Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

bob_2 · 09-26-09 6:12 pm

Elaine, I would like to hear your alternate proposed story of origin to present. If evolutionary, where does salvation fit in, what about purpose, and morality??? Since you are such a contrarian, this should be very revealing to us all, and maybe you too. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/wink.gif" border=0>

roca · 09-26-09 7:54 pm

One of the problems with traditional Christians is that they don't even know what theistic evolution means. So they default like Batchelor to atheistic evolution. No salvation, no God, no miracles. What they should do is learn about what they are decrying first. Have you done that Bob, have you examined what Christians believe when they say they accept theistic evolution? Do you really believe God can create only in one way? Or that He has to do everything the way He did it in the past, in different situations and times? Consider the following: But I want to defend theistic evolution against unjustified criticism based on misconceptions or overgeneralizations: • a misconception that natural process cannot be (and never is) guided by God, so "if it isn't a miracle then God didn't do it," • or that evolutionary creationists claim "no miracles have occurred or can occur," • or an overgeneralization that "because theistic evolution can be theologically weak, it must be weak," • or that "because a theory of evolution can be interpreted atheistically, it must be interpreted this way." In my opinion, theistic evolution is rational (theologically and scientifically) so it should be carefully considered. This page asks a question, and explains why I think theistic evolution is theologically acceptable, and why Christians who are evolutionary creationists — who think natural evolution was God's method of creation — should be treated with respect as fellow Christians. <a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.htm" target=_top>http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/te-cr.ht m</a> Take a look at the site and see how many of the questions you can answer. We are as the saying goes absolute beginners and perhaps that is why the traditionalists are upset. As they had thought they had it all figured out. Then Science blasted their assumptions to shreds. The answers I am afraid to do not revolve around the denial of Science which has advanced human thinking to unimagined abilities and creations. But maybe our thinking has simply on theological matters not kept up with science.

bob_2 · 09-27-09 3:11 am

I believe God uses microevolution with "kinds" which God said He did. I also believe that life on earth was created, and the universe and rocks of earth may have been created separate from the Eden creation event. I believe that most of the dating mechanisms are flawed and produced hoaxes. I believe that with mechanisms like those that John Baumgardner at <a href="http://www.globalflood.com" target=_top>www.globalflood.com</a> that YEC is possible, but the original rocks/earth and universe could be on a longer time table. I don't believe God has to resort to any evolution other than microevolution, certainly no macroevolution makes sense, and messes with salvific issures.

bob_2 · 09-27-09 7:35 am

I believe he didn't use the genetic material of another animal or person to create another animal or person. That would diminish the God I believe in. Ron, you were rather short on specifics on theistic evolution. Would like more specifics from you, and what you visualize about theistic evolution and how much you think God may have used it above microevolution.

bob_2 · 09-27-09 10:25 am

This definition I would have to reject: theistic: Those views, theistic evolution, progressive creationism, also deny the straightforward text of the book of Genesis. Reading Genesis may take some discernment but "denying the straightforward text of the book of Genesis" didn't sit with me too well. Ron, I am having a hard time visualizing "theistic evolution". How about a few examples to help. Generalizations lead to speculation. Give me your objective view of some tangible things it represents.

