserve a 1 day old appearance) that too is probably for the Origins thread so I will refrain from talking about that point here

2. As SDAs we believe that the Bible is the Word of God, is accurate, is trustworthy and "can not be broken". In fact we believe that we are took keep "THE Seventh day Holy ... FOR IN SIX days the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them".

So I don't see how we of all people can get out of that problem.

3. Third we have the problem of salvation and redemption. If in Gen 3 "man" is really some brutish colony of hominids where it turns that that one of them while sitting on his cave floor bashing in his rations of monkey brains -- suddenly "has a bad thought - and falls into the lost state" so to speak -- then exectally what are we being "redeemed from" because by comparison TODAY is heaven!

in Christ,

Bob

All good and important points. Mind you, all ones that have been discussed here in the past, so there may be some value in using the Search functions and reading up on some of those old discussions.

To address just one point: I agree that Dawkins' position as an atheist (I'm not familiar with the work of Provine or Meyers) is a religious position. But when he speaks as an atheist he is not speaking as a scientist. The fact that some prominent atheists are evolutionists does not logically imply or require that all evolutionists are atheists. There is a very large theistic evolutionist community.

(And that also leaves aside old earth creationist positions.)

The Sabbath issue is one we've talked about. If the 6 'days' were in fact long periods, phases in the creation, but God wanted a frequent rest and worship and reminder day, and commanded a 7 day week and a Sabbath, I'm not sure that command would be meaningless given that the days were not literal days. Others milage varies strongly.

I don't know how many times I've read that the evidence shows that the earth and life on it are very old. The selected evidence as presented by evolutionist authors certainly would lead one to conclude the earth is old, but how often do you read the evidence that the earth is young? Rarely will it be reported that the rates of mineral accumulation in the sea point to a young earth age, or that the rate of decay of the earths magnetic field is such that if it had occurred at a constant rate, no life could have existed here a million years ago. Have you read of the rate of slowing of the earth's rotation? Again, if it is slowing at a constant rate, the earth would have been rotating too fast for life to exist as we know it millions or billions of years ago. The rate and number of genetic mutations in human mitochondria point to a young age for the first man/woman. Radioactive defects in granite rocks imply they were formed quickly, not over millions of years. The presence of radioactive C14 in virtually everything argues for a young earth age. Not all the evidence is subjective and truth will be accompanied by evidence to support it. steve.

Fair enough, Steve. Lots of claims there, which we would probably need to take one by one. Again, the Origins forum is probably a better venue - I think I'm going to take the liberty of copying your post and starting a new thread there. That way the people who are most likely to be interested can find it.

"The earth was without form and void"

It doesn't say how long the earth stayed there before life was created. Also, aren't these the same scientists that once said that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the world was flat, because they "knew" it?

I take it an faith. I'm sure Jesus will explain it all to me in Heaven. I can wait.

All good points. Since I am so new here and still my first day actually - I don't think I have rights yet on the Origins forum -- but will be there soon.

In the mean time - one comment I would make is that the C14 argument even for Darwinists is going to be that anything 70,000 years old or less would have C14 traces in it. Your statement is highlighting the problem (for example) of C14 in the newly found "soft tissue" of Dinosaurs.

But there is another huge C14 problem for Darwinists. N14 becomes C14 through the addition of "cosmic ray" from the sun (so to speak) that causes one of the Protons in N14 to become a Neutron changing the atomic number to 6 and thus changing the element to C14. The rate at which that happens is called the SPR (Specific Production rate). At the same time the backlog of C14 undergoes beta decay and that neutron becomes a proton changing C14 back to N14 (SDR - specific depletion). The rate at which the C14 changes to N14 through beta decay is based on the half-life of C14 which is about 5600 years. In any case the problem for Darwinism is that after about 30,000 years the expected SPR/SDR ratio should become "1" - should reach equilibrium.

(Imagine a very tall barrell with holes drilled up the sides -- eventually as water pours in and the water level rises -- the rate at which water is spilling out of the holes in the sides will equal the rate at which water flows in and the water level will cease to rise in the barrell).

So that means that our atmosphere is something less than 30,000 years old.

As I recall the SPR rate is about 18.8 atoms per gram per minute and the SDR rate is only 16.1 atoms per gram per minute currently. So C14 is still in the accumulation phase - not at the equilibrium phase.

Bob

But Darwin, Dawkins, Provine and Meyers ARE speaking as scientist that "know what Darwinism is" and they are all speaking as scientist that USED to be christians until they took a hard look at what Darwinism was saying about the trustworthy nature of the Bible (and lack thereof).