john8verse32 · 09-27-09 11:50 am

the original rocks/earth and universe could be on a longer time table ...Bob so you appear willing to take a tiny baby step onto that slippery slope of "redefining" what the Bible says.....since it says He created in just 144 literal hours, and according to the chronology, less than 10,000 yrs ago. how bout taking the next step, and find out what brother Christians are telling you? this from a Christian apologist web site: <a href="http://creation.com/the-wilson-cycle-a-serious-problem-for-catastrophic-plate-tectonics" target=_top>http://creation.com/the-wilson-cycle-a-serious-problem-for-catastrophic-plate-tectonics</a> Conclusion CPT (Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics hypothesis) derives much support from UPT evidence. The Wilson cycle is a key component of UPT. Baumgardner’s recent defense of CPT reveals a serious problem with the Wilson cycle concept, once the original pre-Flood ‘Paleozoic’ oceanic floor was supposedly subducted. Baumgardner has suggested that the weight of the original 50 to 100 km thick pre-Flood oceanic floor would simply have pulled it into the mantle once gravity-induced subduction began. This would appear to be a one-way process as the newly created oceanic floor, only a few meters thick, could not provide the lateral force necessary to initiate subduction in an opposing direction. Neither would it have the necessary lateral strength to pull an adjoining portion of continental crust along with it. Without the capability to move the continents first in one direction and later another as required by the Wilson cycle concept, CPT appears to lack a means to support this concept in UPT theory. For this reason, serious questions remain as to the applicability of UPT evidence to CPT. Those questions could be answered by providing an explanation using the Iapetus/Atlantic oceanic basins as an example. Acknowledgments I thank my wife, Susan for her continued support of my research and writing efforts. Emmett Williams, John Reed and Jerry Akridge kindly provided review and helpful comments. Any mistakes that remain are my own. Glory to God in the highest (Proverbs 3:5–6 end quote so above you have a Christian scientist pointing out that Baumgardners proposal as addressed by Snelling and Austin, both YECS and doing anything they can (including lying for Jesus) to confirm a young earth, all pointing out that Baumgardners hypothesis does not stand on the evidence!!! next, visit another Christian web site: <a href="http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/Answers/2007/answers_v2_n2_tectonics.htm" target=_top>http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/aig/Answers/2007/answers_v2_n2_tectonics.htm</a> read where the author documents numerous reasons why we can no longer believe in either the young earth, or the CPT as proposed by Baumgardner. Bob...since you keep referring to Baumgardners theory as the answer to all the YEC problems, why don't you check out the above site. or if you are unwilling, because you choose to remain willfully ignorant,at least read its conclusion: these give you an idea of the irreconcilable problems of the young earth catastrophic plate tectonics model. Interestingly, in Snelling's conclusion, he states that this model is still new. In reality, young earth scientists have been playing with it for the last 45 years, as can be evidenced by Henry Morris mentioning tectonics in his 1961 book The Genesis Flood, although at the time he did not flesh out the idea. The model in its current form stems from at least 1994.2 What is even more telling is that the problems mentioned above have been pointed out to young earth creationists in the past, yet they have failed to address these issues. Why would they ignore issues that completely invalidate their model? The answer to this has to be the intended audience. Answers Magazine is written for young earth creationists. They know they cannot convince real scientists, so they don't need to address these issues. In other words, what their followers don't know, can't hurt them. If you are not a Christian, and you have been holding out on making a decision for Christ because the Church always preached a message that was contrary to what you saw in the scientific world, then rest assured that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and you can believe in Christ and receive salvation, while still believing in an old earth. Click here for more. Are you a Christian who believes in young earth creationism? Now that we have shown the many difficulties of the young earth creation science model in this and many other articles, how does this impact your Christian life? If you are a young earth creationism believer, click here. go to the web site for those "clicks!!) none of this means you can't be a Christian!!! it just means you have to give up the young earth, which is claimed by the Old Test.... but that OLD part of the message makes our Loving God out to be a mass murderer anyway... so what is the loss of giving up both? or at least redefining both? or do you prefer stone age explanations wrapped in pseudoscience? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1906.jpg" alt="">

roca · 09-27-09 12:06 pm

Bob wrote: -- Ron, I am having a hard time visualizing "theistic evolution". How about a few examples to help. Generalizations lead to speculation. Give me your objective view of some tangible things it represents. -- Yes, you can't visualize it because you refuse to even read the page I linked to for you. For some reason you think an entire philosophical/scientific theory should fit into a paragraph or maybe a bumper sticker like "God said it I believe it". The problem is you don't know that God said it and what you believe is really only an interpretation usually based upon some tradition you have chosen to accept.

bob_2 · 09-27-09 6:36 pm

Your respnse may mean you can't verbalize an answer. Ron, we have differed on the substutionary death of Christ and you were proposing something new. Without your answer I will assume this is another rabbit hole you are trying to take me down. When you give me that response I can better judge where you are going with this. Cur and paste if necessary, I was over your material and seemed more in generalities.