My argument is not that all Darwinists are atheist -- my argument is that the Darwinist model is logically atheist and the proof is seen in 3 areas.

1. Notice the distinctively atheist position argued against ID by Darwinists. This is particularly noteworthy when you combine what they are saying against ID as compared to what non-Bible-believing barbarians (Paul's words in Romans 1 not mine) are said to "see clearly" without any acceptance at all of God's word.

2. Notice that testimony of Darwin himself as well as other former Christians - like Dawkins that testify to the impact this Darwinian model had on their acceptance of the Bible as "reliable".

3. Notice the impact that Darwinism had in driving Europe to a "Post-Christian" status. There is an interesting U.S survey that points to the difference between full acceptance of Darwinism vs something less than full acceptance as being directly attributable to Christianity in America.




Not sure what "Old earth Creationist" is. If you mean -- young life created in 6 literal days less than 10,000 years ago but "the rocks" were around for much longer than that -- then I agree that is a possibility.



Interesing idea but what does exegesis of Ex 20:8-11 show?

I tried that question on some Orthodox Rabbi's and they argued that even though their position is evolutionism -- they could not find a way to bend the exegesis of Ex 20:8-11 to anything other than the "yom" of 6 days being real days. "SIX days YOU shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD made" --

Same author, same text, same paragraph, same audience for each term for "yom" and codified in law -- not poetry.

I have yet to see anyone exegete Ex 20:8-11 so that the text is made to make the case that "yom" needs to be redefined mid sentence as Darwinism might need it to be (as if Moses meant to teach Darwinism to his readers).

Certainly we all agree that Darwinists NEVER frame the teaching of Darwinism with the words "SIX days you shall labor -- For in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE the heavens and the earth the sea and all that is in them".

I have yet to read that from any science text describing Darwinism as though that was ever considered to be an acceptable way to describe the Darwinist model.

Bob

But the areas where the Bible contradicts Darwinism are legion.

1. He made from one man - every nation of men Acts 17:26 (NIV, Holman)
2. By one man sin entered the world Rom 5:12
3. Adam was created first and then Eve 1 Tim 2:13
4. Eve sinned first and then Adam 1Tim 2:14
5. God made them male and female - the two become one. Mark 10:6-8
6. For it escapes their notice that God destroyed the world by water (2Peter 3:5-6.
7. SIX days you shall labor... for in SIX days the Lord MADE.. Ex 20:8-11

In other words instead of the Bible arguing that the text is some form of "Aesop's fables teaching good morals with lousy facts" (so to speak) it is arguing the veracity of "the very details" in Genesis themselves when making it's arguments even on other subjects.

in Christ,

Bob

Colin Patterson (Senior paleontologist at the British Natural History Museum and author of the Museum’s general text on evolution) spoke at the American Museum of Natural History 1981







Patterson was a devout atheist darwinist to the day he died - but notice his frustration with the problems that even he saw with the distinctively religious element to Darwinism.

The point being that even some atheist darwinists are struck by the religious element that exists in Darwinism.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm a Palintologist myself.

A reference to the GOP VP candidate?

Bob

Actually they are not the same scientists. Just because some scientist stated that the earth was the center of the universe and the world was flat doesn't mean that all scientists state that.

And when scientists were stating that the earth was the center of the universe and that the world was flat they were stating that because the Bible describes the earth that way and they thought that a solar system would destroy the truth of the Bible.

Reason has brought to this world many freedoms and improvements. This is why the argument of faith has failed so many times at crucial junctions.

The Origins forum is worthless. The only people allowed to post there are paid subscribers. And how many people want to read posts that they can't reply to? Not many. And how many people want to waste their time posting if not many are going to read their post? Again, not many.

I liked the videos at http://www.drdino.com/

He's a Baptist who believes people are being tortured in hell now, but he has done alot of research in the Creation field. I also don't agree the whole universe was created 6000 years ago and this is the only world God ever created.

I believe God came to a desolate planet ~6000 years ago and created life on it. To say those layers represent millions of years of deposits is a joke. They would have erosion marks between them and there would not be petrified trees sticking up through all the layers. Those are the kinds of layers that occur when muddy water settles. The different types of sediment form layers exactly like that. This can be demonstrated with just an aquarium and some muddy water.

The rise of evolution is prophesied in 2 places, that I can think of:

2 Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 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:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

They assume the way things are now, where the way there where then, and things have always been the same. They deny the creation and the flood. They scoff and everything they do or believe is for the sake of their lusts. Atheists are free to indulge every lust they might have.