elaine · 09-27-09 10:13 pm

If evolutionary, where does salvation fit in." Why not ask: if chemistry, physics, architecture, business management is true, where does salvation fit in? What about separate disciplines do you not understand? Must every academic subject deal with such a concept as salvation which is as foreign to true science with salvation as expecting mechanical engineering is to salvation. They are not concerned or occupied with a theological concept. Trying to drag religion or such beliefs into science and most academic studies is plainly ludicrous. If you wish to study computer engineering, do you expect the courses or professors to introduce theological beliefs? It is making religion cheap to adulterate it with other subjects. If you do not believe this, please explain how you would introduce salvation in any of the subjects mentioned; and how long you would be allowed to teach if you did so; plus, what are you qualifications to teach such subjects on which you wish to comment on?

bob_2 · 09-27-09 11:14 pm

Elaine, humanity is who Jesus came to save. Biology is the history of humanity. Those other subjects have observation, science, but they are not about man and his origin and whether evolved or created by a loving God. At 84 you should understand this. Our universities are not to be held hostage by godless men, who wish science above salvation.

don · 09-28-09 12:41 am

Why not ask: if chemistry, physics, architecture, business management is true, where does salvation fit in? The issue is, as Bob has put it, the history of humanity. Most of these disciplines don't take it on themselves to give such a history. For some reason, biology does. It is when biology's history lessons leave out Adam and Eve and the Creation event that lines cross. Those who teach theistic evolution, or naturalistic evolution, seem to have no teaching regarding sin and the need of a savior. Religion lays claim to the story of origins. When science enters this realm without acknowledging God as creator, there will be a showdown. When God meets his scientists, imagine the discussion. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> (Message edited by Don on September 28, 2009)

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 9:27 am

imagine the discussion 99% of scientists demand, after having been raised from the dead, but facing a painful firey death at the hands of our loving God:. ..."Why did you give us mixed messages? your Book of Words differs from your Book of Life, but at least that agrees substantially with the Book of Rocks.... which is why we believed those, not what ancient goat herders wrote whose experiences we could no longer study and repeat." God's answer: ..." you shudda listened to Ellen White when she called you infidel geologists and told you how volcanoes work" and where those tall, majestic people were living without sin. Scientists:.... ..."but, but, but....what she said about science too often made no sense? sometimes it was just so stupid that it led us to believe that anything else she said was also hogwash.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1918.jpg" alt=""> are you adding that to the list of reasons you are going to burn us to death again? God: ..."yes... and you should not have been sending your kids to LaSierra University, that's why they were also led astray, despite the church'es best attempts to intervene ... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1919.jpg" alt=""> you should all be ashamed of telling your kids that monkey business.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1920.jpg" alt=""> its all your fault, so I'm gonna have to kill your kids too. My Son tried to warn you but nobody paid enuf attention." <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1921.jpg" alt=""> Scientists: ...but, but, but....how is that fair? the old laws you gave the Heebs said that nobody should punish the kids for the parents issues...yet here you threaten to do that, like Paul said we all must die, as kids of Eve, who was only deceived according to the legend...and you created Eve with those seductive ways...so why punish us guys too? for what you created and gave us as "helpmeet"? <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1922.jpg" alt=""> ...and why kill kids for the parents fault?" God: ..."Because I learned that it works...back there in Egypt...that tinpot king would not say uncle until I killed all those kids...." Scientists: ..."but couldn't you have just tortured the Pharaoh personally, himself? wouldn't that have had the same effect?" God: ..."weeelll...maybe, but what's done is done, and it DID work, and doing anything less severe would not have been the great audio/visual aid to the fear of God that I needed to put into everybody to make them obey...I had to gain everybody's fear if not respect...so lets not get the ACLU's shorts all bunched up.... you all gotta quit wimpering.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1923.jpg" alt=""> lets move on to BBQ'ing all these infidels.... and then I've got a few post and beam mansions being hammered out just the other side of the hole in Orion for those who believed.... My Son and I told you what not to do... even wrote it with my own finger <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1924.jpg" alt=""> and you didn't listen... ...Hey, Son...you got those nukes spooled up yet?....its time...been almost a thousand yrs of the sun going around the earth.... <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1925.jpg" alt=""> lets git er done and I can asure you, this hurts me more than it does you...." <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/7/1926.gif" alt="">