In Revelation, we see the rise of Atheism in France:

Rev. 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
11:8 And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

Atheism needed an explanation for life, without God, and Evolution gave the atheists that. It filled a big demand. People accept Evolution and they are free from guilt and can sin and do whatever they want without any fear of consequences.

They where in a hurry to come up with an explanation for life without God. And God, in His wisdom, allowed them to develop their theories, long before the technology was invented to prove it false. One Atheist scientist said the cell was just a simple blob of jelly, having no idea how infinitely complex the cell was, because the microscopes back then where not good enough.

I know that two pillars Evolution depends on have been already been dis-proven:

1. The premise that life is simple. We now see this is not the case.

2. That life can come from non-life. They assumed things, like that mold would just grow on bread 'cause they couldn't see the mold seeds. So they imagined life formed on earth in the same way.

And Evolution faces more and more challenges as science and technology advance. But man is too stubborn to let all that work go to waste.

These are just children playing scientist. They have no idea what they are studying. But God will be teaching His children the mysteries of Creation, throughout eternity.

The "distinctive" atheist center for Darwinism is seen not only in the words of Darwin as he claims that his views on darwinism caused him to completely reject Christianity - but also in the senseless attacks made against Intelligent Design evolutionists for merely "admitting" that some things in life appear to have been designed and can not be accounted for by natural cause alone.

This ID statement is in fact a very modest form of the Romans 1 statement that God makes about what is "clearly seen" by all mankind -- even those with no access to scripture at all.

It is facinating that Darwinist religionists (believing that "there is no god") were so successful in bringing that religion to Europe and thus bringing Europe to it's present "post Christian" age.

in Christ,

bob

Bob;
Thanks for the info on C14 accumulation in the armosphere. I'd never thought of that or seen it written, but it makes sense and is another evidence that creation occurred in the relatively near past. I don't care to pick on anyone, but the clear implication if the evidence does indicate that the earth is old when it's really not, is that God is a "trickster". It's no surprise if our enemies make such claims, but I was surprised to see it repeated here. steve.

I'd be really interested to see that quote from Darwin: you keep bringing it up, but I'm not aware of anywhere where Darwin said his theory stopped him being a Christian.

Intelligent Design is pretty unhelpful to Young Earth Creationists, since it is essentially a lightly modified version of evolution that still requires millions of years. Probably good to read up on it.

One of the reasons for establishing the Origins forum (but I do understand the reasons why people are happier to continue the discussion here) was to create a safe place for Origins discussion, due to its observed tendency to turn nasty quite quickly.

And it's already happening - rush4hire is identifying those who disagree with him as 'scoffers', and steve is categorising them (us) with 'enemies'. I'll just keep on responding to the issues in a civil and thoughtful way, and ignoring the attacks. I hope others will choose to do likewise.

The C14 explanation given above is not correct. Equilibria are established all the time where the concentration of the products is not zero. The atmospheric C14 concentration is *already* at equilibrium, which is why we observe a constant concentration of it, rather than a decreasing concentration.

To take the water barrel analogy, it has two main flaws:

1. It would work as described for an infinitely tall barrel, but for most finite barrels (depending on the rate of inflow and the size and number of holes) the barrel would overflow before equilibrium was reached.

2. At equilibrium, there is still water in the barrel. At equilibrium, there is still C14 in the atmosphere.

>>I'm a Palintologist myself.<<

Aw, sheesh, Redwood. Can you put a hold on these humorous asides? There are the, such as myself, geezers out here who are geriatrically challenged with

ancient bladder control systems, otherwise known as ABCs - and are inconvenienced having to freshen-up.

:-o

>>rush4hire is identifying those who disagree with him as 'scoffers',<<

Having made only a quick perusal of this thread, I notice that it is only rush4hire who has been 'scoffing'.

Per the 'Origins' thread: I've generally avoided posting there as it was first established in clique-claquish fashion. I have ought against such practices.

Per ID: It is my assertion that the 'creationist', as he or she perceives him or herself, disfavors Gd by advancig such. Either one is a creationists or he is not. For the creationist to advance Intelligent Design is

to both dilute 'pure' creationism and to concur with such as myself.

Genesis apparently establishes both 'creationism' in its purest sense as well as intelligent design. EGW agrees - with her intimations of pre-flood genetic modifications. Amalgamation. In her instance, she seems to advance a theory of genetic modifications resulting from sexual concourse; whereas, I, though partially agreeing, rather, submit that pre-flood genetic modifications were

accomplished in scientific laboratories. Much the same is occurring vis-à-vis the present; witness such as: in today's news...

the Montauk monster and the duck with chicken feet, afraid of water...

Incidentally, the Origins forum is *not* for paying subscribers only. It is a by-invitation forum. I have just given permission for BobRyan, steve9534 and Lineman to post in the Origins forum. jasd, not sure whether you currently have permission, but if you'd like to post there just PM me. The intention was never to be cliquish, but simply to create a place where it was possible to discuss the issues without falling into pointless and circular 'flame wars'.

First of all - thanks for opening up the Origins forum - I will go over there as well.

Second - the C14 argument I was making is not that "there is no C14" or that "there should be no C14". My argument is that the SPR rate 18.8 atoms per gram per minute is still greater than the beta decay rate from C14 back to N14 which means we are in fact still accumulating C14 (in fact some measurements have thus up by as much as 20% faster than the C14 beta decay process is depleting.)

Simply put - the 5600 year half life of C14 results in a certain decay rate on average over time based on the total volume of C14. (which of course also means that this is not a claim that there is as much C14 as N14).

My argument is that the expected 30,000 year limit has not yet been reached for our current level of SPR.

in Christ,

Bob

It does not make sense to argue that to affirm the Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that are in them" claim made by God Himself - "disfavors God". If you have an argument to support that - please show us what it is.



I beg to differ. The ID argument is an argument from Science alone and so it is by definition the minimalist argument.

By contrast The YEC creationist argument is based on faith and the Christian world view much like the Darwinist argument is based on faith in naturalism and ultimately on the atheist world view as an opposing religious position to creationism.

ID is actual science and so it differs with the Darwinist follower who attacks ID on religious grounds. The religionist position of the Darwinist argument can not can not tolerate the academic freedom required for ID - at all.

ID being nothing more than pure science is far too minimalist to satisfy the YEC Creationist faith position however it makes for good science because it only affirms what it can see in the lab and makes no claims at all about the designer only that things can be seen to have the attribute of design in that they are not possibly by natural undirected processes alone.



Agreed.

All squares are rectangles -- the YEC argument is compatible with ID in that it predicts that science should be able to "detect the presence" of the attribute of design.

in Christ,

Bob

The biggest to me is where the genealogy of Jesus is traced all the way back to Adam:

Luke 3:38 Which was [the son] of Enos, which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God.



Good point. Evolution has to sift out data that doesn't fit into it's paradigm. Creationism can accept every thing nature can show us as a fearful revelation of God's infinite wisdom and power.

Moody - City of the Bees

I studied bees in high school, but I wasn't told the half of it. After I studied the data that creationists gather from bees and other creatures, I realized that our high school students are really being ripped off when it comes to knowledge of the natural world.

http://www.loudcry.org/main/video/moody/index.shtml



Right. Darwin had a degree in theology. He had no kind of degree that had anything to do with any kind of science.



I identify scoffers as scoffers. Scoffing and disagreeing with me are two different things. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, that I called someone a scoffer, when he wasn't scoffing, but just disagreeing with me, then let's see it, and I'll apologize and recant publicly.

And what attacks? I have no idea what I have said here, in the 1 post I made, before your comment, that you could have taken personally.

And why would you want to be so exclusive, so as not to share with the rest of the world? I've never seen a forum community that functions that way. It's really not healthy. In fact, Jesus even says:

Luke 14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:

If you want to be exclusive, that's the opposite of calling the poor to your feast.

And here again:

1 Cor. 14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or [one] unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on [his] face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

How is that uninformed guy going to fulfill this, if he's not invited?



Again, what in that one post could you take the wrong way?

Here's the post:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread..._YEC#Post189026

There's no exclusivity: anyone who agrees to adhere to the rules of that forum is welcome. And *every* forum has terms and conditions.

OK. But you just accused me falsely.



When did I claim people where scoffing in this thread? And when have I said people where scoffing when they where not scoffing?

Do you understand what scoffing is, according to the Bible? Is that also something that's too hard to interpret?

Are you talking about the quote from Peter? That's interesting? Now we are getting reprimanded for quoting Scripture that applies to a topic? That verse applies to evolution. So do the verses that foretell the rise of atheism in Rev. 11.

You want people to agree that Scripture can't be used to help us understand these issues? You want us to believe Evolution theory is not of the Devil? Is that part of the rules?

What do you charge me with?

This is what I found:



From this page:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=13

So in some places, it looks like more complex creatures are near the top. Let's assume that is the case. So it's assumed the layers weren't made over the span of one year.

I can see those little crustaceans remaining at the bottom of the ocean where there started out, and then the fish getting buried on top of them, and then other creatures buried at the top.

I wouldn't try to say that God created the fossils like that. That's a weird thing to suggest.