bob_2 · 09-28-09 4:16 pm

John, are you a Universalist that believes everyone is going to receive eternal life no matter what they have done, believed or taught?? You and Elaine have done a lot of poo-pooing traditional thought, suggesting it doesn't make sense, without laying out Plan B or an alternate way science or "your" version of the Bible is pointing. We're suppose to have faith in the negative without some positive alternative beside death and dust being presented??? (Message edited by Bob_2 on September 28, 2009)

elaine · 09-28-09 5:01 pm

It is when biology's history lessons leave out Adam and Eve and the Creation event that lines cross. Those who teach theistic evolution, or naturalistic evolution, seem to have no teaching regarding sin and the need of a savior. What sort of evolution do you recommend be taught? Whose position of teaching science should accompany the teaching of sin and salvation? Isn't this the realm of religious studies, not science? When did the curriculum for science necessitate including such topics as sin and salvation? Aren't they outside the parameters of science? If the religion courses wish to bring in religious beliefs about science, they should be warned they are overstepping the boundaries of their particular discipline and are not qualified for any and all subjects. IMO, they should not be combined or conflated. How can one properly address the biological or geological or paleogeological sciences with religious belief: religion that is not universally adopted by a universal consensus? There are many Christian Creationists who do not limit creation to a particular time span. Should they be demonized for not teaching their personal beliefs in science classes? Whose beliefs should be taught with science when there are a myriad of beliefs? If you teach science in an SDA school, how do you teach it? If you teach religion do you attempt to combine the two, and how?

bob_2 · 09-28-09 6:00 pm

I would have no problem with honest presentations of 1. Dating processes to get to deep time. 2. Why the need for deep time. 3. Open discussion of the hoaxes found. 4. Mendel's Accountant 5. Honest discussion of Plate Techtonics. 6. Open discussion of why Uniformitarianism is the sole position of science and whether that is realistic. Those for starters, then a discussion of origins, from nothing and from a Designer, after all that is what the dispute is about.

bob_2 · 09-28-09 7:18 pm

Here is a little more information about "mutations" and what happens when mutations happen, the gene is always weakened, rarely if at all strenghtened and able to create a new species: <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Mutations Mutations are caused by random changes in genes. Is it possible that a mutation could produce new genes that would create a new species? Let's consider that possibility. It is possible that somewhere there could be a colony of flying ants. It might happen that the queen of this colony might suffer some genetic accident that damages the gene that causes wings to form. Her offspring would not have any wings, and naturally would not be able to fly. The inability to fly is certainly not an advantage, so one would not expect that natural selection would cause them to beat the flying ants in the battle for survival. This mutation would be a disadvantage. But inability to fly might not be such a large disadvantage that the non-flying ants could not survive. These non-flying ants might not mate with the flying ants, and so they would be considered to be a new species. This is not evolution in the Darwinian sense because a "higher" (or superior) species has not been created. Quite the opposite. This hypothetical new species of ant is a step backwards, not forwards. It has lost the ability to fly because it has lost a required gene. It now also has some left-over "junk DNA" designed to control the wings it no longer has. This junk DNA no longer serves any purpose. It could be said that the ant "devolved" because the new species is inferior. Devolution is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Given enough time, and left to themselves, things fall apart. Things don't naturally fall together. So it is possible that flying ants could devolve into ordinary ants because one of the genes needed for flying could be lost or damaged. For flight-challenged ants to evolve into flying ants, at least one new gene would have to be added. There is no evidence that this happens now, or has ever happened in the past. "Gene-jockey" scientists have transplanted genes to create novel characteristics in laboratory animals, but new beneficial genes don't just appear by magic in a natural process. Genes naturally get worse, not better. If you write a document, then let someone change some of the letters at random, the document will make less sense, not more sense. If you randomly change op codes in a computer program, the program will not improve. Random mutations do not make things better. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm" target=_top>http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i4f.htm</a>