But what this "fossil record" does not show is transitional forms:



Supposedly they found a single fossil of a "missing link" of a reptile turning into a bird, but that turned out to be a fake. Those poor Chinese guys crafted it and sold it for like $1 million.

And we know floods create layers like that.

It seems like it must have been global, since there's evidence of a great flood all over the world.

Gen. 7:11 ...the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up..

This is more than just rain. It's a great disaster.





Ellen White said before the flood there where no jutting, ragged mountains, but only rolling hills. She says these formations are signs of the great cataclysm. The water would have been under the earth and in the atmosphere.





4400 years. The Mt. Saint Helen's flood left multiple layers, not one single layer.



Now sure what land mass you would be talking about. Is that the continental drift theory, where you see the single continent that breaks apart and drifts all over the globe? Are you assuming that before the flood, that most of the world was covered with water as it is now?

2 Peter 3:5 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:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

So, at that time, the earth would have been standing out of the water and in the water, and not like some land mass surrounded by oceans of water, as we see today. It just would have been completely different then. The water that is in the oceans today would have been under the earth and above the earth. There would have been more land than Ocean surface.



I can't agree with the magma heating all the water so much, because whales and fish survived the flood. Whales don't have nostrils and fish don't have the breath of life and they are not on dry land.

Gen. 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died

But the boat represents our works. They made the boat like they where supposed to, but it was God's grace that kept the thing from being dashed to pieces.





Not that I agree with the land mass idea, but I'm not sure if you understand that the flood lasted about a year.

Gen. 7:17 - 40 days - then the Ark was lifted up.

Gen. 7:24 - 150 days - waters continue to prevail.

- rain and fountains stop

Gen. 8:3 - another 150 days of the water abating

Gen. 8:4 - Ark rests on Mt. Ararat 7-17 (month-day)

Gen. 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

Month - day is not 10-1 That's (73 more days).

Gen. 8:6 - 40 more days pass . Noah sends a bird.

Gen. 8:10 - another 7 days . another bird - olive leaf

Gen. 8:12 - another 7 days - another bird - bird doesn't return

Gen. 8:13 - (month-day) = 1-1 (90 more days) Noah finally opens the door of the Ark.

Actually, the first and 2nd 150 days might be the same 150 days. I don't know. In that case, it would be 40 + 150 + 73 + 90 = 353 days

This was thrown together. It would be great if we could find a miscalculation of 7 days to make it 360 days total.



No need for such math. Those mountain ranges did not exist before the flood. They are the results of the plates being pushed together when the fountains of the deep where broken up. There's a video that demonstrates these theories somewhere.

Not to mention the limestone deposits at the top of all major continents.

Bob

rush4hire - if your intention with the 'scoffers' texts was simply to get to the later parts of those verses about the creation, and not to suggest that evolutionists are identified as the 'scoffers', then I misread your intentions and I apologise for that.

Quoting Dr Dino is not the same as looking at the scientific evidence, since he assumes what he tries to prove and has a number of serious problems with his scientific methodology. The fossil record is *much* more complex and detailed than the kind of sorting described there could achieve.

And this is one of the problems - people who have not really understood the phenomena they are trying to explain.

>>It does not make sense to argue that to affirm the Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the LORD MADE the heavens and the earth the seas and ALL that are in them" claim made by God Himself - "disfavors God". If you have an argument to support that - please show us what it is.<<

My post was not meant to reflect an affirmation of Exodus 20.

I simply forwarded the assertion that Creationism by Gd suffers from attempts to correlate it with ID per se.

I recall creationist’s losing battle to integrate its beliefs into the curriculae of the American classroom. Having witnessed the futile attempts of that ‘battle’ – following, I’ve seen that effort abandoned and instead, what now emerges phoenix-like, is the proffer of ID - tandem the ‘legitimizing’ proprietary language

ID, of itself, is distinct from creationism.

We witness today man Intelligently Designing in laboratories – globally. I think the first chapters of Genesis indicate the same. Genetic modification appears to be cyclical (the question obtaining might be - how often and how long ago?) – with Jesus Christ apparently affirming this fact with His statement re “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man” (Lu 17:26)

So, for one to espouse ID in its developing and practical sense disfavors Gd re His pure creationism.

Besides the many extant examples of Genetic Modifications, science has already begun to ‘Borg’ man.

ID per se vis-à-vis Gd’s creations – introduces pre-flood fallen beings and/or fallen man together with 21st century man into the equation as participants in Intelligently Designed creation.

Per any affirmation on my part re Exodus 20:8-11, I affirm that as commonly and presently interpreted, the passage is misunderstood.