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 7:59 pm

this is no longer true: Uniformitarianism is the sole position of science nothing "uniformitarian" about random space rocks God sometimes bowls at us.... tho there may be something natural causing it, and on a less than random cycle... leading to the "Shiva Hypothesis" which is an attempt to explain the seeming congruence of mass extinctions, volcanism, impacts and astronomical events... <a href="http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html" target=_top>http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/crater.html</a> the way biologist Gound explained it... it seems that things move along with some regularity (uniformity), but at random (or inexplicable) times, things change.... Niagara Falls for example, did not erode its way upstream at precisely the same rate for the past 10-15,000 yrs..... sometimes when there was less melt water from glaciers, the falls may have "slowed" its movement, resulting in deep plunge pools as the torrent of falling water dug out the stream bed....while at other times, with more water flowing down the river, the falls eroded its way upriver faster.... but you can take the average of 3 feet per year, and divide into the distance the falls has moved from the escarpment which created the falls in the first place, 7 miles x 5280, and you come up with an average of around 12,000 yrs of erosion... of course, the real problem for young earthers is not the 12,000 yrs, but the millions of years it took to lay down the alternating layers of limestone and shale the falls cut thru!!! which is underlain a few miles away by one of the worlds largest halite deposits..... there may have been periods of uniformitarian geology which was often interrupted by major change in the geologic history of this region!!! to make hundreds of feet of halite, there had to be a large salt water body there, a very long time ago, which had to evaporate hundreds if not thousands of time to make the layers.... then the area had to be recovered with another sean but this time, mega gazillions of tiny marine animals had to be hatched, grow, reproduce, and die, leaving their calcareous shells on the bottom as oooze, which, after mega years of more alternating layers of lime deposits, or mud layers pressing down on top, this ooze was uplifted as limestone, alternating with layers of shale. Then glaciers had to grow, then start melting some 15000 yrs ago, with the resulting outflow...the Niagara River, cutting its 12,000 year old way down thru the alternating 200,000,000 year old layers of limestone and shale. dont forget...the animals which were sacrificed to make that limestone, lived, and died millions of years before Genesis timeline for the "fall"...

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 8:05 pm

I would have no problem with honest presentations of 1. Dating processes to get to deep time. my government has already done it for us...no green card required. if you care to check it out instead of always denying any evidence which you don't want to know about: <a href="http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html" target=_top>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</a>

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 8:18 pm

2. Why the need for deep time. there is no "need"....it just is..... 3. Open discussion of the hoaxes found. I don't think there are any "hoaxes" in how we know the age of the world and the universe.... there may be disagreements about how to interpret evidence, there sometimes may be new evidence which requires a modification of a theory, but science is based on finding the truth!!! and any scientist who tries to get away with false data or erroneous conclusions will be hounded out of science by his peers, all anxious to make a name for themselves!!! same cannot be said about religion....there is no self correcting mode.... everything depends on the ancient founders of a religious belief being correct.... and everybody following them upon pain of death whether or not the founders were right.

john8verse32 · 09-28-09 9:08 pm

Stephen J. Gould... and uniformitarianism, RIP <a href="http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/" target=_top>http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/gould/</a> Perhaps more than any other contemporary American scientist Stephen Jay Gould has presented the modes, implications, benefits, and shortcomings of science to a literate public. As an inventive and productive scholar he has shaped and participated in crucial debates of the biological and geological sciences, particularly with regard to the theory of evolution, the interpretation of fossil evidence, and the meaning of diversity and change in biology. As early as 1965 he published an essay, "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" for the American Journal of Science (no. 263, 1965: 223-28) which set the stage for his empirical work, his later theoretical critique of adaptationism and uniformitarianism in neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and geology, in the debate swirling around "creationist science." He has openly opposed legislation to require its teaching alongside Darwinian evolution and testified in several court cases concerned with this issue. In Gould's view this controversy culminated in the "successful completion of a sixty-year battle against creationism (since the Scopes Trial of 1925) in our resounding Supreme Court victory [Edwards v. Aguillard] of 1987" (Bully for Brontosaurus, p. 14). As America's most prominent evolutionist he continues to stand out as a lightning-rod for advocates of creationism, as evidenced by the many Internet bulletin boards offering discussion threads on this or related topics. Gould's critique of central concepts of the Darwinian paradigm has been founded on the notion of "punctuated equilibria" and his assertion of the importance of historical contingency and other factors in evolution besides the mechanism of adaptation to the external environment. The theory of punctuated equilibria, which he first formulated with his colleague Niles Eldredge in 1972, states that the history of evolution is concentrated in relatively rapid events of speciation rather than taking place gradually as slow, continuous transformations of established lineages. Most species during most periods do not evolve radically, but rather fluctuate aimlessly and within bounds given by expected spreads of statistical variation. Gould considers the dramatic implications for this interpretation in the context of his historical critique of the gradualist model of evolution. In Gould's view, adherence to a belief in directed evolutionary progress expressed cultural and political biases of the 19th century. Charles Darwin in particular was unable to abandon these ideas despite apparent contradictions with his own theory of evolution and his agonizing intellectual struggle with gaps in the fossil record, gaps that could not be explained if evolution moves forward by the accretion of many small changes. The theory of punctuated equilibria and its implication for Darwinian evolutionary theory have stimulated a series of debates since the mid-1970s. Gould has adopted positions opposed to an orthodoxy of Darwinian evolution based on the mechanisms of long-term adaptation and natural selection over relatively long periods of time. Gould's high visibility, critical voice, and obvious enthusiasm for spirited debate have drawn him into scientific, cultural and political controversies. Three examples indicate the depth of his passion and the sharpness of his verbal sword. The first is his participation in the debate swirling around "creationist science." He has openly opposed legislation to require its teaching alongside Darwinian evolution and testified in several court cases concerned with this issue. In Gould's view this controversy culminated in the "successful completion of a sixty-year battle against creationism (since the Scopes Trial of 1925) in our resounding Supreme Court victory [Edwards v. Aguillard] of 1987" (Bully for Brontosaurus, p. 14). As America's most prominent evolutionist he continues to stand out as a lightning-rod for advocates of creationism, as evidenced by the many Internet bulletin boards offering discussion threads on this or related topics. The debate itself is about nothing less than the capabilities and limits of the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. Gould has stridently objected to its unbridled application as an overarching theory capable of completely explicating human nature or even leading to the denial and replacement of religion. Gould's involvement in public and at times vituperative public debates has had little negative impact on either his popularity as a writer or his prominence in the American scientific community. .....Gould accepted the challenge of making "people less scared of science so they won't see it as arcane, monolithic, and distant, but as something that is important to their lives."

bob_2 · 09-28-09 9:50 pm

John, you still haven't given a purpose for our esistence, how it began and how it is going to end. You just like to be a contrarian like our 84 year old friend in Fresno. It just is. EH????

don · 09-28-09 11:26 pm

What sort of evolution do you recommend be taught? Whose position of teaching science should accompany the teaching of sin and salvation? Isn't this the realm of religious studies, not science? There is a natural overlap. If humanity evolved from lower life forms back to that initial "miraculous" spark causing life, then death has been present all along. This goes contrary to the idea that death came about as the result of Adam and Eve's sin. We still are wise not to fuse religious understanding and science, yet on this matter of origins the interaction of science and religion seems inevitable. I believe that the teaching of evolution should rely on the absolutely incontestable evidence. This limits things quite a bit. .

bob_2 · 09-29-09 12:01 am

John, the aging of the earth rocks sounds like a lot of specualation and from my reading, hoax upon hoax have been found. It's too complex for you to understand, I bet you have never dated any rock, but assume the scientist saying it is so is so. You trust the US Government now with this theory. Seems you are selective in your trust.

john8verse32 · 09-29-09 12:15 pm

the aging of the earth rocks sounds like a lot of specualation speculation? no....thousands and thousands of scientists have collected even millions of data points... the data mesh from widely differring methods...the NW tectonic movement of the HaWAIIAN iSLANDS, as can be confirmed today by GPS and the worlds greatest telescopes meshes with their radiometric dates, and the increasing friability of their rocks with increasing age toward the NW...it is far less speculation than relying on ancient goat herders stories and from my reading, hoax upon hoax have been found. not true....name one...other than Piltdown man, and it was other scientists who spilled the beans on that one... It's too complex for you to understand, maybe too complex for you...expecially since you have not shown any interest in learning, but the vast majority of scientists agree....the earth and life are far older than a 6000 yr limit imposed by ancient legends I bet you have never dated any rock, but assume the scientist saying it is so is so. I have seen the NE entrance to yellowstone....where 60-70 thousand years of tree rings are stacked on top of each other at Specimen Ridge....I have seen the Bristlecone forest up in the White MTs of Cal, tho nobody knows where the 5000 yr old tree is...for its safety!!! This tree wouldda been growing from before the alleged flood...which according to your fave Baumgardner hypothesis, raised up the very mountains under the trees... so the mountain under the trees has to be older than your and Baum's YEC theory. You trust the US Government now with this theory. don't you trust the US gov't air controllers to guide your plane? the USAF to shoot down terrorists? Obama to take your money?? Seems you are selective in your trust. yes...I choose to believe what I can verify, or what I can check out that others have verified. how do we verify that the Bible is the innerrant Word of God..other than its statement that it is? weeeellll....we can check out its stories, and we find that internally it is not innerrant...Matt and Luke cannot agree on Jesus geneology...Chronicles and Kings cannot agree on how many horse barns Soloman had...one New Test tale even has Jesus "seeing all the kingdoms of the earth", from a mountain top...which is a fable, based on their belief in a flat earth!!! the worst story is God stopping the sun's roation around the earth!!! and for what reason? to help one small tribe of goat herders kill their neighbors, steal their land, and impregnate their virgins!!! in addition, the Old Test makes God out to be a mass murderer, while it stretches our ability to believe tales of talking snakes, badgering donkeys, floating axe heads, dead guys waking up, God sending bears to kill 42 kids, God telling his favorite tribe of nomads to kill their neighbors, steal their land, kill everybody including women who had had sex, but save the virgins to use. you still may choose to believe all that....but I do not see how it makes anybody a better person...except if used as a guide of what NOT to do!!! why should we believe miniscule details about its stone age tales of things which happened way back before writing? before science? before the HST? before the invention of the microscope? before Al Gore invented the internet? which you seem to only use to research articles which confirm what you already believe, and avoid reading anything else.

elaine · 09-29-09 1:03 pm

Don, that Adam and Eve's actions brought sin and death into our world can only be substantiated by the Bible, and as the only source, should not be taught in science class, although religion would justify it. No one knows for sure when and where death originated. Death for plants or death for humans is a much longer trajectory. It is impossible to visualize plants and trees that never were deciduous (there leaves die each year) or flowers that never faded, or insects and animals that can only survive by devouring what is lower on the food chain. To speculate that all animals were vegetarians is to be unable to explain, other than by evolution they somehow "evolved" into being carnivores. Death was the originator of all religions: the first death must have brought utter consternation and questioning what happens after death. There are multiple ancient burial sites in all this earth testifying to the belief that there was some form of an afterlife. These sites are hundreds of thousands of years older than any written record in the Bible if one accepts young earth. As for sin: it is a theological and religious concept; foreign to science. How humans behave and their acts have greatly changed over the years. Even from the Bible records, murder (by God) was not considered sin; killings he ordered were not considered sin; slavery was never considered sinful; polygamy was never called sin. "Sin" is a movable term, both depending on the time and culture in which an action occurs. Many today would be considered sinful if they divorced and remarried. Ideas change and no one believes or behaves as those "ideal" people of the Bible which are so revered. Abraham committed multiple sins. When did he confess them? Yet, according to Hebrews 11 he the Father of the Faithful and revered by both Jews and Muslims.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 09-26-09 6:12 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#27 09-26-09 7:54 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#28 09-27-09 3:11 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#29 09-27-09 7:35 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#30 09-27-09 10:25 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#31 09-27-09 11:50 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#32 09-27-09 12:06 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#33 09-27-09 6:36 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#34 09-27-09 10:13 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#35 09-27-09 11:14 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#36 09-28-09 12:41 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#37 09-28-09 9:27 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#38 09-28-09 4:16 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#39 09-28-09 5:01 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#40 09-28-09 6:00 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#41 09-28-09 7:18 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#42 09-28-09 7:59 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#43 09-28-09 8:05 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#44 09-28-09 8:18 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#45 09-28-09 9:08 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#46 09-28-09 9:50 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#47 09-28-09 11:26 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#48 09-29-09 12:01 am

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#49 09-29-09 12:15 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

#50 09-29-09 1:03 pm

Re: Jan Paulsen Says ‘Yes,’ They Should Resign

Board footer